And what is the conservative and Christian plan to fight this battle on a national scare where their case is made via mass communications? Here is David Harsanyi writing at The Federalist:
Step one: pretends it doesn’t exist.
Most of the media won’t acknowledge that Americans who refuse to participate in a gay wedding could have any sincerely held beliefs or good faith arguments. For the media, there is hate. And there is light.
And one way the news media signal their disdain of religious liberty is by insinuating that the entire debate is bogus. Editors do this by putting quotation marks around the term “religious freedom,” as if this notion, when practiced by Christians, is somehow ambiguous or manipulative or deceptive.
Now, if those quotation marks exist because the topic itself is up for debate, then why isn’t there a similar journalistic standard for the usage of “inequality,” “environmentalist,” “civil rights,” “investments,” “loopholes” or any of the hundreds of other similarly contentious or loaded words in our political discourse?
Another, more overt way of misleading the public about religious freedom is framing the debate as a struggle between open-minded, civil-rights seeking gays and a bunch of bigots frightened of progress — essentially the tone of every piece covering Mississippi’s new religious liberty law.
[T]he progressive media [has] no interest in having a debate. Mark Joseph Stern at Slate, who can often be an intellectually honest liberal writer, affixes this histrionic headline to his piece on the topic: “Mississippi Governor Signs LGBTQ Segregation Bill Into Law.” The guts of the piece are similarly hyperbolic, as he maintains that the law is “essentially an attempt to legalize segregation between LGBTQ people and the rest of society” — an enormous overstatement.
The use of this kind of rhetoric is meant to suggest that the political aspirations of gay Americans are tantamount to the hopes of blacks fighting to free themselves of Jim Crow. This is absurd mostly because, in the fairest reading of the situation, today’s debate isn’t about one group’s civil rights. Instead, it’s a conflict that pits the interests of two groups against each other. And today, only one of those two has a desire to coerce the other.
Read more: The Federalist
Image credit: www. truthrevolt.org.