Religious Liberty
The Wisdom of Friendly Accommodation
There is a spirit behind laws and most certainly behind movements. When I say “spirit” I mean other worldly beings.
This view is frowned upon in secular society which doesn’t believe in God, a personal devil, demons or angels.
But there is an abundance of evidence the world over that God exists, Satan exists, and good and bad angels exist–with their influence and attitudes felt in people lives, causes, and human laws.
The Bible says where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17). The opposite spirit–the satanic or evil spirit–is a spirit of tyranny (force or coercion).
When Indiana tried to protect religious freedom a few weeks, in exactly the same manner Congress had voted nearly unanimously over twenty years ago, what kind of spirit reared its head?
A spirit of intolerance (satanic) or a spirit of friendly accommodation (Spirit of God)?
I was very saddened by the statements and actions of many political and business leaders following Indiana’s adoption of a fair, tolerant, and thoroughly American law to protect religious liberty. A number of well-known executives vented their hatred and venom; Some political leaders, like the mayor of Seattle and the governor of my state, called for a boycott of Hoosier-land. Other protesters mobbed the streets and shouted bigotry and hatred.
And after this ugly spirit of force, condemnation, and lack of civility and fairness swept through many parts of the nation, the Indiana governor and assembly bowed to the pressure and changed their eminently fair, American law.
They caved to the spirit of hatred, force, and coercion. That was a sad day for America. The “bad spirits” won.
That does not bode well for our future.
There is a huge debate about the morality of homosexuality and same sex marriage raging in this nation. Many Jews, Muslims, Bible-believing Christians, and other folks honestly believe that homosexuality is destructive behavior and that changing the definition of marriage would hurt people, children, and society as a whole.
These people aren’t bigots. I know–because I’m one of them. They just have deeply held beliefs. They don’t demand that others agree with them. They simply love people, love God and don’t want to be forced to change their hearts and consciences.
The key word in that sentence is forced. Remember, the devil and demonic beings force. That’s the evil spirit behind many things in our world from jihadists who behead Christians to secularists who demand that florists, bakers, photographers celebrate their opinions and actions.
The Satanic spirit is one of force and intolerance.
The godly spirit was the one behind Gov. Mike Mike Pence and the Indiana Assembly who had passed a religious freedom act. They didn’t demand or force anybody to do anything.
They wanted freedom of conscience–which comes from the Spirit of the Lord.
Michael Barone and I hold opposite opinions on same sex marriage. He is in favor or it. I am opposed. But when I was readying an article on this issue, this well-known political writer came out with a column that said everything that was in my heart.
Better than I can say it.
You see, you can have an opposite or wrong take on a subject, but hold a godly view of its implementation.
Mr. Barone calls this attitude “The Wisdom of Friendly Accommodation.”
I agree.
No matter where you stand on the great moral divide of our time, I admonish you to listen to the spirit of Michael Barone which has the “echo of God” behind it.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Indiana Religious Freedom Act in Accord With Traditional American Toleration
By Michael Barone
There has been a great ruckus about Indiana’s recently passed religious freedom law. Some, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, see it as endorsing anti-gay bigotry. Democratic Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy has banned state employees from traveling to Indiana, even though Connecticut has a similar law even more favorable to claims of religious objectors. Perhaps he should ban state employees from remaining inside Connecticut.
The Indiana law is substantially identical to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress by a near-unanimous vote in 1993 and signed with brio by Bill Clinton. It was a response to a Supreme Court decision upholding an Oregon drug law against members of the Native American Church who had claimed their religion requires drug use.
RFRA sets up a balancing test, to be employed by courts. Government cannot enforce a statute requiring people to violate their religious convictions unless it can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so, and proceeds to do so by the least restrictive means possible.
This is in line with longstanding American tradition. The First Amendment, ratified in 1790, guaranteed Americans the “free exercise” of religion. The Framers knew that their new republic included Quakers, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, atheists, even perhaps a few Muslims. They wanted all to be free to live — not just worship, but live — according to their beliefs.
Opponents of the Indiana law point to horrifying hypotheticals. Restaurants won’t serve gays; large corporations won’t hire them, and so on. But mass anti-gay discrimination seems extremely unlikely. What is on the opponents’ minds, apparently, are the cases where gay couples have successfully sued bakeries and florists who refuse to provide services to same-sex weddings. These litigants, they believe, should not lose.
As someone who has publicly supported same-sex marriage longer than President Obama or Hillary Clinton, I would put this in broader perspective.
