Jailing a Woman of Conscience, Kim Davis

On September 3, 2015, a federal judge ordered county clerk Kim Davis to jail for contempt, since she, citing her religious beliefs and "God's authority," refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She stated:

• "You can't be separated from something that's in your heart and in your soul," Davis told the judge as she explained how the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide conflicts with the vows she made when she became a born-again Christian. I promised to love Him with all my heart, mind and soul because I wanted to make heaven my home.” 

• "I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's word," her statement said.

Judge Bunning’s ruling seems to be more than extreme. Republican presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, charged that it was lawless:

• “Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

• “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court decision.

• “In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage decision has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s [5 against 4] decision was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it. 

And several have bravely chosen to defy it. And how is the Court’s ruling illegal? The American Family Association writes:

• So the Court had precisely zero authority to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by overwhelming and bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and signed into law by a Democrat president, Bill Clinton. DOMA makes it expressly clear that the business of defining marriage is an issue that belongs exclusively to the states. That is the LAW, passed by the elected representatives of the people in the constitutionally prescribed manner. If DOMA is to be amended or overturned, there is only one body on earth which has the legitimate power to do so, and that is Congress. The Supreme Court has absolutely no moral or constitutional authority to tamper with it at all. So if Congress by law has reserved to the states the right to define marriage, what has the state of Kentucky done about it? The people of Kentucky, according to the prescribed method outlined in its state constitution, have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, period. Kentuckians enacted their marriage amendment in 2004 with an overwhelming 75% of the vote. 

By overriding DOMA and the vote of 75% of Kentuckians, the five Supreme Court progressives have elevated ideology over the Constitution and a concern for the overall well-being of our nation. Their decisions can only serve to alienate, embitter, and breed greater distrust.

Our nation was not always so intolerant of religious belief. The secularism of our Founding Fathers bears little resemblance to the militant, coercive “secularism” of today. The historian, Edwin Scott Gaustad, quotes perhaps our most un-Christian Father to this effect:

• “Almighty God hath made the mind free.” It follows therefrom that mankind should do all that it can to keep minds unshackled and un-coerced. Let us consider, Jefferson noted, that if an all wise and powerful God restrained himself from coercing either the bodies or the minds of men and women, how utterly absurd it must be for “fallible and uninspired men” to arrogate to themselves the right to exercise “dominion over the faith of others…Be it enacted,” therefore, “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” One will suffer in no way for his or her religious opinions; on the contrary, all persons “shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” And whatever their opinions, this will in no way affect their citizenship or their rights. (A Religious History of America, 119).

Jefferson might not have been a Christian, but he respected Christian conscience and regarded State coercion of religious conscience as needlessly repressive, as did the other Fathers.

There were many other options the Kentucky municipality could have adopted in regards to Davis. They could have allowed Davis room to not have to violate her faith. They could have directed gay clients to other clerks.

This is something that has been routinely done in mental health clinics. A new rape-case client is not assigned to a counselor who had just been raped. A Christian therapist is not assigned a same-sex (SS) couple. There had been respect for people’s feelings and faiths. What would it cost to make such allowances!

However, this is rapidly changing. Two Christian students were dismissed from graduate counseling programs in two different state schools because they refused to acknowledge that same-sex marriage is morally acceptable. This is a far cry from the Fathers who proclaimed that government should in no way exercise “dominion over the faith of others.” Jefferson had insisted that all people “shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.”

In contrast to this, the Obama administration eliminated certain rights of health care professions to not have to participate in activities that violated their conscience. Must today’s secularism compel a dogmatic secularly religious conformity in these matters? (And isn’t this an establishment of a State sponsored secular religion!) Must it force the pharmacist to prescribe the morning-after pill against his conscience? Must uniformity be imposed on all? On the same page of this World Magazine edition,

• A chaplain at a briefing asked a senior Pentagon official if a biblical worldview on homosexuality would be protected in the post-DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t’ Tell] military. The reply he received was chilling: If you cannot come in line with the policy, then resign your commission.

