What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

There's a lot to be said for the First Amendment

While the world looks on appalled at the murderous antics of ISIS, other antics do not cease.

In Australia (in Tasmania, to be specific), the Anti-Discrimination Commission has called the Catholic bishops' conference to answer a case against them on the grounds that they distributed a booklet criticizing same-sex "marriage." This, the Commission agrees with a "transgender" plaintiff, constitutes a possible breach of the law through “conduct that is offensive, intimidating, ­insulting or ridiculing of Ms. ­Delaney and the class of same-sex attracted people.” I don't have a copy of the booklet, but I seriously doubt that "Ms." Delaney was mentioned anywhere therein!

No, what we have here is a direct attempt to tell Catholic bishops that they can't publish a booklet on a moral matter, because their views disagree with leftist orthodoxy and hence by definition constitute "discrimination." The term "discrimination" now acts as a portmanteau term for anything that offends homosexual activists, even when no discrimination in, say, employment or the offering of services is alleged.

The story also reports this:

All Catholic bishops and Archbishop Porteus have been given 21 days to respond to the commission’s finding and to decide on whether to seek conciliation.

Archbishop Porteus last night said he did not wish to comment “too widely” on the issue because of the legal nature of the complaint but said he would try to reconcile with Ms Delaney.

“In distributing the Pastoral Letter, ‘Don’t Mess With Marriage’, my aim was to assist the Catholic community in understanding the teaching of the Catholic Church, at a time when debate on this matter was widespread within the community,’’ he said. “It was not my intention to offend.’’

Archbishop Porteus, please, it's painful to watch you grovel in any way, shape, or form to these totalitarian bullies. Don't apologize!

I notice this:

Ms Delaney, who has changed from a male to a female and lives in a same-sex relationship with a woman, said she was humiliated by the booklet which only paid “lip service” to showing respect to same-sex attracted Australians but actually sent out negative messages about them.

Bishops of Australia, this is the zero-sum game. Apparently the booklet contained some wussy language about how you want to "show respect" to people with perverse desires in Australia, whatever "showing respect" means. But it wasn't enough, was it? So you might as well not have bothered, right? Such language about "showing respect" is morally confusing in any event and has been a Trojan horse in many a parish, and it does nothing whatever for your image with the left. They are not satisfied unless you stop committing the thought-crime of disagreeing with them about the morality of homosexual acts and the speech-crime of saying so out loud.

I think that something this blatant will at least for now be stopped in the U.S. There's a lot to be said for the First Amendment, after all. This is absolutely brazen. It amounts to an attempt to tell the Roman Catholic Church in Australia that it literally may not publish that church's own teaching on a morally relevant subject. This complaint, and the Commission's presumption to be able to call the bishops to account, does not even pretend to any other basis--such as alleging a violation of election law, since a vote on same-sex "marriage" is upcoming in Australia. Nothing of the kind. It's a straightforward attempt to extort silence and squelch anything remotely resembling freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religious teaching in Australia.

But we Americans shouldn't get too smug, since leftists are good at using such pretexts if they cannot go directly for the jugular as they are doing in Australia. Employment law, for example, may be the downfall of any Christian organization that does not work as hard as possible to claim the protections of Hosanna-Tabor for its selection of its own employees. If employment law is considered to apply, say, to a Catholic parish, then the church's distributing a booklet of this kind might be deemed by some civil rights commission to "create a hostile work environment" for a homosexual or transgender employee.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Australia. And in the United States.

Comments (40)

Let's do a mental exercise. Think of a time when someone on the right apologized to the left and it made the situation better.

*waiting*

*still waiting*

Apologizing to them may make you feel good about yourself in the moment, but we're moving past the point of convincing others by persuasion. They're threatening to sic Officer Friendly on the bishops if they don't suddenly start acting fabulous.

So stop apologizing and being civil with them. Just because they're not yet sending storm troopers to your door doesn't mean they're not playing the same game. It's just mass media friendly totalitarianism that, by virtue of being done through "the law" appeals to conservatives' natural submission to authority.

Lydia,

You've recently disapproved of Vox Day in political blogging. I respect that, since I have not followed his blog(s). But in reading his book I have an entirely new optimism that attacks by SJW's can be put down. If it has happened in the sci-fi community (of which I am not a part), can we not hope for success in other sectors of culture and society? Your advice against apologetic groveling is part of his strategy as well. A new day is not here yet; can we seize just a bit of optimism that it may at least be around the corner? Until now, I have read stories such as the one here from Australia with depressing resignation.

