Could America Survive without Religion?

Nov 19, 2015 by

By Robert P George, Public Discourse: Can freedom survive in a society in which most citizens believe that human beings, who are supposed to have inalienable rights, are merely material beings inhabiting a universe of purely material and efficient causality? John Adams famously said that our Constitution was made “only for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Was he right? Perhaps the first thing to note is that our Constitution is, to borrow a phrase from Hayek, a “constitution of liberty.” Under it, the power of government over the people is checked and limited, and the people enjoy a large measure of freedom. But freedom can, of course, be used for good or for ill. Freedom can be used wisely or irresponsibly. Like the other Founding Fathers, Adams recognized that freedom does not guarantee virtue; yet the maintenance of freedom...

read more

Without Christianity at its heart, the next coronation will be empty ritual

Sep 10, 2015 by

By Gillan Scott, from Archbishop Cranmer: In the week when Queen Elizabeth II reached a momentous landmark in her reign, it does feel rather inappropriate to be talking about what will happen once she is no longer with us. But this is exactly what the Christian think-tank Theos has been doing, and has published the results and analysis of a poll studying the public’s views on whether the expected coronation of King Charles III (or King George VII) should be an exclusively Christian affair, as it has been throughout English and British history. The Queen is – as every coin issued by the Royal Mint reminds us – ‘Defender of the (Christian) Faith’. It is a title that she accepted at her Coronation in 1953, and has continued to honour with every fibre of her being, within the constraints of constitutional monarchy. Prince Charles, however, commented back in 1994...

read more

Behold the new diversity. Any view you like so long as it is liberal

Sep 1, 2015 by

By Laura Perrins, The Conservative Woman: Peter Hitchens has proposed a new Senate to replace the now hopelessly beyond reform House of Lords. Hitchens is one of the few remaining great conservative columnists writing in a national newspaper; many others have either been purged or capitulated to the great re-education camp that is Britain’s main stream media. The requirements for standing and voting for this new Senate make interesting reading. I was delighted to find that I retain a vote, and that in fact I could use that vote to support my co-editor Kathy Gyngell who I would convince to stand for this new body. Hitchens tells us that the new Senate “should ban anyone who is a current member of a political party, or has been a member in the last five years. It should also ban anyone who has ever given more than £100 in any year...

read more

What does the future hold?

Jun 27, 2015 by

By Ryan T Anderson, Conjugality: As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, yesterday’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere. This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices...

read more

Here’s how we can start improving human rights legislation

Jun 12, 2015 by

By Rupert Myers, Conservative Home: […] Having looked at why criticism of a proposed British Bill of Rights is misleading, and atthe appetite within the upper echelons of the legal profession for reform, what proposals should be on Michael Gove’s desk? Here are a few suggestions: […]  The qualification of the rights to freedom of expression and religious freedom have caused widespread discomfort as society has changed over the last half century. The margin afforded to religious freedom has diminished, and the qualification of both rights has led to bitter dispute. It must be time for the consideration of a right to freedom of expression which is restricted only to a prohibition on the imminent incitement of unlawful conduct and the exploitation of minors is concerned. Currently there are genuinely-held religious views which it may well be unlawful to promulgate. The American solution, prohibiting restriction of expression via the First...

read more

A British Bill of Rights is wholly contingent on the UK leaving the EU

May 27, 2015 by

By Archbishop Cranmer: Today’s Queen’s Speech is the first to be delivered on behalf of a majority Conservative government since 1996, when John Major was Prime Minister and ‘Europe’ was tearing his party asunder. The following year saw the rise of Sir James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party, which advocated that the UK’s continuing membership of the European Union could only be justified with the explicit democratic consent of the British people. The “game, set and match” Treaty of Maastricht – by which we all became citizens of the European Union without being consulted – was just one of the factors which contributed to the Conservative Party spending almost 20 years in the political wilderness. But it was the foundational constitutional and philosophical one: it simply is not possible for the Queen to be both sovereign in her realm and a citizen of a suzerain political entity, subject to the judgment...

read more