When liberals debate me about my book, "Persecution," they invariably argue that the premise is flawed. Christians, being in the majority in America, can't possibly be the subjects of discrimination here. Oh?

 It is a clever ploy to argue that a majority can't possibly be discriminated against. It dispenses with the need to deal with the evidence and come up with some rationale for the hundreds and hundreds of cases I chronicle.

 But what about the idea that a majority, by definition, can't experience discrimination? Isn't that what reverse discrimination is all about? Would the critics truly argue that majorities don't have a deliberate disadvantage in affirmative action cases, such as in the Michigan Law School admissions case?

 Besides, if we are such a nation of Christians, can you explain to me how it is that millions of babies are killed in the womb each year in this country with the protection of the state? Even if Christians constitute a nominal majority in America, can it really be credibly argued that Christian morality is in the ascendance in our culture?

 Put aside for a moment the abortion issue and the case pending before the Supreme Court concerning "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. And let's not dwell right now on the ABC News special "Jesus, Mary and Da Vinci," which reportedly gives credence to the harebrained and scholarly-bankrupt blasphemy -- spawned by a popular novel, "The Da Vinci Code" -- that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene. And let's not even consider the Supreme Court's recent reaffirmation of moral relativism as our society's guiding light.

 Rather, let's focus on a recent ruling by a Denver County Circuit Judge in a child custody case. Worldnetdaily.com reports that Judge John W. Coughlin awarded joint custody to adoptive mother Cheryl Clark's former lesbian lover, Elsey McLeod, even though she had no legal relationship to the child. But that's the least troublesome aspect of the ruling.

 When Clark became a Christian and renounced her homosexual behavior, she reportedly broke off the relationship with McLeod. Judge Coughlin, in the joint custody order, directed Clark "to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."

 In other words, Clark is forbidden from deterring her child from homosexual behavior or to speak disapprovingly of the homosexual lifestyle. Presumably she would be in violation if she gave the child a Bible or allowed her to attend a Sunday school class or any other meeting in which homosexuality was unfavorably discussed.

 This is reminiscent of a bill the California legislature passed last year -- AB 2651 (also discussed in my book) -- in which foster children could have reported their foster parents for a civil-rights violation if they refused to allow them to dress like a member of the opposite sex. This bill, among other things, would also have established a toll-free telephone number for social workers to provide to foster children to encourage them to report "physical, sexual or emotion abuse," including incidents concerning their "sexual orientation or gender identity." Continued...