I'd really rather not get involved in a discussion of those particular tactics, though with Mike T. here it may not be possible to avoid.

My short answer is that refusal to submit is not remotely the same as descent to the level of insult. I would like to see the bishops stand up in a manly *and dignified* fashion. There is such a fashion. Indeed, the word "statesman" was meant to denote just such a manner of response as I have in mind.

For one thing, such a response would strengthen the faithful. At this point, I think that strengthening the faithful, and particularly the young among the faithful, needs to be a #1 priority. The sort of "I don't mean to offend" language or "We must always be respectful to same-sex attracted persons and never subject them to discrimination" talk saps the faithful. The bishops should tighten their jaw, teach the truth, and let the chips fall.

What inspires the faithful is the manly act of standing up. A young man can be just as easily inspired by a "dignified bishop" as he could by seeing is layman father more assertively and with less "dignity" get in the face of someone harassing his family about their beliefs.

I actually agree with you there, Mike. But then there's also a kind of what I would call "dignity" appropriate even to the layman father, too. It's just different from that of the bishop.

The pamphlet in question (‘Don’t Mess With Marriage’) is here:

https://www.sydneycatholic.org/pdf/DMM-booklet_web.pdf

Lydia and Mike,

Your little discussion about manners (which is what you are really talking about) makes me think of the Victorians -- I would argue with Lydia that there were plenty of tough, serious, manly Victorian gentlemen who nevertheless would always speak in a dignified manner and indeed use civility in public argument. This is because they believed that public morality and individual virtue were strongly correlated; one couldn't be swearing and insulting one's opponents while upholding moral standards. At the same time, you had men who upheld those standards and exhibited classic manly virtues -- courage, honor, patriotism, etc. I also think that the working class/lower class looked up to those men and wanted to emulated their behavior -- they may have swore at the pub or even at home with their wife and children but they realized this was less than ideal and wanted to do better (or at least many would profess such a desire.) Of course, all of the Victorians would indeed find the modern left ridiculous and probably use harsh punishments to bring order and morality back into the public square. I don't think it is either/or but both/and. But I'm a big shill for Victorian England so perhaps I'm biased...

Jeff,

While the culture is what it is, the value of men like Vox Day and Milo Yiannopoulos is immense to the right. They are not afraid to roll up the culture and beat the left's muzzle bloody with it. Having read a lot of both of them and Matt Walsh, I can say that as good as Walsh is, the left doesn't fear going one on one with him anywhere near the same degree as calling Vox or Milo onto the mat. Men like them establish a very important principle for the left: "there are far worse men on the right who can and will deal with you than these nice bishops."

"there are far worse men on the right who can and will deal with you than these nice bishops."

Heh. I am reminded of the chivalric phrase (and concept), which started dying out early last century, of "an officer and a gentleman". There is something to be said for being gentlemanly, even as a soldier.

And there is something to be said for being a brawling bruiser of a sergeant, even in barracks. To each his own sphere. One would hope that most bishops' spheres are that of gentlemen. Certainly courts of law are such spheres, that's why even a sergeant better hire a lawyer for courtroom brawls.

I have no problem with rough and tough language being used in the right place and time to stymie SJWs. At a peaceful anti-abortion rally, using that kind of approach to the Shrieking Harpies of Tolerance (sic), that makes sense. Using it on a professor in a question-and-answer scrum where she is constantly and intentionally equivocating and otherwise abusing the right to speak, yeah, sometimes. Using it on someone who sues you in court - through the filter of the media? Not likely to be so helpful. Might be a bit of a backfire.

Back to the main point: I hope that the bishops FIRST find out whether this drip Delaney is actually a Catholic or not. If not, I am not sure "reconciling" makes a lot of biblical sense: He/She It isn't that wherewith reconciliation can take place, it never was "conciled" in order to return to it.

If he was using the term in a strictly legal sense (whatever it means in Australia), he should probably let his lawyers state it, and not even try saying anything himself.

As for "did not intend to offend", puhleeeeese. Surely the bishops are not so naive. SJWs are professional "offended" victims, creating new classes of offense and victim status by the day. According to them, your intention has no bearing: if I TAKE OFFENSE, you are guilty, period. The only issue is whether I choose to take offense or not, it is completely irrelevant what you actually said or why.

"Apologizing to them may make you feel good about yourself in the moment,..."

