You now have a limited number of options before you, and they all involve hills. You can determine to fight the current progressive overreach, or you can try to avoid doing so. If you know that you will fight, but only when it become absolutely necessary, then they will pick the terrain and you will be found defending Stupid Hill. Or you can resist now, and you select the terrain, and you can defend Shrewd Hill. Or you can go hide in those hills.
I am leaving out of consideration the pastors who are taking the opportunity provided by Obergefell to fold like a cheap suit. This is one of the great blessings of a crisis actually. You either stand in battle or you don’t, and which way you decided to go is kind of out there in public. It turns out that a number of moderate evangelicals were just liberals biding their time.
But back to the two honorable options — fighting now or fighting later. Here is what I mean by Stupid Hill and Shrewd Hill. If you wait until they pick the terrain, then the battle is going to be over taxes. Tax exemption, 501(c)3 status, tax receipts, and so on. That is Stupid Hill. When they come after everybody’s stuff, then we will fight. I know — our hash tag could be #MoneyWins. It will be the easiest thing in the world for them to represent our motives as corrupt and tainted. “They were pro-life, sure, and they objected to Obergefell, certainly, but things didn’t get hot until we wanted to go through their Mammon closet.”
Now I actually believe that there is nothing inherently dishonorable about fighting off thieves. But the rhetorical reality is this — progressives have successfully camouflaged their lust for other people’s money as the high point of their altruism, and our objection to being pillaged as our greed. That means that if we fight them at that point, it will be a two-front war. Progressives ought to have an uneasy conscience about their views of other people’s money, but as a matter of fact, they don’t. They ought to feel ethically ashamed of their views of taxation, but they are actually proud of it.
I therefore return to Saul Alinsky’s dictum that it is essential that you make your adversary play by his own rule book. This battle must be joined at the point of free speech, and that is my Shrewd Hill. They claim still to believe in it, and (given their actual behavior on this) the higher their dignified tributes to free speech, the sillier they look. More to the point, they know it.
They have actually gotten to the point where they maintain that a nude performance artist covered in chocolate syrup is what the First Amendment was designed to protect, and at the same time they want through coercion to suppress all political and cultural dissent, which is what the First Amendment really was about. And again, when this issue is pressed, they know they are vulnerable at this point.
Technically, they still praise irreverence, they praise uppity women, they praise speaking truth to power, they praise all that stuff. Right there in their playbook. Okay, since they are now the Man, since they are now the Establishment, let us give them something to deal with. Make them live by a principle they profess to love, instead of a principle they abandoned with seared consciences almost a century ago.