Curt
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.