Religious Freedom Increasingly Trumped by "Gay Rights"

An article in the Washington Post recently highlighted the disturbing trend of religious groups losing discrimination lawsuits to gay groups. The lawsuits, which are the direct result of states and communities banning “discrimination based on sexual orientation”, are creating a “clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion”. Unfortunately, it appears that religious freedom is increasingly losing to the interests of gay groups, putting the nation “on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views.” 1 A few incidents cited in the article highlight the disturbing trend:

- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.

- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

– Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage. 2

Though gay groups constantly try to demonize their opponents with accusations of hatred, homophobia, bigotry, etc., many religious groups oppose the gay agenda primarily because of its implications for religious freedom:

“It really is all about religious liberty for us,” said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. “The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles.” 3 

Religious freedom is my central concern as well. Yes, I believe that homosexuality is a sinful behavior based on my Christian beliefs, but most concerning to me is the impact that the gay agenda will have on my freedom to have my beliefs. Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal certainly doesn’t offer any comfort on the religious freedom issue:

But gay groups and liberal legal scholars say they are prevailing because an individual’s religious views about homosexuality cannot be used to violate gays’ right to equal treatment under the law. 

“We are not required to pay the price for other people’s religious views about us,” said Jennifer Pizer, director of the Marriage Project for Lambda Legal, a gay rights legal advocacy group. 4

Though many gay activists will argue that religious conservatives have nothing to fear from gay groups over the issue of religious freedom, reality says otherwise. It is clear that gay groups intend for “gay rights” to trump religious freedom whenever and wherever the opposing views clash.

We are moving into the dangerous and Orwellian realm of thought-control in this country; either religious conservatives embrace certain forms of thinking or they will be penalized. The Christians in the examples above landed in hot water because they refused their services explicitly because of their religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. But what if they didn’t express opposition to homosexuality as the reason for refusing service? What if the New Mexico photographer and the Georgia psychologist were merely too busy to provide their services to the homosexuals that later sued them? Who is to say that they still wouldn’t have been sued? Once it came out in court that they were religious and opposed to homosexuality the suit would have been a done deal anyway. Merely refusing service to homosexuals for any reason , no matter how non-discriminatory, might still land a Christian business owner in court.

Folks, let there be no illusion in your mind that the radical liberal Left truly believes in freedom. They do not, unless of course the freedom applies to them and their views. Gay groups have no qualms whatsoever about trampling underfoot your religious freedom for the sake of their radical agenda. It should be noted as well that Barack Obama fully embraces the homosexual agenda. It is highly doubtful that he could be relied upon to defend the interests of religious conservatives, even though he has repeatedly made the highly dubious claim of being a Christian.

References

1. Faith Groups Increasingly Losing Legal Battles Over Gay Rights. (April 10, 2009). Retrieved April 11, 2009, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040904063.html?hpid=topnews
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

Photo courtesy of freefoto.com.

The Argument for Life Simplified: Scott Klusendorf’s SLED Acronym

New Jersey Approves New ‘Thoughtcrime’ Bill

The sweat started out on Winston’s backbone. A horrible pang of terror went through him. It was gone almost at once, but it left a sort of nagging uneasiness behind. Why was she watching him? Why did she keep following him about? Unfortunately he could not remember whether she had already been at the table when he arrived, or had come there afterwards. But yesterday, at any rate, during the Two Minutes Hate, she had sat immediately behind him when there was no apparent need to do so. Quite likely her real object had been to listen to him and make sure whether he was shouting loudly enough.

His earlier thought returned to him: probably she was not actually a member of the Thought Police, but then it was precisely the amateur spy who was the greatest danger of all. He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself — anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.

