'76 Blog

(Denver Post, June 3) The Founders wouldn’t believe it.  The Colorado Court of Appeals says the governor may not proclaim an official day of prayer because of a clause in the state constitution prohibiting that “any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.  This novel interpretation would come as a surprise not only to the governors who have issued such proclamations dating back many years, but also to the authors of that very constitution, who declared in its preamble their “profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.”  They couldn’t have intended the religious preference clause to become a barrier to state action encouraging Coloradans to seek that Supreme Ruler’s favor. Good to know that Gov. John Hickenlooper has directed Attorney General John Suthers to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which should surely overturn it based on logic and precedent.  But wait; did I say “surely”?  When it comes to religion and politics, church and state, nothing is sure any more.  Also headed for the state Supreme Court is an ACLU challenge to Douglas County parents using their own tax dollars to educate their own children in (horrors) faith-based schools.  Meanwhile at the legislature we’ve seen both political parties consider divorcing the legal definition of marriage from its time-honored theological definition. The rationale for gay civil unions was put this way by Hickenlooper: “We don’t believe we should legislate what happens inside a church or place of worship, but government should treat all people equally.”  Leaving aside the vexed question of how the law recognizes different kinds of couples, look what the governor is saying in that sentence BEFORE the comma. He implies that government’s power over you and me stops only at the church door.  This echoes a theme from President Obama, whose speeches always refer to “freedom of worship,” not “freedom of religion.”   What’s the difference?  Freedom of religion includes the individual right of conscience in conduct outside of church – exactly what secular theocrats are trampling on with the HHS mandate for Catholic and evangelical institutions to provide drugs for contraception or abortion, in violation of their allegiance to God.  “The Supreme Ruler of the Universe,” you see, is no longer acknowledged as a reality under the dominant liberal consensus.  He, or it, is now treated as just an outmoded notion which backward folk are allowed to preach about in their sanctuaries – but to whom they must no longer render homage by public word or deed.  That homage is now supposed to be Caesar’s alone. Where is all this leading?  For over a millennium and a half, ever since the Emperor Constantine in 312 A.D., Christians in Europe and eventually America have been accustomed to friendly treatment by civil government.  But that is over, over there, and may soon be over with here.  The Church of State, as my Colorado Christian University colleague Kevin Miller calls it in his important book “Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally,” is setting up as the one and only religious establishment. I won’t say get used to it, because we never should.  It must be fought.  But we who honor the God of the Bible had better gird ourselves, for this will get worse before it gets better.  We’d better study the persecuted church, thriving in China and Africa; our own time may be coming. We must realize, as the Founders knew, that America is not in the Bible.  Americans are, however.  It holds vast wisdom and warning for us.  As the Constantinian settlement – itself quite unscriptural – passes away, a good place to start would be Jesus’ own rule: “Render to Caesar, render to God.”  That balance, the only safe harbor for faith and freedom, was lost in Christendom centuries ago.  It is now ours to rebuild.

(CCU Faculty) The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (UC Hastings).  This case concerns the claim by the Christian Legal Society, a national group of Christian lawyers and law students, that they have been denied their First Amendment guarantees of freedom of association and free exercise of religious faith. The Christian Legal Society had an organized chapter on the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law campus in San Francisco.  In 2004, the group was told by school administrators that they would no longer be recognized as an official campus group, thereby losing their eligibility for school funding and other benefits, including the ability to reserve campus space to hold meetings.  The reason for this decision: the Christian Legal Society required that voting members and club officers sign a statement of faith and agree to a personal conduct code.  This code includes the statement that “Christians should not engage in sexual conduct outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.” The law school argued that all campus groups must not discriminate against people because of their religious faith or sexual orientation.  Groups that exclude individuals from membership are denied official recognition and school funding. In Federal District Court, as well as in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Christian Legal Society was unsuccessful in their claim that the school’s decision violated their First Amendment rights.  Attorneys for the Christian Legal Society argued that the First Amendment guarantees a right of “expressive association.”  As such, a group must be able to adhere to their core religious views and make governing decisions based upon them.   The denial of this by the lower courts allows for the school’s ban on discrimination to trump a religious group’s right to exercise their faith freely. We must hope that the US Supreme Court will overturn these lower court decisions and recognize the significant right of religious groups to maintain the central tenets and teachings of their faith.