Religious Liberty, Part II

This article from National Review Online about a sexual orientation discrimination case in New Mexico is a must read.  In the case, an Albuquerque photography studio run by a husband/wife team declined to provide photography for a same-sex commitment ceremony based on the religious beliefs of the owners.  The state's Human Rights Commission found Elane Photography guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2008, and last month the state's Court of Appeals upheld this ruling. According to the Court, the studio provides services to the public and therefore has no free speech protections under the First Amendment.

I think this ruling represents a grave threat to religious liberty.  As the article points out, photography is a highly personal, creative, and artistic pursuit that is entirely different from the services of a restaurant or department store.  And art has long been recognized by the courts as a personal form of expression protected under the First Amendment.  In fact, in their initial e-mail request for photography services, the lesbian couple asked for a photographer to help "celebrate" their commitment ceremony.  Clearly, forcing a photographer to lend her artistic skill to celebrate something to which she has a conscientious objection is nothing less than government coercion and a violation of the photographer's right of free speech.  And for that matter, would it not be in the lesbian couple's best interest to find a photographer that was supportive of their ceremony, assuming that their goal was to get the best photos possible of the event?  What couple would want someone taking pictures of their wedding who was compelled to do so against her will?  There is little doubt that the couple bringing the suit could have easily found a first-rate photographer who would gladly have helped to celebrate their ceremony, but instead they chose to pursue a political agenda that involved trying to shutter a business whose owners disapproved of their lifestyle choice.  In fact, this whole case provides support for my previous argument that the push for same-sex marriage is really about forcing societal approval of homosexuality. 

The logical result of this ruling is to effectively bar all individuals with traditional religious beliefs (Christians, Jews, and Muslims, to name a few) from the wedding photography business, since they cannot in good conscience celebrate same-sex marriage.  And, as the article notes, what about writers, videographers, graphic designers, clothing designers, and others?  Logically, under this decision they would also be forced to enter into contracts to offer their services on behalf of causes with which they disagree.  Already, in Kentucky a T-shirt company has had legal action brought against it for refusing to make shirts for a gay pride parade.  If this ruling holds, discrimination laws in certain cities would force marketing agencies to work for political organizations like the Communist Party USA.  If free speech means anything at all, it should mean that individuals and businesses have the right to make their own decisions when it comes to personal and creative services governed by private contracts.  And no one should be forced to use their marketable skills on behalf of a cause that violates their conscience.  If this ruling stands, it is a severe blow to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Religious Liberty, Part I

This morning I was listening to the radio broadcast of Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk program.  The guest was Kelly Shackelford, the president of the Liberty Institute which provides legal defense for attacks against religious liberty.  Shackelford was talking about the case of the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross, which was constructed more than 75 years ago in the middle of the desert to honor veterans of World War I.  The ACLU sued to force the removal of this memorial -- since we all know what a threat to our Constitution this is! -- and a lower court and a court of appeals both agreed with the ACLU that it was unconstitutional.  During the appeals process, the court ordered the deeply offensive cross to be covered with a bag and chain so that no one who happened to be passing by in the middle of the desert would be subjected to looking at anything that could be construed as a religious symbol.  Eventually, the case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the memorial was upheld as constitutional in a 5-4 decision.  After the Supreme Court's decision, some brave champions of the Constitution tore down and stole the monument.  An exact replica was quickly constructed, but the Obama Administration has refused to allow it to be put up despite the Supreme Court's ruling and despite the pleas of numerous veterans' organizations across the country, since the legal proceedings apparently have not yet been officially closed.  This is just one of many attacks by the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation against veterans' memorials and other public displays that include religious symbols, with the goal being the complete of eradication of religious expression in the public square. 

Although it is sad that so many judges, as well as the Obama Administration, have bought into an interpretation of the Constitution which is completely contrary to the intentions of the Founders and which threatens our fundamental First Amendment freedoms, it is encouraging to hear that groups like the Liberty Institute are fighting back and winning some key victories.  It is also a warning about the importance of defeating Obama in November.  If Obama gets the chance to appoint even one additional Supreme Court Justice, then all hope of winning most of these religious liberty cases is gone for probably decades.  I realize that there is some concern about the type of justices Romney would appoint as well, but his public statements as well as his website make clear that he believes in the concept of original intent and does not believe unelected judges should impose their policy preferences from the bench.  And conservatives would at least have hope of influencing his nominating decisions, unlike Obama's.  This issue alone should be sufficient reason for every conservative to cast a vote for Mitt Romney in November.

The Case for Marriage As the Union Between a Man and a Woman

NOTE: I originally wrote most of this article more than a year ago, but never got around to completing and publishing it.  Now that gay marriage is in the news, both in Maryland and nationwide due to President Obama's "flip-flop-flip" on the issue, I decided to revisit and complete this.  It is of necessity long, because I am trying to address the issue as comprehensively as possible and respond to many of the claims made by gay marriage advocates.  I have two main goals in writing this.  The first goal relates to conservatives and religious people who are uncomfortable with gay marriage but may not be able to articulate why and may be reluctant to take a stand.  I hope this article will help them to realize that there are good public policy reasons to keep marriage between a man and a woman and encourage them not to back off in the face of accusations of bigotry from the left.  The second goal is to convince any supporters of gay marriage who may read this that there are good reasons for our opposition to gay marriage and that we are motivated not by hatred or the desire to deny gay people basic civil rights, but by our desire to preserve an institution that benefits children and society and to protect religious liberty.  I don't necessarily think that this article will change the mind of someone who believes strongly in gay marriage, but I think if that person is honest and fair-minded it will convince him or her that there is a clear case against gay marriage that is not based on bigotry and hatred.

The other day, I glanced at a letter on my dining room table from my state delegate. He was talking about all the supposed "accomplishments" of the 2011 session of the Maryland legislature. One of the items he mentioned was the issue of same-sex marriage. Even though same-sex marriage narrowly failed to pass the House of Delegates this year, my delegate considered it a great triumph for equality that the legislation came so close to becoming law. He even included a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

This got me thinking about how thoroughly social conservatives are losing the battle over marriage in this country. Everyone knows that the key to winning an argument is framing the debate in terms favorable to your position. No matter how strong a case you may have, it is next to impossible to win an argument when you are fighting on your opponent's turf. In this case, gay rights activists have succeeded in convincing a sizable percentage of the American population that gay marriage is a fundamental human and civil right guaranteed by the Constitution, and to ban it is to deny equality to millions of Americans. In almost any debate on this topic nowadays, the onus is on defenders of traditional marriage to prove that they are not the hate-filled, discrimination-loving bigots that they are assumed by default to be. Indeed, most of the time the media calls the issue a debate over "marriage equality." Talk about loaded definitions! Obviously, no one wants to get stuck on the side of inequality, which explains why support for traditional marriage from many conservative quarters has been tepid at best.

I think it's important to take a step back and think about the actual institution of marriage -- what it is, why it exists, why it is important to society. In my view, understanding these points is a critical first step to discussing whether changes are needed in the definition of marriage. Instead of allowing our opponents to pick the battleground, we have to redirect the focus back to these critical questions.

Obama vs. Constitution, Again

I'm sure most of my readers have already heard about the Obama Administration's recent mandate that religious organizations, including Catholic charities, hospitals, & universities, provide their employees with health insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients even if doing so violates their beliefs (which it does in many cases). Work has been busy lately, so I've been a bit late to the party on this. I hope it's obvious to most of my readers that this is an assault on our 1st Amendment religious freedoms. It should also be obvious that this is just one example of what happens when government grows too big and starts trying to control every area of our lives. After all, ObamaCare requires every American to purchase government-approved health insurance, which is also a violation of our constitutional freedoms, and it's really not much of a step from that to this birth control mandate imposed on religious organizations.

I found a great article by one of my favorite National Review Online authors, Andrew McCarthy, about this attack on religious freedom by Obama. It's called "The Contraceptive Mandate's Shaky Justification," and it does a great job of explaining how ridiculous Obama's claim is that women in our country lack access to "reproductive services." And don't be fooled by the so-called compromise that Obama's Administration has since offered to try to appease his critics -- it is all show and no substance, as this NRO editorial makes clear.

This issue is just one of many that demonstrate Obama's hostility toward religion. Other examples, many of which I have posted about here, include his radical pro-abortion positions, his refusal to defend or enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, his appointment of radical gay activist Kevin Jennings as his safe schools czar, his rolling back of freedom of conscience provisions for medical practitioners, his cavalier attitude toward global human rights, and his removal of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from its position as administrator of the government's Human Trafficking Program despite its excellent qualifications to do so. Not to mention his administration's recent attempt to argue before the Supreme Court that the government should be able to interfere in religious organizations' choices to hire or fire their own leaders and teachers (which was fortunately shot down unanimously).

Of course, I'm sure people who are indifferent or hostile to religion or who want to silence religious expression in the public square and eliminate the influence of religious values on our society are perfectly happy with all of these decisions and actions. What I don't get is why any Christian who takes his/her faith seriously would ever consider voting to re-elect Obama (or sitting out the election).

