Christian beliefs (and to a lesser extent, mainstream Jewish beliefs) are under attack; but, the same folks going after Christians will NOT say boo to Muslim bigotry.

And, let’s remember the way congress, many states, and local municipalities (led by Democrats and with suggestions by Obama) work is to write laws they know are not constitutional; but, it is only unconstitutional if someone is willing to challenge it in court. I’ll repeat that – something is only unconstitutional if someone is willing to take it all the way to the US Supreme Court – otherwise it is law. And they work that way because they know to challenge something in court is something most folks cannot do.

To challenge something in court so that it will work its way to the US Supreme Court takes a lot of patience (years of it, in fact) and a lot of money. Most folks simply cannot do that.

Google DC vs. Heller to see what I mean.

The lawyer for Heller started looking in 2002 for a 2nd Amendment case that he thought would make it to the US Supreme Court. That lawyer found 6 cases; Heller was one of them. (Heller is a DC cop who MUST carry a gun for his job; but, was denied a gun permit by DC for a gun for his personal safety. Seriously, it is one thing to deny a convicted criminal a gun, and another to deny a common law-abiding citizen a gun; but, just how insane is it to deny a must-carry-a-gun policeman the right to carry his own personal gun?)

Oral arguments for DC vs Heller weren’t heard by the US Supreme court until 2008. And that was after 5 other cases were dismissed by lower courts – only Heller made it through.

So, after 6 years, only one of 6 cases made its way to the US Supreme Court. And that is because a lawyer was looking for a specific case to challenge DC’s law.

Those that challenged the photographers and bakers were just like Heller’s lawyer – looking for a case they could fight. Those lawyers were willing to put in the time, effort, and money.

To cite another case involving a baker refusing to bake a cake because what was asked for was against their beliefs. In NJ several years ago (a while before the “anti-gay” bakers cases) a local supermarket chain bakery not only refused to decorate the cake with a 3-year-old’s name they called Child Protective Services who promptly removed that child and other children from their parents.

The parents were self-proclaimed neo-Nazis and they named their son “Adolf Hitler Campbell.” I am NOT making that up! Really I am not – and his sisters were reported to be called “Eva Braun” and “Aryan”!

Now, despite what you and I and others may think of such idiot parents – how is that case different from the “anti-gay” bakers or photographers? Was it because there were children involved? Was it because it was a belief that most of us find repulsive? Or was there something else that the news didn’t let us know about?

Or, and this is the point I am trying to make with my rambling comment here, was it that no lawyers were willing to fight for that neo-Nazi’s “rights”?

Is there anyone looking to take on Sharia? Is there anyone looking to defend Religious folks from other’s bigotry? I’m not holding my breath waiting to see if there is anyone out there.

Hello ACLU? Nope, they would lose a lot of their donors to take up such an unpopular cause. Clarence Darrow? Last I checked he was dead. And, anyway,both the ACLU and Darrow (he was a part of the ACLU anyway) defended criminals, not Christians. It was/is kind of “cool” to defend “poor” criminals who’ve had such a “hard childhood” – but, it is NOT cool to defend Christians or the victims of Muslims. (Remember some of the comments from the left about Daniel Pearl after he was beheaded by Islamic terrorists? “Well, what was he doing over there anyway?)

So, yea, The Other Chuck; I understand and agree with what you’re saying; but, I just don’t see it happening. Laws are NOT consistently enforced.

a change in the Office of Civil Rights within JOD could effectively change this…for a while.

But will the ruling class permit it to continue? Will the media be braying? Natch.

As I’ve argued before, re-establishing economic freedom in the US is considerably easier than either political or cultural liberty.

And the first, far more likely to be achieved. The rest may as well be a reach-around for the moon.

That’s how it’s gonna go, folks. Because, “culture.” And the “idiots who praise, in enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this, and every country but their own….”

This will always and only be weaponized against Christians. The Leftists are allies with the hardline Moslems, so no.

But you do put your finger on a problem we haven’t addressed: Christianity and Judaism share an ethical code and most of our theological worldview. Islam’s is radically different.

America hasn’t had to face “integrating” devil worshippers — yet. But we’re looking at that now. Freedom of religion in the 18th century in the West was understood to mean the various factions of Christendom, Judaism, and the odd atheist, not adherents to a theology whose tenets are abhorrent to us, and in many respects illegal.

Fasten your seatbelts: it’s going to be a bumpy decade.

Well, technically, although that occurred within the geographical area of what we call America, is did not happen in the US under the Constitution. It was one of the things the Constitution was designed to stop.

“Baptists were among the most fractious of all dissenters. They refused to attend the state-backed churches of England or America, or to pay religious taxes to support those churches. They flamboyantly violated rules that required dissenters to secure licenses from the government to preach. Sometimes local authorities would not agree to have these dissenters preach at all. Regardless, Baptist itinerants traveled throughout the colonies, often holding outdoor baptismal services in rivers and lakes, drawing crowds of mockers.”

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/when-america-put-pastors-in-prison