Photo Credit: www.inquisitr.com
Christian legal service organizations have emerged as a frontline defense for the Christian community in America, now facing the loss of civil liberties as the cultural Left is making its liberationist ideologies (feminism, homosexualist ideology, secularism, etc.) not merely tolerated and accepted, but mandatory for everyone. Two such organizations, Liberty Counsel and Liberty Institute, each reviewed some of their recent work at workshops offered at the 2014 Values Voters Summit on September 27.
The first workshop, sponsored by Liberty Counsel, discussed “The Assault on Constitutional Rights under the Nanny State.” Several threats to First Amendment rights were discussed. Harry Mihet, Senior Litigation Counsel of Liberty Counsel and Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel’s founder and Chairman, discussed the case of Scott Lively, a Christian activist known for many years for his opposition to homosexuality, who is being sued by in federal court in Massachusetts by SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda) for statements made in Uganda against homosexuality, using the Alien Torts Act. The case is important because it effectively would restrict speech by United States citizens in foreign countries. It was noted that “the end game plan is to punish speech [against homosexuality] that takes place in the United States.” Also relevant is a statement by the judge in the case, who has declared that “judges are the unelected legislators of the world.” Staver noted that if the lawsuit is ultimately decided in the wrong way, the “hate speech” concept will begin to be introduced into the United States.
In another challenge to First Amendment rights flowing from homosexual activism, Mihet noted that California and New Jersey now “make it unlawful for a licensed counsellor” to provide therapy to help minors with struggling with same sex attraction. Licensed counsellors may provide therapy supportive of homosexuality, but not to enable a person to overcome it. While this currently applied only to minors, the next logical steps would be to prohibit such therapies for adults, and also to prohibit non-licensed persons, such as pastors and parents, from making statements to help a person overcome same sex attraction. This radical prohibition of speech would be a gross violation of the First Amendment (violating freedom of religion, speech, and association), but as far as reparative therapy is concerned, Mihet said that the legal situation is moving toward a condition in which “there is only one viewpoint that the government will allow you to express.” Staver went on to say that the King vs. Christie case in New Jersey is challenging that state’s law; it may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. He also noted that the Third and Ninth Circuit Courts have upheld restriction of the speech of licensed counsellors, and that the case of homosexuality is the only one in which the speech of licensed counsellors has been restricted by the government.
In a case involving liberty of conscience, Staver briefly noted a Michigan teacher who is involuntarily involved in an insurance plan that has segregated coverage for abortion (a premium to cover abortions is a separate part of the plan, thus requiring the insured to pay specifically for abortion coverage). This, he said, will need to be litigated.
Mark Trammel, Legal Director and Attorney at Liberty Counsel then discussed the tracking of e-mails by the National Security Agency (NSA). Metadata (indicating such information as time of e-mail, its length, etc.) is gathered and stored by NSA. The government claims that this information will only be used if needed. However, the data is collected in the absence of an ongoing investigation and without a court order, and thus may conflict with the Fourth Amendment. Collection of this kind of metadata about a particular individual will enable the U.S. government “to predict patterns” of personal behavior.
In a question and answer session, a questioner asked if the proposed “Convention of the States” might be used to establish a new constitutional framework that would be contrary to American values. Staver said this could be avoided by limiting the issues the convention could consider. In response to another question, Trammel agreed that threats to individual liberties (such as the threat to freedom against searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment) can be the basis of a right/left coalition. There is much support across the ideological spectrum to rein in government surveillance.
Staver observed that earlier in American history, the Supreme Court wasn’t universally acknowledged as the ultimate arbiter in American politics. Thomas Jefferson said that judges were not final arbiters. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln also opposed the power of the courts. Staver noted that history ultimately sided with Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln in the disputes that they were involved in with the courts.
Another workshop at the Values Votes Summit was conducted by Liberty Institute. Jeff Mateer, General Counsel of Liberty Institute, identified the areas of legal engagement in the fight for religious liberty as churches, schools, the military, and the public arena.
Jeremy Dys, Senior Counsel, Liberty Institute, reviewed the case of Eric Walsh, who had been hired by Georgia as a public health official, but was fired after the Georgia Department of Public Health learned the content of his sermons which attacked homosexuality as sinful and evolution as Satanic. A case against Georgia was filed with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission. Walsh hopes his case will be foundational for insuring that statements in church and in private religious activities outside of work cannot be used against a person in his employment.
Mateer then discussed Opulent Life Church vs. Holly Springs, Mississippi. The church had leased a building on the town square of Holly Springs, but was unable to use it as a church because a local ordinance said there could be no churches on the town square without the agreement of local landowners. Any other type of institution could be there. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RULIPA) prohibits such restrictions. Initially defeated in court, and facing a revised ordinance that still restricted churches on the town square, Opulent Life Church ultimately prevailed, with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court ruling the revised ordinance void under federal law. The church was then able to locate on the town square.
Michael Berry, Senior Counsel and Director of Military Affairs for the Liberty Institute next discussed the case of Philip Monk vs. the U.S. Air Force. Monk was penalized for openly talking about homosexuality and same sex marriage. Essentially fired for not agreeing with his commander that his beliefs were wrong, he ultimately prevailed in court. Monk then received the Meritorious Service Award. It was noted that the issue of religious liberty in the military is now an area of intense struggle. Religious liberty is important in the military because faith is important in traumatic situations. The Bible was quoted: “He is our Rock and our Shelter.” To combat the threat to religious freedom in the military, Liberty Institute is trying to “go on the offensive.” It is vital that officers understand their own constitutional rights, and those of their subordinates, Berry said. A problem is that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLA), which campaigns against social conservatism, is now considered a “trusted resource” for religious affairs in the military. The Family Research Council, the American Family Association, Evangelical Protestants and traditional Catholics have been described as domestic terror threats by the military in its training. This has a chilling effect on the exercise of religion in the military. The training has now been suspended, and may result in the SPLA no longer being considered a trusted resource.
It was noted that antireligious groups constantly monitor local activities for religious action by the state that they can legally attack. People often have the impression that more religious activity is prohibited than actually is. The Ten Commandments, for instance, can be erected on public property if done according to conditions set by the Supreme Court.
While legal threats to the Christians’ beliefs and practices have continued unabated, the work of both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Institute show that active engagement in the courts by lawyers specializing in this area is crucial in the current environment, and can result in victories. The cumulative effect of victories will hopefully discourage future legal attacks on religious liberty.
Comment by MarcoPolo on October 6, 2014 at 8:23 am
If one wishes to continue believing that Homosexuality is “treatable” with reparative therapy, and Evolution is of Satan, then I guess there’s no point in
teaching Science in our schools anymore!
The sole purpose of our State and Federal governments remaining neutral on religion, is to strike a fair and just position for the general citizenry. Showing no favor to ANY religion is the only way to remain neutral.
Comment by Sandra K Jenner on October 6, 2014 at 10:53 pm
There ARE ex-gays, whether you acknowledge it or not. We have a few in my church. Believing that homosexuality is immoral is in no way incompatible with science, I know hundreds of Christians who work in the sciences and health care. Science has nothing whatever to say about morality.
Comment by trytoseeitmyway on October 6, 2014 at 11:16 pm
You can say it even more strongly. Science – specifically evolutionary biology and anthropology – profoundly explains the human social requirement for biological families.
Comment by MarcoPolo on October 7, 2014 at 8:40 am
Correct, “Trytoseeitmyway”…. a male and female ARE required for procreation, and the perpetuity of our species.
Just as Shakers are doomed to ever-diminishing parishioners due to their chaste lifestyle (No sexual intercourse), so to, the LGBT community will make families by adopting.
And THAT is certainly a viable and honorable way to perpetuate our species.
Comment by trytoseeitmyway on October 8, 2014 at 9:56 pm
Now you’re just being silly. Have you seen any stats on the rate at which married gays form families with children? No, I didn’t think so.
Comment by MarcoPolo on October 9, 2014 at 7:42 am
So, you’re unaware of ANY Gay couples adopting and raising children? What universe do YOU live in?
Do none of your LGBT friends have children?
Even if the statistics were to reveal that only a small number of adoptions occur with Gays, isn’t it a blessing that those children find a home?
You may notice that these are all questions…I don’t provide my own answers like you do, I seek them.
Comment by trytoseeitmyway on October 9, 2014 at 8:02 am
I’m unaware of any? Did I say that? I mentioned, you know, numbers on account of it’s preposterous to claim that there is any tendency for homosexual couples to substitute adoption for biological child bearing in anything like the proportion of heterosexual couples who have or raise children. Sheesh.
Comment by MarcoPolo on October 9, 2014 at 8:16 am
The numbers don’t have to match those of heterosexual statistics, because it’s not a contest.
Those married couples who for one reason or another, who can’t produce children must follow the same path to parenthood, and that’s the only point I was trying to defend.
If homosexuals were going to raise every orphan out there, I imagine the straight community would be up in arms about THAT too!
Comment by MarcoPolo on October 7, 2014 at 8:33 am
Yes, Sandra, there are ex-gays. I never suggested otherwise. Just as there are people who deny other natural attributes, they will evolve or devolve according to what they feel is necessary to live in this crazy world.
Morality is another issue…we’re talking genetics here.
Comment by Claus von Stauffenberg on October 7, 2014 at 12:38 am
TO: MaroPolo
The problem is that our State and Federal governments are NOT remaining neutral on religion!
In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion. Nevertheless, many Humanists deny the significance of the Court’s assertion and violate the First Amendment by teaching Humanism in public schools exclusively; notably, evolution sciences’ answer to the origin of species.
Legitimate science is not intended to be a quest to create tools to destroy religion, it’s a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Notice that it has nothing to do with “origin of species”.
