Separating Fact from Fantasy

“The day before the Senate hearings opened, representatives of Christian fundamentalist groups met at a Philadelphia church in the third in a series of rallies televised nationally by Christian-oriented cable networks. The outlook of these groups was expressed by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, one of several speakers who fantasized a nationwide onslaught that was on the brink of making Christianity illegal.”
“Senate Democrats Prostrate as Alito Confirmation Hearings Get Under Way,” World Socialist Web Site, January 12, 2006 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/alit-j12.shtml

Christians such as Tony Perkins have rightfully expressed concern about efforts to eradicate Christianity from our culture. With increasing regularity activist judges are going beyond the scope of their judicial roles and have created new laws threatening the spiritual fabric of our nation. They have invalidated marriage, struck down the Pledge of Allegiance, removed prayer from schools and forbidden various public displays of the manger scene and the 10 Commandments.

In addition, legislative groups are broadening hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class.

Christians realize that this kind of legislation could severely restrict Christians from practicing their faith, silence them from proclaiming biblical truth and prohibit them from teaching it to their children.

Is this mere fantasy? Are Christians imagining things?

Consider the following article filed just last week:

"Strasburg, Jan. 20 (CWNews.com) - The justice minister of the European Union, Franco Frattini, announced this week at the EU parliament in Strasburg that member states which do not eliminate all forms of discrimination against homosexuals, including the refusal to approve "marriage" and unions between same-sex couples, would be subject to sanctions and eventual expulsion from the EU."

"According to a report by the Archdioceses of Madrid's news service Analisis Digital, the commissioner's statements came as the governments of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland ruled against legalizing homosexual "marriage."

"Homophobia is a violation of human rights and we are watching member states on this issue and reporting on cases in which our efforts have been unsuccessful," Fratti said. In this way "the Commission and the European Parliament seek to make any refusal to grant homosexual couples the same rights as a married couple a crime of 'homophobia'," the report warned. . ."

In Sweden a pastor delivered a sermon on what the Bible says about homosexuality. He also published the sermon in the local newspaper comparing the sin of Sweden to the sin of Sodom. As a result he received a sentence to spend one month in jail.

A Canadian a pastor was charged with violating the country’s Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act by publishing letters critical of homosexual conduct. The pastor faced jail time for his statements.

Broadening hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation rests on the false belief that hate crimes against homosexuals have been increasing (actually they have been decreasing), and that the hate crimes are a major issue with respect to criminal law (actually the number of hate crimes is less than 1% of all violent crimes).

Mat Staver writes concerning alleged hate crimes against homosexuals:

"Statistical evidence demonstrates, however, that hate crimes are generally declining and have been for several years. In 2003, there were over 11 million 'non-hate' crimes reported and 1.4 million of those were reported as 'violent crimes.' By contrast, there were only 7,489 'hate crime incidents' and of that number only 1,239 were attributed to 'sexual orientation' bias. This number was a decline from 1,244 reported 'hate crime incidents' based on 'sexual orientation' in 2002 and 1,393 such incidents reported in 2001.

"Additionally, according to FBI statistics, only five of the 93,433 forcible rapes reported in 2003 were classified as 'hate crimes.' Also, of the 16,503 criminal homicides reported in 2003, only 14 were classified as 'hate crimes' with six of that number said to be based on 'sexual orientation' and five of that number based on racial bias. The reporting of 'hate crimes' is subject to questioning, thereby lending less credibility to the numbers of reported 'hate crimes.'"
(http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/060124adams.htm)

It is quite all right for liberal groups to misspeak about the actual extent of homosexual hate crimes; that is just part of persuading people to align with the homosexual viewpoint. However, when Christians express their concerns, based upon the actual experiences of pastors in Sweden and Canada with respect to hate crimes, Christians are fantasizing.

According to an article in Dispath.com earlier this month, Paul Hackett, a Democrat from Cincinnati proclaimed:

"The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren’t a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world," he said. "The challenge is for the rest of us moderate Americans and citizens of the world to put down the fork and spoon, turn off the TV, and participate in the process and try to push back on these radical nuts – and they are nuts."

Comparing Christians to Osama bin Laden reveals a lack of understanding of both Osama bin Laden and Christianity. Osma bin Laden advocates the eradication of Jewish people. Christians recognize that the Jewish people are God’s chosen people. They also understand that vengeance belongs to the Lord and should not be a part of the Christian lifestyle. In contrast, Osama bin Laden promotes violence, educates terrorists and funds their efforts.

To equate Christians to Muslim terrorists is out of bounds, but it reflects the state of our nation today. It is acceptable for everyone but Christians to have a point of view. It is wrong to speak negatively of anyone but Christians.

If a Christian speaks negatively about homosexuality he should be prosecuted for a hate crime. If a politician speaks negatively about Christianity, he is merely enlightening society and should be celebrated for his courage.

Why is it that homosexuals can hold a rally outside a church and block Christians from entering the building for worship? Why do the homosexuals get a free pass when they chant things such as “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Christian hate has got to go” and “Bring back the lions.”

Contemporary political figures often make statements in light of what the polls say rather than on the basis of belief and values. They test the waters and then craft their political positions to appeal to their voter base. Like it or not, this is how the game is played.

These very politicians who base their viewpoints on the polls are often quick to criticize Christians for basing their views on biblical truth. Not to have strong convictions and to base your view solely on the polls is perfectly acceptable. But it is totally unacceptable to base one’s view on the Bible.

We have a dangerous double standard in our society, and Christians are absorbing much of the abuse.

This afternoon Pulitzer-winning playwright Wendy Wasserstein died at the age of 55. For three decades she had captivated theatergoers with her engaging work mostly concerning the desires and disappointments of the American woman.

An article describing her life included these comments:

"A play is a piece of art," Ms. Wasserstein said about her profession. "And art comes from somebody with an urgency. I think that what's great about theatre is you still have the possibility of one writer and one director saying: 'We see the world this way. Here's a point of view. And we're going to throw it out there, and we're not going to do it because we've taken 47 market polls on what the audience wants. We're doing this because this is how we see it.' Theatre isn't prefabricated. It isn't that watered-down stuff. Theatre is about words and craft and a point of view. You miss that in life now."
- “Wendy Wasserstein, Playwright Who Dramatized the Progress of a Generation of Women, is Dead at 55,” Robert Simonson, Playbill On-Line, Monday, January 30, 2006, http://news.yahoo.com/s/playbill/20060130/en_playbill/96859

Wasserstein is no longer with us, but her words ring true. We are coming to the point where people with a viewpoint are fearful of expressing that view not only in the theatre but in the public arena as well. Playwrights who express questionable views are unable to get those views off the page and onto the stage. Outside the realm of theater, Christians who express unacceptable views are in peril of being censured or even jailed merely because of their views.

By moving down that road, we are traveling to a destination that is neither healthy nor desirable for our nation. We are jeopardizing the very freedoms that have been so important to the greatness of this wonderful country. If we continue in this direction we may find ourselves in a place where fantasy becomes more important than fact, and opinion polls more valuable than truth.

I Have A Dream

Today is Martin Luther King Day, and people all over the country are celebrating his life and legacy.

People remember him most for his “I Have A Dream” speech delivered at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963. Referring to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence he challenged the nation to make good he promise that all people are guaranteed inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

He dreamed of a day in which the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners would be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. He dreamed of a day in which justice would prevail throughout the land for people of all colors. He dreamed of a time in which people would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Forty-two years later we have not eliminated discrimination from our land. There are still people content to mistreat those of other races. There are those who try to justify denying equal opportunity to people whose skin is a different color.

On this day, it is important to point out that the Bible does not condone discrimination on the basis of another person’s skin color.

For example, Genesis 2:7 says, “LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

All men originate from this one man, Adam and his wife Eve. There are no other possibilities. If you are reading this post, Adam and Eve are you original ancestors.

With that truth in mind, it is ridiculous to treat people as inferior because of the color of their skin. We are all from the same family. We are part of the human race.

Second, in Genesis 1:26 God says, “Let us make man in our image, after our image.” That verse teaches that we are all made in the image of God. Regardless of a person’s color, that person in some we reflects the image of God, just as we do. We cannot rightfully mistreat or denigrate those who are made in the image of God.

Third, as members of the Body of Christ we are one in Christ. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, slave or free.

These Biblical truths are especially significant because there are those who try to pervert the Bible into justifying racism.

For example, some mention the curse upon Cain for killing Abel. God put a mark on Cain so that he would be easily identified. Others point to the curse upon Canaan, Ham’s son, as a justification for the inferiority of blacks. The curse says, “Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers” (Gen 9:25).

The unfounded assumption is skin color is part of the curse upon Cain or that African blacks are descendants Canaan. There is no evidence in support of these assertions. The Bible certainly does not make that leap.

It is time for people to reject these false teachings that justify racism. They demean the message of the Bible and the God of the Bible.

In his speech Dr. King refers to Isaiah 40:4-5, “Every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.”

That passage speaks of a future time in which the Lord will return to the earth in great glory and rule with righteousness. Christians await that magnificent moment.

When Christ returns He will not allow racism to continue on the earth. He will immediately bring judgment against those who promote and practice unrighteousness.

If racism will absolutely be eliminated in the future, why not eliminate it today. We must ask the Lord to give us the grace to regard others more highly than ourselves (Phil 2:3). We must also diligently expose racist error and replace it with truth. Finally, we must take these truths off the page and put them into action.

The result should be that Christians become more righteous in their relationships and glorify God who created us all in his image. Second, our nation becomes a better place for everyone as we move toward achieving the vision of Dr. King when he so boldly and courageously proclaimed, “I have a dream.”

Keeping An Open Mind

Since October 31, 2005 when President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, we have seen and heard all kinds of statements about his record, his views, his judicial temperament and his ultimate suitability for the Supreme Court.

Now that the Senate hearings have begun we have had an opportunity to hear Alito’s responses concerning various issues.

In the second day of the hearing Alito said that if he faced an abortion case he would “approach the question with an open mind.”

I must admit that his statement troubled me a bit when I heard it.

As one who believes that abortion involves the killing of a living person, I would have preferred to hear him say that abortion is nowhere protected by our Constitution. Because so many Christian and pro-life groups have endorsed his nomination, I was saddened to hear him say that he has not made up his mind about what the Constitution says about the taking of innocent life.

At the same time, one could argue that Alito would never gain Senate approval if he flat out stated that abortion is murder and unprotected by the Constitution.

Some people hold that it is better to give non-answers to many of the questions the Senate inquisitors ask. That way, the nominee at least has a fighting chance to actually make it to the bench.

Should it trouble us that we have reached this point?

The President is given the sole power to nominate judges to fulfill Supreme Court vacancies. The Senate has the limited role of confirming the nominee and assuring that the nomination was not improperly made. For example, the President should not nominate someone merely because that person is a relative.

This Senate role is a relatively minor one and does not give Senators the power to reject qualified nominees who may hold political views the Senators do not share.

Through the years the Senate has greatly expanded its sense of importance and power in the confirmation process. Today, Senators demand to know how the nominee would rule on any particular issue. Further, if the answer does not fit a Senator’s particular political view, he will reject the nominee.

In light of this situation, one can understand Alito’s dilemma. If he answers the questions he will not be confirmed. If he doesn’t answer, he appears weak and uncommitted.

It now appears that he will receive confirmation even though some of the senators will undoubtedly sputter about his views.

Must one keep an open mind on all issues?

Should we keep an open mind on whether or not the Holocaust took place? Should we keep an open mind on whether or not it is right to steal a computer from the workplace? Should we continue to be open to whether two and two equal four?

At some point, we must come to conclusions and make decisions.

One would hope that the issue of abortion would not be so confusing that a learned person would not have an opinion about it by the time middle-age arrives. One would hope that a judge would have an idea of whether or not abortion is protected by the Constitution as designed and understood by the framers.

At some point, we must be willing to take a stand concerning the great moral issues of our day. If abortion is not such an issue, there is no such issue.

What if the Senators asked Alito whether it was wrong for the Nazi’s to kill the Jews? What would be our response if Alito’s answer involved “keeping an open mind?” We would be outraged.

Abortion is an outrage, and it will never come to an end until judicial nominees are willing to plainly state the truth. The US Constitution does not protect the right of abortion.

Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned just as the Supreme Court had the wisdom to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) in Brown v. Board of Education (1954); Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis (1940) in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (1943); and United States v. Halper (1989) in Hudson v. United States (1997).

With the appointments of Roberts and Alito, there is no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will decide abortion cases any differently than it has in the past. Perhaps I will be surprised and found wrong on this point. I hope so.

The bottom line is that President Bush had a wonderful opportunity to appoint conservative, pro-life judges who would properly interpret the Constitution. He did not do so.

On several occasions Roberts called Roe v. Wade the "settled law of the land." On the other hand, the framers never gave bad law that status.

Why did the Supreme Court not argue that Plessy was the "settled law of the land?" We can be thankful that the Court recognized the injustice of segregating black children from white children in our public education system even if the facilities are equal.

Alito has also taken a weak "open mind" position on abortion. His statement does not reflect the commitment or understanding of one who recognizes that the injustice of abortion is not a part of our Constitution and should not be part of our way of life.

Conservative, pro-life groups jumped on the Roberts and Alito bandwagon working hard to secure Senate confirmation. These groups seem to overlook the fact that neither judge has given any kind of indication that he will support a pro-life position with respect to Roe or similar cases.

The abortion issue is too important to address it in such a cavalier attitude.

These two judges are probably very kind men. They have certainly excelled academically and professionaly. Even so they have never communicated a clear concern about the killing of babies. For that reason, their Supreme Court appointments are a concern.

Thousands of babies are slaughtered daily, yet we do very little about it. As citizens we must demand more of our elected representatives. We ought not re-elect public officials who fail to act to eliminate this scourge on our land. We should replace them with people who will not merely talk about a “culture of life” but take the action required to restore that culture to our land.

We need to reach the place where we no longer keep an open mind when it comes to moral evil. There is a time when we need to close our mind to error so that we can live and act in the truth.