David Cortman

Opinion

Religion has its rights in the public square

David Cortman

Recently, thousands of student journalists gathered at the annual National High School Journalism Conference to celebrate the First Amendment and its guarantees that ensure journalists the freedom to engage in their profession. In attendance were students from all walks of life, including hundreds of Christian students. Ironically, at a session on bullying, those Christian students found themselves and their beliefs being berated and mocked by Dan Savage.

“We can learn to ignore the bulls**t in the Bible about gay people,” Savage proclaimed to the students.  “We ignore bulls**t in the Bible about all sorts of things.”

While rarely expressed in such colorful language, this is an all-too-common sentiment: that Christianity is irrelevant and has no place in public life. The increasing prevalence of these views makes it more important than ever for Christians—and all freedom-loving citizens—to embrace the role faith plays in preserving our liberties. So let’s address a few common arguments in favor of excluding faith from public life.

Some say that the U.S. Constitution’s so-called “separation of church and state” prohibits Christianity (or any religion) from influencing the public sphere. But this extreme “separation” doesn’t exist. It’s not in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other founding document. As courts have explained, “The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

This “separation” is a myth created by those on the far left who seek to sanitize our schools, workplaces, and public life of religion. They base it on a phrase—taken out of context—from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. Jefferson wrote to reassure the Baptists that the First Amendment would preclude the federal government’s intrusion into religious matters between denominations. Rather than shielding government from religion, the First Amendment was intended to protect religion from the influence of government. It certainly was not meant to marginalize people of faith or exclude them from the public square.

Others claim that Christians are “judgmental” and simply want to force their beliefs on the population at large. But few, if any, Christians seek to establish an American theocracy. Instead, they see the Bible as providing a moral foundation for society—one which our Founding Fathers believed was vital to our nation’s continued success. Does anyone seriously question whether our society would be better off if more people followed the Ten Commandments…if more people showed proper respect for God and their parents…if fewer people lied or committed adultery?

As Americans move further and further from this moral compass, they fall into greater levels of selfishness and debauchery. Yet Christians who stand against the flow and cry “Stop!” are labeled as judgmental.

The Christian call for a return to biblical values is not a cry of judgment, it is one of love. It is the same love displayed when a mother warns her child about a hot stove, or a college student warns an intoxicated friend that he should take a cab. Christians, as those of all faiths, have the right—in fact, the duty—to to share what they think is best for society and to warn their fellow citizens when society strays from its foundational values.

Finally, many say that the contributions of Christianity to society are irrelevant. Really? Let’s look at the “irrelevant” contribution of Christianity to our society. Approximately 1 out of 5 hospital beds in this country are operated by religious hospitals. Clearly irrelevant. Evangelical Christians donate more than three times as much on average to nonprofit organizations than Americans as a whole: $4,260 per year as compared with $1308. Also irrelevant. More than 900 colleges, universities, and institutions of higher learning in our nation are affiliated with the Christian faith. Each one, apparently irrelevant.

And we cannot forget how “irrelevant” Martin Luther King, Jr.’s faith was to his work in the civil rights movement or how “irrelevant” Abraham Lincoln’s faith was to his call for a “new birth of freedom.”

Christianity is relevant because it is the source of the noblest virtues of our people. It motivates our charitable activities and our care for the sick. It drives us to learn, to explore, and to develop the next generation of leaders. Most importantly, it tells us of the innate dignity of every human our Creator lovingly crafted. And thus, when religious expression and religious activity are given the full measure of freedom recognized by the First Amendment, we can be confident that the better angels of our nature will prevail.

Let’s return to Mr. Savage’s presentation one last time. As scores of students walked out of the session in protest, Savage offered a weak apology: “I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings. But. I have a right to defend myself.”

Yes, Mr. Savage, you do have the right to defend yourself. You may even have the right to unleash a profanity-laden tirade against Christianity to a roomful of silent teenagers. But as you curse the Bible and those who believe it, you may want to take a moment to ask yourself where the freedom of speech that enables you to do so comes from…and where the freedom of press and your freedom to (apparently) believe in no religion at all comes from, too.

Those who decry our nation’s Christian heritage and the continuing contributions that Christians make to public life simply fail to recognize that the freedoms that make America great are intrinsically linked to the religious beliefs upon which our nation was founded. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that we are endowed with unalienable rights by our Creator, and such rights remain the foundation of the First Amendment.

These rights are not, and should not be seen as being, dependent solely upon a government that may decide to take them away as it sees fit.  And those who seek to knock down this cornerstone of our republic need to beware lest the house come toppling down with it.

David Cortman is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family. 



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Lisa Bourne

News, ,

Donald Trump says he will promote LGBT ‘equality’ as president

Lisa Bourne

CONCORD, New Hampshire, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Does Donald Trump support the gay agenda or oppose it? On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, observers are still scratching their heads about where the GOP frontrunner actually stands.

