Buttigieg’s instinct is not to defend first principles but to ponder whether they can be constrained if they offend his party’s sensibilities.
Not long ago, Saint Peter Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., the media’s go-to expert on all matters of faith, was asked about Beto O’Rourke’s contention that churches that refuse to embrace progressive spiritual rites should be stripped of their tax-exempt status.
“I’m not sure he understood the implications of what he was saying,” Mayor Pete responded.
“... that means going to war not only with churches, but I would think with mosques and a lot of orgs that may not have the same view of various religious principles that I do, but also, because of separation of church and state, are acknowledged as nonprofits in this country.“
Buttigieg’s implication was that while O’Rourke’s “war” against Christians might be justified, there’s also a chance that those efforts might ensnare a favored progressive group.
This isn’t a defense of religious tolerance as much as a warning — a good one — that any state empowered to target problematic Catholics or Evangelicals could one day come after Unitarians or Reform Jews, as well.
Take this recent interview with Adam Wren, in which Buttigieg was asked how “he would approach religious freedom broadly.”
“The touchstone has to be the idea that religious freedom, like other freedom, is constrained when it becomes a rationale for doing harm,” Buttigieg begins.
“The touchstone has to be the idea that religious freedom, like other freedom, is constrained when it becomes a rationale for doing harm,” Buttigieg begins.
“So when we talk about freedom of speech, that does not mean you can yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
Let’s just stop here and note for the record that you can shout “fire” in a crowded theater.
Let’s just stop here and note for the record that you can shout “fire” in a crowded theater.
This infuriating analogy — issued by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States and repeated by untold thousands of censorship apologists — was at the heart of one of the most egregious violations of free expression in our history.
Buttigieg wants you to know that, like freedom of speech, religious freedom is really about protecting the minorities he likes.
So the pertinent question is this: In what real-world political debate involving faith has Buttigieg — or any Democratic-party candidate, for that matter — supported the defense of religious freedom over its “constraint?”
Does Buttigieg believe that religious establishments should be able to hire teachers who agree with their teachings, even when those teachings have long held that homosexuality is sinful?
Is he concerned that nuns and other Americans with similar belief systems are being compelled by the state to participate in programs that offer abortifacients and birth control?
Is he troubled by the fact that taxpayers may be forced to fund abortion on demand (apparently, the only constitutional right that Democrats believe should be unconstrained)?
Is he concerned that business owners around the nation are being compelled by the government to produce artistic works that undermine long-held tenets of their faith?
If not, @PeteButtigieg’s prevailing concern isn’t the maintenance of the Constitution, or the free practice of faith that it protects, but the advancement of his own political ideology. And that’s no principle at all.
