Freedom is a "Social Issue"
     We better stop ignoring it
By Curt Wikstrom

Freedom of Religion is at Stake in this election
     Obama is working to remove the last vestiges of religious freedom. In fact, if not for the Supreme Court's decision in  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, freedom of religion would already be a thing of the past in America.  The Obama administration tried to convince the court that religious institutions were not exempt from so called "anti-discrimination" laws.   The court held that The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimi­nation laws.

       If religious institutions were subject to the anti-discrimination laws, they could be forced to hire pastors or teachers who did not share their beliefs.  That rule would also prohibit religious organizations from expecting certain types of behavior from their employees.  That rule could force churches who believe sodomy is a sin to hire pastors who engage in sodomy.  It could require a Christian church to hire a youth group leader who disagreed with the doctrine of the trinity.

     Obama often talks about freedom of worship.  In other words, he wants to confine religious freedom to praying and singing.  But he won't even allow us to pray in a church that shares our values.  Most of the rest of us believe that freedom of religion is being able to live our lives in conformity with the dictates of our conscience as guided by God's ordinances.  It means associating with those who share our values, and the freedom to talk about our world view with others.
Freedom of Religion = Freedom of Conscience + Freedom of Association + Freedom of Speech.

     Obama personally illustrated his contempt for freedom of conscience when he ruled that religious organizations had to pay for medical services which they considered morally wrong.  After getting many complaints from Catholic Bishops he deceitfully re-cast the rule as the insurance company had to provide the services (contraceptives), which of course are still paid for by the Church.  And of course the Church institutions often self insure so they are the insurance company.  Since contraceptives are ordinary expenses they do not even belong in an insurance policy, which should be reserved for unexpected events with costs that are difficult to pay out of pocket.  But Obama insisted that Freedom of conscience must be overruled by a new right to free contraceptives.  His and the Democratic party's contempt for freedom on conscience is displayed in many other regulatory rulings.

     Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's liberal majority does not protect freedom of association, or freedom of conscience. It only protects freedom of association when it is very closely aligned with free speech.  So it based it's decision on  an exception for religious institutions.  In other words, the rest of us have already lost our freedom of association, and thus our freedom of religion, except to the extent that the President and Congress will respect it.  If the legislature or bureaucrats make rulings that violate our freedom of association, or freedom of conscience, we don't have them.  In other words, if our group is not a religious institution we only have religious freedom if the legislature doesn't make a law taking it away from us.  Unfortunately, most states are passing such laws, and sadly, with many "moderate" Republican votes.

     Freedom of religion is more important to most genuine Christians than what our tax rates are.  Failure to address this important issue during this election is a huge mistake.  Many Christians and Jews are looking for Champions in the political arena to protect the last vestiges of religious freedom.  And protecting these rights could bring hundreds of thousands of new people into the political arena to vote for candidates who will fight for those rights. 

Economic and Social issues are inter-related

     A number of Republicans claim that addressing the moral or "social" issues is "divisive", and therefore only "economic" issues should be brought up in political discussion.  This is based on some foolish conceptions.     

     All politics is about social issues.  Speech, religion, press, property rights, are all "social" issues.   We have a moral code that prohibits robbery, vice, murder, rape, lying, and so forth.  That moral code must be enforced in order for us to be free.  Those are "social" issues.  Economics is a "social" science.  It is all about human action.  The very purpose of government is to deal with them.  

     The collapse of our the moral framework in America is primarily responsible for our economic and political problems.  1/3 of our children do not live with 2 married parents and 40 percent do not live with their 2 biological parents.  62% of blacks live with only one parent, usually their mother.  Millions of children are in the country illegally and unaccounted for. This results in upbringing with low or non-existent ethical and moral standards.  This in turn results in increased family breakdown, crime, welfare costs, unemployment, and educational deficiencies.  Many of our public schools promote sexual promiscuity and deviancy, as do many in the news media and entertainment industry.   The breakdown in the family and sexual morality are serious problems that have been created by failed government policies and attitudes.  Republican candidates need to understand the importance of marriage and families in order to vote intelligently about social and economic policy.
  
Redefining Marriage
         The most damaging consequence of same sex marriage is the acceptance and promotion of sodomy. It is physically, mentally, and spiritually unhealthy. There has been a campaign to get homosexuality accepted in the public schools and to promote it.  Same sex marriage will culminate that campaign giving sodomy not only respectability, but also begin the persecution of those who do not accept it.  That has already happened in states that have adopted same sex marriage.  For example, a couple who had a business of catering to marriage parties was sued by homosexuals in one state because they refused to cater their "marriage" claiming that they were being "discriminated against".  Because it violated their conscience to be involved in promoting sodomy, they had to stop their business.  Simply disagreeing with sodomy in public is in some places considered "hate speech", and is punished.  In other words, it is and will become illegal to disagree openly with the practice of sodomy, or teaching it in school.

     Republican candidates need to be intellectually and morally equipped to fight these laws.  Candidates like governor Schwarzenegger say they don't care about how other people get their kicks.  This type of attitude is irresponsible, and leads to terrible social policy.  Republicans who are willing to expose our children and young soldiers to sodomy, to do nothing while it is promoted in our public schools, support hate speech laws, and relinquish our rights to freedom of association by passing so called anti-discrimination laws which permit people to impose themselves on us, do not deserve our support. 

Rush Limbaugh's answer to those who want to surrender on the "social" issues.

Rush Limbaugh:  We're supposed to sit by while great traditions and institutions like marriage are ripped to shreds. Obama just, as a dictator would, demands that contraception be free and paid for. He can't do that! We're supposed to not say a word because "Obama's on the right side, here. That's good politics" We conservatives are on defense on these matters. We're not trying to change the world. We're trying to preserve it! I'm just gonna tell you: For all of you friends and not who are telling me to leave this stuff alone, please take it somewhere else. If you don't have the desire to defend this stuff, then don't get mad at me, because I do. Because I am not gonna join the side of this that says, "The good politics, the smart politics, the side of this you want to be on politically is to tear down these traditions and institutions."

I am not going there. I'm not gonna go there to attract a larger audience. I'm not gonna go there to avoid criticism. We're not the ones that issued the rule violating the First Amendment. They did! We didn't go to federal court to impose our will and to claim that the will of the people is unconstitutional. They did! We are not the ones doing social experiments with the US military. They are! And yet we're divisive? We're anti-modern? We're unfocused? We're old-fashioned? We're racist, sexist, bigot homophobes? I'm sorry, I am not gutless. And, by the way, I discussed economic issues and every other aspect of Obama long before anybody else got to the table. While everybody else was afraid to be critical of Obama, I was not.