Should Compromising Religious Beliefs Be the Price of Citizenship?

Yesterday, I posted the content of an email entitled  “Conscience Rights for All” that I had received from Alliance Defending Freedom. Today, I was not able to find a link to the article. However, there is a link at the ADF site which shares an excellent essay on this topic from The Public Discourse website. The post goes into more detail regarding this very important issue and the current battle going on within the courts of our nation.

The Public Discourse: SOGI Laws: A Subversive Response to a Nonexistent Problem.

Excerpt:

The “price of citizenship” in a free society can never include our freedom of conscience. If we surrender that, then we have surrendered free society itself.

Throughout history, every person under every regime has had—in the most elemental sense—the freedom to form a unique set of beliefs and values. But, uniquely, citizens of the United States have long been guaranteed the fulfillment of that freedom. That is, we possess the freedom to live peacefully according to our beliefs and to follow the dictates of our conscience.

This freedom—codified by the First Amendment—is a pre-political right that rests in our dignity as human beings. But the cultural movement for “tolerance” and “inclusion” has reduced freedom of conscience to a lesser-than right, a token that exists subject to the decisions of judges and lawmakers.

In recent years, laws that provide special privileges to individuals based on their self-proclaimed gender identity or sexual preferences have emerged across the country. Commonly known as SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) laws, these legislative undertakings are typically fueled by activist groups and represent a subversive response to a nonexistent problem. Available data confirm there exists no significant social pattern or practice of unjust discrimination against these groups. This is not only because the vast majority of Americans already respect each other and are fair-minded, but also because anyone engaged in baseless discrimination faces the prospect of social and financial consequences brought on by public pressure and boycotts.

SOGI laws, however, use the full force of the law to punish individuals who seek to live peacefully and to work in a way that is consistent with their consciences. Elaine Huguenin, Barronelle Stutzman, Jack Phillips, and Blaine Adamson are just a few of the small business owners who gladly serve all people without exception, but who also face legal punishment because they declined to participate in certain events or to create custom art that would have violated their consciences. In Elaine’s case, she politely declined a request to use her expressive photography skills to tell the story of a same-sex commitment ceremony. Her attempt to remain peacefully true to her faith’s teachings about marriage led to a seven-year court battle that culminated in a ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court against her and her husband, Jon. One justice stated that the Huguenins “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” and added that this compulsion “is the price of citizenship.”

Barronelle Stutzman is a 72-year-old grandmother who faces the loss of her business, savings, and home for referring elsewhere a request by a long-time friend and customer that she participate in the celebration of his same-sex wedding by designing custom floral arrangements for it.

In Iowa and Massachusetts, not only religious citizens but even houses of worship are under attack. Churches currently face government-imposed mandates requiring them to open their restrooms to individuals based on their subjectively determined sex rather than biological reality.

Conditional Surrender Fails to Advance Religious Liberty.

[In] the current cultural standoff, proponents of religious freedom and freedom of conscience simultaneously confront opportunities for victory and defeat. We can either choose to enter the arena and strive valiantly for victory, or we can join “those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat,” choosing to negotiate the terms of our own surrender. Now is not the time to partner with proponents of SOGIs in hopes of catching a few crumbs of liberty that fall from the table. Freedom of conscience is not a token to be surrendered as the price of citizenship in a free society; it is the mark of citizenship and the fruit of a free society.

James Gottry is a lawyer and writer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group founded to preserve and defend religious liberty.

Read it all at:

The Public Discourse: SOGI Laws: A Subversive Response to a Nonexistent Problem.

Related article:

The Federalist: BuzzFeed Wants To Destroy Chip And Joanna Gaines For Being Christian And Wildly Popular.

Hat tips to all links.

Conscience Rights for All

Question:  Should Baronelle Stutzman’s freedom of conscience rights be equal to Sophie Theallet’s?

In this “anything goes” environment of sin, evil, and death, there is a huge battle going on regarding freedom of conscience rights.  It usually comes down to opinions of those who like to defend and  acknowledge secular freedom rights, while objecting to and destroying religious freedom rights!

Over the past 8 years, leftist judges on the bench very obviously choose to select secular arguments over religious ones.   In both cases, however, we need to recognize that freedom of conscience should be recognized and included in such decisions!

Alliance Defending Freedom is a Christian conservative organization that sends lawyers out to defend those whose religious beliefs have clashed with secular humanism beliefs and practices; oftentimes sending Christian business owners out of business due to lawsuits filed against them.

From Alliance Defending Freedom (ADL) website:

The Founding Fathers recognized that all people have inalienable rights that flow from the Creator. These rights are grounded in the unique, Judeo-Christian concept of man’s inherent dignity as a creature made in God’s image, endowed with reason, free will, and an eternal soul. The Founders understood that one of Government’s primary tasks is to preserve the freedom for each person to follow his own conscience, so they enshrined certain fundamental rights in our nation’s constitution to guarantee this freedom.

As secular forces chip away at our nation’s Judeo-Christian roots, religious freedom is increasingly threatened. Yet the First Amendment continues to reflect the Founders’ belief that “[t]he Religion…of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise [religion] as [conviction and conscience] dictate.”

Alliance Defending Freedom defends religious freedom and opposes all attempts to compel people to compromise their beliefs or retreat from civil and political life as the price for following their faith.

There have been many instances where the leftists have purposely sought out Christian businesses, sent individuals into the business to challenge their deeply held religious beliefs by asking them to accommodate their gay “marriage” ceremony with flowers, a cake, or other service which would clearly violate the business owner’s freedom of conscience rights.

Today, there is a leftist freedom of conscience situation that has been “celebrated” by the media of mass deception, whereas all of the previous lawsuits done by leftists against Christian business owners have Christians labeled – by the media and their supporters – as “bigotry,” “hate,” “anti-gay (or whatever orientation),” “racist” etc.

Why, exactly,  was this done?

It was done to make the demand that Christian beliefs and freedom of conscience does not (or should not) matter in the public business arena.   In their minds,  leftist demands (and beliefs) should outweigh (or, more accurately, even trump) any Christian business owners beliefs and/or freedom of conscience.

Well, today Alliance Defending Freedom shares a situation where a dress maker’s “freedom of conscience” came up when she made a public statement to the news media that she refuses to “dress” the future First Lady, Melania Trump.

The article isn’t up at the ADL website yet, so I will share it in its entirety here until the link shows up (which includes additional links within the text) on the site.

Conscience Rights for All

A concept that is not difficult to grasp, but seems difficult for some courts and legislators to carry out:  Freedom of conscience extends to all people.

If you’re a cake artist, a floral artist, or another creative professional, you’ve seen the news and felt, rightfully so, that your freedom is in danger.

If, however, you are a fashion designer?  You’re probably feeling pretty good right about now:

“Donald Trumps election has brought no shortage of controversy.  One of the latest comes from clothing designer Sophie Theallet, who recently wrote that she ‘will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady.’  In explaining her decision, she invoked her deeply-held belief in ‘individual freedom.’

“‘[A]s a family owned company, ‘ Theallet explains, ‘[w]e value our artistic freedom and always humbly seek to contribute to a more humane, conscious and ethical way to create in this world.’  She considers her and her family’s work to be “an expression of [their] artistic and philosophical ideas.’

[…]

“Ms. Theallet describes her design work to be ‘an expression of [her] artistic and philosophical ideas,’ and leftist elite are quick to agree.  But why do they become so skeptical when the person asserting her artistic freedom is a floral artist whose views they don’t like?

“It’s because many in that crowd don’t care about true freedom–a freedom that belongs to everyone.  If they did, they would recognize that Barronelle Stutzman, no less than Ms. Theallet, is an artist whose conscience rights must be protected.  If they did, their views of art or freedom wouldn’t hinge on the nature of a person’s convictions.”

The mainstream media covered the decision of Ms. Theallet, with nary a hint of accusing her of bigotry.  This is, after all, a matter of conscience and freedom, not bigotry.

As Mary Katherine Ham writes, at The Federalist:

“But these are the same arguments the left and media have dismissed from Baronelle Stutzman, a Washington florist who thinks making custom bouquets for a same-sex marriage doesn’t comport with her personal beliefs.  In appealing to the state Supreme Court after a three-year legal battle, Stutzman’s lawyer argued this week ‘that arranging flowers is artistic expression protected under the First Amendment.  Stutzman — a Southern Baptist — would have been more than happy to sell prearranged flowers out of the cooler because that was “not custom expression.”‘

In other words, the exact same logic applies to both the fashion designer and the florist (and the baker and the photographer).  Off-the-rack dresses, pre-arranged flowers, and other similar “pre-expressed” products are not a problem; nobody is going to stop the president-elect’s wife from purchasing a dress from any given fashion designer.

If, however, you believe that Ms. Theallet has the freedom to opt out of providing creative expressions for the president-elect’s wife (she does), then it strains the imagination to find a reason to force Mrs. Stutzman to provide custom, creative expressions for an event to which she has an objection.

Hat tip:  Alliance Defending Freedom

Why Is That?

If you are a Christian conservative, you might be asking the question, “Why Is That?” regarding the great divide that has happened during and after this contentious election of 2016. The liberal lunatic policies over the past 8 years under the 0bama BADministration has brain-dirtied many groups of people, especially many of the self-named  “coddled childish” Millennials. Those that “came of age” during that time most likely don’t even know about correct history because of the liberal leftist lies that have been drilled into their brains.

Why Is That?

Well, by the end of this post I’m going to make a simple, but hopefully accurate, attempt to answer that question.

Fellowship of the Minds reports: “Hillary Uses Jill Stein to Steal Election Via Voter Recounts in Battleground States.

Read it all at that link, but here is a pertinent excerpt:

Jill Stein made her intentions known on her Facebook page around 4 p.m. Wednesday afternoon, Nov. 23. By this afternoon (Nov. 26), Stein has raised more than $5.8 million, with the goal now upped to $7 million. See for yourself at Jill2016.

In other words, in just 3 days Stein raised $5.8 million, all by crowd funding! The same Jill Stein who was the only candidate on the November ballot to rely on public money — four federal payments totaling $456,000 under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund — for her own failed presidential campaign.

So who are these millions of Americans who are donating to Stein’s vote recount war chest?

As in robots. Machines. Not real people.

How do we know this?

Because the donations came in and are still coming in in REGULAR intervals — even at 3 a.m. when most Americans are asleep.

Two days ago, freelance journalist Jim Stone wrote:

“JILL STEIN’S ELECTION RECOUNT IS BEING PAID FOR BY A BOT! A bot is pulling cash from a central fund, and giving it out at a pre determined rate. Go to Jill Stein’s fundraiser page and watch the progress. You will see that her funding is coming in at a PERFECTLY CONSISTENT 160,000 an hour. I watched this yesterday and last night carefully, and noted that at night, when everyone is sleeping and right through the time when the whole world slows down, her donations for this came in like clockwork, with no deviation from the steady pace whatsoever. The only way that can happen is if a bot was set up to fake her getting donations from multiple people, and whoever set it up did not consider the fact that practically everything would come from America, and practically everyone is asleep at 3AM. LAST NIGHT IT SHOULD HAVE SLOWED DOWN. IT DID NOT. IT JUST MARCHED RIGHT TOWARD THE FINISH LIKE AN OBEDIENT SOLDIER. It went straight to 2.65 million by six AM. I can calculate: IT WILL GO TO 4.5 MILLION IN 28.125 HOURS. Oh, a few people will pitch in for real, so I’ll say 27 hours . . . . Yes folks, we are watching the election steal as it happens. They could not do it by threatening electors, so now we have this. And it is all based on false claims, because Michigan CANNOT BE HACKED. Michigan has a CERTIFIED [paper] VOTE. There is NO WAY THIS IS LEGIT. And that means ONE THING – there are liars doing it, powerful liars who know in advance they are going to find what they are looking for.”

Yesterday, the Wisconsin Elections Commission said it had received Stein’s petition for a recount.

What you can do:

(1) Spread the news by publicizing this post on social media and via email.

(2) Keep the recount honest by:

• Volunteering for the recount. Sign up here.

• Politely warning the election officials in the 3 battleground states that you’ll be watching:

  • Wisconsin: Ph: 1-866-VOTE-WIS; Email: elections@wi.gov

  • Michigan: Ph: (517) 373-2540; Twitter: @michsos; wesite: http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-13162—,00.html

  • Pennsylvania: Ph: (717) 787-6458, (717) 787-5280: Twitter: @PAStateDept

My husband correctly stated that the two months prior to Trump being inaugurated will be very dangerous times.  I must agree with him because the satanic globalism billionaire goons and their minions will NEVER rest until they get their “power” back!

Why Is That?

Next, we have the truth about the death of a horrible dictator – Fidel Castro, yet pansies (like Colin Kaepernick) say the dumbest things!  Why?  He probably doesn’t  know (or, more likely refuses to acknowledge) the decades of suffering under Castro’s tyrannical communist rule!

Why Is That?

Kingsjester’s blog nails it with the truth, once again!

I could go on and on…but my savvy readers here know what’s going on and most of you are aware of the reasons for it.

While reading an article over at WND, I ran across some comments that explain why the globalists, often with differing agendas, unite together for the same cause.

Why Is That?

WND: Fight Over Gay Wedding Cake Given New Life

Now, this news report discusses a case in Northern Ireland. However, the same religious discrimination problems have come up here in the United States.

Excerpt:

The infamous Northern Ireland case penalizing a family baking company for refusing to promote “gay” marriage with a wedding cake may have a new life.

WND reported earlier when an appeals court in Belfast refused to offer relief from the penalties for Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland for violating that nation’s nondiscrimination laws.

And it was reported that the owners were considering taking their fight to the European Court of Human Rights.

But now, according to the Belfast Telegraph, a door has opened.

Senior judges in Belfast say that a section of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 may give the McArther family, which owns Ashers Bakery, a path to the Supreme Court.

“You need to make a decision whether you wish to pursue it,” Judge Declan Morgan told lawyers for the family this week.

David Scoffield QC, for the McArthurs, told the court: “We are happy to look at that and confirm our submissions in writing.”

The Court of Appeal last month affirmed a fine for Ashers for discriminating against Gareth Lee by refusing to make a cake for a “gay” wedding.

The bakers said they didn’t care about, or even know about, his sexual choices, but the message was what their Christian faith would not allow them to promote.

Last year a Belfast County Court ruled the bakery discriminated against Lee on grounds of sexual orientation and religious belief or political opinion. The firm was also ordered to pay £500 compensation.

The family’s representatives explained the rejection of the cake order was solely because of the message that violated their faith – it had nothing to do with Lee himself.

John Larkin, Northern Ireland’s attorney general, backed the McArthurs. He said they should not be forced to endorse a message with which they disagree.

Officials with the Christian Institute, which took part in the fight on behalf of the family, have reported that Larkin also has the option of seeking higher court review, but that was on hold pending the family’s decision.

Simon Calvert, of the Institute, said the family’s representatives had asked the Court of Appeal whether there was any further appeal route available.

Read more at WND

Why Is That?

You may be asking, what does each of these separate incidents have in common?

Well, I think that the following comment thread over at WND explains it quite well:

Tatiana Covington

And this is all about a cake?

nomark to Tatiana Covington

No.  It has nothing to do with a cake.  It has to do with freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right of religious conscience.

aurora9

I had once seen a video on my computer of a gay person who wanted to order a cake, with a gay inscription, at a muslim bakery.  The owner had directed him to a different bakery but was not prosecuted for it.  There is nothing fair about globalism and they lean in favor of Islam, as many of us have already witnessed!

nomark to aurora9

The reason for this is Christianity threatens globalism because it puts God first, family second and the state third.  That undermines them.  The reason globalists not only “tolerate” Muslims but in fact encourage them, is the globalists see Islam kinder spirit and global government is using Islam to destroy Christianity.  The globalist adhere to the tenant “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and so embrace Islam (for now).

Also you can see how they have tried to associate radical Islam with all religions.  It didn’t work, in fact it back-fired, but that was the plan.

Recall HiLIARy Clinton stating that

“And deep-seated cultural codes and religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

 

Go listen to the video where you can listen and watch her state this!

I STILL thank God every day that she lost the election!

The question, “Why Is That?” has now been answered.

Hat tip for graphic: The Common Sense Show

Update.  Since the graphic is blurry and difficult to read, here is what is written.

Progressive, Socialist, Globalism:

• Radical Socialist Globalism
• Increase Taxes/Regulations
• Economy/Jobs Collapse
• No Wall/ More Illegals/Refugees
• Amnesty in First 100 Days
• Domestic Terrorist Embeds
• More Expensive Obamacare
• Pro-Trans Pacific Partnership
• Debt:  20+ Trillion Near Default
• Email, Benghazi Scandals

*******

American Nationalism:

• Capitalism
• Reduce Taxes/Regulations
• Economy/ Jobs Explode
• Build Wall/ No Illegals/Refugees
• No Amnesty/No Free Ride
• Terrorists Destroyed
• Repeal Obamacare
• Anti-Trans Pacific Partnership
• Debt Eliminated
• No Scandals

 

Hat tips:

Fellowship of the Minds

Kingsjester’s blog

Hat tips to all additional links!

The Power of Prayer

It is certainly funny – not the “ha ha” kind of funny, but the kind that means:

3. warranting suspicion; deceitful; underhanded:
We thought there was something funny about those extra charges.

and

5. curious; strange; peculiar; odd:
Her speech has a funny twang.

Read these articles:

TODD STARNES
School threatens to fire praying football coach

• FLASHBACK: Football coach says he will defy school’s prayer ban
• STARNES: High school quarterback penalized for thanking God

Excerpt from first link:

For years the former Marine combat veteran would walk alone to the 50-yard line and offer a prayer of thanksgiving and blessing after football games. He drew inspiration for his post-game prayers from “Facing the Giants”, a popular faith-based film. Over the years, players and coaches from both teams would join him — on their own volition. 

On Sept. 27th [Superintendent Aaron] Leavell fired off a letter to the coach warning him to cease and desist. 

“Your talks with students may not include religious expression, including prayer,” he wrote. “They must remain entirely secular in nature, so as to avoid alienation of any team member.”

In his most recent letter, Leveall said the school district would be glad to provide a place for Coach Joe to pray — so long as it was in private — “not observable to students or the public.”

“For example, a private location within the school building, athletic facility or press box could be made available to you for brief religious exercise before and after games,” Superintendent Leavell wrote. 

To be clear, Coach Joe is forbidden from bowing his head, taking a knee or doing anything that might remotely be construed as religious.

“While on duty for the District as an assistant coach, you may not engage in demonstrative religious activity, readily observable to (of not intended to be observed by) students and the attending public,” the superintendent added.

That means he’s not even allowed to bow his head behind the bleachers where the kids are smoking pot. 

Liberty Institute, the nation’s largest law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is preparing to initiate legal proceedings against the school district — accusing them of religious discrimination.

“They’ve already punished Coach Joe by denying his request for religious accommodation,” attorney Hiram Sasser told me. “Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, they’ve already violated his civil rights.”

