THE DEADLY CONSTRICTION OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH

When reason fails to argue in your favor, there is always coercion. In The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech, liberal democrat, Kirsten Powers, writes about the Left's methods:

• The illiberal left yearns for a world sanitized of information that offends them. So why not just tune out the views they don’t like? They can’t. They are authoritarians at heart; they know what Americans should think and what information they should consume. So they launch petitions to have particular views censored from newspapers. They try to get columnists fired for expressing the wrong views. The illiberal left has maniacally maneuvered to delegitimize the Fox News Channel, unable to abide the existence of one news network critical of the president. High- ranking White House officials were the face of this effort, telling anyone who would listen that Fox News was “not really a news station” and not “legitimate.” These top government officials were joined in their illiberal campaign by the progressive nonprofit Media Matters for America (MMFA), which enjoys the support of some of the Democratic Party’s top donors. 12 At one point, Media Matters’ CEO David Brock told Politico that the organization’s ninety- person staff and $10 million annual budget was dedicated to the purpose of waging “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” 13 against Fox News. A leaked MMFA memo for liberal donors detailed a strategy to destroy Fox that included plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.

• The illiberal left hunts down heretics, dissidents, and run- of- the mill dissenters to not only silence them, but make examples of them for the rest of society. Dissent from liberal orthodoxy is cast as racism, misogyny, bigotry, phobia... Those who oppose same- sex marriage don’t have rational, traditional views about marriage that deserve respect or debate; they are bigots and homophobes. When conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” it wasn’t due to a differing philosophy about the role of government. No, they were waging a “War on Women.”

Why does Powers term them "illiberal?"

• The illiberal left, on the other hand, believes that people who express ideological, philosophical, or political views that don’t line up with their preferences should be completely silenced. Instead of using persuasion and rhetoric to make a positive case for their causes and views, they work to delegitimize the person making the argument through character assassination, demonization, and dehumanizing tactics. These are the self- appointed overlords— activists, university administrators, journalists, and politicians— who have determined what views are acceptable to express. So, shut up— or else.

Sadly, these Leftists aren't a fringe element. According to Powers, they have great latitude to shape young, idealistic, but naive minds:

• On campuses there are speech codes, so- called “free speech zones,” and a host of “anti- discrimination” policies that discriminate against people who dissent from lefty groupthink. Christian and conservative groups have been denied official university status by student government organizations for holding views not in line with liberal dogma.

We might think that the universities and media have a vested interest in upholding the freedom of speech for all. However, myopically, they are convinced that, by depriving a voice to some, their voice will remain unbridled. 

This is what the proletariat masses, who met Lenin upon his return to Russia in 1917 with enthusiastic cries of "Power to the people; Power to the Soviets" thought. They had been promised that they would be in control and not the Tzars. However, Lenin had other ideas:

• One of the first moves of Lenin’s government was to ban all opposition press. When asked about freedom of speech Lenin answered: “Freedom of speech?! We are not going to commit suicide.” (Russiapedia) 

Powers is certainly not alone in her analysis:

• “This tainting and ostracism of sinners is the secret power of the leftist faith,” wrote David Horowitz in Progressives, Volume II of The Black Book of the American Left. “It is what keeps the faithful in line.” It is “part of a ritual that has become familiar over generations of the left, in which dissidents are excommunicated and consigned to various Siberias for their political deviance. It is a phenomenon normal to religious cults, where purity of heart is maintained through avoiding contact with the unclean.” 

The reaction to Powers’ book by her fellow liberal leftists was predictable. Breitbart reports:

• Powers, a lifelong liberal and supporter of gay marriage, has suffered an avalanche of abuse from her side. She’s called a “bigot,” “homophobe,” “f-ckface,” and more. It is a classic Leftist tactic – take something the person did or said, lie about it, make it into a huge deal, and use it to discredit them. It is also a Leftist tradition to bury any independent thinkers on their side the moment they express disagreement.

How is it that the Left is able to get away with libel? There is little accountability from the media and the universities. Either these institutions are thug-sympathizers or they are afraid to stand up against the thugs. At best, they compromise their integrity and fail the public trust.

Same-Sex Marriage: Coerced to Participate in Sin

 Christians have been placed on collision-course with anti-discrimination legislation, requiring them to participant in practices that they regard as sinful. Theologian Albert Mohler has written that in order to protect the constitution right of freedom of religion:

• Several states are now considering legislation that would provide explicit protections to citizens whose consciences will not allow an endorsement of same-sex marriage… Millions of American citizens are facing a direct collision between their moral convictions and the demands of their government.

For example, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was fined and required to rent their boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple who had brought a lawsuit against this Christian association for refusing to rent them the pavilion for their marriage. However, Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt deny that forcing Christian participation in a same-sex ceremony is a violation of conscience:

• “Many on the left and right can agree that nobody should be unnecessarily forced to violate their conscience. But in order to violate a Christian’s conscience, the government would have to force them to affirm something in which they don’t believe. This is why the first line of analysis here has to be whether society really believes that baking a wedding cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures (or providing any other service) is an affirmation. This case simply has not been made, nor can it be, because it defies logic.  If you lined up 100 married couples and asked them if their florist “affirmed” their wedding, they would be baffled by the question.” Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt, “Conservative Christians Selectively Apply Biblical Teachings in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate,”

Powers and Merritt want to limit the violation simply to instances where the State coerces Christians to verbally “affirm something in which they don’t believe.”  However, coercion is not simply a matter of being forced to say something. It is also a matter of being forced to do something.