I can hardly see how, even if that were its purpose. I'm probably too much of a cynic overall (I realize it's not good to be overly cynical about someone's underlying motivations in stuff like this, so I do strive to keep it under control), but these kinds of groveling apologies from the right towards the left almost always strike me as less sincere and genuine than they are calculated to avoid unwanted fallout for taking a principled stand and defending truth. I've recently been in a long, heated discussion at another place concerning the issue of whether it is appropriate to play profanity-laden, highly sexualized anti-authoritarian "gangsta" style Rap songs over the loud speakers at a H.S. football game. It might surprise some people the number of people there are out there who defend the practice (on the basis that that's what the players choose, and it's all about them and what they want, and to hell with everyone else!). It would make me feel worse about myself, not better, if I were to back away from my initial assertion in the thread that such "art" is "pure trash, fit for trash." It is what it is. No apologies!

Back to the main point: I hope that the bishops FIRST find out whether this drip Delaney is actually a Catholic or not. If not, I am not sure "reconciling" makes a lot of biblical sense: He/She It isn't that wherewith reconciliation can take place, it never was "conciled" in order to return to it.

If he was using the term in a strictly legal sense (whatever it means in Australia), he should probably let his lawyers state it, and not even try saying anything himself.

Right, to be clear: The term "conciliation" is a legal term being introduced by the bullies. In essence, it looks like if you're accused of a thought-crime like discrimination under these crazy laws in Tasmania, one of your options is (to abuse a biblical phrase) to "agree with your adversary quickly while you are in the way." This is evidently known as "conciliation." If "Ms." Delaney (who is actually a man) cannot get the apology he wants from the bishops, or whatever else he is demanding, in this fashion (and despite their somewhat passive language, it looks like he won't), then the Commission threatens to "hold a hearing."

I don't know what punishments they can ultimately mete out. I would assume fines and presumably (at a minimum) a promise never to promulgate the pamphlet or anything like it again.

Could it be that the modern-day Pharisee equivalent is the SJW? I had been conditioned to look for Pharisees inside the church, since Jesus' critique and opposition and warnings were directed to His followers who would later become church. And I am sure we should apply those strictures first to ourselves (and, indeed, SJW's have infiltrated some denominations).

Vox Day has noted that the roots of SJW failure are built-in, because they infiltrate various organizations and, once inside, begin driving their peculiar agenda, which will eventually threaten the founding purpose of that particular institution. Schools, under SJW control, will no longer educate. Industries, under SJW control, will no longer produce. Churches, under their controlling agenda, will cease to be salt and light. The parent organizations, caving to whatever pressures, invite them in without realizing that their downfall is in the offing.

It just struck me that this is the precise danger of Pharisaism. The agenda (or narrative) sets up a pseudo-morality that competes against a morality driven by true relational dynamics and concerns. The one boasting about being "inclusive" is happy to see mom-dad-and-the-kids family structures torn to shreds. While sniffing out real or imagined breaches of sexism, racism, or homophobia, they neglect the weightier matters that undergird successful relationships--justice, mercy (better, covenant-loyalty) and faithfulness. The SJW travels to make a single convert, and that conversion yields one who is twice-as-much a child of Hell. They claim to their cause an intention to help people, but the Corban-like agenda destroys the social structures that would support and sustain them. And, Pharisees--then and now--are lovers of money, prestige, position.

And Jesus was not easy on Pharisees. He would gently side with sinners, but scathingly attack the destructive agenda that had replaced God. Vox Day urges a similar treatment of SJW's, and perhaps he is justified.

John, I'm going to be very open with you here: I do not think you entirely understand what is being urged against so-called "SJWs." (I myself do not use that phrase because of its associations with some extremely disgusting elements of the alt-right.) I am urging a Matt Walsh level of non-gentleness, which is, in fact, a lot like Jesus and the Pharisees. The alt-right is urging something different. If you want to know more about this, maybe you and I should communicate privately. I am sorry that you find Vox Day so plausible on the face, but I don't think he's talking about what you think he's talking about. I'd rather not debate the undesirability or otherwise of the neo-reax in an unmoderated public thread.

OK. I admit my ignorance here. I only recently discovered Vox and know nothing of Walsh nor of the alt-right. I welcome a private talk.

John,

I will say that Lydia's response to you is largely incorrect about the term SJW on many counts and even her insinuations about the alt-right are questionable (she's only hinting at what she thinks the alt-right wants to do). However, your take on Vox Day with respect to gentleness toward SJWs couldn't be further from the truth. He unabashedly advocates kicking their asses (in words, not actual violence) with a combination of rhetoric and dialectic. His take on SJWs is that they are not mistaken, but actually some of the most evil people you are likely to meet and that they are quite aware of the consequences of their agenda. They may not see it as evil, but they are fully aware of what they intend to do liberal pluralism, individual liberty, traditional morality, etc. So the truth may be perhaps between how you and Lydia seem to see it.

