Blog

Kamala Harris’ Limited Vision of Religious Liberty

When presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris was running for president, she appeared at CNN’s Equality Town Hall, an October event focused on the LGBTQ community. How, one questioner asked, will Harris communicate her “liberal, Californian perspective when reaching out to voters in small, conservative areas?”

Harris said she’d tell the story of a day in 2004 where she arrived at San Francisco’s City Hall to find families of same-sex couples lined up around the block to witness their loved ones’ weddings. “It was a day where people who loved each other had the ability for their love to be recognized by law,” said Harris, who herself officiated gay weddings years before they were legalized statewide in California. “And if anyone has known love, and honors the importance of love and the commitment one person is willing to make to another person in the name of love,” she continued, “they should always recognize and encourage that nobody would be treated differently under the law.”

It’s an evocative story about why gay marriage should be allowed, but it doesn’t address the chief concern you’ll hear from religious conservatives these days: Whether they’ll be compelled to participate in and pay for things, particularly in the workplace, which their creeds and consciences forbid. Unfortunately, this wasn’t a momentary lapse: Harris shows little interest in reaching common ground with voters worried about religious liberty. She even seems unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that their fears could be based in something more substantive than a failure to have “known love.”

Keep reading

Sweden: The One Chart That Matters

Sweden has been harshly criticized in the media for not imposing draconian lockdowns like the United States and the other European countries. Instead, Sweden implemented a policy that was both conventional and sensible. They recommended that people maintain a safe distance between each other and they banned gatherings of 50 people or more. They also asked their elderly citizens to isolate themselves and to avoid interacting with other people as much as possible. Other than that, Swedes were encouraged to work, exercise and get on with their lives as they would normally even though the world was still in the throes of a global pandemic.

The secret of Sweden’s success is that its experts settled on a strategy that was realistic, sustainable and science-based. The intention was never to “fight” the virus which is among the most contagious infections in the last century, but to protect the old and vulnerable while allowing the young, low-risk people to circulate, contract the virus, and develop the antibodies they’d need to fight similar pathogens in the future. It’s clear now that that was the best approach. And while Sweden could still experience sporadic outbreaks that might kill another 2 to 300 people, any recurrence of the infection in the Fall or Winter will not be a dreaded “Second Wave”, but a much weaker flu-like event that will not overwhelm the public health system or kill thousands of people.

Keep reading