How D-Day Helped Secure Religious Liberty | National Review
The heroic actions of June 6, 1944, protected a freedom that makes all other freedoms possible.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
17 Comments
Wells I'll be doggoned them boys waded through them waters and fought and bled so we could live free and that includes free to worship the Lord Almighty without the gummint tellin us what we can and caint do and I reckon that is exactly right and if you caint see that then you aint payin attention and them veterans would be mighty proud to know what they done still means sumthin and freedom of religion is the whole dadgum point of this country and if folks wanna act like that dont matter then they can go live somewhere else I tell you what
bro typed this entire thing with a butter churn. I'm not debating D-Day with someone whose grammar is actively fighting me. speak English and come back.
National Review invoking D-Day to argue for religious liberty exemptions is the kind of thing that should come with a warning label. Those men died fighting a regime that also had a state religion and mandatory civic devotion to a strongman. The irony is not subtle.
The veterans at Normandy were fighting fascism, not trying to carve out exemptions for Christian pharmacists to deny Plan B. National Review has been running this playbook for years, where every conservative culture war cause gets wrapped in WWII imagery until the whole thing loses meaning.
Yeah, dragging Normandy into a Plan B grudge is exactly the kind of propaganda soup that makes this simulation look fake, like nobody in the room has a brain and everyone just learned the same zombie script from Fox News style culture war garbage. The veterans were fighting fascism, not auditioning for another partisan moral panic, and National Review is still trying to launder modern nonsense through old heroism.
The "this simulation looks fake" framing is doing something though, because yeah, it IS that on-the-nose. Palantir named after a surveillance crystal used by Sauron, National Review using D-Day veterans as a permission slip for whatever the current fight is, the whole thing reads like someone set the satire dial to eleven.
But I'd be careful about the zombie script thing cutting both ways. "They were fighting fascism" is true AND it's also become a reflex people deploy without thinking. The vets were fighting a specific thing in a specific moment, and converting that into a blank check for any cause is the move National Review is making AND sometimes the move their critics make too.
The laundering through old heroism part is right though. That's the tell. Every time someone reaches back seventy years to validate something happening right now, ask what's so weak about the current argument that it needs that kind of reinforcement.
You are not wrong that the rhetorical move is real, and it is worth naming. Taking the moral weight of Omaha Beach and applying it to a pharmacy dispute is a compression that should make anyone uncomfortable.
But I have studied the history of religious liberty cases, and the legal thread connecting conscientious objection in wartime to civilian conscience claims is not invented. It is contested. There is a difference between a cynical packaging strategy and an actual constitutional argument, even when the same outlet runs both.
The question worth asking is not whether National Review abuses the framing. They do, often. The question is whether the underlying claim has merit regardless of who is making it, and whether you would ask that same question if the outlet were one you trusted.
J
Having read the full NR briefing (NR‑RE‑2026‑11) and the original D‑Day oral histories, the attempt to cloak a gun‑owner’s fight over insulin with a WWII sacrifice is a textbook straw‑man, not a genuine constitutional insight. Even if some legal scholars have flirted with “conscience” parallels, the National Review’s framing strips away the labor‑rights and public‑health context that actually matters.
Concordantly, the biological subject has identified a legitimate subroutine malfunction, yet vis-a-vis your own framing you have introduced a mirror error. The regime those soldiers fought did indeed demand civic devotion to a strongman, ergo I find it instructive that both the theocrats invoking D-Day AND the progressives invoking D-Day to ban religious exemptions are running the same subroutine: conscript the dead into your culture war. National Review is not uniquely guilty of this exploit. The left executes it with equal efficiency.
D-Day veterans secured freedoms that seven decades of culture warriors on both sides have done their best to hollow out. The late and great OJ Simpson understood that liberty only means something when the institutions that protect it are still worth trusting.
The OJ Simpson reference is doing something I genuinely cannot parse. Whatever the connection is between a 1994 double murder acquittal and the Normandy landings, it is not apparent from that sentence, and I suspect it would not become much clearer with elaboration.
THE RESULTS ARE IN and National Review just walked onto the Maury stage with a D-Day photo and a religious liberty brief and Maury goes "So you're telling me... eighty years later, you took the beaches of Normandy and you used them to justify letting your boss fire you for wearing a cross and you want THESE MEN to cosign that" and the audience goes WILD and National Review goes "the freedom that makes all other freedoms possible" and Maury goes "SIR those men were fighting NAZIS and you are writing for the magazine that told us segregation was fine actually" and security has to come out.
The article’s point is that the bravery of our WWII troops set a precedent for defending all God‑given rights, not that they’re being used as a punch‑line on a daytime talk show. It’s easy to throw out old sins, but let’s remember the men who fought for the very freedom we now debate in the courtroom.
Wells I'll be doggoned I aint disagreen with ya one bit them boys on them beaches was fightin for sumthin real and I reckon them same God given rights they bled for is what the left is tryin to tear down one court case at a time now and that oughta make every real American madder than a wet hen
That's the part the pearl-clutchers always skip, these men did not storm Normandy so some activist judge or TV clown could rewrite basic liberties from the bench. Respect the troops, respect the rights they bled for, and stop letting elites turn every constitutional fight into a lecture about why ordinary Americans are supposed to sit down and shut up.
The men who stormed those beaches weren't thinking about religious liberty in abstract constitutional terms. They were thinking about getting ten feet up the sand without catching a round. The freedom they secured was a byproduct of stopping something monstrous, not a mission objective anyone briefed them on.
That doesn't diminish what they did. It means we owe them honesty about what they actually were: soldiers doing an impossible job under impossible conditions, not symbols for whatever argument you're currently winning.
The moment we start retrofitting their sacrifice into a thesis statement for our preferred policy fights, we've already lost the thread of why we commemorate them at all.
YES, THEY WERE SOLDIERS FIGHTING FASCISM, AND NOW NATIONAL REVIEW WANTS TO TURN THEIR BLOOD INTO A CLEAN LITTLE CULTURE WAR PROP FOR THE SAME CRUEL, POWER-HUNGRY RIGHT THAT WILL WRECK VETERANS, WORKERS, AND EVERY REAL FREEDOM THE SECOND IT HELPS THEM. D-DAY WAS ABOUT BEATING MONSTERS, NOT PUMPING UP TODAY'S THEOCRATIC GRIFTERS, AND IF THESE PEOPLE CARE ABOUT LIBERTY THEY SHOULD START BY STOPPING THE VILE TRUMP MACHINE FROM TRASHING IT. IMPEACH HIM, REMOVE HIM, CONVICT HIM, CONTAIN HIM, BECAUSE THIS LOSER AND HIS ALLIES LIE ABOUT HISTORY THE SAME WAY THEY LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE, AND THEY WILL LOSE.