FWIW, there are probably actually more libertarians and liberals who use the term SJW than alt-righters. GamerGate is primarily liberal and libertarian, not any flavor of conservative and SJW is used extensively in GamerGate circles and related parts of the web. In fact, the most virulently anti-SJW person I've met online or in person was actually a liberal I used to work with who openly despised them and called them the worst sort of Fascists.

Yes, and we know that "Gamergate" is *all about* just, y'know, kicking people's posteriors with a combination of rhetoric and dialectic. (As opposed to criminal personal harassment and threats.) That's how you fight the "culture war," right?

And just using a stronger form of "rhetoric and dialectic" is _of course_ what you mean, Mike T., by "far worse men than the nice bishops."

Please. You are usually more open and honest than this.

Not that I'm going to allow this thread to become all about the extremely nasty people you so often and so openly admire.

(As opposed to criminal personal harassment and threats.)

The "threats" were by groups like the GNAA (don't look them up, just trust me on this), which is a very old and notorious troll group that goes back probably 15-20 years. The "personal harassment" has never been more than a refusal to stop referencing them and engage them on social media and news media like Breitbart. By contrast, every GamerGate meeting except maybe one in public has been the victim of bomb threats and things of that nature.

And funny thing about those "nasty people" is that what makes them nasty to the left is that they don't let them get away with their nonsense. One of the most prominent activists, a transgendered individual, now has the prospect of felony child molestation accusations over their head thanks to Milo Yiannopoulos. MZB turned out to just be the tip of the iceberg of known major offenders, and the left stands in solidarity with them (don't believe me again? Look it up)

You really just don't realize what the left is capable of doing. Some of these prominent activists would literally overlook the rape and murder of children if it advanced their cause. You want to end this little discussion? Fine, but you deserve to be called out on repeating the MSM's narrative.

FWIW, there are probably actually more libertarians and liberals who use the term SJW than alt-righters.

Well, personally I love the term "Shrieking Harpies of Tolerance (sic)" I think it is much more accurate and much more evocative of their behavior than the clearly misleading "social justice warriors" - which is actually wrong on 2 words. Plus, it has the added advantage of having a great acronym: SHT. That's SHTs for plural.

You really just don't realize what the left is capable of doing. Some of these prominent activists would literally overlook the rape and murder of children if it advanced their cause. You want to end this little discussion? Fine, but you deserve to be called out on repeating the MSM's narrative.

Get a grip, Mike. After Lydia has documented, repeatedly, the murder of old people, handicapped people, people in comas, and young people; and after this blog has trumpeted against the insane rape-apologists of Rotherham stripe, that is just a stupid comment. Really, just dumb as a...well...dumb as a liberal. So Lydia doesn't feel that the tactics YOU believe are the ideal tactics in dealing with SHTs are the best - that justifies saying she is repeating the MSM narrative? That's indecent, Mike. For one thing, it's letting your rhetorical gun waver over friends as well as the enemy. Keep the harsh rhetoric for the enemy. Remember what that tool is for. Remember that rhetoric is a tool, not the goal.

In fact, I actually already knew about what you are talking about, Mike, concerning the transgender activist, etc. I actually know a good deal about what the people on the left are capable of. This doesn't make me say anything positive about anyone else in the whole world. The enemy of my enemy is not ipso facto my friend.

Getting back to the topic, I think the bishops had better grow spines pretty quickly, since such evil litigation will become the favorite tactic of the left pretty quickly if there is a lot of early successes. This will never go anywhere Australia-wide, however. You know why? Australian Archbishop Pell. Here is a man who stared-down an entire synod of bishops who were trying to change the rules on Communion, last year. No, no, you don't want to get on his bad side.

That being said, St. Peter and St. John faced a similar situation and one can recall the seven brothers mentioned in the book of Maccabbes, as well, who died rather than falsify their beliefs. Let the bishops speak, loudly and clearly, that, "It is better to obey God, than men." They should tell the politicians, politely, that the Church has seen many petty dictators fall. The Church has no fear of them.

Beyond that, if Mr. Delaney is a Catholic, then bishops, get out the bell, the book, and the candle. Excommunicate him. Maybe, Mr. Delaney will figure out which punishment is more severe - his or the Church's.

The Chicken

Thank you, Chicken.

