Federal courts have consistently ruled against government interference in decisions made by religious organizations in the hiring and firing of clergy, thus creating what is known as the “ministerial exception” to many anti-discrimination laws. In a 2011 case before the Supreme Court, the Justice Department challenged this exception, unsuccessfully; but, as David Bernstein explains, the story may not be over:

The Obama Justice Department argued not just that [the particular case at hand] did not qualify for the ministerial exception, but that the ministerial exception should be rejected entirely. So, for example, a very liberal jurisdiction such as San Francisco could require the Catholic Church to hire male nuns or female priests, and the church would have no constitutionally valid freedom-of-religion defense. . . .

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices were incredulous at the government’s position that religious organizations get no more constitutional protection than any other employer who promotes a point of view. . . . Not surprisingly, the court ruled unanimously against the administration, [reaffirming] the ministerial exception. . . .

That’s the good news. The bad news is that, even though the argument failed to get any votes this time, the issue will inevitably come back to the Supreme Court in the future. By then, restrictions on religious freedom in the name of prohibiting “discrimination” may have become so commonplace that doing away with the ministerial exception could seem like the next logical step.

Two extraordinary events demonstrate something important about Israel’s most fervent adversaries. One was a speech given at something called The People’s Forum (funded generously by Goldman Sachs), which stated, “When the state of Israel is finally destroyed and erased from history, that will be the single most important blow we can give to destroying capitalism and imperialism.”

The suggestion that this tiny state is the linchpin of a global, centuries-old phenomenon like capitalism goes well beyond anything resembling rational criticism. Even if Israel were guilty of genocide, apartheid, and oppression—which of course it is not—it would not follow that its destruction would help end capitalism or imperialism.

The other was an anti-Israel protest that took place in front of New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, deemed “complicit” in Israel’s evils. At organizers’ urging, participants shouted their slogans at kids in the cancer ward, who were watching from the windows. Given Hamas’s indifference toward the lives of Gazan children, such callousness toward non-Palestinian children from Hamas’s Western allies shouldn’t be surprising. The protest—like the abovementioned speech—deliberately conveyed the message that Israel is the ultimate evil and its destruction the ultimate good, cancer patients be damned.

The fact that Israel’s adversaries are almost comically perverse does not mean that they can be dismissed. If its allies fail to understand the obsessive and irrational hatred that it faces, they cannot effectively help it defend itself.