Indiana Wants Me, or Maybe Not


I just returned from a speaking engagement with the National Association of Attorneys General (Midwestern) in Indianapolis. The city used to be a dump; now it’s thriving. (In these pre-Final Four days, it’s the place to be.) The NAAG event was tremendous: it’s a shame they don’t transcribe or podcast the discussions. The panelists (yours truly included) yell at each other on the blogs but lo, they’re actually is a trans-party, Yale-to-GMU constituency for the rule of law—and they meet in a hotel room and learn from each other. The NAAG’s Dan Schweitzer, who called this thing together, is a genius and a treasure to the republic. He’s hiding his light under a bushel. There ought to be a law against that.

Apropos law: this may have been the last time Indianapolis has hosted NAAG, or the Final Four, or maybe the Indy 500. Because, you see, the Indiana legislature has enacted a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which says that government needs a pretty good reason before burdening the free exercise of religion. Two decades ago, the federal RFRA passed Congress almost unanimously, with the support of the ACLU and the Chamber of Commerce and everyone in–between. Now, it’s painted as a sinister plot of evangelical nutcases who hate gays and don’t want to deal with them. (The Indiana legislature yesterday clarified the law to make clear that that’s not what they had in mind, but that hasn’t mollified the corporate-ACLU coalition: they’re against the actual RFRA.)  What happened?

What happened is that people with religious preferences lost a revolution—the sexual revolution. As a rule, revolutions aren’t good for the losers; and the yelp that you shouldn’t be discriminated against on account of your faith is futile because that discrimination was the point of the revolution.

To my friends in the libertarian and LBGT communities (was that the right term?): you solemnly assured us that there’d be no social cost to your agenda, and you appealed to our sense of justice and compassion. It turns out that the social cost—the demise of a religious and social consensus that by and large has served us well—is huge; but it’s sunk. That accomplished, will at least one of you stand up for justice and compassion—or was that also a head fake?

Pesach Sameach. And Happy Easter. In any event, have a good weekend.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on April 02, 2015 at 17:28:24 pm

The cost is even greater than Mr. Greve supposes. A conjunction of efforts to drive the ministers, Christian, Jewish, et. al., is becoming successful. A friend of mine in a small city in North Carolina had to give up an opportunity to bring a devotion or prayer (in the latter case even the mention of Jesus was forbidden), because the ACLU threatened the town council with a lawsuit, something that the city could ill-afford. A larger city faced the same problem even though they had every kind of religious or not religious person to give the opening remarks at the meeting of the council. There is more, but the media reports often and sometimes in objective detail (though not always). And yet I live down the highway (about a fifty minute drive) from where my ancestor fought in an American Revolutionary War battle as a 2nd lt. in the Virginia Militia (the second line of battle in that -particular encounter). He also served and fought in other battles, and he drew an American Revolutionary War pension for his service. He fought for, among other things, religious freedom, not the religious freedom to practice his faith only in private as the venue now seems to demand, but the religious freedom to be able to participate in the public forum. He also intended for such freedoms to be passed on to his descendants. Now the LGBT groups along with others, the militant atheists, for example, seem determined to push the believing community out of the public forum, a clear violation of the God-given rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and an inflammatory effort that seems to be serving the purposes of groups whose goal it is to bring down this kind of government, something planned for by others long ago. Could it be that the present groups have such end in view or serve it unknowingly?

read full comment
Image of dr. james willingham
dr. james willingham
on April 06, 2015 at 08:46:47 am

[…] Indiana Wants Me, or Maybe Not […]

read full comment
Image of Don’t Print the Narrative - Freedom's Floodgates
Don’t Print the Narrative - Freedom's Floodgates

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.