Steep decline on the slippery slope

Okay, this shows up in my email the other day, a Townhall column by Kevin McCullough on crushing dissent in California, passed on by a friend and colleague. And I hadn’t heard much about it yet, and the article didn’t source some of what sounded like outlandish charges, so I made the note to check it out, and then got…..too busy.

Meanwhile, there’s this piece on Amy Welborn’s top blog today, and I cringed.

What seemed almost too far-fetched to be true, actually is. My friend Alejandro Bermudez at Catholic News Agency has the story.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law yesterday…a bill that would potentially remove state assistance from organizations which stand-by religious beliefs deemed discriminatory towards homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and the like.  The bill is being assailed by groups who say that the bill violates their first amendment rights by penalizing them for holding certain religious beliefs…

Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute, said that the legislation “is an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom in California.”

“This bill is yet another attempt to prevent citizens with moral and religious principles from expressing their beliefs and educating their children according to those beliefs,” continued England. “On behalf of California families, private schools, and other private organizations, I express our outrage at this attack on our freedom.”

Unfortunately, not many others have expressed this before now. Amy makes that point, which is a very important one, in her post on this: “There is little to no coverage of this in the secular press, even in California.” 

Why not? This is an assault that crosses whatever line that still exists to protect traditional Western, Judeo-Christian moral ethics to be taught in schools, at least with the same respect all other viewpoints and lifestyles receive. Uh….wait. Wasn’t the argument the other way around? Yes, until now.  

Here’s how the Sacramento Bee reported it:

Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia, called the measure a dangerous form of “social experimentation.” “This is not about discrimination, it’s about acceptance,” he said. “You want us in society to accept homosexuality as normality — and it’s not.”

SB 1437 would ban teachers, textbooks, instructional materials or school activities from reflecting “adversely” upon people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. 

Define “adversely.” This is the slippery slope. Because determined secularists in academia, media, law and politics have distorted the language to make it fit an agenda. Those with the power make the rules. And they make the language fit it all. Sooo……this would allow some of the “outlandish” claims Kevin McCullough made in that Townhall column to actually come true, like changing California’s school textbooks so that

No mention of moral aspects of sexual behavior would be permitted unless immoral activity were praised and in fact referred to as moral.

In other words the pushing of the sexual envelope would be unleashed with a nitro-fueled explosion the likes of which has never been seen in America’s history.

And that’s the rather mild part of McCullough’s column.

A week ago when that Sacramento Bee article appeared, Schwarzenegger’s spokeswoman said she wasn’t certain the governor would sign the bill because he had concerns about it and would “not sign a bill that micromanages textbook selection.”

But he did.

NOW people are expressing outrage. CNA reports that

In addition to concerns voiced for religious freedom, many disagree with the bill’s adding of the all-inclusive term “sexuality” to a list of characteristics upon which a person cannot be discriminated.

“As a citizen of California and a religious person, I am terribly disappointed in Governor Schwarzenegger,” stated Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “It is bad public policy to add to the list of protected classes a sexual behavior. Equating sexual preference with the immutable characteristics of age, national origin, or race will result in other variable behaviors being added to the list of invariable classes rightfully protected.” 

Slippery slopes only slide downward. The question is, where does it stop? Just wait until those other “variable behaviors” start claiming the “rights” extended by this protection.

And by the way, this is only one of four companion bills aimed at “crushing dissent,” as McCullough put it. All told, faith-based organizations fear they would reach into religious institutions and threaten the free speech exercised there with punishment for what would loosely be called “hate speech.”

Be informed and actively engaged. Election season is here, and things happen when no one is paying attention that would never happen in the daylight of public awareness.