The public education system is taking advantage of this autonomous setting in attempts to shackle vulnerable minds to the evolutionist’s theories of “origin of species” and instill it as an institutionalized value. Hence, they do not give equal time to Creationism or introduce that alternative to allow students to formulate their own beliefs without peer pressures or educators intimidation.
Comment by MarcoPolo on October 7, 2014 at 8:27 am
Dear Claus,
Creationism is not a science, and at worse, it’s a very thin theory. So why would we as a society of intelligent people want our children to be taught something that contradicts natural sciences?
Science is not intended to destroy religion. It is to further explain the world and cosmos as it exists.
My point regarding Government’s approach to all things public, is so that NO established Religion be extolled over another. If you think the Natural Sciences are a Religion, then you are giving Science more credibility than I thought you were capable of recognizing.
Science isn’t a Religion!
On a similar, but different note, I had several classmates in high school who were Christian Scientists. Whenever they contracted even a simple disease, they were ill and absent for months at a stretch. Simply because they resisted administering (scientifically proven) medicines to abate their illnesses. WHY?! Because their religious faith was expected to heal them?
This is clearly an instance where religion and science divert. I AM a man of faith, but I know better than to tempt fate.
Comment by Claus von Stauffenberg on October 8, 2014 at 1:57 am
TO: MarcoPolo
M.P. ~ “Creationism is not a science, and at worse, it’s a very thin theory.” [sic]
K.V. ~ And “something out of nothing” IS a tenable theory???
I believe you missed my point concerning science’s answer to “origin of species“. Their theory does not meet the criterion of pure science. Of course, neither does Creation.
***********************************************************************
M.P. ~ “So why would we as a society of “intelligent” people want our children to be taught something that contradicts natural sciences?” [sic]
K.V. ~ “Intelligent” people is often seen by God as “arrogant people”.
What God has told us about His creation of man and woman can be compared with what science says about the “big bang”, “random cosmic accident”, etc …. both cannot be “proven” under the human standards of “science”. The teaching of evolution DOES contradict what you call “natural science” because it does not meet its requirements .
If I have nothing in the palm of my hand, close my fingers, speak the word bang, then open my fingers again, still I find there is nothing there. I ask you to explain to us in layman’s terms how it is that something as enormous at the universes and human beings came from nothing? Do you call this “science” ??
Teaching this is an attempt to destroy the natural synderesis of students and all humans – the inborn knowledge of the primary principles of moral action and an accountability to a supreme entity; the essence, ground, or center of the soul that enters into communion with God …the spark or emanation of divinity in the soul.
I am saying that students have the right to hear the alternative to the theory of “origin of species”. Why are you opposed to that if evolutionists will not follow the paradigm of the institutionalized rules of logic, i.e.; theory alternatives ? The evolutionists’ assessment presents a big problem because it does not address the obscurity of theory alternatives.
*********************************************************************************
M.P. ~ “Science is not intended to destroy religion. It is to further explain the world and cosmos as it exists.” [sic]
K.V. ~ That is what science SHOULD be doing. It has no right to presume to know how the world and cosmos came into existence, as evolutionists would have it.
Intelligence and scientific research is a gift from God. Nonetheless, it becomes a self-destructive tool for those who succumb to temptations of arrogance and conceit to rebel against God.
Evolution is a scientific theory; it does not meet the requirements of pure science. Our most simulated simulations of life processes will always fall short of the real thing. We cannot create an artificial organism in even the lowest level.
Because PURE science tries to rely on the minimization of material existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience or being non-analytic, of error, and subjectivity — as well as on avoidance of — PURE science remains neutral on subjective subjects such as religion. The evolutionists are the problem.
************************************************************************
M.P. ~ “My point regarding Government’s approach to all things public, is so that NO established Religion be extolled over another.” [sic]
K.V. ~ I understand what the Constitution states, yet, you are ignoring the fact that Humanism IS a religion and that it teaches the tenets of evolutionary science that claims they have the only answer to the “origin of species”. That is their privilege, but to deny students in public education the right to hear the alternative is, in fact, extolling the religion of Humanism over other religions.
Comment by MarcoPolo on October 8, 2014 at 7:53 am
I find your response to the Big Question, or Big Bang a tenable argument for equal consideration.
Thank you for such a reasoned, and civil exchange.
I too, find the spontaneous explosion to be almost too incredible on its own, so I guess I’m not completely against the possibility of an ‘omniscient force’ such as God (for lack of a better word/name) being involved.
Comment by Claus von Stauffenberg on October 9, 2014 at 1:00 am
I have enjoyed our dialog. It is always interesting to understand others views on the issues, especially when the replies are relevant. Thanks. I will be following your posts.
Is MarcoPolo your nom de plume for the real Leon Redbone?
Comment by David on October 7, 2014 at 9:57 am
The Founders must be spinning in their graves. Although some of them were Deists, they could never have imagined the power that atheists would wield in America.