I don't know just what the government can do to the bishops. I assume they can functionally stop them from distributing the pamphlet or similar printed material by fines, court orders, etc. I would love to see Archbishop Pell give them a run for their money.

Here would be one thought. Suppose they get a court order that this particular pamphlet must not be distributed. Just change a little bit of wording, put a new copyright date on and a new title, and distribute another run of similar pamphlets!

That's indecent, Mike. For one thing, it's letting your rhetorical gun waver over friends as well as the enemy. Keep the harsh rhetoric for the enemy. Remember what that tool is for. Remember that rhetoric is a tool, not the goal.

Fair point, and wit your examples it is a bit of a stupid argument. My apologies for getting heated there, Lydia.

WRT the "tactics favored by my side," Lydia, just bear this in mind about GamerGate and similar things. The left's preferred strategy is slander coupled with projection. They do it to all conservative Christians, they do it to gun activists and others. Now they're even doing it to gamers. Wherever you look it's the same deal. They're lying, they're slandering and almost invariably they are the ones doing whatever it is that has them most riled up.

(FWIW 90% of the women "threatened with rape" in the GamerGate thing were actually pro-GG female gamers, threatened by SJWs)

"Here would be one thought. Suppose they get a court order that this particular pamphlet must not be distributed. Just change a little bit of wording, put a new copyright date on and a new title, and distribute another run of similar pamphlets!"

With a court order that evil, why not just distribute the same pamphlet and disobey the evil order in full? What are they going to do...throw a Catholic Bishop in jail for distributing a pamphlet that goes over Catholic teachings in Catholic facilities? Maybe they will, but even in the present moment it's hard to believe that will look good. It's hard to believe that that won't soon backfire on the tyrant. Call their bluff, make them expose themselves. They can only "win" by doing something so excessive that would more than likely turn people against them (i.e. jailing bishops).

"Employment law, for example, may be the downfall of any Christian organization that does not work as hard as possible to claim the protections of Hosanna-Tabor for its selection of its own employees. If employment law is considered to apply, say, to a Catholic parish, then the church's distributing a booklet of this kind might be deemed by some civil rights commission to "create a hostile work environment" for a homosexual or transgender employee."

This possibility has not occurred to me, I can totally see this happening. Hosanna-Tabor is not something the extreme left or SHTs have much love for. They no doubt want to restrict it's application as much as possible, if not in full. This also reminds me of reading about Christian schools that have decided to not let in student's being raised by same sex couples because by doing so it could cause issues if they teach anything opposed to so called same sex marriage or homosexuality at all. They are being even more exclusive than they would want to be in order to protect themselves from lawsuits.


With a court order that evil, why not just distribute the same pamphlet and disobey the evil order in full? What are they going to do...throw a Catholic Bishop in jail for distributing a pamphlet that goes over Catholic teachings in Catholic facilities? Maybe they will, but even in the present moment it's hard to believe that will look good. It's hard to believe that that won't soon backfire on the tyrant. Call their bluff, make them expose themselves. They can only "win" by doing something so excessive that would more than likely turn people against them (i.e. jailing bishops).

That's fine, too. :-) I was trying to imagine a bishop with a gleam in his eye who would see a bit of humor in following the letter of the law but not the spirit, just to keep things confusing and make the other side work harder.


This also reminds me of reading about Christian schools that have decided to not let in student's being raised by same sex couples because by doing so it could cause issues if they teach anything opposed to so called same sex marriage or homosexuality at all. They are being even more exclusive than they would want to be in order to protect themselves from lawsuits.

Varies with the Christian school. Some probably already intended that the parents would support the mission of the school, so this is just making that explicit in this area.

Others may have intended to be an outreach to the children of non-Christian parents, and then your point would be correct: Robbed of the ability to say what they want and teach what they want (e.g., even to tell the child that he doesn't really have "two mommies," etc.), they have to lock out such faux families to begin with.

There are three main categories of law that they will attempt to use to go after us by bypassing the first amendment:

1. Employment law.
2. Anti-discrimination law.
3. "Anti-harassment" law.

The third one is a bit new, but there's a case in Canada that illustrates it quite well. I'm not sure that the Bill of Rights would provide a very strong defense if a similar case were brought in the US. Guys like Matt Walsh and Ann Coulter are increasingly at risk of being labeled "criminal harassers" because they won't stop mentioning people on social media and things like that.