My observation is that very large majorities of those on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue, and the very large number who have switched from anti- to pro- over the last decade, take the positions they do out of good motives. They believe that their views would be better for individuals, families and society.
Only handfuls base their stand on hatred of gays or hatred of those who believe in traditional or religious concepts of marriage. Most people on both sides want what they think is best for others.
The traditional American recipe for handling such differences is friendly accommodation. The large majority of Americans in the early republic, as today, did not believe in the pacifism of Quakers or the bishops of Episcopalians, the catechism of Catholicism or the rituals of Judaism. But they didn’t begrudge others their beliefs.
An acid test of American religious toleration came during World War II. Congress, at the urging of President Franklin Roosevelt, instituted a military draft in 1940. That law provided, for the first time, for exemption from active military service men who professed a religious conscientious objection to bearing arms.
Most Americans then opposed entry into World War II. They dreaded the hundreds of thousands of American deaths — more than 400,000 as it turned out — that they believed would result. But they and their elected representatives were willing to exempt from military service those who had highly unusual religious beliefs, even though others might die in their places. I should add that many conscientious objectors served as non-combatants at the risk of, and for some the loss of, their lives.
Americans continued to support exemption from military service of conscientious objectors until the military draft ended. It is inconceivable that it would not be part of any future conscription legislation. So strong is American respect for the free exercise of religion that it extends to matters of life and death.
Opponents of the Indiana law liken conscientious refusal to participate in same-sex marriages to racial discrimination. But as many black leaders and citizens will tell you, correctly, no other category of Americans have been subject to anything like slavery and segregation.
Eradicating those drastic evils required drastic legislation, yet even the civil rights laws provide some exemptions. Fair housing laws, for example, don’t cover renting out your basement apartment.
This situation is different. Society has reached a consensus on racial discrimination. It has not reached such a consensus on same-sex marriage.
The traditional American formula for handling such issues is friendly accommodation of the conscientious beliefs of others. Indiana’s RFRA is in line with this. Forcing people to violate their religious beliefs absent a compelling government interest is not.
* * * *
Exactly right.
Force is from the devil. Appreciation of conscience is from God.
You better check that “spirit” within you or behind the cause you are joining–to see if its origin is heavenly or from the pit.
That may tell you a lot about your issue as well.
Political and Spiritual Repentance Bring Twin Rays of Hope
A political tidal wave washed ashore in the United States last night, bringing some hope to a struggling and fearful nation. A few weeks prior, another important but quieter riptide was set in motion in parts of the American nation.
One of these waves was political and the other was spiritual. At the center of both stands the re-emergence of a very important theological truth:
Repentance.
Political and spiritual repentance brought twin rays of hope to America today.
How so?
In my early years as a follower of Christ I wasn’t taught much about the concept of repentance. In fact, in some early discipleship classes, I was told that repentance was an Old Testament concept (primarily) and that it had been superseded in the New Testament by grace and faith.
Then I began to read the Bible for myself and found the word and concept of repentance all over the New Testament. For example:
- The first words that Jesus said when he began his earthly ministry are found in Mark 1:15, “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the Good News.”
- Thirty three times the word repent or repentance is mentioned in the NT books and letters (e.g. Matthew 4:17, Acts 20:21, Romans 2:4, 2 Corinthians 7:9,10 and Revelation 2:5).
- In the first recorded sermon of the Early Church era (Acts 3:19), Peter doesn’t mention the word “faith.” In order to be saved he tells people: “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.”
My early teachers must have been confused about the concept of repentance. Repenting from sin and error seems to be at the center of both the Old and New Testament teachings.
During my early missions training, I read Mother Basilea Schlink’s excellent book Repentance: The Joy-Filled Life which was required reading in our YWAM schools. That, and my continued reading of Scripture settled me in the truth that repentance was a critical character quality for both individuals and nations.
Repentance is necessary and it brings both joy and hope!
So what does this old theological word really mean?
Our English word repentance comes from the Greek equivalent metanoia which simply means to “re-think,” “change your mind,” or do a U-turn in thinking which, in turn, changes your life.
Sometimes we associate this change of mind with tears, regret, and an emotional experience that we call “repenting.” But the feelings are not the critical element.
Change of thinking is the key.
Changing your mind and life is a vital concept. We come into right relationship with God by re-thinking or changing our minds about our sin and rebellion against God. We’re wrong. God is right. Our change of mind leads to a change of direction–we stop living for ourselves ands start living for God and His glory.
That U-turn–from self-centered living to a God-honoring lifestyle–brings great joy and hope, not just on this earth but a promise of eternal life.
It might be true to say that nothing brings more joy and hope than the fruits of repentance.
Enter the 2014 election.
A Political Tidal Wave
Though I was expecting some change in direction in the American nation through last night’s election, the tidal wave of results truly amazed me and stunned most political pundits.
Politically, America repented last night. Some significant majorities “re-thought” their position on the way the nation was going and changed their votes to point us in another direction. To state it in negative form, they repudiated the growth of incompetent Big Government and decided to give the Republican Party a chance to take us back to smaller government, economic growth, moral values, and national strength.
This was nothing less than political repentance. Call it what you want–buyer’s remorse, seeing the consequences of bad policies, or feeling the pain of domestic and foreign upheavals–the American people went to the polls last night and RE-THOUGHT the direction they wanted America to go.
Their change of mind–repentance–gave birth to a historic change in voting:
- US Senate: The American people gave the Republicans majority control of the Senate with 8-9 pickups (Louisiana needs to go to a run-off). That was big deal, throwing out Majority Leader Harry Reid and bringing in Mitch McConnell and a new slate of leaders.
- US House of Representatives: Added 14 seats to the House of Representatives–the highest total Republicans have had since 1946. The House stands at 247-183, well beyond what analysts expected. A few races in Arizona and California were not called on Tuesday night.
- Governors: Grew Republican governorships to 31 versus 17 Democrats, with Vermont headed into a run-off and Alaska still being counted (if Republican Sean Parnell loses, it will be to independent Bill Walker.) That’s a net gain of four governorships for the GOP. This leaves Democrats at their weakest point in state legislatures since the 1920s.
- State Governments: Republicans seized new majorities in the West Virginia House, Nevada Assembly and Senate, New Hampshire House, Minnesota House and New York Senate, The West Virginia Senate is now tied. (Control of several legislative chambers was still up in the air early Wednesday as counting continued in several tight races that will determine control of the Colorado Senate, New Mexico House and Maine Senate.)
-
The lone bright spot for Democrats was holding majorities in the Iowa Senate and Kentucky House.
I remember being in Washington, D.C. during the days of the Reagan Revolution which brought a conservative president into the Oval Office and threw many liberal bureaucrats out of town. They called that era “Morning in America.”
We’re not there yet, but I see this morning a shining ray of political hope.
All because a majority of the American people repented (re-thought and changed their votes).
A Spiritual Rip-tide
Something else happened on the Sunday before election day (and the weeks and months that led up to it). Thousands of Christian leaders and their people gathered in a Houston Church to show solidarity during “I Stand Sunday.”
You’re probably aware that Houston Mayor Annise Parker, an avowed lesbian and LGBT activist, recently rammed through the city of Houston an ordinance that became known as the “bathroom bill” which allowed trans genders to use any facility they wanted.
In other words, if you were a man but wanted to be a woman, you could use the ladies’ restroom in any public facility (and vice versa). The residents of Houston didn’t like the intrusive bill and collected 50,000 signatures (30,000 were required) to bring it to a vote of the people.
The activist mayor not prevented a vote on the measure (how’s that for “We, the people”), but issued subpoenas to five local area pastors demanding their Free Speech-protected sermons, bulletins, letters etc. Mayor Parker was ticked off that the pastors had mobilized their people to gather the 50,000 signatures that were required to put the referendum on the ballot.
Her actions were shades of Nazi Germany or Communist China–not America.
Instead of Mayor Parker winning her way, she accidently lit a fire storm of protest from a sleeping church that woke up to realize that basic religious rights were being trampled by secular zealots and needed to be resisted.
The Church’s “repentance”–re-thinking their need to be the salt and light in this nation while facing outright persecution–caused them to rise up nation-wide to send Bibles to Mayor Parker’s office, start a cascade of prayer for revival, and led to the scheduling of “I Stand” Sunday on November 2 where thousands gathered in a Houston Church to speak up for freedom.
We can especially thank Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council for leading the “I Stand” charge.
One observer described “I Stand” this way:
“With more than 7,000 looking on within the sanctuary, there was no mistaking the energy and enthusiasm in the auditorium, as people stood and cheered for nine minutes as dozens and dozens of the area’s pastors marched into the sanctuary for the “I Stand Sunday” kick off. As Dr. Ronnie Floyd, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, told listeners, ‘it is time to wake up from our slumber! While Mayor Parker may have overstepped her bounds, that was only possible because the church had fallen asleep at the gate.'”
