Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

The Left’s Anti-Christian Bigotry Strategy 2.0

Your political views have nothing to do with your religious liberty.

by
Paula Bolyard

Bio

May 18, 2014 - 5:59 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page
YouTube Preview Image

Conservative radio personality Dana Loesch joined former Democratic congressional candidate Jessica Ehrlich on The Kelly File on Friday night (with host Martha McCallum) to discuss the Benham brothers, who were allegedly dropped by HGTV for expressing their religious views on abortion and homosexuality. Earlier in the day, the North Carolina brothers announced that SunTrust had pulled — and then reinstated — all of their listed properties and those of several franchisees across the country.

Jessica Ehrlich defended Sun Trust’s original decision to dump the brothers, saying, “I think that’s fully within the right of Sun Trust to do, depending on the contractual agreement they had with the brothers.” She criticized Sun Trust, however,  for reversing their decision. “What’s sad and disturbing is that really, what you have here, are two attention-seeking reality television wanna-be-appearing brothers who have an extreme agenda and are trying to cloak it in this sort of religious freedom characterization and using that as a way to get their own business and drive that and I find that disturbing.”

Dana Loesch accused Ehrlich of being an anti-Christian bigot.

“There is no anti-Christian bigotry here,” Ehrlich shot back. “They have cloaked their political views, which are radical in the— these are not Christian views.” She added, “They have taken their anti-choice — they are anti-abortion and they are anti-homosexuality and those are their positions. Those are not the views of all Christians. And for you to say that is outrageous.”

Do you see what Ehrlich is doing here? She is reframing the debate about religious liberty and making it about the Benham brothers’ political views. Because not all Christians agree with the Benhams, Ehrlich (apparently now a self-appointed arbiter of Christian orthodoxy) comes to the conclusion that their religious views are irrelevant and the Benham brothers and others who share their beliefs must be viewed only as craven political animals. Because their religious beliefs spill over into the public policy arena, Ehrlich thinks that their speech isn’t covered by religious liberty protections, particularly on topics she thinks are “extreme” and “radical.”

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (11)
All Comments   (11)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
So a mommy killing her child is all perfectly normal, but one who wouldn't dream of taking her own child's life is radical. Hmm...

Good Christian theology (notice I said "good" there) will lead you to good government. It will also lead you to heaven.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
The establishment clause protects us against a state religion. The thing is the left has tried to make no religion, the state religion. The one to which all other sects must pay obeisance, and the one the state must support.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
That's right, Toots, when the anti-Christian bigot shoe fits, wear it.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
"They have cloaked their political views, which are radical in the— these are not Christian views.” " 2000 years of Catholic teaching is radical?

I remember when, in some states, homosexual acts were illegal. And there was a time in living memory when abortion was illegal. The Benham brothers are not radical.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
This "freedom of worship" they speak of is not unlike that which existed in the Roman empire, starting in the reign of Caligula. All the peoples of the empire were free to worship their own gods, even those secretive Christians and antisocial Jews - as long as they also acknowledged and worshipped the Divine Emperor and the Goddess Roma as well. After all, religion is largely a private thing, but citizens should demonstrate their loyalty and gratitude to the State, n'est-ce pas?
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
When the left calls us bigots they are projecting. We have to stop assuming that they are like us. They are not well meaning but mistaken. They are simple, old-fashioned, hate-filled, and rather stupid bigots.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes ---and speaking of projection, note how Ehlrich describes the brothers as having "an extreme agenda and trying to cloak it in this sort of religious freedom characterization."

For the leftist, politics itself is the religion. It is basic. If you are running for office and want to appear "religious", or if you have a taste for occasional ceremony, you shop around for a church that either indulges or conforms to your true faith, which is leftism. IOW, the God-stuff is just icing on the leftist cake, a "cloak" over the body of Progressive belief.

Ehlrich probably does not understand that for serious believers it's the Faith that comes first, while the politics are secondary and derivative. Hence she accuses the Benhams of using religion only to further politics. After all, it's what leftists do.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I watched the interview and Dana Loesch nailed it. This woman is clearly an anti-Christian bigot. Apparently she considers herself the ultimate arbiter of what are considered "extreme" views and thus subject to censorship. Anti-abortion is only extreme to a far far leftist. The majority of people in the U.S. are now pro-life. Lots of extremists in the U.S. apparently.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
So, church is a "free speech zone".

We all know how well that's worked on campuses and at the Bundy ranch, don't we?
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Since there is no God, the brothers must be secular, with certain "cultural beliefs". If there is to be "diversity", the brother's "cultural beliefs" must be honored as valid. If the brothers are excluded on the basis of their "cultural beliefs", then those excluding must be "discriminating". If there is "discrimination", the state must step in and alleviate the "discrimination", and those "discriminating" must be punished.

The brothers then would become a "protected class", with the wider culture bending in order to promote "diversity".

Modern Liberal 101.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
If the brothers were Muslims, then you would be correct.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “The Left’s Anti-Christian Bigotry Strategy 2.0”