We still don’t know how the repeal of DADT will play out for the chaplaincy and religion. However, this Pentagon official, reflecting the opinion of many others, is essentially saying, “The only religion will be our secular religion! We no longer allow religious diversity.” But why not? We’ve made provisions for the conscientious objector (CO) who refused to bear arms because of religious convictions. Why not also for the integrity of the religion which has provided the very foundation for this nation? In God of Liberty, historian Thomas S. Kidd writes:

• Whether evangelical or rationalist, most Patriots assumed that Christianity would, in some sense, be the cornerstone for the preservation of the new American Republic. (112)

According to Kidd, these sentiments were broadly held for quite a while:

• Through the era of the Civil War most Americans would continue to believe that the Christian religion should assist government in lifting people’s moral dispositions, so that they might contribute positively to the freedom of the Republic. Even the skeptical Thomas Jefferson believed that Christianity… “is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty.” (114)

The religion of the Founding Fathers allowed for religious diversity, as Jefferson proclaimed: “Almighty God hath made the mind free.” Therefore, this should guarantee the free expression of religious conscience. However, today’s secularism wants to place us in shackles: “You must believe in SS marriage, or else! No alternative speech will be tolerated!”

Our Founding Fathers were wise. They realized that by compelling religious conformity, they would not only be promoting a State religion, but also would jeopardize any possibility of unity. Meanwhile, today’s aggressively militant secularistic religion is placing this unity in jeopardy.

After Judge Bunning’s decision:

• Hundreds of people chanted and screamed, "Love won! Love won!" as word of these decisions reached the crowds outside the federal courthouse. (OneNewsNow)

Love didn’t win! Had love won, diversity of faith and freedom would have been upheld. Perhaps Davis might have been relieved of the responsibility of issuing marriage licenses or perhaps SS marriage requests might have been re-routed elsewhere.

No! Love didn’t win! Intolerance and the pressures for uniformity of belief and social conformity won! The very consensus that had once made this country great has been shattered and, with it, its vitality.

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!

Gov. Cuomo: Intolerance Wearing Robes of Leadership

Are we viewing the creation of a dictatorship? During a WCNY radio interview with Susan Arbetter on “The Capitol Pressroom,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo railed:

• “Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Cuomo also urged the “extreme” conservatives to “figure out if your extreme conservative philosophy can survive in this state, and the answer is no.”

What are “New Yorkers?” Evidently, Cuomo doesn’t recognize those of us who are opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage or weapon control as “New Yorkers.” I guess that only those who share his views are New Yorkers. And, naively, we had thought that he represented all the residents of our state!

Would he then recognize us as Americans? Of course, if we are not New Yorkers – and we are therefore stateless – then we can make no claim to be Americans either! Are we now illegal aliens, liable to deportation merely because we don’t share his political agenda?

I wonder if we could still retain our New York residency if we believe in gun control but not SSM and abortion? But then there is also the question of pedophilia, smoking in public places and adultery! Here’s what I am getting at – I wish that the governor would lay it out on-the-line. How many of his opinions must we sign-off on in order to retain our New York citizenship? And if we can’t pass the test, will Cuomo pay to have us resettled elsewhere?

I doubt he is prepared to do this – not with the New York economy the way it is. Perhaps if we officially become “illegal aliens,” we will be treated a lot better. However, it seems that our governor would deny us even this status – his words are far harsher towards us!

If we are not New Yorkers after living here for all of our lives, what are we? It seems that this is not the way this country had always been. My governor wants to deny me the freedom to express my views. He claims that we “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” However, he had sworn to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution upholds our rights to vote and to express ourselves, even if our opinions aren’t popular with the governor. Is he seeking dictatorial control?

Ironically, the views that he opposes do not advocate the violent overthrow of the government, the murder of the infirmed and elderly, or even the denial of any constitutionally guaranteed rights. Instead, he finds offensive beliefs that had previously been held by all Americans, even all American presidents. Even Barack Obama had affirmed traditional marriage, and yet Cuomo is not trying to deny him citizenship. Nor is he demanding that Bill and Hilary forfeit their New York citizenship because of their advocacy of DOMA!

Perhaps, instead, it is governor Cuomo who should be stripped of his citizenship for not upholding the very principles he had sworn to uphold. Rather, it is necessary for all of us to find ways to live together despite our differences. This is what it had once meant to be an American.

