Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are liberties that our founding fathers valued greatly. They defined these freedoms in the First Amendment. Now what was once free speech is called “intolerant” and actions that were once considered sinful have become identified as human rights.

Will the so-called right to die be allowed to deny a person’s right to life? Recently, the Kentucky Supreme Court declared that families in that state have the right to remove food and water through feeding tubes for patients who are deemed to have lives not worth living.

Pro-abortion groups met in London recently to discuss strategy for enshrining abortion as a universal human right. At the same time, they condemned teaching abstinence as a “crime against humanity” because they claim that failure to push condoms allows people to die. They call teaching abstinence “false science.” Well, maybe they have something there. Morality does not fall under science, but morality certainly is not false, even if they want to think it is.

And while these pro-abortion groups condemn teaching abstinence as a “crime against humanity,” they have never spoken a word of concern about forced abortion and forced sterilization in China. But when defenders of the right to life present the negative aspects of abortion, they can get classified as “anti-reproductive rights extremists” as recently found in a report prepared by government bureaucrats in California.

“Modern” religion is expected to condone “rights” to abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. We know from the evidence of China and the Netherlands that these rights quickly become duties that are forced upon those who are not willing to comply with such duties. That marks the end of freedom of religion.

Why do you think there is so much opposition to the provision of conscience protection for health care providers who are not willing to participate in abortions? That provision is currently included in a funding bill before the U.S. House of Representatives. Opponents (e.g. abortion advocates) want to eliminate this attempt to protect freedom of religion. They cannot tolerate religion that has any impact on how a person lives. They want to deny others a choice while clamoring for “choice” themselves. Might that be called hypocrisy?

Freedom of speech has been reduced to never criticizing anyone who promotes this modern religion. Such criticism amounts to “hate speech” so it will be punished appropriately. Since you can still freely criticize those “anti-reproductive rights extremists” and other similar purveyors of “crimes against humanity,” you should not ever think that you do not still have complete freedom of speech. But never criticize those who want to give everyone a choice to kill the unborn, kill the disabled, kill embryos for research, have sex with anyone as long as you use a condom, or “marry” someone of the same sex. That kind of “hate speech” will not be tolerated.

What kind of America do you want to live in? Are you ready to rescind freedom of speech and freedom of religion to ensure tolerance for those who promote the culture of death? If not, the time for action is now.