Posted on 07/25/2010 7:39:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This summer, the forces of secularism are turning up the heat on religious freedom.
In late June, the Supreme Court, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, issued a ruling with profound implications for the relationship of believers to the government.
The case involved the CLS chapter at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law. CLS requires members to ascribe to its statement of faith and renounce “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle.”
Claiming that this requirement violated its policy that all students be permitted to participate in organizations’ activities, Hastings denied the CLS official recognition.
The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, rejected CLS’ argument and decided in favor of Hastings.
The impact of this decision goes far beyond the Christian Legal Society. Groups like Intervarsity are rightly concerned about what the Court’s imprimatur on Hastings’ “all-comers” requirement means for them. Will they be able to exercise even basic discipline among their members? If anyone can belong and even become a leader, can they even remain a Christian organization?
Folks, these aren’t theoretical questions. And listen to this: In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy (the “swing vote” in the five to four decision) struck a very ominous note. He compared the CLS’ requirements to McCarthy-era “loyalty oaths” and pronounced that “the era of loyalty oaths is behind us.”
Now what does that say about loyalty to creed, statements of faith-indeed, the Bible itself? The era of loyalty oaths is behind us? I guess the only oath we can take today is to secular liberalism, which confines religion to an increasingly tiny, private sphere. As I have noted elsewhere, religious freedom is more and more defined as the right to “worship,” as long as that worship has no public dimension. You are free to think and feel as you wish, as long as you strive to keep it to yourself.
This has happened before, because in the absence of absolute standards of truth, decisions are made by whoever is in power. And those, like Christians, who lack power, are expected just to go along.
This decision forces us to confront the issue of whether-and at what point-we must disobey Caesar in order to obey God. Banning statements of faith would put us squarely in this position. We don’t choose civil disobedience, but we’re being forced to consider it ever more seriously.
This is why I have asked Dr. Timothy George, the dean of Beeson Divinity School and the chairman of the board of BreakPoint, to address the issue head on. He’s filmed a powerful message on believers and civil disobedience. I’ve made Dr. George’s video a part of my Two-Minute Warning this week. Please visit ColsonCenter.org and watch the Two-Minute Warning.
And then I want you to stand with organizations like CLS and InterVarsity by signing the Manhattan Declaration. It’s a protest against the increasing tendency to “trample upon the freedom” of those who would “express their religious and moral commitments.”
In a world where what’s increasingly being required of Christians goes beyond “tolerance” to actual participation in activities contrary to God’s law, we must be prepared to say “no.”
Saying “no” has its costs, but at some point, it’s no longer optional, at least if we’re clear about where our loyalty lies.
I always liked Diana Ross in spite of what the others said about her.....oh, the other Supremes...;)
“Obama Moves away from ‘Freedom of Religion’ toward ‘Freedom of Worship’?” (Clinton, too)
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=37390&page=1
“Why ‘Freedom of Worship’ Is Not Enough”
Feb 22, 2010
Ashley Samelson
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/02/why-ldquofreedom-of-worshiprdquo-is-not-enough
What a lousy decision backing the tyranny of the left.
Justice Kennedy is obtuse to the point of stupidity in his comparison of voluntary membership in a campus group that rejects wanton sexuality with the denigrated (unjustly) efforts of Senator McCarthy to rid the government of communist subversives.
The college rejects the CLS becauase of the morality clause.
Why is the morality clause considered discriminatory?
Isn’t participation in the CLS voluntary?
Participation in the group is certaintly not required for graduation. If a student does not like the moral code of the CLS - that student is free to pass on joining the CLS group. Just having the moral code in place does not make the group hostile to people who reject that code - though if the university could provide evidence that the group’s activities and actions created a hostile atmosphere on the campus, their case against CLS would be stronger. Of course the college would never apply the same standards with respect to pet groups of the left who modus operendi includes harrassment and haranguing anyone who happens to be walking by - especially if they appear to disinterested.
The leftist tyrants have far too much control over socities institutions. I am so sick of the hypocrisy of the left whereby intolerance and insensitivity are used to promulgate the concept of tolerance itself. These efforts have nothing to do with “justice” (as in social justice) but are the exercise of sheer political power of one group over another. Talk about fostering a hostile environment!
This is easy to get around. Christians just need to flood into all the extreme campus liberal and homosexual societies. Then use the meetings as a opportunity to witness. Take them over. You’ll see these colleges change their rules real fast if that starts happening.
Bingo!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.