Nowadays, in order to justify each and every sin under the sun, each and every assault upon the moral fiber of our family,community, and nation, one approach fits all: opponents of everything good and right, sensible and salutary need only push the claim that their privacy has been violated.

But how can that be? Just what is it that is so private about privacy that it cannot tolerate the gentle voice of persuasion of someone else who is exercising, in print or by voice, the convictions of his heart and soul? Or at least, what is so very private about the kind of privacy that privacy advocates advocate?

Privacy advocates contend that traditional Christians and Jews have no right to express and defend their religious and moral convictions in the classroom, in the work place or at the seat of government, because faith is sacred, and if sacred, then it must be private. Public discussion, public debate, public teaching, public endorsement, therefore, are public no-no’s, being public infringements upon the inalienable rights of those with contrary religious views.

But how well thought out is this position, really?

Continue Reading on