“’Our greatest problem,’ Dr. Floyd said, ‘is not in the White House, but God’s house!’ If you’re wondering why things like this are happening in cities like Houston, Fayetteville, and San Antonio, look in the mirror. The blame for this doesn’t rest with Annise Parker or the city — but every Christian, who has quietly stepped into the shadows on tough truths.'”
“‘It’s because a lot of people in our churches have said, “I just don’t want to get involved,” former Governor Mike Huckabee explained. ‘My dear friends, when the government comes to your pastor and says, “Cough up all of the sermons, sermon notes and correspondence that the pastor has had with his own parishioners,” you are already involved.'”
“‘It’s time’, Dr. Floyd and others pointed out, ‘to get right with God.'”
Just prior to the “I Stand” event, hundreds of pastors had participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday–an opportunity to resist some unconstitutional edicts of the IRS regarding free speech in the churches. In 2008, 33 churches participated in the thrust.
In 2014, 1600 churches joined the movement.
Numerous prayer thrusts, Pulpit Freedom Sunday, and the “I Stand” movement all galvanized this fall to call the Church in America to repentance–to change our minds and actions–to see people come to Christ in our nation and resist the advance of evil.
A spiritual rip-tide is beginning in this nation that brings a shining ray of spiritual light to the horizon.
In summary, God is moving in the Church and in our nation that could bring positive affects to our nation and the world in the coming years.
Repentance–continuing and deepening repentance–is the key to both, and can bring back hope that comes through change.
The Meaning of the the Arizona Veto
With Vladimir Putin taking control of Crimea–he was mad at the Ukrainian people for forcing out their pro-Russian tyrannical leader– came the temptation to write on the beginning of a new Cold War.
But that can come later. We have yet to see whether President Obama will act weakly like Jimmy Carter in the 1970s or strongly as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s.
But we do know what happened in America last week when Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062. Religious liberty died and propaganda won.
Here’s the real meaning of the Arizona veto.
I will let some other voices set the stage. Gary Randall of the Faith and Freedom Network tells us the facts about SB 1062:
“It was simply an amendment to the 1999 state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a state law similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.
“Senate Bill 1062, was designed to merely clarify the protection already offered in the state RFRA. It would have clarified that protections extend to any “state action” and would apply to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization. It protected all citizens and the associations they can form from undue burdens by the government on their religious liberty or from private lawsuits that would have the same results.”
It seems like an eternity ago when a Democratic president, House and Senate passed a bill that was good for America. But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, sponsored by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer-NY, passed on a unanimous voice vote in the House and a whopping 97-3 margin in the Senate.
Bill Clinton signed it. Good law–good leadership.
As Randall points out above, the Arizona bill was a mirror of the RFRA that clarified two minor points. You can read read its 680 words here. (It’s not 2000 pages long like Obamacare.)
What did it strengthen?
Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation explains:
“When the government starts forcing people to do things that violate their deeply held beliefs, we have a problem. Unless the government proves that there is a compelling government interest in doing so (and that there was not another, less restrictive means possible), citizens should be left free. We need legislation protecting religious liberty for all, because in a growing number of cases, government coercion and penalties have violated religious freedom.”
Arizona’s SB 1062 took a good law passed by Democrats eleven years ago and added two tweaks: 1) Government can’t force anyone to do anything unless it has a compelling interest to do so, and 2) That there is not another less restricted way to accomplish the same result.
If you took the time to the read SB 1062, you might be surprised that it was a generic bill that applied to all people, races, issues, situations, and circumstances.
It never mentioned gay rights or gay marriage.
So why did the vast majority of media outlets (including Fox News) trumpet headlines that the Arizona bill was “anti-gay” or “anti-gay marriage?”
Ryan Anderson explains in the following Q&A:
Q: How did people’s beliefs about same-sex marriage become an issue?
A: “In New Mexico, a photographer declined to use her artistic talents to promote a same-sex ceremony because of her religious beliefs. The couple complained and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered her to pay a fine of nearly $7,000. Christian adoption and foster-care agencies in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., have been forced to stop providing those services because they believe that the best place for kids is with a married mom and dad. Other cases include a baker, a florist, a bed-and-breakfast, a student counselor, the Salvation Army, and more.”
Q: Why is this a religious liberty issue?
A: “Many religions teach that marriage is the union of a man and woman, and the religious liberty concern in these recent cases is that people are being coerced into violating that belief. While Americans are legally free to live and love as they choose, no one should demand that government coerce others into participating in activities that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Q: But isn’t government supposed to guarantee equal treatment for all?
