A few weeks ago, in an
article entitled “Banning Preaching”, I told you about the
unelected Iowa Civil Rights Commission, which in July decided that no pastor
may preach any sermon, in any service “open to the public”, which might cause
any transgendered person to feel “unwelcome”.
As I said then, this is
the equivalent of the Federal Election Commission ruling that no Republican
convention may allow speakers who might cause any Democrat to feel “unwelcome.” Since my essay, the
drumbeat of anti-religious intolerance has intensified dramatically.
On October 1, a
Massachusetts law took effect threatening pastors
with jail time
if they do not open all changing rooms, shower facilities, restrooms and other
intimate areas to transgendered persons based on their chosen gender identity,
and if they do not conform their religious teaching to the government’s views.
Yes, this is the same
Massachusetts founded by the Pilgrims. This fall, Iowa State
University announced
that its harassment policy prohibits student speech opposing same-sex marriage
or any other expression which might “annoy or alarm another.” Needless to
say, “another” doesn’t mean “a Christian”. But it wouldn’t matter if it
did. The policy is a gross violation of the First Amendment, as is the
Massachusetts statute. Which unfortunately no longer means it won’t be
enforced.
Eight months ago, New York enacted a
city ordinance imposing a $250,000 fine for each use of any pronoun a transgendered
person finds offensive. A biological male wants to be called “she” (or
“zhe” or “hir”; and yes, those are among the scores of new pronouns you better
get right)? That’s $250,000 per “mistake” (or refusal to say what you’re
told, which we quaintly used to call “freedom”). You could easily run up
a multi-million dollar tab in a single conversation.
On Friday, a
three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a new
California law requiring pro-life
crisis pregnancy centers to promote abortion to those they serve. Never mind
that the law is transparently unconstitutional on both free exercise and free
speech grounds; never mind that similar laws have been struck down as
unconstitutional previously in Austin, Texas, Baltimore, Maryland, and even New
York City.
If the eight-justice
Supreme Court, desperately missing Antonin Scalia, should be divided in
its response, the 9th Circuit ruling will be a matter of Constitutional law in
nine states. If Justice Kennedy rules with the Democrats on the Court, a
5-3 ruling will make this the law of the land, gutting the First Amendment. That’s before the
election.
Why now? Why so
much? Part of it is about last year’s Obergefell
decision, which the left correctly understood as pitting sexual behavior
against unalienable rights.
But more than that, the
left understands that a victory in November means Hillary Clinton will appoint
Scalia’s successor – and possibly as many as four other justices – shaping the
Court, and with it the government’s interpretation of the Constitution and the
shape of all of society, for two generations at least.
It should not be true,
but it is true, that five votes on the United States Supreme Court are for all
practical purposes the Constitution we live under. A few examples
illustrate.
Judicial review – the
idea that Supreme Court justices get to decide whether or not a law is
constitutional – appears nowhere in the Constitution: it is a doctrine
established in Marbury v.
Madison in 1803, sixteen years after the document’s drafting and never
once suggested by a single person at the Constitutional Convention.
The power to segregate
society is expressly contradicted by the plain text of the 14th Amendment
(1868). Yet in Plessy v.
Ferguson (1895), a racist Supreme Court established Jim Crow as the
law of the land for most of a century.
Free African Americans
had been full citizens in every state since before the American Revolution
(some were even slave owners in the South). Yet in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
the Supreme Court revoked that citizenship for anyone whose ancestors had ever
been enslaved. It also radically expanded federal power through an
invented legal doctrine called “substantive due process” which haunts and
oppresses all of us down to this day.
Where would we stop?
The Slaughter-House
Cases (1873) effectively stripped the Privileges and Immunities
clause out of the 14th Amendment. Wickard
v. Filburn (1941) held that the strict limitation on federal
regulation to commerce transacted across state lines was void, and that rather
than merely regulating interstate commerce, Congress could regulate matters as
trivial as a garden, entirely inside one state and not even within the
definition of “commerce”.
Roe v. Wade (1973) invented a new
right to murder babies, not mentioned nor even imagined by the Constitution’s
writers.
Only the President may
appoint Supreme Court Justices. The next President will appoint at least
one, maybe five. The one he or she will certainly appoint has been held
faithfully by a friend of the Constitution and of religious liberty for 30 long
years.
If Hillary Clinton
appoints his successor, it will be someone who hates the Constitution and hates
you. And that person will likely serve for 30 or 40 long years as well.
But it’s more than that
really. Because it’s not about one judge. As I said, not only do
Supreme Courts routinely (and wrongfully) re-write the Constitution: it
doesn’t take all of them to do it. Five votes is enough. And with
Justice Loretta Lynch, or Justice Barack Obama, the total for the other side in
every case will be a minimum of five, often six.
This is irrevocable.
There’s no going back from it. And Hillary’s intended outcome is
perfectly clear from the Massachusetts, California, Iowa and New York cases.
She will ban any preaching that disagrees with the government’s diktat,
which increasingly means any preaching that is vaguely faithful to Scripture.
She will fine her opponents into bankruptcy, revoke their tax statuses,
jail them if it suits her.
And don’t think you’re
special. Pastors are just the warmup act. Because once free
exercise is gutted, the same precedents will be used to outlaw any speech by
anyone – media, candidates, you name it – the government deems objectionable. We’ve seen this play
before.
This would all sound
extreme, I know, if it weren’t already happening. It’s here, now.
Give Hillary the keys and we know where this car is going. And once
it’s gone, it’s gone.
I personally find
Donald Trump objectionable. I was for the other guy. But I’m smart
enough to know the difference between objectionable and oppressive, tasteless
vs. tyrannical. Trump has surrounded himself with the best possible
advisors on judicial appointments, and released lists of judges from which he
promises to select his choices. They are the best choices imaginable.
Hers are the very worst. Some will say they
can’t trust Trump. I’m not sure they’re wrong. But I’m sure I can
trust her to hate us.
We’ve never really
faced tyranny in America, not since the Revolution (well, unless you count
slavery and Jim Crow, brought to you by the same party). But we are
genuinely facing it now. That’s the reality.
November 8 is not a matter of our taste, our preference or ourselves.
It is a matter of whether our children and grandchildren will hear a
false gospel, or even hear any Gospel at all. Vote accordingly.
http://affluentinvestor.com/2016/10/religious-liberty-election/
No comments:
Post a Comment