Compromise Kills, Divides, and Will Destroy the Church

 I marvel that there are well-intentioned Christians who support same-sex marriage (SSM). To support this institution is also to support gay adoptions and to deny the rights of Christians who refuse to participate in this practice.

SSM is also a doorway to the entry of other destructive, anti-social institutions – pedophilia, transgenderism, the removal of any form of sexual distinctions, and the persecution of people who disagree.

Those Christians who favor SSM argue that continuing these culture wars is not good for the church. They wrongly suppose that if we affirm SSM, we will have peace with our “progressive” society. However, there will be no peace without complete surrender of everything central to the Christian faith

Historian Thomas Kidd reports:

• [British] Parliament approved gay marriage earlier this year, but it allowed dissenting churches to opt out of performing same-sex weddings. That exemption irritates activists and civil partners like Barrie and Tony Drewill-Barlow, who are suing the Church of England to force all ministers to conduct gay weddings. Barrie Drewill-Barlow explained that “it upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works…I am still not getting what I want.” (World, October 5, 2013, 64)

Evidently, he has no concern about what others might want. There is no peace, and there will be no peace until the church is entirely compromised and rendered indistinguishable from “progressive” society.

However, meanwhile we are wounding our God-given conscience in a vain attempt to find acceptance in a hostile world, where Jesus warned:

• "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. (John 15:18-20)

What then are we to do? Jesus warned that worry can become our slave-master. Instead, we have to maintain right priorities and trust that our Lord will provide:

• But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matthew 6:33)

But how do we seek Him first? By remaining faithful to His Word – His commands and teachings:

• We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him. (1 John 2:3-5)

Fundamentally, we are not called to be successful, popular, or respected; we are called to be faithful, even when faithfulness proves costly. We have no choice. Paul warned that when we violate what we believe, we injure both ourselves and our relationship with God.

• But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)

Paul warned that when we encourage our brethren to do something that they do not believe is right, they are “destroyed” because of us (1 Cor. 8:11).

Our nation has broke its constitutional contract with the very people it has pledged to serve by revoking religious freedom. The State has coerced religious institutions to violate their conscience to service gay marriage. It has required Christian businesses to pay for services and even perform services that violate their religiously guaranteed rights, to their own destruction. Some Christians have already elected to surrender both business and vocation to this onslaught rather than choosing compromise.

What will happen when the church is required to perform gay marriage? It will tear the church in two!

We must not put our hope in man or even in our Western institutions. They are capitulating as clapboard buildings before a tsunami (Jer. 17:5-7). Our trust must be in God alone (Psalm 62).

However, this trust does not preclude seeking justice. It is precisely because we trust in God that we trust that He will empower our words and hands. It is because we trust God that we endeavor to cry out for our persecuted brethren.

If we trust Him, we will do what He says! What does He say? He tells us to let His truth shine through us (Mat. 5:14-16). He tells us to love our brothers, and, by doing this, our oppressors might come to believe (John 13:35; 17:20-24). He also promises that the justice of our cause will eventually prevail:

• Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him and he will do this: He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun…For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land. (Psalm 37:5-9)

Atheism’s Glorious Crusade

The American Atheists from Cranfield New Jersey decided to take a tour of  Bradford  County, Florida and were appalled at what they saw – the Ten Commandments on public property! It turned out to be just the thing they were looking for and they filed suit:

• “We have maintained from the beginning that the Ten Commandments doesn’t belong on government property,” stated American Atheists President David Silverman in a press release. “There is no secular purpose for the monument whatsoever and it makes atheists feel like second-class citizens. But if keeping it there means we have the right to install our own monument, then installing our own is exactly what we’ll do.”

“No secular purpose?” That now means “no atheistic purpose.” However, for any society to remain robust and healthy, it needs a common core – a rationale for its existence and survival. We have now lost that. Neither the Ten Commandments or even the Constitution are able to provide the common core – the thing that makes us all feel like we have a common goal, that we are brethren striving for the same values.

We still swear on these, but they remain little more than an empty tradition for most Americans. If we do not know who we are, we cannot know where we are going, apart from the next sexual encounter. This is tragic! It is also frustrating. We no longer speak the same unifying language – we have become strangers to one another - and we have no idea of the ramifications of this. None of us have any direct experience of a civil war, and therefore take our comforts for granted.

