8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a
righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers
of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1 Timothy 1:8-9New King James Version
(NKJV)
Has
The Christian Church Lost Its First Amendment Rights?
Opinion Editorialist for
By
de Andréa,
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’
I
have been saying for years that one day, the traditional church in America will
no longer exist. It will instead as it
has in many other autocratic tyrannies, be driven out of their church buildings
and eventually, and quite literally, underground as in secret basements or
bunkers. In the meantime it will meet
secretly in private homes after parking ones car blocks away or just walking to
a meeting one or two at a time, so as not to raise suspicion that something seditious
might be going on there.
The
Communists of course want it both ways.
They want a separation of Church and state as long as it means the
Church must separate itself from the State and doesn’t mean that the government
would have to separate itself from the Church maintaining its authoritarian
control over the church.
A Des Moines Iowa church just wants to be a free American Constitutional church
and preach the gospel, as is its right according to the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America.
In other words it is the supreme law in the country that protects the
church from the government. But the Iowa State’s unconstitutional
nondiscrimination requirements could block the church from doing just that. It is not because the church violates the
anti-discrimination law or discriminates against anyone, but because the
Biblical truth heard from the pulpit might hurt the feelings of some
individuals. Of course that would depend
on whether or not an individual who chooses to be homosexual would voluntarily attended
the church, (the active ingredient here is the word “voluntarily,” no one
forces anyone to be subjected to the truth.) No one would force a homosexual to attend the
church. Nor would anyone purposely berate a homosexual or anyone else. Or force
anyone to become a heterosexual. Which
is more than one could say about the homosexual community or the state in this
case for that matter.
I myself have on many occasions heard something from the pulpit
or in a church that I thought was wrong or offended me. I have never thought of going to a lawyer or
a court and sue the church for my angst.
If it was serious enough I would do one of three things – One, go and
speak to the offender. Two, just get over it, or three leave the church.
One must ask oneself while reading this article, what is the
real motive behind this exercise of power here? It is to protect the rights of a minority group? Or is it just to create a menu of power and control
over the Christian Church for the purpose of eventual elimination.
Lawyers for the church are asking a federal court to
prevent the State government of Iowa from force censoring what the
religious group can say about homosexuality, same-sex “marriage,”
transgenderism and other related topics.
The case erupted when the
state’s Civil Rights Commission first claimed the authority to control the content of sermons and then to define what religion is.
At issue is the state’s nondiscrimination requirements that
specify any “public accommodation” can be ‘ordered’ not to say anything that
might make a homosexual or a transgender feel “uncomfortable,” such as even
reading from the Bible any reference to such behavior.
Lawyers for the Alliance
Defending Freedom, ADF who are representing the
church, have filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary
injunction that would protect the church members’ constitutional rights while
the case plays out.
Without that order, they contend the speech of the Fort Des
Moines Church of Christ and its pastors and members is being unconstitutionally
limited.
Now one should note that in no way does the church or anyone
force the homosexual to attend the offensive church, thereby forcing someone to
risk the possibility of subjecting oneself to the blatant Biblical truth from
God. But on the other hand the State
forces the church to censor the Word of God.
As I previously said the State wants all the power even though in a
self-governing society such as ours, the people are supposed to have the
power. Moreover, just in case one is
ignorant of the fact, I will present it at this point. Quite simply…No one, and I mean no’ one’…has
the authority to censor, change, or eliminate any part of the Word of God.
And if that is not enough to show the criminal tyranny of the
State then let us take a look at the law that is relevant to the Church: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech…”
Pretty clear, except that the designation of ‘Congress’ has been
extended by the U.S. Supreme Court to include all legislatures local and
state. So the State of Iowa is in
violation of “prohibiting the Free exercise of religion”.
“No legislative act, therefore, contrary
to the Constitution,
can be valid.
To deny this
would be to
affirm that the
deputy is greater
than his principal;
that the servant
is above his
master; that the
representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”- An
opinion written by John Jay, First chief justice US
Supreme Court.