UPDATE: I found another great article on the birth control mandate, this one written by Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a blogger himself. Mohler analyzes a column by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times in which, after lying about Christians wanting to ban contraceptives, Kristof defines religious freedom in this way: "“The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can.” Wow. Whatever happened to "inalienable rights" and "no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion"? It is scary when we have reached the point when a mainstream liberal columnist for one of the largest newspapers in the country defines freedom of religion as the government trying to respect and accommodate religion where it can.

New York City's War on the Churches

I first heard about this story this past Sunday, when my grandfather's church brought this up as a matter for prayer. New York City is banning churches from using public schools for worship services at times when the schools are not in session. World Magazine has great coverage of this topic here and here. Because building space is so expensive and hard to find in New York, more than 150 churches depend on using public schools as meeting places. And the schools benefit significantly, collecting millions of dollars in rent that can be used to fund education. Furthermore, many of these churches are located in the poorest neighborhoods in New York and provide valuable services to the community, including caring for the homeless and for children.

So what is the rationale for this decision by the New York Board of Education? They say that "impressionable children" might think the schools are endorsing religious belief. In other words, the board is hostile to religion and thinks it is a negative thing for children to be exposed to it. As I mentioned in my last post, this is a sad distortion of the First Amendment, which prohibits "an establishment of religion." This means that the government is not permitted to establish a national church or to compel people to worship in a certain way or contribute money to a particular religious denomination -- as many of the colonies did when they were under English control. The Founders staunchly believed in individual freedom of conscience when it came to religious belief and practice. They would have been horrified if they had known that the First Amendment would be used by anti-Christian zealots to try to muzzle religious influence in society and government. They themselves constantly alluded to God and used Christian themes in their public speeches and promoted days of public prayer and thanksgiving to God. George Washington stated that "religion and morality are indispensable supports to any society."

Schools in New York City and around the country are constantly renting out their facilities for use by private groups during times when they are not needed for school activities. Everyone knows that the schools are not endorsing the beliefs of every group or organization that may rent its facilities. This is a right offered to both religious and non-religious organizations, and it is a benefit for both the school and the renting organization. By denying religious groups the same right to use school facilities that non-religious groups have, New York City is actively discriminating against religion -- and is doing so at a cost both to its own schools and to its communities. In fact, I would argue the city's action is detrimental to the free exercise of religion, because some of these churches may be forced to shut down entirely if they cannot find another place to meet.

Apparently New York decided to follow up this attack on religion with an attack on free speech as well. Police arrested 7 protesters, including 2 pastors, and held them in custody for three hours. Their crime? Kneeling in prayer and singing 2 hymns outside the city's Law Department office. They subsequently arrested 43 other people who were singing hymns and praying as part of a protest outside of a building in which the mayor was giving a speech. Contrast the treatment of these people exercising their right to speech and to peaceably assemble with the treatment by the police of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, who were permitted to block traffic on a major road and then allowed to spend months camping out in a public park, stinking up an entire section of the city and damaging property, before they were finally removed. Talk about a double standard.

I'm glad that my grandfather's church is standing in solidarity with these churches in New York. I think all of us who are concerned about the increasing hostility of government toward religion, especially public expressions of religion, should do the same.

Victory for Religious Liberty

I was encouraged to read about the recent Supreme Court decision Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC. The high court ruled unanimously that the government does not have the right under the First Amendment to interfere in the choices of churches, synagogues, and other religious organizations to hire or fire their own ministers, teachers, and other religious leaders. If the court had ruled otherwise, religious liberty would be in grave jeopardy. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.”

Sadly, the Obama Administration argued vigorously against religious liberty in this case -- and was soundly beaten. This is yet another example of how out of touch Obama and his Justice Department are when it comes to our Constitutional freedoms.

You can read more about this decision on National Review Online's legal blog here and here. One of those links includes the following great quote on the First Amendment:

Church-state separation is often misunderstood and seen as an anti-religious program, or as requiring that “religion” stay out of politics or public life. But this is not the point of church-state separation at all. The idea is to constrain government regulation, not religious expression and practice. Separation is an arrangement that protects religious authorities, institutions, and communities from unjustified interference by governments.

Indeed, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not even in the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It seems clear to me, both from the wording used and from what we know about the Founders, that the purpose of this clause was to encourage and protect religious practice and expression, not to stifle it. Today, some seem to think its purpose is to keep religious people from holding office or expressing their views in public.