Trump has repeatedly and consistently said he supports the natural definition of marriage, but can a President Trump be relied on to promote it resolutely and cogently? It is this question that has many marriage activists expressing concern about his increasingly likely hold on the GOP nomination.

In fact, the National Organization for Marriage has gone so far as to say that Trump has “abandoned” the pro-marriage cause.

Trump himself underscored the problem on the weekend when he told a New Hampshire television station that from the White House he would push “equality” for homosexuals even further forward.

A cable news reporter self-identifying as a lesbian asked him last Thursday after a rally in Exeter, "When President Trump is in office, can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?"

“Well, you can and look - again, we're going to bring people together. That's your thing, and other people have their thing,” Trump told Sue O’Connell of New England Cable News. “We have to bring all people together. And if we don't, we're not gonna have a country anymore. It's gonna be a total mess.”

Following the comments, Trump appeared Sunday on ABC’s This Week program with George Stephanopoulos and would not commit to appointing Supreme Court justices who’d overturn Obergefell, though that would be his “preference.”

STORY: ‘Anyone but Donald Trump’: Here’s his record on life, marriage, and religious liberty

“We’re going to look at judges. They’ve got to be great judges. They’ve got to be conservative judges. We’re going to see how they stand depending on what their views are. But that would be my preference,” he told Stephanopoulos. “I would prefer that they stand against, but we’ll see what happens. It depends on the judge.”

Trump’s comments follow his statements during a Fox News Sunday interview last week, when he said, “If I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things, but they've got a long way to go.” 

“[Marriage] should be a states rights issue,” Trump continued. “I can see changes coming down the line, frankly.” 

When asked by Fox if he “might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage,” Trump replied, “I would strongly consider that, yes.”

The real estate mogul criticized the Supreme Court for the Obergefell decision imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states last June, but then later in August, Trump voiced support to NBC News for banning companies from firing employees on the basis of sexual orientation. “I don't think it should be a reason” to fire workers, he said at the time on Meet the Press.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a number influential evangelicals have endorsed Senator Ted Cruz in the race for president. The Texas senator has not only committed to appointing pro-marriage justices, but says the president and the states can rightly defy the “fundamentally illegitimate” ruling just as President Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision.

NOM has also been highly critical of Trump, saying he has “abandoned” their cause. The organization said in its January 27 blog post just prior to the Iowa Caucus that “Donald Trump does not support a constitutional amendment to restore marriage to our laws. Worse, he has publicly abandoned the fight for marriage. When the US Supreme Court issued their illegitimate ruling redefining marriage, Trump promptly threw in the towel with these comments on MSNBC: ‘You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land.’”

NOM had said the week before that Trump “has made no commitments to fight for marriage, or the rights of supporters of marriage to not be discriminated against and punished for refusing to go along with the lie that is same-sex 'marriage.'”

New Hampshire voters have been tracked as showing support for homosexual “marriage,” as a poll last February showed 52 percent of Republican NH primary voters saying opposing gay “marriage” is unacceptable.

The latest CNN/WMUR tracking poll shows that overall 33 percent of likely Republican primary voters support Trump, giving him a growing 17-point lead over the nearest GOP contender. RealClearPolitics polling average in the state puts him at 31.0 percent support, with Marco Rubio second at 14.7, John Kasich third at 13.2, and Ted Cruz fourth at 12.7.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Rich Koele / Shutterstock.com
Greg Quinlan

Opinion, , ,

The unravelling of Chris Christie

Greg Quinlan

February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- I'm a member of the clergy and for the past eight years have lobbied the powerful in Trenton, covering the administrations of both Governors Jon Corzine and Chris Christie.  I did much of my work on behalf of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, associated with Tony Perkins' Family Research Council.  I am currently the President of the Center for Garden State Families.

Those of us who are engaged in the fight to secure the right to believe, speak, and practice the Christian faith in America were all heartened by the election of a Pro-Life Governor in 2009.  Not only did Chris Christie run as an open Pro-Lifer, but he adopted a position in support of natural marriage in the course of the campaign.  And when legislative Democrats attempted to pass same-sex marriage in the lame duck session, so they could have outgoing Governor Corzine sign it into law, Chris Christie rallied opposition and stopped it.  Those were the early, hopeful days; but as Governor, Chris Christie has presented himself in an inconsistent, even scatterbrained way, often making decisions that go against earlier stated beliefs. 

One of his first decisions was to make a liberal Democrat the state's Attorney General.  Once approved by the Senate, and she was, the Attorney General could not be fired by the Governor, as was the case with other cabinet officers.  This gave a liberal Democrat enormous power and she used it to join up with liberal Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in filing a brief against Christians in a case called Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.  Just one day after being sworn in, the newly appointed state Attorney General took the most aggressive legal posture available to defend former Governor Corzine’s one-gun-a-month handgun rationing law, moving to dismiss an NRA lawsuit to overturn the law, and later vigorously opposing the NRA’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the case.  Because of this appointment, New Jersey did not join in the lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare.