- George Orwell’s 1984

Big Brother New Jersey – the New Jersey legislature – recently passed A-4591, a bill penalizing “bias intimidation”, or what George Orwell would have termed “thoughtcrime”. Under the bill, a person who displays a bias against a member of certain protected classes – such as homosexuals or transgenders – and causes feelings of “intimidation” might be guilty of a thoughtcrime under A-4591. If prosecuted and found guilty of a thoughtcrime, the convicted party would be subject to fines, reeducation (sensitivity training), and counseling to “reduce the tendency toward violent and antisocial behavior” and facilitate the development of more acceptable social attitudes. Additional penalties might include “payments or other compensation to a community-based program or local agency that provides services to victims of [thoughtcrime]” and payments to the victims themselves for “emotional distress”. 1 To help effectively root out thoughtcrime, the bill provides for the training and development of the Thought Police:

The Police Training Commission shall require all new police officers to complete two hours of training, which may include interactive training, in identifying, responding to, and reporting [thoughtcrime]. 2

The training is to be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Truth (the New Jersey Human Relations Council) and will include:

a. features that identify or could identify a [thoughtcrime];
b. laws dealing with [thoughtcrime];
c. law enforcement procedures, reporting, and documentation of [thoughtcrime]; and
d. techniques and methods to handle incidents of [thoughtcrime], including training on how to deal sensitively with victims and referring victims of [thoughtcrime], to organizations that provide assistance and compensation to victims. 3 

Thoughtcrime is apparently a very serious crime, therefore existing law was amended to include it among crimes potentially deserving of “payment of compensation” – a list that includes aggravated assault, threats to do bodily harm, lewd, indecent, or obscene acts, kidnapping, murder, and manslaughter. And there is no room for error when it comes to thoughtcrime; legislators added verbiage to the law that will make it impossible for defendants to duck the accusations against them by claiming they were “mistaken as to the race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity of the victim.” 4 A-4591 passed 65 to 10 with five abstentions and now will go to the Governor’s desk for signing.

Hopefully A-4591 sounds as crazy and dangerous as it is, because it truly is out of the pages of Orwell’s 1984. Unfortunately, such legislation – otherwise known as “hate crimes” legislation – is a pillar of radical liberalism and activists have managed to pass it in varying degrees and forms in Congress and in statehouses all across the nation. To be perfectly blunt, hate crimes legislation is a feature of tyrannical societies, not free ones. It subjects not just actions to the authority of the law, but thoughts, feelings, and speech. Glen Lavy of Alliance Defense Fund explains:

“The emotion of hate is an unfortunate reality of the human experience. But it is not a crime unless accompanied by a criminal action – and even then it is the action that is within the police power of the government, not the emotion.” he said. “The reality is that ‘hate’ crime laws are designed to punish people for what they think, feel, or believe . . . There is legitimate concern that once Congress makes any ‘hate’ crime a federal offense, the categories of crime will expand to include speech that causes someone to ‘feel’ intimidated.” 5  

Several previously free nations around the world are already penalizing thoughtcrime. A Catholic city councilor in Canada was fined $1,000 for merely stating in public that a gay couple’s lifestyle was ‘not normal and not natural’”. 6 Swedish pastor Ake Green was sentenced to a month in prison in 2004 for violating Sweden’s hate-speech laws. The court determined he was “guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon.” 7 (emphasis added). Wow, did you catch that? His crime was simply offending a homosexual! This is happening here in America, too. Legislators in Pennsylvania passed legislation that added “sexual orientation” to the state’s hate crimes laws and expanded “the definition of ‘harassment’ to include ‘harassment by communication’ – which means one could be convicted based upon spoken words alone” (emphasis added). 8 No matter what proponents of these laws might say, they are intended to penalize certain belief systems and speech – namely traditional, conservative belief systems and speech. Outspoken conservatives ought to take note, because the same people that came up with political correctness are pushing hate crimes legislation. Anything deemed politically incorrect will likely be dangerous territory in New Jersey if A-4591 is signed into law.

What is truly amazing is that many liberals who support laws like A-4591 also would likely insist they believe in and support free speech. After all, isn’t it liberals that are always citing the First Amendment in support of pornography and flag burning? How could it not be considered anything less than a full frontal assault on free speech to penalize people for what they say and believe? Hate crime legislation is inconsistent with American values, period. Our Founders would never have tolerated such nonsense. Hate crime legislation is also woefully impractical. The application of A-4591 hinges on the word “intimidation” – an awfully subjective term that could mean different things to different people, including judges. Intimidation to one person might be just a mere annoyance or nothing at all to another person. How is it to be proven that a plaintiff was truly “intimidated” other than just taking his word for it? If it is difficult for a judge to figure out what is impermissible under the law, how is the legal system supposed to apply the law fairly to everybody? The truth is that this law is simply unjust and is going to be a mess for New Jersey’s court system as it becomes bogged down with innumerable, frivolous complaints of “intimidation”. There couldn’t be any other result. The threshold for legal action is so low, the burden of proof so vague and subjective, and the potential monetary rewards so easy to obtain that it could only encourage massive amounts of litigation.

Henry Ford is reputed with once telling his customers they could have any color Model-T they wanted – just as long as it was black. In the shining beacon of “tolerance” and “freedom” called New Jersey, you can believe and say anything you want, just make sure it’s something liberals like.

References

1. A-4591, New Jersey Assembly, 212th Legislature. (November 19, 2007) Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A5000/4591_I1.HTM
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Christians in bull’s-eye in new ‘hate crimes’ plan. April 26, 2007). Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55392
6. Ibid.
7. Pastor gets prison for sermon. (July 8, 2004). Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39328.
8. When grandmas go to jail for witnessing. (February 7, 2007). Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54125.

People Need to Take Responsibility for Themselves

Few things are more disgusting than people who act absolutely irresponsibly, get called on it, then get offended because they got called on it. Take for instance Karen Howe, a 34-year-old mother of two from Littleton, CO. Howe was out partying with friends recently and got so drunk that she fell, hit the back of her head, and cracked her skull. WorldNetDaily reported that her blood alcohol level at the time was 0.216, nearly three times the legal driving limit in the state of Colorado. Howe wasn’t driving, but apparently she behaved badly enough that the emergency room staff had to strap her down to treat her. After treating her, Dr. Yadavinder Sooch counseled her with the following advice:

Do not abuse alcohol. Do not get drunk and fall causing harm to your head or body. Apologize to your family, friends and [emergency department] faculty for your extremely inappropriate behavior and rudeness while intoxicated. Be a great mother to your kids. 1 

Great advice, but apparently it was very offensive to Howe. She proceeded to file a complaint with the city of Denver alleging that the doctor’s comments amounted to “substandard care” and were “outrageous”. I guess the truth hurts Ms. Howe, but don’t forget that you might be lucky to be alive. After all, your stupidity could have killed you and deprived your children of their mother. What is a 34-year-old mother of two doing getting stupid drunk anyway? This kind of behavior is completely irresponsible and Ms. Howe’s reaction is so indicative of the “don’t judge me”, do-what-I-want-to-do attitude of today’s society. It’s about time that people started thinking a little more about their responsibilities to others and started being a little less selfish. People need to take responsibility when they do something stupid and make sure they don’t do it again. Ms. Howe should be embarrassed that she conducted herself in public in such a manner. Dr. Sooch was right to give her the advice that he did. Howe would do herself and her family a great service by taking it to heart.

References

1. Woman offended by ‘Don’t get drunk’ advice. (May 29, 2007). Retrieved May 29, 2007 from, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55898

Defeat of California Prop. 73 Shameful

It is an absolute embarrassment that Proposition 73, the Parental Notification initiative, was defeated 53% to 47% in the recent California statewide special election. It is an embarrassment to the state that people would actually vote against a proposal that would require parental notification before an abortion was performed on a minor. What parent would not support something like this? What parent would want a dangerous surgical procedure performed on their child without their knowledge? No sane parent would want even a teeth cleaning done on their child without their knowledge, so how could any parent vote against Proposition 73? Anybody who understands this initiative yet would vote against it is not fit to be a parent.

Also embarrassing was the voter turnout, which was just 43% statewide. Less than half of registered voters thought it important enough to take a half hour of their time to help shape the future of California. It would make sense that Proposition 73 would have drawn many conservative voters to the polls, but that does not seem to be the case. Heavily populated and very conservative Orange and Riverside counties had turnouts less than the state average at 41% and 37%, respectively. San Diego county, also very populated and conservative, at least offset the low turnout of Orange and Riverside counties with a 46% voter turnout. All three of these counties have some of the largest evangelical churches in the entire nation and populations that are overwhelmingly conservative Christian, but the results show that most voters chose to stay home. It is a shameful statement about Christians in California that they would do nothing when they had the chance to vote against one of the most obscene evils in our nation.