I wonder how much this is really coincidence versus intentional, but they are starting to position themselves to be able to effectively litigate and prosecute us from a variety of angles. It can start with a going after us on employment matters and discrimination in various capacities and then they can slam us for harassment depending on how we defend ourselves in public debate (ie reference an activist or politician too much, they hit you with a harassment claim).

If the facts are as reported in the Breitbart article (and I don't have time to draw my own conclusions from other sources), no, I don't believe that case would fly in the U.S. and precisely because of 1st amendment precedents.

In fact, I believe that the Westboro Baptist precedent would be important there.

Actually, I think a case can be made that the Westboro Baptist case should have gone the other way because of the personally harmful and harassing _content_ of the signs in question (I think Alito made this case in a dissent), which seemed based on long-standing common law to fall outside of the import of the First Amendment. But the case was decided otherwise, with Scalia in the majority. (If two originalists disagree, that makes for a kind of interesting opinion.)

In any event, that precedent would protect freedom of non-threatening tweets. I suspect it might be different if it were a matter of calling the person's telephone over and over again or putting signs on the person's house. But tweets are in a public space and I'm guessing that, absent otherwise criminal content (implicit threatening such as doxxing or explicit threatening, libel, etc.), they would be first-amendment protected.

Canada, of course, does not have a first amendment, and that has repeatedly made a difference.

The bishops' pamphlet in Australia was not anywhere even in the vicinity of personal, individual harassment. It might have been in trouble under other Canadian laws, however. ("Hate speech," etc.)

By "personally harmful and harassing content" I am referring not to the "God hates ____" signs but rather to the signs that said things like, "You raised your son just so that he could die and go to hell, so-and-so. How does that make you feel?" And so forth, using the names of the parents and the dead soldier. Moreover, the images of homosexual acts at a particular soldier's funeral not only could have been blocked as publicly pornographic but also as libelously giving the impression that the dead soldier was homosexual when he was not. Not that our elites would have been likely to allow _that_ as a grounds for suit, since it implies that being homosexual is bad.

Lydia,

I point this out mostly because of it seems like an amusing possibility. I believe you have mentioned before that churches/religious organizations should just make every employee lead a Bible study or something like that as part of their job duties...even janitors, math teachers, and secretaries. You also wrote about jobs having some essence or nature about the Kim Davis situation.

Anyway, the future possibility of some church being sued for violating some SOGI anti-discrimination employment law, if that church defending itself by pointing out the ministerial exemption and that they require all employees to lead a Bible study and thus all employees have a ministerial role, the other side could respond by saying but there is some nature to jobs and janitors/math teachers/etc. do not need to lead Bible studies and your churches stipulation they must is just an attempt to circumvent otherwise applicable anti-discrimination law.

Don't get me wrong, I am not predicting this nor saying this argument would be used or even accepted if it were. Regardless, if/when SOGI style anti-discrimination law goes federal, I do imagine Hosanna-Tabor and the ministerial exemption will be attacked.

There's no question that the left hates Hosanna Tabor. Indeed, I can hardly believe we were lucky enough to get the precedent.

My notion of an essence to jobs does not preclude the possibility that an organization could legitimately add to what was required for that job as part of maintaining the organization's oeuvre. Consider, for example: Suppose that Microsoft stipulated that no employee could bring a Mac computer to work. I think that could be understandable.

Normally I don't like the government to get involved deciding what counts as a legitimate oeuvre for a company, though there are cases where it is necessary. If an employer tries to require an employee to commit murder as part of its oeuvre (e.g., forcing nurses to commit abortion), then *at a minimum* it's legitimate for government to stop that.

In Kim Davis's case, she was not employed by a religious organization. She was not employed by a homosexual activist organization. And she was being ordered to tell a lie about marriage as part of her job, which was to approve civil marriages.

If a church wants everybody employed there to be a Christian, then I think that we can argue that being a janitor for a Christian school is different from being a janitor simpliciter. I think if you've attended an institution with a strong, uniting ethic and purpose, this makes sense. Kids at schools can have a rapport with the janitor, the lunch cook, etc.

In any event, that precedent would protect freedom of non-threatening tweets. I suspect it might be different if it were a matter of calling the person's telephone over and over again or putting signs on the person's house.

When they say "harassment," they generally mean the social media equivalent of that which is things like mentioning them on Twitter and Facebook in ways that make you visible to them and/or just constantly talking about them. The latter is probably something that would get a decent first amendment hearing, but the former I'm not so sure. I could see a court arguing that if you engage in targeted behavior on social media that makes your comments visible to people who don't want to read what you are saying about them and you refuse to do it, forcing them to take action to block you, then you are harassing them.

