The title of a recent article posted on MSN drew my attention “Legally, ‘God’s authority’ is a tough issue.” The first two paragraphs of the article state:
"Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis’s assertion that she answers to a higher authority won her no reprieve from a federal judge this week. But the question of whether people must obey the law when they say it violates their religious beliefs is being debated in state legislatures and the nation’s courts and has become a galvanizing issue in the Republican presidential nomination campaign."
"Legal experts across the political spectrum said Davis was on shaky ground as a public official who has pledged to uphold the law. But the question of whether private citizens and organizations — and officials such as Davis — deserve more protection for their religious beliefs is a contentious one across the country."
REALLY??? It’s a “tough issue”??
NOT according to the Constitution of these United States of America:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
What part of “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is hard to understand?? Understanding the 1st amendment “Legally” only becomes a “tough issue” when you try subverting it.
The interesting part of the religious clause of the first amendment is that it also includes that little clause, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” which typical tends to get swept under the rug. Most people have no clue that it’s even in there. VERY FEW people that I have ever asked, “What is the religious clause of the First Amendment,” ever include “or the free exercise thereof”. In fact, I cannot recall one time that someone did, and I would have certainly taken notice if they had. Oh sure, they all have some kind of an understanding that Congress is not allowed to establish a religion and they’ve certainly heard about the “wall of separation”, but they have no clue the truth behind it or have any real idea as to what any of it means.
What’s peculiar to this lack of understanding is that at the very moment that the Constitution of these United States of America was ratified, there were several states that had “established religion.”
What’s even more peculiar, is the man (Thomas Jefferson) who wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptist Church about the “wall of separation” (which will be the topic of a future discussion) also wrote the “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom” and is perhaps the most interesting feature in the revised code of Virginia. With the exception of the Declaration of Independence, it is the most celebrated of Jefferson's productions, and the one to which he recurred with the highest pride and satisfaction. The preamble which introduces the act defines with peculiar emphasis on the premises upon which religious freedom is founded. The following are examples of Thomas Jefferson's writings:
"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do..."
-- A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, Section 1
"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving everyone to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."
-- Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808
AND WHAT WILL REALLY BLOW YOUR MIND is that it was Thomas Jefferson who also wrote:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." – 1777
"It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences." – 1781
"But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to God." – 1782
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become their own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God and himself." – 1803
"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority." – 1809
"This country which has given to the world the example of physical liberty owes it that of moral emancipation also." – 1821
AND HERE’S WHAT’S MOST INTERESTING!! The Declaration of Independence itself declares with no ambiguity that “GOD’S authority” rises above all else and is the source of our LIFE, LIRBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. The Declaration of Independence calls these rights ENDOWMENTS from the CREATOR (that would be God, by the way), and I quote:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”
As a side note, Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson about the controversy of including a “Bill of Rights” or not. IT EXPRESSES SOME VITALLY IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES. You will be able to see that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of our Founding Fathers were men of such high moral character that they could hardly see the necessity for protecting our God Given Rights. Definitely give this a check and please feel free to comment at the bottom of that document.
The Constitution is VERY CLEAR and there is NO AMBIGUITY in its meaning - - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” And let’s be clear about another thing; NOWHERE is there any indication that practicing your religion must be private!! Let’s take a look at something George Washington, the first president of these United States of America had to say about religion in our government, and I quote:
“…Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
So…. All of the writing above was to supply the background to get to this question: “Does that County Clerk have the right and responsibility to uphold and assert her religious views in NOT giving out marriage certificates to homosexual couples?”
Well, according to everything that I wrote up above, the answer is an unequivocal, YES!! In my opinion, AS A CHRISTIAN, she has a duty to God and to her fellow man to uphold her religious views in her job.
How many of you remember about the situation in 2003 with Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roy Moore? The same issue existed. In the Kangaroo Trial of Roy Moore, he was asked if he would continue to acknowledge God in his job and his response was, “I MUST ACKNOWLEDGE GOD!” You can read the full questions and testimony of the mock trial here.
Let me tell you folks, we are not only on a “slippery slope” but one with greased tracks to the destruction of the religious freedoms that our founding fathers gave us and that we have enjoyed for so many years since the ratification of our federal constitution.
Several years ago, in a discussion about Christian’s lack of involvement in this country, my dad brought to my mind the issue of “Hollywood.” Christians avoided Hollywood, pointing to all the evils. Consequently, because of the lack of influence of Christians in Hollywood, we have allowed every sort of evil to invade our homes. And for the past several decades we have heard from the pastors of churches tell us that they will not get involved in politics, saying that is not their particular purview, thus allowing our government to dictate to us the terms of our religious involvement, EVERYWHERE.
When this “controversial crisis” is settled by the Supreme Court and the County Clerk will either capitulate to the demand to issue the certificates or like Chief Justice Roy Moore, be removed from her elected office, Christians will just simply go back to bed and pull their blankets up over their heads.
Then it will only be a matter of a short time that our pastors will be forced by our government to provide homosexual weddings, just as they have done with the photographer and the baker who said they would not cater to the homosexual communities against their religious conscience.
Just a little over 35 years ago, I joined the United State Marine Corps. A VERY BIG reason for that decision to join was to fight against those who would try to subvert the Constitution of these United States of America. I’m pretty sure that most of you know that every service man or woman, every single person who assumes a political office, swears AN OATH to support and defend that Constitution. The oath DID NOT, in any way, shape or form, give any indication that you can pick and choose what you may or may not support or defend.
You need to join in the crusade to take our country back from the hands of evil men and women, ESPECIALLY YOU PROFESSING CHRISTIANS!! Stand up for what you have been called to do, “BE A LIGHT ON THE HILL!”