It is not unreasonable to view the turnout of conservative Christians as a broader statement about the convictions of the Christian church in America. For decades, Christian Americans have chosen to disengage from the culture even as blatant evil overtakes it. The evil of abortion has resulted in the deaths of 40 million innocent Americans, yet the Christian church has largely done nothing to prevent it. The Church should not deceive itself by thinking that God has not noticed. Individuals pay the price for their sin in the next life, but nations pay for their sin in this life. The Old Testament demonstrates that God is long-suffering, but nations that disobey His laws will experience His judgment eventually. If the chosen nation of Israel was not exempt from the judgment of God, America certainly should not expect that she is exempt either.

See election results for all propositions here.

Moral Anarchy Is Destroying Our Nation

But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does. – James 1:25 NASB

Last week the world saw a major American city descend into anarchy and chaos. The destruction left in the wake of hurricane Katrina was shocking, but even more shocking was the lack of self-control of many of the citizens within the city. Looters calmly ravaged businesses, sometimes even on camera, taking what they wished. Rapes and murders were reported and shooters took potshots at rescue helicopters. Even more unbelievable were the people who actually publicly attempted to justify on national television the looting of luxury items such as televisions and stereos. A bunch of homosexuals even had the nerve to celebrate “Southern Decadence”, an annual festival to public debauchery, with a parade in the French Quarter last weekend. The callousness of some people in the midst of mass suffering truly is astounding to me. When it comes down to it, I think the blame for the selfishness displayed in New Orleans can be placed on the radical individualism that has taken hold in our nation.

The Bible indicates that in the latter days the love in the hearts of people will grow cold. I believe that the opposite of love is selfishness, so I think that it can be argued that the rise of radical individualism, which is selfishness, certainly fulfills this prophecy of the Bible. Tocqueville, an 18th century Frenchman who traveled all through America to document what made America “tick”, warned that the emphasis on individual rights in the public life of our nation could be destructive if there was not an equal emphasis on individual responsibilities. Tocqueville knew that an adherence to responsibilities on the part of individuals was important to the stability of families and communities. Such responsibilities could include honoring a marriage vow or providing a nurturing home for children. Other responsibilities may be to the community or a workplace. In our nation individual freedom seems to be expanding at the expense of individual responsibility. I think that this is why so many married couples divorce with little thought to their marriage vows and their children. Their personal needs are just more important than the responsibilities to honor their vows and raise their children. The innocent unborn are killed because the freedom to sleep around without consequences is more important than the life of another person. And in New Orleans last week, the desire for material things apparently was more important than respecting the private property that others worked so hard to earn.

The relationship of human government to individual freedom exists on a continuum. At one end of the continuum we find tyranny with maximum governmental power and minimal personal freedom. At the other end is anarchy, with maximum personal freedom and minimal governmental power. Though anarchy is maximum freedom, it truly has no freedom at all. It in itself is a tyranny, but ruled by the excesses of others instead of a powerful central government. Therefore we know that, ironically, freedom truly cannot exist without law – a point supported by the Bible. The trick to achieve the perfect government is to strike a balance between government and individual freedom so that freedom is maximized without letting it get excessive enough to allow things to devolve into anarchy.

Unfortunately, I believe that America has progressed to the brink of anarchy. However, the anarchy I refer to is not of a political nature per se, but of a moral nature. Though this moral anarchy occurs in the heart, it is manifested as radical individualism in the society around us. As moral restraints continue to be lifted from behaviors such as infidelity, homosexuality, promiscuity, etc., our society will continue to progress toward a moral anarchy that will have serious consequences for the stability of our nation. A society cannot function and remain stable if the citizens within it are not willing to recognize that yes, we all have personal freedoms, but they come with responsibilities too. As the moral anarchy of radical individualism expands, the stability of society eventually is threatened. If the stability of society is threatened, then a powerful governing force will have to restore order with – you guessed it – tyranny.

Some Thoughts on the Abortion Issue

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – Declaration of Independence

With the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts looming in the near future, the abortion issue has once again been placed front and center in the public debate. Though it has been over three decades since Roe v. Wade, Americans are still very passionate about the abortion issue. In fact, based on the rhetoric of many left-leaning senators, John Roberts’ confirmation may very well be decided based on his views about abortion and the Roe decision. Because John Roberts’ views on the abortion issue are under scrutiny, it is not surprising that the issue itself would once again be passionately debated.

Pro-choicers use many varied arguments to attempt to justify abortion, but the pro-choice position centers on one question: is the unborn child truly a person? Even the most ardent abortion supporter will not deny that abortion kills something, they just insist that the “something” is just a lump of tissue, not a person. If the fetus is not a person, then one certainly cannot consider it to be murder to kill it. The pro-choice side has been pretty effective by framing the abortion issue around what the fetus is now, as opposed to what it will be later. Because the unborn child is in a process of development, it will many times lack the characteristics one would associate with personhood or a human being, particularly in the earliest stages of development. Focusing on what the fetus is now is effective for the pro-abortion position because it is more difficult for the pro-lifer to make a case for personhood when many of the characteristics or abilities associated with personhood are not present.

Despite all the pro-choice arguments against the personhood of the unborn, there is one fact that cannot be denied: abortion denies future life to a person. Were it not for abortion, another person would be alive to grow through the innocence of childhood, wide-eyed at the wonders of the world. Were it not for abortion, another person would be alive to experience a first date and going to the senior prom. Were it not for abortion, another person would be alive to go to college, marry, and start a family. All the experiences and decisions and pains and joys that comprise what we call “life” are taken away from a person forever by the act of abortion. This is both grievously immoral and tragic. Our nation was founded with the belief that all people are endowed by God with certain “unalienable” rights – rights that are never to be taken away. The Declaration of Independence declares the first of these rights to be life, and American values dictate that life is not to be taken away without due process. Whether or not an unborn fetus is a person now is irrelevant because it is certain that it will be one in the future. Abortion is the cutting short of an innocent life; it denies the future to an innocent person. The act of taking away the life of an innocent person has a name in our society: MURDER.

Dishonesty Surrounds CA Gay Marriage Bill

The State of California dodged another radical, leftist bullet with the defeat of AB 19 in the State Assembly. With AB 19, the pro-gay crowd has proven once again that the law and the will of the people are of little consequence when it comes to enacting their radical, anti-family agenda. The bill, introduced in December 2004 by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would have changed California marriage law to make it “gender-neutral”. Assemblyman Leno does not seem to be concerned that California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2000 with the approval of Proposition 22, which was passed with a 2/3 majority. Additionally, the Assemblyman does not seem to be concerned that statewide referendums such as Proposition 22 cannot be overturned without the consent of state voters, according to Article II, section 10(c) of the California State Constitution. Leno even goes so far as to assert that AB 19 does not violate the state Constitution at all with respect to Proposition 22 because, according to him, it “was designed to prevent California from being forced to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who were married outside of California” (emphasis added). 1 This is a blatant falsehood. California voters knew exactly what they were voting for when they overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22. The Proposition was not designed to simply prevent the recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, which were not legal anywhere in the United States in 2000. The efforts of the Assemblyman are just another example of the rampant elitism of a radical left that is even willing to overturn the 2/3 vote of the California electorate.

Many thanks and congratulations go out to those members of the California Assembly who are on the record with “No” votes on AB 19! The votes, as tabulated by Capitol Resource Institute, are as follows:

Noes: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Benoit, Blakeslee, Bogh, Cogdill, Daucher, De Vore, Emmerson, Garcia, Harman, Haynes, Shirley Horton, Houston, Huff, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Niello, Parra, Plescia, Sharon Runner, Spitzer, Strickland, Tran, Vargas, Villines, Walters, and Wyland

Ayes: Bass, Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Coto, De La Torre, Evans, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jones, Karnette, Klehs, Koretz, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Montanez, Mullin, Nation, Nava, Oropeza, Pavley, Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana, Torrico, Wolk, Yee, and Nunez

Absences, abstentions, or not voting: Dymally, Gordon, Jerome Horton, Negrete McLeod, Richman, Salinas, and Umberg

References

1. Assembly Judiciary Committee Approves Leno’s Marriage Equality Bill. (April 26, 2005). Retrieved 6/6/2005, from http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/
a13/press/a132005008.htm