A: “These are cases of private individuals offering (or not offering) their services, not government officially recognizing same-sex relationships—which is another case altogether. There is no need for government to try to force every photographer and every florist to service every marriage-related event.”
Q: Would laws like these open the door to lots of businesses discriminating against gays and lesbians?
A: “Claims that proposals like Arizona’s encourage refusing service to gays and lesbians are simply nonsensical. Arizona’s proposed legislation never even mentioned same-sex couples or sexuality; it simply clarified and improved existing state protections for religious liberty.”
“Some people have claimed, for example, that it meant a pharmacy could refuse to serve gays and lesbians. But I know of no sincere religious belief that says you can’t sell penicillin to someone because they are gay or lesbian. Ensuring that all citizens have access to crucial medical care is a compelling government interest. And requiring every pharmacy to sell penicillin might very well be the least restrictive means possible of ensuring access.”
Q: What about people whose religions say different things, or Americans who choose not to practice a religion?
“These types of freedom protections are important for all Americans. As Cato’s Ilya Shapiro put it, ‘For that matter, gay photographers and bakers shouldn’t be forced to work religious celebrations…and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities.’ When it comes to this particular issue, all Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.”
Is that too hard to understand? Arizona’s reasonable law protected all people from being forced, in a myriad of situations, to violate their religious beliefs.
Forcing violations of conscience–in any area–is bad. Freedom is good. If government is going to force us to go against our strongly held religious beliefs (be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheistic), then they better have:
- A very compelling reason to do it,
- In the least restrictive way possible.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council put it this way:
“All SB 1062 did was ensure the government couldn’t force business owners to violate their religious beliefs. If that’s controversial, then so is the First Amendment…As Americans, we have a proud tradition of respecting each other’s differences — a tradition that was never threatened by this bill. On the contrary, it would have extended to Christians, who have suffered the loss of jobs, security, and money at the hands of the liberal agenda, the same courtesy of tolerance.”
Here are two other sane explanations of the Arizona bill.
Rich Lowry, writing in Politico, “The question isn’t whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage should provide their services for gay weddings; it is whether they should be compelled to by government. The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness, but they are highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it and tolerant of only one point of view — their own.”
On last weekend’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) hit back at the massive misinformation regarding SB 1062:
“The notion that someone because they are gay would be denied service at a restaurant is something that Americans don’t support. The other side of the equation is imagine if you’re a Southern Baptist or a Catholic or even evangelical photographer, who does not believe, because of your faith, in gay marriage. And because of that, you don’t want to provide photographic services to a gay marriage. Should you be punished by the state for refusing to do so?”
The answer to that question should be a resounding NO.
So why did Governor Jan Brewer veto SB 1062? What is the meaning of the Arizona veto?
1. The current US Administration–and those who cowtow to it–are determined to enshrine secular values by force. These values include forcing us to pay for abortions through the Affordable Care Care, removing the Judeo-Christian heritage from American life, and demanding that we support the re-definition of marriage.
Because government is all about force–the only sphere of society thus designed–it is crucial that this power is used minimally–and never to trample human rights to life, liberty and conscience.
2. We are becoming a banana republic where propaganda is more powerful than thoughtful argument and debate. The Brewer veto of a good law–one that would have helped all Arizonans–came about because the media, some businesses (like the NFL), and government elites distorted a good law. The propaganda pressure over a politically correct issue (gay marriage) was too much for Governor Jan Brewer to resist.
She wilted–and freedom died.
Waves of propaganda are common in totalitarian countries–such as Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, China and Russia. But they are now finding their way into the West because of our ignorance, sin, and rejection of godly values. This is a troubling trend that sets the stage for Hitler-like deception and evil under the right circumstances.
3. Christians must be prepared to suffer for their faith if present trends continue. The success of propaganda is the first step toward alienation and suffering by the “offensive” social group. Ask the Jews about that one–and followers of Christ in other eras. If authoritarian governments, in sync with media boosters and duped masses, can silence those who disagree with their objectives, then those “traitors” to the new order can be rounded up and a “final solution” served.
I believe the Western World is closer to Christian persecution than at any time in the past five hundred years.
4. Only a tidal wave of godly renewal–and fearless leaders who will call for it! (think 21st century Martin Luther Kings)–can defeat the propaganda and its secular goals.
We are standing at a watershed moment in history. Russia, Iran, and China form formidable foes from without–and apathy, ignorance, and sin are destroying us from within.
May the Church rise up and pray, and may a new generation of leaders call God’s people to a rebirth of faith, morality and religious liberty.
May that be the result of the Arizona veto.