Superintendent Leavell stressed in his letter that the district does not prohibit prayer or other religious exercises by its employees.

“However, it must prohibit any conduct by employees that would serve as District endorsement of religion,” he said. 

Sasser said the district’s argument is outrageous. 

“What they are saying is he cannot pray by himself, he cannot simply take a knee at the 50-yard-line,” Sasser said. “That’s like telling a coach he can’t wear a yarmulke if he’s Jewish, he can’t wear a turban if he’s a Sikh, he can’t pray to Mecca if he’s a Muslim, he can’t wear a cross necklace if he’s a Christian.”

Late last week State Superintendent Randy Dorn released a statement backing the school district.

“It’s unfortunate when the actions of one employee affect an entire district,” Dorn said.

As if a football coach who prays for his team is doing engaged in some sort of criminal enterprise. 

Dorn went on to suggest that teachers like Coach Joe are not good role models. 

“School staff exercising their right to silently pray in private on their own is fine. But leading a prayer isn’t,” he said. “School officials are role models; leading a prayer might put a student in an awkward position, even if the prayer is voluntary. For students who don’t share the official’s faith, players, the official’s public expression of faith can seem exclusionary or even distressing.”

For the record, Coach Joe never invited anyone to pray with him — especially students. They chose to participate by their own free will. 

Sasser said the state superintendent does have a point – there are people in the state of Washington who feel disenfranchised — Christians.

“When they find out a coach can’t even silently pray at the 50-yard-line, there’s no greater message of hostility than that,” Sasser told me. “This is not a school being neutral. This is a school being hostile to religion – and we are going to hold them accountable.”

Provided Coach Joe still has a job on Friday night, he plans to do what he’s done after every other football game. 

“I’m going to keep on praying,” he said.

Good for this coach!  He is willing to STAND UP for his First Amendment rights which includes freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech!

It’s “funny” [see above definitions] how individuals like Aaron Leavell, who is obviously an advocate for secularism, deems voluntary prayer by a coach, his team, and teammates from the opponents (no less!) as “exclusionary” and/or “distressing.”  Whether or not Aaron Leavell believes in prayer, it sure seems as though he thinks that prayer is powerful enough to cause the angst of non-believers  like him, and thus make a demand for its exclusion!

UPDATE:

VIDEO: School threatens to fire praying football coach.

Hat tip: Fox News Channel

Shouldn’t Christians Just Obey the Law?

 

I receive emails from CitizenLink.  The goal of this organization is to help transform the culture through biblical citizenship.  Today, CitizenLink provided a link to an essay posted at the Family Policy Institute.  After reading this excellent article, I thought it would be advantageous to share it with readers here.  I pray that it would go viral!  But I doubt that it will  because the “politically correct” crowd will NOT like it…not one bit!

It is just too good to only excerpt here, so I have copied and pasted the entire essay below.  Please share your thoughts after reading it!

~ Christine

*******

Shouldn’t Christians Just Obey the Law?

April 14, 2015/11 Comments/by Joseph Backholm

If there’s one thing today’s secular progressive enjoys, it’s telling Christians how to be Christians.

It feels funny when it happens. A bit like getting combat training from Jane Fonda or Cindy Sheehan.

But they mean well.

And they know a verse. Their favorite verse is Matthew 7:1, which says “judge not lest ye also be judged.” They quote it every time a Christian expresses an opinion because their years of deep theological study have shown them that Matthew 7:1 means it’s wrong to have an opinion. About anything. After all, an opinion is a judgment and you can’t do that.

Says so right there.

Red letters even.

The urge to lecture Christians on how to be Christian is almost irresistible in the dispute over whether businesses can be forced to participate in same-sex weddings.

“I thought you were a Christian. Aren’t Christians supposed to follow the law?”

For the moment, let’s put aside the far-from-resolved debate over whether the law really does mandate involuntary servitude for same-sex weddings.

For the purpose of this conversation, we will assume that it does.

Shouldn’t Christians just obey the law?

In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote one of the greatest commentaries ever written about what Christian citizenship requires.

It is also instructive to remember the context in which the letter was written. It was a letter written to his fellow clergymen who were concerned about his activities.

At the time, not everyone appreciated his demonstrations the way we do today.

Specifically, they expressed “anxiety over [his] willingness to break laws”. He acknowledged the apparent contradiction in urging people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools and demonstrating in ways that the law forbid.

“How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” he asked rhetorically.

His response is instructive both for the Christian and for those who seek to understand what motivates Christians,

“The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Well how do we know whether a law is just or unjust?

A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

And this is where everyone starts to get uncomfortable. Is that MLK or Jerry Falwell?

Then he gives some examples:

An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. 

I wonder if that would include laws that let one person decline to bake a cake with a message they disagree with but not another person. Doesn’t he understand that these people offend me?

The left isn’t going to condemn MLK anytime soon because they like what he did. But their failure to appreciate or even acknowledge why he did it causes them to miss a much larger point.

Fundamental to Christianity is the idea that there is a law higher than man’s law.

The compulsion to obey God regardless of what the law says is the reason the Civil Rights movement was a movement of Christians. It is the reason Quakers violated the law to be an integral part of the Underground Railroad. It is why Christians rallied against the ancient practice of exposure in which infants were set out to die immediately after birth. It is why Christians worked in India to eliminate the practice of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands.

This isn’t an attempt to provide an exhaustive history of Christianity. I’m confident I don’t need to remind you of the challenges the Christian church has had. That’s what President Obama is for.

But context is important.

The reason Christians violated the law to free slaves, save babies from exposure, and rescue widows from funeral pyres is the same reason Christians today feel they cannot be part of a same-sex wedding ceremony. We are bound to a higher law.

And before you start lecturing your Christian friends about why their position is actually not the Christian position, stop and ask yourself this question. “Do I actually know what I’m talking about?” If you haven’t read a Bible in a year, the answer is likely no.

Besides, the fact that you may not understand why someone feels something is wrong should not prohibit you from respecting their conscience anyway.

Nevertheless, the idea that there is a law that is above government is not simply just a Christian idea, it is an American idea as well.

The Declaration of Independence reminds us that our rights are endowed by our creator not our government and that governments are created to secure rights, not to create them.

We are a constitutional republic (rather than a democracy) with a Bill of Rights specifically because our Founders understood that the majority can be wrong; a position that assumes a moral law exists above legislated law.

Therefore, even if everyone knows I’m a terrible, horrible, very bad guy, even ninety-nine percent of the public can’t vote to take away my right to free speech, the free exercise of religion, or a fair trial.

Your rights transcend your political popularity and the government exists to protect those rights, not appease the mob.

This structure protects us all because, as the gay lobby has so clearly demonstrated, neither political popularity nor political powerlessness are necessarily permanent conditions.

While the right not to participate has historically been protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee to the Free Exercise of religion, some now claim the obligation to participate is required by the “duly enacted” non-discrimination statute.

The majority said you can’t use religion as an excuse to “discriminate”, so you can’t.

But the majority isn’t supposed to be able to “duly enact” away the First Amendment. That’s why it’s the First Amendment.

But again, we’re assuming none of that matters.

In a world in which the law is in conflict with the Christian conscience, the response from many on the left is a cold, “Just obey the law.”

To which the florist responds, “I will obey the law, I just won’t obey your law.”

And from his perch in heaven, Martin Luther King Jr. says, “You go girl!”

Hat tip: Family Policy Institute

*******

P.S.  Apparently, there are some leftist Democrat nut-jobs who would not only want to do away with our Second Amendment rights too, but also advocate killing the five million Americans who own guns given by that right! And…this guy wanted to be a Congressman??!! Where does the insanity end?