Christiana Holcomb, legal
counsel for ADF, said the issue is about the basics of the Constitution. “Churches
should be free to communicate their religious beliefs and operate their houses
of worship according to their faith without fearing government punishment. It’s
not good enough for government officials to say we should simply trust them to
tell us what is religious and what isn’t. The law must be clear, and at
present, the only thing that’s clear is that the law gives too much power to government bureaucrats who
don’t even seem to understand the most basic constitutional principles,” she said.
Boy is she ever right-on’ about that. I have personally found that most legislators
whether they are Local State or Federal,
know little about the U.S.
Constitution. Or they have been taught
in law school that it no longer applies and is irrelevant. I refer you to an
article I published last month, “Titled
U.S. Judge Says Constitution Has No Value”
ADF Senior Counsel Steven O’Ban said “that in the meantime, the court
should issue an injunction that makes certain that this law won’t be enforced
against our client while this lawsuit proceeds.
Neither the commission nor
any state law has the constitutional authority to dictate how a church uses its
facility or what public statements a church can make concerning human
sexuality,” he
said.
The Iowa Civil Rights Act bans places of “public accommodation”
from expressing their views on human sexuality if they would “directly or
indirectly” make “persons of any particular … gender identity” feel
“unwelcome.” The state claims churches
are a”public
accommodation under the anti-discrimination law.”
But the state’s interpretation could be used by bureaucrats to
bar churches from making any kind of so-called “unwelcome” public comments
during an activity that the commission deems not to have a “bona fide religious
purpose.” This shows just how much the commission knows about what goes on in a
church on Sunday morning…I can assure the commission that “Church” is for a “bona
fide religious purpose.” While a Mosque
on the other hand is for a bona fide criminal purpose. But they are exempt because they kill
homosexuals.
The state commission is also forcing
the church to give access to restrooms, showers and locker rooms according to
whatever a person claims his or her “gender identity” happens to be at the
time, creating a platform for perversion and sexual assault such as has
been the experience at the Target Stores.
The new brief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa said the commission’s “overreach is entirely predictable in
light of Iowa’s constitutionally flawed definition of public accommodation,
which clearly encompasses churches. The commission has twice tried to inform
‘churches’ and ‘places of worship’ what activities will bring them under the
act. But in doing so, the commission only highlights how the act interferes
into the internal affairs of churchs, and why a preliminary injunction is
absolutely necessary to protect the church from further harassment and the violation
of its constitutional rights.”
WorldNetDaily reported in July that the state commission had
published guidelines that declared it had the authority to decide what constitutes a religion.
Oh really! If that is true then the
Muslim jihadist problem is solved. All
we have to do is get the Iowa State Commission to decide that Islam doesn’t
constitute a religion and the terrorist problem is solved…
At issue in the Iowa case, are state mandates that protect “transgender
rights.” Among them are allowing men to enter women’s shower rooms, dressing
rooms and restrooms if they say they are women and banning statements in
meetings open to the public that might cause individuals to believe that they
are unwelcome because of their perceived gender identity.”
ADF explained that when it initially sued over the
constitutional dispute, the state revised its guidance document.
But the result was just as bad as the first, ADF said.
“The commission continued to single out places of worship for
special instruction and to sanction churches that communicate their beliefs
about biological sex, and operate their facilities consistent with those
beliefs, when they engage in ‘non-religious activities.’ The commission does
not define the newly minted and vague term ‘non-religious activities,’
reserving to itself the unbridled discretion to determine for a church which of
its activities are religious and which are not,” the lawyers explained
earlier.
The brief said that for “the first time in our nation’s history,
state officials are reaching into the internal affairs of churches to silence
them from teaching and publicly promoting a central tenet of their faith and
forcing them to operate their own facilities in a way that contradicts their
faith.”
“Not only do defendants ignore the applicable free exercise case
law, they completely ignore the church’s arguments that the speech ban … is content
and viewpoint-based discrimination and, therefore, presumptively
unconstitutional,” the filing warns.
ADF lawyers noted Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights wrote to Iowa officials explaining the “approach taken by the ICRC
plainly violates both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment.”
Let’s hope they don’t get the Judge that says the U.S.
Constitution has no value! Eventually
that will be the rule rather than the exception.
Thanks
for listening my friend!
-
de Andréa
Please pass on this
article to everyone on your email list.
It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine
Print
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom
Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved - Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of
this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links
to referenced articles as source materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment