VP Joe Biden, “Bigots,” and Secularism

In 2012, leading the charge for the administration, Vice President, Joe Biden, came out in favor of SSM:

• "I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties."

However, without any apparent concern that his rhetoric might be inflammatory and polarizing, he now refers to those who oppose SSM as “bigots.” While addressing one of the nation's leading homosexual activist groups on Friday in the nation's capital, he assured them:

• "We're never going to be able to eliminate the bigots. They're a small percentage of the population."

Evidently, there is nothing reprehensible about wanting “to eliminate the bigots.” Biden talked as if this concern was totally understandable and even laudable. Instead, he reassured his audience that the bigots will become less of a nuisance:

• "But make one thing absolutely clear, folks, they are an incredibly smaller and smaller minority. This country is changing."

It seems that if those who oppose SSM weren’t becoming “an incredibly smaller and smaller minority,” a move to “eliminate” us might be an option.

We can no longer think about our administration, not as long as they hate and want to remove us; not as long as they are using inflammatory rhetoric against our well-being. And removing us from any positions of influence is clearly a part of their agenda.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo had railed against those who had taken a stance against SSM:

• “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.” 

A decorated Navy chaplain, Lt. Commander Wes Modder, has been removed of his duties because he was targeted in a private counseling session and asked his views of sexuality. He offered his denominational stance on homosexuality and was brought up on charges.

Atlanta, Georgia Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired because of a book he wrote reflecting his anti-SSM views. The mayor defends his move claiming that the chief cannot impartially manage his department.

Why cannot we bring the same accusation against Joe Biden! The fire chief has demonstrated no animus towards gays. However, Biden reduces half of this nation to the status of “bigots”- think “maggots.” Nor is there any indication that the chief had wanted to demote or penalize any gays. However, this is clearly the intention of the VP in labeling us “bigots.” We have been made fair-game. He has placed a target on our backs and a gun in the hands of the violent.

The secularism of our Founding Fathers bears little resemblance to the “secular” intolerance of today. The historian, Edwin Scott Gaustad, quotes perhaps our most secular 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).

The Founding Fathers understood that if we are to live together, we must be civil with one another – not a very profound insight. However, todays secularists believe that they can build the good society by eliminating the “bigots.” Evidently, they are the “good guys,” but good guys have always left a litter of mangled bodies in their wake.

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!

Why the West has been the Best

Last night, I heard Pakistani Muslim turned atheist, Ibn Warraq, 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.

• In short, the glory of the West, as philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, is that life here is an open book. Under Islam, the book is closed. In many non-Western countries, especially Islamic ones, citizens are not free to read what they wish. In Saudi Arabia, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith—clear violations of Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

• The edifice of modern science and scientific method is one of Western man’s greatest gifts to the world. The West has given us not only nearly every scientific discovery of the last 500 years—from electricity to computers—but also, thanks to its humanitarian impulses, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. The West provides the bulk of aid to beleaguered Darfur; Islamic countries are conspicuous by their lack of assistance.

• Moreover, other parts of the world recognize Western superiority. When other societies such as South Korea and Japan have adopted Western political principles, their citizens have flourished. It is to the West, not to Saudi Arabia or Iran, that millions of refugees from theocratic or other totalitarian regimes flee, seeking tolerance and political freedom. Nor would any Western politician be able to get away with the anti-Semitic remarks that former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made in 2003. Our excusing Mahathir’s diatribe indicates not only a double standard but also a tacit acknowledgment that we apply higher ethical standards to Western leaders.

• Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine; societies that deny the rights of supposedly lower castes; societies that execute homosexuals and apostates. The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate.

From where did the West derive its principles of greatness? Warraq cites Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. However, Jerusalem was the prevailing inspiration of the Founding Fathers. John Adams, 2nd U.S. President and Unitarian, regarded the Bible as foundational:

• Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be. (Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9)

On June 28, 1813, in a letter to the Deist Thomas Jefferson, Adams wrote:

• The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.  

If Adams is correct, then we should expect to see a gradual deterioration of Western society as its Christian principles are eroded.

The Illegality of the Bible

Scripture has often been deemed offensive. Possession and the use of the Bible have often faced legal hurdles, sometimes costing the very life of its owner. However, the Bible has also seen better times:

• JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, our sixth president said, "So great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens to their country and respectable members of society. I have for many years made it a practice to read through the Bible once a year."

• JOHN ADAMS, our second president said, "The Bible is the best book in the world." He also believed, "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their own law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited...what a utopia; what a paradise this region would be!"

Consequently, under the direction of such widespread sentiments, pray and the Bible had even found an abiding home within the halls of the United States Congress. However, its high national regard is quickly deteriorating. Rather than being prescribed reading, the Bible is now often proscribed! Here’s one recent example:

• The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio has agreed to weigh the arguments in a case involving elementary students who were prevented from reading the Bible on the school's playground during recess.

• Samuel and Tina Whitson, parents of Knoxville (TN) student Luke Whitson, filed suit in June 2005, claiming Karns Elementary School principal Cathy Summa violated their son's First Amendment rights by stopping the Bible studies. They chose to pursue the matter even though the school soon thereafter changed its policy to permit students to read religious texts during their own time. A Knoxville jury sided with the school district in 2009 and a U.S. district judge turned down a request to overturn that decision, prompting the appeal.

The Bible has been banned for numerous reasons. Some kings had perceived that the Bible had dignified the common man – the masses – and this might make them less manageable. Others banned the Bible because they wanted a monopoly on religion and feared that once the masses had the Bible in hand, their monopoly would be shattered.

Today, our secular authorities cry out, “separation of church and state,” as if using a Bible in the public schools would violate the First Amendment. Such an argument is highly disingenuous, especially in light of how those who have venerated the First Amendment exalted the use of the Bible:

• Our first president, GEORGE WASHINGTON said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

Certainly, Washington saw no conflict between government and the use of the Bible.

• Our third president, THOMAS JEFFERSON said, "The Bible is the source of liberty." He further stated, "The Bible makes the best people in the world."

Clearly, Even the deistic Jefferson understood that the public use of the Bible constituted no violation of the “separation” clause. How could "The Bible [be] the source of liberty," if it is to be hidden under a bushel basket as many are today demanding? It could only “make…the best people in the world" if it is openly used.

By attempting to separate the Bible from any public use, the secularists may be using a slight-of-the-hand by appealing to the First Amendment – the very Amendment which guarantees that government would not prohibit the free exercise of religion in any context.

If the secularists’ are not concerned about the intention of the Constitution, then from where does their concern arise? I think that Jesus would have had something to say about this:

• "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)