By looking at the title of this writing I’ll bet the first thing that pops into your mind is Christians fighting a holy war against Islam right? Well if I were writing about history of religion and present day fighting in the Middle East against Isis, Al Qaeda and the Taliban you would be correct, but I am not. What I am writing about is a much different subject altogether. This New Christian Crusade is a perceived battle to be fought right here on American soil, one that has nothing to do with fighting for the Holy Land, nor one religious belief against another. It does have everything to do with the very first United States Constitutional Amendment,( moved up from number 3). The freedoms of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition, passed by Congress on 25 September, 1789, and ratified 15 December, 1791. I will not recite the said Amendment here for it is easily looked up in many different venues.
In the Preamble to the Constitution there is a phrase within it and I quote “Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. I have looked up that word Blessings though I know what definition comes directly to my mind. In many dictionaries it is defined 1st as “The approval of God” which makes sense to me being a Christian, as well as being one of the top reasons for the colonists who came to the New World was to escape Religious Persecution under King James of England. Pilgrims as they were known, as well as Puritans. I did a bit of research on the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution of the United States of America, not for what was written in it, for I have researched these documents many times. What I was looking for was what motivation was behind its forming and eventual signing. What I found didn’t surprise me really, but helped me understand the mindset of those who signed those documents.
“The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.
These signers have long inspired deep admiration among both secularists (who appreciate the non-denominational nature of the Declaration) and by traditional religionists (who appreciate the Declaration's recognition of God as the source of the rights enumerated by the document). Lossing's seminal 1848 collection of biographies of the signers of the Declaration of Independence echoed widely held sentiments held then and now that there was divine intent or inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. Lossing matter-of-factly identified the signers as "instruments of Providence" who have "gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land." *(1)*
Now, whether anyone wishes to believe it or not the Forefathers of the United States were in the mindset of values derived from their belief in God. After all, one of our Motto’s is “One Nation Under God” which could be perceived as that God approves of and is in guidance of the leadership and the people of this Nation, or that God is watching over our Nation. It’s on our currency right? “In God we Trust” which could be construe as a Nation that places it’s faith in God, or believes that we trust God to protect our way of life. Let us not forget the Pledge of Allegiance which I grew up with in school, not all that many years ago. The ending of that pledge was “One Nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for all” How many remember that? Now that that is out of the way let’s move on.
The New Christian Crusade which this blog is titled is a Domestic battle for rights, both Constitutional and Civil. On one side Conservative Christian beliefs and values, and how and where they are allowed to be practiced. On the other side is the LGBT community and their rights to marry and equality under the law. This is a very complex issue which is playing out more and more not only in the Legislative branches in State Governments, but in the Judicial branch as well. What happens when Constitutional rights and Civil rights butt heads? It would appear that State Civil right legislation and business overrules the Constitution of the United States. Discrimination lawsuits are being filed on a state level for the refusal to bake a same sex wedding cake because it is against the bakers’ religious beliefs. They allegedly refused to bake regular customers a lesbian couple a wedding cake with a lesbian couple on top citing their religious beliefs. (Christian) it is also alleged that they said “It is an abomination unto the Lord”. So, apparently the Constitutional rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are no longer allowed in the state of Oregon, yet the refusal to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple is discrimination. Why isn’t it discrimination to have not one but two of their (the bakers’) Constitutional rights violated, by the very government which is supposed to protect them? Does the ACLU now decide whose rights are to be protected?
Where is sexual orientation rights covered in our Constitution? It isn’t. Is it? The Declaration of Independence gives us the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now the Lesbian couple were granted a win in Civil court, not Federal Court for discrimination. Why, because the couple was refused a cake for their wedding. Was this a Constitutional rights violation? Nope. Were they disallowed from purchasing a wedding cake somewhere else? Nope. Were they told by the bakery owners that they could not marry? Nope. Was their life threatened in any way? Nope. So, now let’s add this up okay? Their lives were in no way threatened, (Life), they were not detained or imprisoned and were allowed to purchase a cake somewhere else. (Liberty), and they were fully allowed to marry and have a wedding cake for their wedding, just not from that bakery (pursuit of happiness). If we look at it as a Constitutional issue nothing illegal occurred to the lesbian couple, though I’m sure they were deeply offended, I suppose I would be too in that situation. Now then, let’s look at the bakery owners; I have read many articles and blogs regarding the owners of the bakery who refused to bake the cake on the grounds that it was against their religious belief to participate in a same sex wedding. In several conversations I read that that because the owners were in business that they need to leave their religious beliefs at home when they leave it. Why should they have to do this? Religious belief is an inner belief which grows throughout one’s lifetime and isn’t just left at home when one leaves it. Isn’t that what the LGBT community is fighting for? Their right to stay out of the closet live and be treated no different than anyone else. That being said, since that event, the bakery owners have received alleged death threats not only to them but to their children, it is not clear by whom but that doesn’t matter, so now they are in fear for their lives (Life), they have had to close their shop in town and only take special orders from their home, (Liberty). Now with all the publicity this case has garnered their business which they paid rental fees for the building, business taxes, personal taxes, insurance premiums, inspection and license fees for has lost business and income (pursuit of happiness). Look familiar? These Declarative rights were violated, weren’t they? How about the 1st amendment rights of the bakery owners? Were they violated? Should a person’s constitutional rights be disregarded in order for civil rights to be upheld or given? Is there a specific article in the constitution which gives constitutional rights for sexual orientation? How about for same sex relationships? Yet there are the same constitutional rights for LGBT “individuals” as there are for any other “individual” right?
One reason I am writing this blog, is because of an article I read, which was written by our Head of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) which overseas employment issues within the United States. Chai Feldblum, an Obama appointee to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. In her article, "Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion," published in the Brooklyn Law Review, 2006 and Georgetown Law Faculty Publications, January 2010, Dr. Feldblum argues that in conflicts between the rights of the LGBT community and people of sincere religious conviction that "society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people." She believes that in such conflicts it is a "zero-sum" game in which one side must surrender rights to the other. By reading this article it is clear to me that the statement “One side must surrender rights to the other” is to mean that People of sincere religious beliefs must surrender their constitutional rights to the LGBT community for their civil rights. How is that right or just? Does Ms. Feldblum hold to that line of thinking when it comes to employment issues as well? I ask this; If a heterosexual individual and a LGBT individual of equal qualifications were in a dispute over a job and the heterosexual person got the job, the LGBT person then decided to file a complaint with the EEOC for discrimination, Who should prevail? I am curious because of her belief in the zero sum game. Ms. Feldblum is a member of the LGBT community, so could her fairness in this situation be of question. This is indeed a conflict of interest, isn’t it? I wish I had the answers. As I stated, this is a very complex issue. I will say this, I do not believe in the “Zero Sum Game” because firstly this issue isn’t a game, it is a battle for rights both constitutional and civil, and people are going to be hurt both emotionally, financially, and I fear physically as the above example of the bakery shop and lesbian couple show. The bakery couple are looking at a possible $150,000 loss because of court settlement. For a Cake...
I think that with all the monies spent on think tanks to figure out why a toilet seat costs the government $10,000, a few bucks could be spared to find a solution to this issue of “ Our rights versus Theirs”
