Considering several recent Supreme Court decisions, together with a growing hostility on both the radical left and the radical right to freedom of religion, Robert P. George sets forth an impassioned and thoughtful argument as to why this particular freedom is both socially beneficial and sacred:

The mainstream view among liberal political and legal theorists since at least the days of [the 20th-century political philosopher John] Rawls has been to deny religion’s status as a category of human activity that is in any way special. Religion, such theorists hold, is like any other deep passion or commitment people might have. Often these theorists agree (and rightly) that religious liberty deserves protection. But the grounds they offer for defending religious liberty rarely extend beyond a concern for avoiding the calamities that religious disagreement and conflict have wrought throughout human history. This is, to be sure, a reason for protecting religious liberty. But it is, alas, defeasible.

In his alternative view, George argues that religious freedom is necessary because religion is in fact special:

Human rights, such as the right to life or the right to religious freedom, are grounded in and shaped by the human goods they protect. The right to freedom of speech, for example, is grounded in several goods: political stability, the search for truth and the appropriation and dissemination of it, and so on. Indeed, only by reference to human goods can any right be defined and justified.

And it matters to the identification and defense of the right to religious liberty that religion is yet another irreducible aspect of human well-being and fulfillment—a basic human good.

Last week, the New York Times reported, based on unnamed sources within the Trump administration, that the president had asked Israel not to carry out a planned strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is, somebody deliberately gave this information to the press, which later tried to confirm it by speaking with other officials. Amit Segal writes that, “according to figures in Israel’s security establishment,” this is “the most serious leak in Israel’s history.” He explains:

As Israel is reportedly planning what may well be one of its most consequential military operations ever, the New York Times lays out for the Iranians what Israel will target, when it will carry out the operation, and how. That’s not just any other leak.

Seth Mandel looks into the leaker’s logic:

The primary purpose of the [Times] article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.

The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play, more or less, to help Iran torpedo American action.

The leaker, Mandel explains—and the Times itself implies—is likely aligned with the faction in the administration that wants to see the U.S. retreat from the world stage and from its alliance with Israel, a faction that includes Vice-President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the president’s own chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Yet it’s also possible, if less likely, that the plans were leaked in support of administration policy rather than out of factional infighting. Eliezer Marom argues that the leak was “part of the negotiations and serves to clarify to the Iranians that there is a real attack plan that Trump stopped at the last moment to conduct negotiations.”