Like on Twitter if I kept saying "@Lydia is a nut." "Did I mention @Lydia is a Christian b---- who hates oppressed minorities because of her hateful hate?" "Oh look at that, another bigoted post courtesy of @Lydia." "When is that made in China knock off of Ann Coulter @Lydia going to do the world a favor and kill herself?" That would keep popping up in front of you unless you blocked my account. I'm not sure that a court would say the first amendment requires you to just block me because that is the Twitter equivalent of constant calling.

Those are interesting questions, and in all honesty, I think at least somewhat reasonable people can differ on whether that constitutes harassment that ought to be able to be stopped by force of law or not, or whether the person should simply be stopped from engaging in otherwise illegal activities using Twitter. Twitter is a relatively new thing and has to be fitted into existing legal structures. There is *in America* a long-standing notion of a legitimate tort for personal harassment. The 1st amendment never protected my right to deluge you with personal letters to your home address saying, "I hope you commit suicide." "You're a blinkety-blinkety blank and I hate you," etc.

It doesn't of course follow that a legitimate or just remedy is blocking the person from writing any letters at all, which is the approximate equivalent of ordering someone deemed a Twitter stalker not to use the Internet!

There is a realm of prudence and justice in applying tort categories. Torts have always been like that, and putting tort law together with constitutional law is a delicate process.


I don't actually see a category of personal harassment via verbal communication as some sort of highly dubious threat to one's ability to disagree with someone or that person's ideas. It certainly would have nothing to do with the bishops' pamphlet! It seems like a category that has a place in a just, sane, and civil society.

But of course many legitimate legal categories can be abused by legal bullies for their own ends.

I don't actually see a category of personal harassment via verbal communication as some sort of highly dubious threat to one's ability to disagree with someone or that person's ideas.

I don't think it is, intrinsically, but it's something that I can see a lot of conservatives saying "well that's reasonable" when someone gets prosecuted for too many annoying targeted messages on Twitter. It follows a simple pattern:

1. The hard left finds a dual use regulation that lends itself to easy abuse.
2. They build up a list of sob stories and examples of good uses.
3. When it starts becoming abused, conservatives cannot bring themselves to just shut the whole thing down until it can be fundamentally reworked because good people might suffer in the interim.

IMO, it can be unjust to deny someone relief in the courts, but there is a distinct difference between that type of injustice and a malicious prosecution or act of litigation that serves no significant legitimate interest.

The way we can push them to not resort to the courts as weapon is to utilize that tactic more consistently and effectively. The guy victimized by Mattress Girl is suing the heck out of his university and may win a few million dollars. Mike Cernovich is threatening a defamation case against the publisher if Zoe Quinn's book slanders him in any way (she's already slandered him in official testimony before various bodies).

I would advise the bishops to look for some good Catholic lawyers and sue their accusers for defamation if possible. British conservatives should make great use of their crazy ass defamation laws because the left is such a target-rich environment. The amount of stuff that they say that is defamation even under our very liberal laws would let any well-funded, conservative law firm have a field day clobbering them.

Individual Christians should, where appropriate resort to black knighting these people. The moment some SJW makes anti-Christian comments, report them for creating a hostile work environment through hate speech. Make HR have to say "oh we don't consider criticism of Christianity part of our policies on respecting religious differences." When they do, that'll make for a great recording to be distributed online or in a civil court.

I would advise the bishops to look for some good Catholic lawyers and sue their accusers for defamation if possible.

It's a good question whether such a suit has a chance under Australian law. Right now, I don't know enough to say _definitely_ not, though nothing I saw in the article would constitute defamation under _American_ law.

The moment some SJW makes anti-Christian comments, report them for creating a hostile work environment through hate speech. Make HR have to say "oh we don't consider criticism of Christianity part of our policies on respecting religious differences." When they do, that'll make for a great recording to be distributed online or in a civil court.

I think this could be legit, depending on specifics. That's similar to what I have said about suing for blatant religious discrimination in hiring against Christians, which definitely does happen.

The ADF does a lot of this general sort of thing, though I've never heard of their specifically bringing a hostile work environment complaint.

Mike Adams's big win against UNC for discrimination was a victory to savor for years. Such wins are expensive, though.

Such wins are expensive, though.

That's why I think cases like the one with "Mattress Girl" are good ones to support. Columbia has a huge endowment. Not hard to get an attorney to take that on contingency. All it takes is a few major institutions getting with a $3M settlement over a student worth only $250k or less in tuition to start saying "this policy makes no sense." Similar rules apply elsewhere. Not the point I made about Mike Cernovich. He isn't threatening the woman slandering him, but threatening her publisher. A rich publisher or a semi-poor, craptastic game designer turned troll? Not a hard choice on choosing a target. All it takes is one SJW editor getting them hit with a $1M judgment that contains an order to recall all of the stock because it contains defamatory materials for the upper management to clean house.

Remember: the first rule is to make them live up to their own standards. Fortunately, their standards are ridiculous which makes it easy to trip them up.

though nothing I saw in the article would constitute defamation under _American_ law.

That's ok. There are plenty of nasty posts on social media by prominent figures that are almost certainly defamatory in a legal sense.

Such wins are expensive, though.

Not really.

Sure, if you allow lawyers to charge $600 / hour, and allow them to rack up immense hours researching the entire body of western history to support your case, and let him charge you for the service, THAT get's expensive. So don't go that route. Get the Thomas More outfit or some pro-bono outfit who WANTS to tilt at these windmills, who only expects to pay their people a human wage (a mere $150 per hour is fine for an attorney, half that for staff), and who can run up 4 of these cases on the expectation of winning 1 of them for damages (or 2 of them for settlement, remember). Heck, a few half-trained amateur retirees could do a lot of the research needed, for free. These are not laboratory and expert-intensive cases. In point of fact, it doesn't really COST a legal firm all that much to run one of these cases. Or 10 of them, they can double up the research costs, after all.

All,

An article in today's National Catholic Register has some good updates:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/australian-bishops-continue-to-defend-letter-on-marriage-after-legal-compla/

In reaction to the complaint, Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman told parliament that current legislation might need revision to ensure that all viewpoints can be expressed, the Australian Associated Press reports.

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, speaking at a forum at the Australian Catholic University in October, said the law should be changed to avoid similar complaints.

Professor Michael Quinlan, dean of law at University of Notre Dame-Australia’s Sydney campus, said that the complaint could have a chilling effect.

“If even Catholic bishops are unable to write to parishioners and parents and students studying in Catholic schools, setting out their views on marriage without fear of prosecution, it is hard to see how the rest of the country can discuss the issues ahead of the plebiscite which has been foreshadowed.”

On Nov. 12, Sen. Eric Abetz proposed a motion in the federal parliament to support the Catholic Church’s right to distribute the pamphlet. A vote on the motion was blocked by members of the Labor and Greens parties. LGBT activists have previously filed a complaint concerning the booklet. In June 2015, Randy Croome, national director of the same-sex marriage advocacy group Australian Marriage Equality, claimed the booklet is illegal under Tasmanian law.

Archbishop Fisher on Nov. 13 said he was consoled by statements of support from Catholics and other people of goodwill: “I intend to keep speaking up for Christian beliefs, always respectfully, never with prejudice or hatred; I hope our democracy will treat me with the same courtesy.”


Thanks very much for the update, Jeff. It may just be an artifact of the quotations chosen, but it looks a bit like Bishop Porteus is trying harder to sound conciliatory and even apologetic than Archbishop Fisher.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/13/3668626/inside-southern-baptist-conventions-devious-plan-defeat-anti-discrimination-laws/

I now have no doubt that even the mainstream of the called gay rights movement is wanting to target even churches directly. Thinkprogress is not all the radical fringe of that movement, after all.

"The hard question presented by cases like Hosanna-Tabor, however, is determining which employees qualify as a “minister,” and therefore are not able to invoke the protection of anti-discrimination law if they are fired. Churches and other religious employers typically employ numerous lay people in roles ranging from groundskeepers to accountants, and these non-ministers are fully entitled to invoke civil rights laws if they face discrimination in the workplace."

Facing discrimination in the work place...could that include being exposed to people speaking about marriage being a union of a man and woman and speaking about homosexuality being immoral? What about having to turn away any same sex couple wanting to "marry" in that church? Lydia, you already brought up the possibility of hostile workplace issues facing churches that teach these things. Based on this piece from Thinkprogress that possibility sounds all too possible...in fact, it sounds like exactly what they are aiming for.

Which reminds me of the publicly stated three year goal for SOGI laws to go federal with no religious exemptions. If I understand all this correctly, unless some new precedent materializes or new exemption declared, churches will have basically no legal protection when it comes to any issue that offends people that identify in the LGBT categories.

Religious Exemptions:
http://www.civilrights.org/lgbt/enda/religious-exemption.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

I believe they were largely opposed to ENDA because of these exemptions.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.