Mohler astutely observed another problem with their reasoning. Whether “violating conscience” has occurred should not be determined by the public. Instead, religious freedom has always been recognized as an issue between us and God:

• Well, the issue is really not what “society really believes” about baking a wedding cake, but what the baker believes. Reference to what “society really believes” is a way of dismissing religious liberty altogether. If the defining legal or moral principle is what “society really believes,” all liberties are eventually at stake. 

Mohler is correct! Who is to decide whether or not a Christian violates his conscience – whether hiring a practicing gay as the pastor is a violation of conscience; whether being coerced to bake a cake reading, “We are glad you stood up for gay rights” is a violation? If it is the state, then all rights depend on their whim, making our constitutional guarantees irrelevant.

There are certain things in which we cannot participate, even if this participation looks benign to the State. The Apostle Paul had warned that our participation in various rituals can powerfully impact upon our relationship with our Lord:

• Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? …Do not those [Hebrews] who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.  Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? (1 Cor. 10:16-21)

Likewise, we cannot be participants in the Lord and sin at the same time. Paul reasoned that even though the sacrifices are nothing in themselves, our participation in them is not morally neutral. Instead, it carries weighty relational implications. Consequently, we are not free to participate in activities that are offensive to our Lord. They arouse His protective and loving jealousy over our well-being. Although we can and should assist sinners, we cannot assist them in their sinful activity or promote their cause.

Paul warned that even when we simply ordain people, we are morally responsible and participate in fruits of their ministry:

• Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. (1 Tim. 5:22)

This certainly doesn’t mean that we can’t love people who don’t believe as we do. However, we cannot do anything that will directly endorse sin. I would suspect that Ocean Grove understood that hosting a lesbian marriage represented an endorsement, at least in the eyes of God. Elsewhere, Paul warned:

•  Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Eph. 5:7-11)

However, the secular State is now demanding that we participate in the “deeds of darkness.” Powers and Merritt insist that our reasoning “defies logic” and that participation in a gay marriage does not violate conscience. However, this kind of participation violates the Word of God.

The Apostle John warned a certain unnamed woman that by merely extending hospitality to false teachers she would be participating “in their evil work” (2 John 11).

Is this reasoning really so illogical? Would Powers and Merritt have sold petrol to fuel Hitler’s tanks or provisions to build his death camps? Wouldn’t they have been complicit in his deeds? Aren’t we also complicit in gay marriage if we agree to support it by baking for it or by photographing it?

They might argue, “What harm does this form of involvement bring?” On a pragmatic level, this participation promotes a lifestyle that not only violates Scripture but also destroys people. Just look at the stats!

Faced with Gay Coercion: Fight or Flight

What should we Christians do when a homosexual demands services? This has become a career-threatening choice, as the National Review writes:

• Christian-adoption and foster-care agencies have been forced to stop providing those services because they object to placing children in same-sex households. Other cases include a photographer, a baker, a florist, a bed-and-breakfast, a t-shirt company, a student counselor, the Salvation Army, and more. In each of these instances, there were plenty of other businesses available that were willing to provide similar services.

Newsperson, Kirsten Powers, a new convert to the Christian faith, does not see a problem here for Christians:

• It’s not clear why some Christian vendors are so confused about their role here. … Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. … Christians serve unrepentant murderers through prison ministry. So why can’t they provide a service for a same-sex marriage?

This is a much debated issue today among Christians as we seek to faithfully navigate the new paths etched out by our culture. It raises the question, “WWJD” – “What would please our Savior?”

For one thing, we are not free to violate our conscience even if we are mistaken about the normative will of God:

• So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Romans 4:22-23).

Scripture argues that we have to be true to our conscience. Anything less is sin! Even if we violate what we mistakenly think is wrong, we have violated our relationship with God.

This is all fine, but what if we see a gay person bleeding to death. Are we not supposed to do anything about it if we think that aiding him is wrong? Admittedly, there are principles of truth and objective morality that must take precedence. Jesus’ Good Samaritan aided his enemy, the Jew.

However, this type of case is not at issue here. Instead, it’s usually a matter of baking a cake or photographing a gay wedding. Should the State compel the Christian to comply, or should our Constitutional right to freedom-of-religion preside?

Powers draws a false analogy between Christians ministering to murderers in prison and baking a cake to celebrate a gay marriage. These two are not equivalent. Ministering to a murderer is not the same thing as partaking in the murder or even celebrating it. It’s a matter of ministering to the person and not his actions. However, baking the cake for the gay wedding is supporting something Scripture finds unsupportable.

Similarly, many Christians readily bring meals to gay HIV patients. However, there is a difference here. Bringing meals does not contribute to an act that Christians regard as wrong. In contrast, helping a gay connect with other gays for sexual reasons would. In such a case, this activity would cause the Christian to share in the sin, something we cannot do, and it is something we cannot allow the government to force us to do. Many will choose prison over compliance.

Powers should not be surprised by this reasoning. Would she sell gasoline to Hitler to fuel his tanks? Would she sell guns to a drug dealer knowing that they will be used to kill the innocent? To do such would be to share in their sins.

Would she rent out a room at her B&B to a pedophile and his prey? Wouldn’t this represent complicity in his sin? Of course!

Where do we draw the line? Some cases are difficult; some aren’t. Should the Christian T-shirt maker be required to print a T-shirt reading, “Christ Kills” or even “Go Gay Pride?”  I think not! Such coercion would undermine the integrity of our nation and reject the very principles that had once made it great. It would also violate our sacred relationship with our Savior.

Meanwhile, in other Western nations, churches are being compelled to open their doors to gay marriage. This cannot be allowed! Not only would this represent of violation of the One we adore and His love for His church, it would also divide the church! I pray that we might see what is at stake!