Can the atheists give us anything that looks or feels like a common glue? Evidently not:

• The group plans to place a 1,500 pound granite bench near the Ten Commandments monument, which will feature quotes from American Atheists founder Madeline Murray O’Hair, founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, as well as an excerpt from the Treaty of Tripoli. An area of the monument will also feature the ten Biblical punishments for violating the Ten Commandments, such as the death penalty for murder and adultery. http://christiannews.net/2013/06/02/americas-first-atheist-monument-to-be-displayed-outside-florida-courthouse/

The atheists cannot offer anything constructive apart from ridicule. They will recite the biblical punishments for the violation of the Ten Commandments, but have nothing to offer in its place. Although they might cite the Founding Fathers, none of these were known to be atheists, and they certainly weren’t promoting an atheist agenda. In fact, atheists almost uniformly admit that they have no beliefs about anything, even about atheism.

I wish someone would require an answer from them to these questions:

• What do you have to offer instead of the principles and beliefs that have made this country great? From what we can see, whenever atheism has come to power, they have always financed it with millions of corpses. Why should we believe that it will be any different this time?

Meanwhile, they complain that the public display of the Ten Commandments “makes atheists feel like second-class citizens.” Have they considered that their flagship communism has made many others feel worse than second class citizens! If “feeling like a second class citizen” is a sincere concern of theirs, they should also be concerned that they might be making others “feel like second class citizens.”

Did a Ten Commandment display in Florida make these New Jersey atheists feel like second class citizens? Of course not! Are they concerned that Christians in the military might feel like second class citizens now that they have been threatened with a court marshal if they proselytize? Meanwhile, there is no such threat against the promotion of atheism, a religion that has the murder of 100,000,000 people in its resume.

This is not an isolated faux pox by a group of renegade atheists. It represents their determined thrust. If you have any doubts about this, just scan the various atheist websites and Facebook groups! Almost all are devoted to scorn, without any fruitful vision for a healthy society, apart from the promotion of permissiveness.

They claim that “There is no secular purpose for the [Ten Commandment] monument.” However, if this criticism is to be taken seriously, the atheist must show a purpose for their agenda. However, it is only a negative one.

Not all atheists show a disregard for truth. Atheist Walter Balcerak writes, “As a secular humanist, I believe religions are mainly harmful delusions.” Surprisingly, he acknowledges that some good comes out of religion. Balcerak quotes the atheist professor of psychology, Jonathan Haidt:

• According to Haidt, religion does more than unite people. He says studies indicate that religiously observant Americans “are more generous with their time and money, especially in helping the needy, and they are more active in community life.”

• Research on 19^th century communes demonstrates the cohesiveness of religious groups, he asserts, because they were much more likely to survive than secular ones. Of the 400 communes studied, 20 years after their founding only 6 percent of secular groups had survived, compared to 39 percent of religious groups.

This again raises the question, “What does atheism have to offer us in place of the Ten Commandments?”

It’s a Human Right to Kill the Unborn but not to Teach Her

What is a “human right?” In several Western nations, it is no longer considered a human right for parents to raise their children in the way they want. Instead, the State has usurped that right. A Christian couple had recently found an uneasy asylum in the USA, lest their children be taken away by the German State:

• The Christian couple [Uwe and Hannelore Romeike] faced increasing fines and the threat of losing custody of their children after they decided to homeschool in 2006. The family settled here in Morristown, Tenn., where they knew another German family. They soon applied for asylum, arguing that they couldn’t return to Germany because they feared persecution for their religious-based determination to homeschool. An immigration judge granted the family’s asylum request in 2010…But the Obama administration appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Romeikes’ asylum win. The case is set to continue on April 23 in another hearing at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio.

Clearly, our administration doesn’t regard parental rights as unalienable human rights. Meanwhile, they have invented a broad array of their own “human rights.” Our former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton had consistently proclaimed that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” Consequently, homosexuals are all guaranteed asylum here.

Ironically, the same secular thinking declares that it’s a human right to murder the pre-born, but it’s not a human right to raise and instruct the post-born.

What then is a human right? Here are several considerations:

“Human rights are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being” (Wikipedia). However, there must be an Agent that establishes these “inalienable fundamental rights,” as rights that trump whatever the State might determine. Without the authority of God, human rights would be no more authoritative than a herd of cows universally thinking that they have a right to not be eaten, however understandable such thinking might be.

Everything in this world is alienable – a mere matter of molecules in motion. It is only the Transcendent that can give and enforce human rights. It is noteworthy that all of the major world religions recognize parental rights, while they don’t recognize abortive or homosexual rights.

The Bill of Rights – the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – grants parental rights through its “free exercise” of religion clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” However, the Constitution contains not even a whisper about abortive or homosexual rights!

States Rights. Only nine states out of our fifty have passed SSM. The other 41 have rejected SSM. Furthermore, “Pro-abortion forces by the end of 1972 had won in only four states the virtually unrestricted abortion that Roe v. Wade would soon mandate for the nation [in 1973]” (World, May 4, 2013, 80). Clearly, these “rights” were not deemed rights by either the majority of the states or by popular vote.

Rights Based on Nature. There is nothing natural about abortion or homosexuality. However, all nature testifies to the self-sacrificial behavior of parents for their children. They know how to love them better than the State or unnatural and temporary modern couplings. Besides, gays have a much lower lifespan and higher incidents of depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide, even in countries that are far more accepting of their lifestyle than the Christian lifestyle. Therefore, the gay lifestyle is not conducive to child-rearing.

Rights based on Historical Considerations. Homosexuality has often been tried, but it has never survived for long. Historically, it seems to be a suicidal, lacking any historical continuity, suggesting that it is endemically flawed.  What lifestyle then promotes a nation? John J. Davis (Evangelical Ethics) wrote of the work of British Anthropologist, J.D. Unwin:

• After a comprehensive study of both Western and non-Western cultures throughout human history, Unwin concluded that the record of mankind “does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it had been absolutely [heterosexually] monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.” Unwin observed that a society’s adoption and maintenance of heterosexual monogamy as a social standard “has preceded all manifestations of social energy, whether that energy be reflected in conquest, in art and sciences, in extension of the social vision, or in the substitution of monotheism for polytheism.” (p. 116)

On what then are abortive and gay rights based? Militant demands alone! While our administration is aggressively pushing abortive and homosexual rights – even internationally – it is attacking human rights. Just this past week, the Pentagon announced that Christians who evangelize could now be court-marshaled. 

Similarly, chaplains who continue to call homosexuality “sin” are being threatened with disciplinary action. So much for our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech! Clearly, the Pentagon has no problem with evangelizing in favor of its own agenda - homosexuality.

Why the hostility towards the Christian faith? Jesus claimed that “The world…hates me because I testify that what it does is evil” (John 7:7). Why should it matter what we have to say? To the world we are just narrow-minded fundamentalists. What if we do call homosexuality and abortion “sins”? Why should it bother them so much? I think it’s because they know that we’re right!

Hypocrisy or Indoctrination: The Choice is Yours

These kinds of lawsuits have become very common and are symptomatic of the insanity that is now overtaking the West:

• Citizens represented by the group American Atheists are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of a lawsuit challenging a Kentucky law that credits Almighty God with homeland security. 

• At issue is legislation passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A 2002 “legislative finding” said the “safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”

Does the First Amendment to our Constitution prohibit the use of such words or this expression of faith in the “Almighty God?”

Hardly! The “separation clause” merely reads:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Does this clause - Almighty God - represent the “establishment of religion?” According to the American Atheists, it does:

• “This new legislation should not be swept under the ceremonial deism rug, especially as it ostracizes atheists from politics,” wrote Kagin, the national legal director for American Atheists, in his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. He was referring to the legal doctrine that a passing reference to God in official statements does not amount to a religious endorsement.

However, if this clause represents a violation of the First Amendment, so too does every single one of our 50 State constitutions, all of which mention God. For instance, the New Jersey 1844, Preamble to their constitution reads:

• We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

However, on a deeper more important level, the position that the American Atheists are taking is incoherent. Almost every politician and even those who have brought this suit mention their source of trust. They mention this trust in a variety of ways, but it all comes down to an alternative faith:

1. “I trust in the character and will of the American people.”
2. “We need to trust in ourselves.”
3. “Trust in science.”
4.  “Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.” (The Humanist Manifesto II)

These are no less religious statements that statements that recommend a trust in God. If this is the case – and it clearly is – then the admonishment to trust in self is no less religious than the admonishment to trust in God. Therefore, if it is illegitimate to say “trust in God,” then it is also illegitimate to say, “trust in yourself” or “trust in science and humanity.” In other words, “We can express our faith, but your expression of faith is forbidden.”

We need to inquire why it is now OK to deify self or science, while it’s not OK to deify the Deity Himself. Is this hypocrisy or the product of a calculated strategy to close down both voice and mind of the opposition? The choice is yours.

Why Religion should Continue to have a Privileged Place in our Nation

This country has privileged religion. Our First Amendment protects us against government infringement upon the “free exercise” of religion, and consequently, up until now, we have enjoyed incredible religious freedom in our USA! However, now voices are now forming a chorus against this right. A new Federal Hate Crimes bill has threatened our freedom to preach in as far as the preaching can possibly be construed to lead to a ‘hate crime.” A distorted interpretation of the First Amendment’s injunction against setting up a Federal religion has been pushing religious expression out of the public. Many Christian student groups have been barred from campus because of their insistence on retaining the Christian nature of their group.

Now, many are arguing for further restrictions on religion:

1. Taxing Churches
2. Placing Churches and other Christian groups under restrictive Federal Guidelines

However, Wilfred McClay, University of Tennessee, argues that it is essential that the USA retains its protections of religion. (I will summarize four of his five reasons for this with some modification.)

1. Our Tradition: McClay argues that all of the Founding Fathers signed on to the understanding that religion was essential and needed protection from government:

• The Founding Fathers had diverse views about a variety of matters, very much including their own personal religious convictions, but they were in complete and emphatic agreement about the inescapable importance of religion. (Christianity Today, Nov. 2012, 27)

To support his point McClay quotes George Washington’s Farewell Address in 1796:

·        Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.

In 1789, Washington also stated:

·        If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution…might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.

2. American Pluralism: In opposition to today’s secularism which wishes to extend its control into all areas of life, McClay writes,

• A society flourishes best when the moral communities within which consciences are formed – churches, synagogues, mosques, and the like – remain healthy.

However, their health is being increasingly threatened by a federally supported religious secularism that has little tolerance for any religion apart from its own. The universities have barred many Christian groups from meeting. Ironically, they cite their “non-discrimination” policies which they use to discriminate against the free expression of Christian values.

We have a tradition of religious liberty worth preserving. Ibn Warraq, Muslim turned atheist, argued in favor of Western freedoms in a panel debate on “Why the West is Best.” Here is the substance of his presentation:

• The great ideas of the West—rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy—are superior to any others devised by humankind. It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing.

All of this is now being threatened by a monopolistic, totalitarianism secularism that only allows expression of its own values. For example, two students in graduate counseling programs were both threatened with expulsion from two state schools because they wouldn’t agree with the gay agenda.

3. Danger of Alienation: When there is a sense that the prevailing society respects the rights of the religious, we can together celebrate our shared traditions and history. McClay therefore writes,

• If believers sense a general willingness to acknowledge their legitimate role in public life, they will likely feel a stronger and deeper loyalty to the American experiment. But if they encounter instead a rigid insistence upon a rigorously secularist public square, the result could very well alienate religious subcultures, whose sectarian disaffection could become so profound as to threaten the very cohesion of the nation. (28)

At best, this disaffection will cause Christians to further disassociate from a culture which they regard as hostile. While many secularists are hoping for just this result, they need to count the costs again.

The American contract – the contract that has nursed and supported us – calls for liberty. This is what we have all signed on for.

4. Social Benefits: Historically, Christianity has provided the vision to build hospitals, health care centers, and to build schools. In a 2008 article in The Times (UK) by Matthew Parris, a journalist and former British MP, reflected on his visit to Malawi:

• Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOS, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good…Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone, and the machete.

Speaking more globally about the benefits of Christianity, McClay cites Thomas Jefferson’s words that decorate the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in DC:

• God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. (29)

Perhaps, we should all be trembling!

Modern Secularism and its Disdain for Conscience

At a secular humanist meeting, one irate atheist barked:

• As far as I’m concerned, Christians can believe anything they want. But once they try to influence legislation and impose their religion on everyone else, that’s when I draw the line!

I responded:

• Well, aren’t you atheists also trying to impose your beliefs and religion on others?

This, of course, raises many important questions:

1. What does it mean to “impose their religion on others?” Is it just a matter of a theist having a seat at the political table to discuss various social issues – or even merely to vote - or is it a matter of establishing a state religion which everyone must support and attend?

2. How does our legal system – the Constitution and the “Separation of Church and State” – answer these questions? And what does it mean to live in a secular state?

For one thing, the well-known “separation clause” is found nowhere in the Constitution. Instead, the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion and any government coercion of religion. According to Wikipedia, “separation” language was introduced later by the Deist Thomas Jefferson:

·        In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [language from the First Amendment],' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.

Of what did this “wall” consist? It certainly could not have barred Theists or Deists from politics, since all of the Founding Fathers, as far as we know, believed in some form of creator God. Nor could it have barred the expression of values, even Biblically inspired values, since all had values. Otherwise they would have absolutely no basis to legislate anything. However, as Jefferson stated, this did bar the establishment of a national religion and the interference of government into religion. This probably also meant that religious dogma that couldn’t be supported by reason or by common law could not be enshrined within the Constitution. For instance, the Constitution could rule against government interference into the church because of reason and common law, but not because the Bible prohibited it.

Consequently, Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution states “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This meant that a political candidate couldn’t be disqualified by his religion or lack of religion. Instead of secularism narrowing down the field, it opened it up. Instead of disqualifying any who didn’t believe in the prevailing secularism, it opened the field to all. However, today’s secularism seeks to disqualify businesses or candidates that don’t share their opinions in favor of abortion or gay marriage.

The First Amendment was never intended to separate religious people from public discussion. James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights illuminated the reasoning behind the “establishment clause.” A 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of the First Amendment records:

·        “Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a [national] religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen [who had reservations]...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

According to its author, the “establishment clause” was never intended to place religion at a disadvantage, as it has in New York City, which wanted to expel the churches from the city schools where they had been renting space on Sundays. The City had erroneously supported their action by the “separation clause.” Nor was it ever dreamed that this clause could be invoked to prevent Christians from doing business because they didn’t partake in the national ideology.

According to Wikipedia, Madison later claimed:

·        "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.” This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

The “wall of separation” also meant that people shouldn’t be compelled to support religion. However, today’s secularism has come a long way. Now, many secularists argue in favor of removing that “wall” in order to tax churches to support the secular government. However, according to one secular source, Madison argued that:

·        "It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.  The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."

In no way did this “separation” exclude Christians from the public sector. Instead, Madison understood that the abstinence of the government from matters of religion was essential. However, with the proliferation of federal government into matters of social welfare, health care and even public education has made conflict inevitable.

Wikipedia argues that this “wall of separation” had been influenced by the thinking of English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704).

·        Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.

Although many of the Founding Fathers weren’t orthodox Christians, they understood the necessity to not coerce “individual conscience.” Just until recently, even the decisions of the US Supreme Court upheld the importance of conscience, even at the cost of national security. The Court upheld the right of “conscientious objectors” to not have to bear arms and the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses to not have to pledge allegiance.

Today’s secularism is different. It has little tolerance for issues of conscience – others’ conscience. It wants to place the churches under federal hiring guidelines, thereby depriving churches the right to govern themselves. It has removed Christian groups from campus because they fail to conform to the secular beliefs of the university. Today’s secularism seeks to remove conscience objections in health care, requiring pharmacists to sell the morning-after drug, or nurses to participate in abortions or Christian businesses to provide insurance for procedures that violate their conscience. Secularism has imposed its own religion upon the public schools, disqualifying any mention of God in favor of atheistic explanations. Instead of teaching moral absolutes, secularism has imposed moral relativity in most areas, except where it directly impacts school governance. For instance, while we are no longer able to criticize any sexual lifestyle, cheating on exams is absolutely wrong!

We need to readdress this essential question: “Can we all live together under a system of increasing top-down coercion, or must we retain a respect for individual conscience?”