Governor Christie appointed a radical "sexologist" to run the NJ Department of Children & Families.  This appointee would later resign when it emerged that she had held the top job in an organization that had supported a study advocating the normalization of some forms of adult-child sex. 

His judicial appointments were also confusing.  While claiming to oppose same-sex marriage, Governor Christie nominated an openly gay Republican to the state Supreme Court who supported it.  Even Democrats wouldn't support this plainly unqualified appointment, and he never served.  The Governor supported the advancement of a liberal Democrat to the job of Chief Justice, while refusing to support the re-appointment of a Republican and the Court's most conservative member.  He also appointed a controversial defense attorney who had defended a number of Islamic extremists who had violated immigration law. 

In 2013, many of those in the Christian community opposed legislation that banned young people from receiving counseling and therapy to lead them away from homosexuality.  As an ex-gay myself, I could have personally attested to the benefits of such counseling, much of which is no different than what is found in contemporary twelve-step programs.  However, the Christian community opposing the ban was not afforded the opportunity to meet with the Governor.  Only the homosexual community with its pro-ban agenda was given that benefit.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

I don't blame the Governor for this, but I do blame his staff.  As President Ronald Reagan said, "personnel is policy," and  Governor Christie's choices in personnel have not advanced the policies he campaigned on, and often it was the direct opposite.   

New Jersey ended up being just the second state in the country that only allows young people to receive counseling that advocates homosexuality, but bans by law counseling that advocates heterosexuality. When he signed it into law, Governor Christie embraced the made-up "science" of the propagandists, when he cited un-specified "research" that "sexual orientation is determined at birth."  This is the so-called "gay-gene" trope that has baffled those engaged in the Science of Genetics because it has never been discovered.

As a candidate for Governor, Chris Christie talked the talk and raised the expectations of Christians in New Jersey. As Governor, and especially in his appointments, Christie undermined our confidence in his leadership. Christians should ask tough questions before extending our faith in him again.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Center for Medical Progress lead investigator David Daleiden speaks at an event in Washington, DC, before the 2016 March for Life. Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

News,

Pro-life investigator hits back with new footage after judge blocks release of abortion sting videos

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

SAN FRANCISCO, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A new video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) shows two National Abortion Federation (NAF) employees saying that abortion clinics would be interested in kickbacks from profits on fetal tissue and body part sales.

The video comes three days after a San Francisco imposed an injunction sought by NAF against CMP videos that one of the abortion group's attorneys said meant that "NAF's members can sleep a little easier tonight."

CMP accused the pro-abortion organization of hiding behind the court.

According to U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick, however, NAF "made...a showing" that release of CMP videos would harm rights to privacy, freedom of association, and liberty of NAF members.

URGENT: Sign the petition to Harris County urging them to drop the charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Click here.

"Critical to my decision are that the defendants agreed to injunctive relief if they breached the agreements and that, after the release of defendants’ first set of Human Capital Project videos and related information in July 2015, there has been a documented, dramatic increase in the volume and extent of threats to and harassment of NAF and its members," wrote Orrick.

Additionally, the judge found that CMP's videos “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions," and that nobody from the abortion industry “admitted to engaging in, agreed to engage in, or expressed interest in engaging in potentially illegal sale of fetal tissue for profit" in the CMP videos.

However, in a new video released today that is unrelated to the injunction, a NAF employee told undercover journalists that kickbacks "definitely [sound] like something some [of] our members would be really interested in," with another chiming in that money from private purchasers to abortion clinics were "a win-win" for clinics.

The undercover investigators, who had purported to be part of a biotechnology company with an interest in fetal parts, were offered the chance to be at a NAF conference. “We have an exhibit hall and then we also have the general conference. But I mean, this is a very great way to talk to our members. We have a group purchasing program through our membership,” the journalists were told. “So it seems like this would be a really great option to be able to offer our members, as well.”

This is the second ruling against CMP in recent weeks, and the second by Orrick since July. The San Francisco judge issued a restraining order against CMP related to NAF's 2014 and 2015 meetings in San Francisco and Baltimore that Friday's ruling extended.

The other recent ruling came in the form of an indictment of CMP's David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Merritt and Daleiden turned themselves into Houston authorities for booking and processing last week. After being released on bail, Daleiden spoke at a LifeSiteNews/Christian Defense Coalition press conference after which more than 100,000 petition signatures backing Daleiden were dropped off to the Harris County, Texas District Attorney's office.

According to Orrick, who says he reviewed the more than 500 hours of recordings from CMP, "It should be said that the majority of the recordings lack much public interest, and despite the misleading contentions of defendants, there is little that is new in the remainder of the recordings. Weighed against that public interest are NAF’s and its members’ legitimate interests in their rights to privacy, security, and association by maintaining the confidentiality of their presentations and conversations at NAF Annual Meetings. The balance is strongly in NAF’s favor.”

NAF did not respond to a request for comment about the allegations by Orrick and a NAF spokesperson that CMP's videos have caused threats and other security concerns against NAF members.



Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook