Jason A Clark

There’s a television commercial that was made by the Our Country Deserves Better PAC that is running in parts of the country that shows some of the things Barack Obama has said about Christianity.  Many of his words have been related previously in some media outlets, but I’d venture to say that most people still don’t even know he’s said some of these things.  Keep in mind that Obama claims to be a born-again Christian.

The problem with the statements Obama makes is that he shows a complete lack of understanding of Christianity by saying what he says.  The man claims to have been a Christian for the past twenty or more years yet he makes statements that any Christian with a working knowledge of the Bible wouldn’t make.

In my article, An Explanation of the Apparent Contradictions Between the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible, I explain precisely what Barack Obama should already know if he has truly been a Christian all these years.  Obama is an intelligent person who is capable of understanding the meaning of the scriptures yet he makes statements that seem to indicate he thinks one must pick and choose which verses of the Bible one should live by - and he finds them all, both Old and New Testament, lacking.

Christianity is an all consuming faith that transforms people’s lives to the point where they cannot simply set aside their Christian beliefs and values in order to run for public office.  Christians certainly can’t justify mocking Christianity or mocking America’s Christian heritage.  To do so would fly in the face of logic and everything they believe.  Yet this is precisely what Obama has done as evidenced by the video in the commercial.

Once again I find myself responding to a comment with an article. 

A wonderful plugin developer who goes by the name weefselkweekje left a comment on my post, Michael’s Comment: “Some guy said that God told him to tell you…” - Jason Responds, in which he suggested that my opposition (and Christian opposition in general) to “equal rights” for homosexuals is promoting hatred and should be labeled a hate crime.

This is my response. 

As always I encourage participation in the discussion as long as you remain civil and respectful of others.

I came by here because you’re using a plugin that I wrote, but couldn’t help commenting.

Why is it that there’s so few gay activists writing long blog posts about why Christianity is wrong? It happens the other way around all the time. To me, conservative Christianity is at least as much a ‘lifestyle’ as the so-called gay one is. As you pointed out, there are lots of religions out there, and they can’t all be right. People leave and join churches every day, so I consider it a conscious decision. There’s lots of biological proof that being gay is not a conscious decision, but whether you accept this or not, the fact remains that these two group exist (among others).

The difference to me is that there’s no gay movement I know of who’s message is that being a Christian is wrong and should be frowned upon. All they want is equal rights. So do all the other groups in a society, and it is my belief that that is what a government should provide. It should protect every one of these groups. I’m not a Christian, but I do not mind if you are. I’m also not gay, but do not mind people who are (in fact, I have many gay friends). What I mind is when one group is not allowed to do things the others are, like getting married or adopt children. Or when one group protests the very existence of another. That to me is promoting hatred, and thus a ‘hate crime’.

You say there’s no point in believing in a God if you don’t believe he’s right. Considering how there are indeed more religions (including many Christian ones with a different standpoint about this particular issue), you’ll have to admit there’s a little arrogance in that?

From what I’ve read, I find the Bible to be a book promoting love, respect and tolerance, yet I find very few of these virtues in those groups in society who base their beliefs on it.

There are in fact plenty of gay activists (and others) who decry the stand most Christians take against the homosexual lifestyle.  Your comparison between the “choices” of Christianity and homosexuality (assuming it’s a choice) is like comparing apples with oranges. 

Religion is a fundamental aspect of civilization that dates back as far as we have historical evidence and is a part of every culture and community on the face of the planet.  Homosexuality exists within a very small percentage of the population and has been condemned as morally wrong by many, if not most, religions.  Sure, choosing a religion or a denomination of a religion such as Christianity is a choice, but making that choice hardly qualifies as a morally ambiguous decision.  While most religions think other religions are wrong or are incorrect in their beliefs, they do not necessarily think their adherents are making immoral choices by following their religion unless that religion crosses certain boundaries (moral boundaries).

It is my belief that if homosexuals do not attempt to paint Christianity as wrong it is because those homosexuals are seeking the acceptance by the Christian community instead of its denouncement.  If you look at the various laws and “rights” homosexuals are seeking to gain, they are more about forcing Christians and others to deem their behavior or lifestyle acceptable and are not about creating an equal playing field where homosexuals enjoy the same rights as everyone else. 

The truth is, homosexuals already enjoy the same rights as every other American. 

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is in their genes and that they have no control over who they are.  Christians, among others, tend to argue that homosexuality is a sin, a choice that can be overcome.  They believe that homosexuality is a deeply immoral behavior that should not be encouraged.  This isn’t about prejudice or intolerance.  There is no scientific evidence currently available that proves that homosexuality is a genetic trait.  There is just as much evidence that says the opposite.  In fact, a principled and intelligent argument can be made against homosexuality that has nothing to do with ignorance, religion, prejudice, or hatred. 

I made that argument in a previous post when I brought up the consideration of evolution.  Those who believe homosexuality is a genetic trait run into problems when trying to explain how that trait could possibly be passed on offspring if procreation can only occur artificially.  In the earliest days of the appearance of such a trait, the instinctive reaction of those affected would be to mate with members of the same sex which would produce no offspring to which the trait could be passed on.  Even if some of these early humans were “bi-curious” the rate of procreation would likely be far too small to keep this trait in the gene pool. 

The lack of credible scientific evidence to support the theory that homosexuality is a genetic trait is a huge problem for the gay community.  However, even if such evidence were to exist it would likely only exist as a genetic predilection much like the supposed genetic predilection some have to gambling or alcoholism.  As a society we do not encourage those traits even if we believe someone was born with such a predisposition because we believe those traits to be harmful to the individual as well as society.

You say that I and other Christians are promoting hatred by opposing “gay rights,” but we believe it to be exactly the opposite.  It has nothing to do with hatred.  Christians, true Christians, do not hate gay people any more than they hate alcoholics or liars or thieves or anyone else who sins.  They believe homosexuality is a sin and they want, first, that the sin is recognized as such by the sinner so that he/she can repent and find salvation in Christ, and, second, that the sin does not adversely effect their (Christian) rights and freedoms.

Christians can make a sound argument on the immorality of homosexuality based on historical precedence, religious beliefs, natural law, and scientific documentation (or the lack thereof).  Even if you think that I, and other Christians, are wrong, you cannot say that we are basing our argument on irrational or unreasoning prejudice like those who are prejudice against someone for something like their skin color.  Our argument is a principled argument for which I am capable of giving good reasons for believing the way I do.  This does not constitute a doctrine of hate in even the slightest sense of the word.  To argue that we are propagating a message of hate is to deny that we have a valid argument and should have the freedom to make it.  If anything, those who would silence Christian opposition to homosexuality are the ones who are attempting to deny freedoms.

This is not about equal rights.  This is not even about us forcing our views on someone else.  This is about the legitimacy for Christians to even hold a differing point of view.  You are faulting us for our opinions and our religious beliefs because they do not meld with your own.  By saying that our opinions should be labeled as a “hate crime” you are saying that we should not have the freedom to oppose something that we do not believe in.  But in America it is the very freedom to speak your mind that separates us from so many other countries throughout history.  So I ask you.  Who is actually showing hate in all of this?  The Christians who can make valid and reasonable arguments as to why homosexuality should not be given a class distinction or the homosexuals who seek to silence opposition to their agenda by ignoring our freedom of speech?

And I already know what the next argument from the homosexual community would be.  They would say that although Christians might think that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, it doesn’t give us the right to force our views on them.  However, this isn’t really an argument that can be reasonably debated because as I pointed out in a previous article, in all laws the beliefs and principles of one group are always being imposed upon another group.

In America we all have the right to think and say whatever we wish, however, we do not have the freedom to do whatever we wish.  Certain groups of people are always having their desires thwarted by laws.  This does not deny them rights.  They have the same rights you and I have.  In the same manner, homosexuals have the same rights any other American has.  I do not have the right to work anywhere I want or the right to live anywhere I want or the right to marry whoever I want.  There are rules, laws, and moral restrictions on all of those things.

Homosexuals say they are being denied rights that heterosexuals have because they are not free to marry whoever they want.  But heterosexuals are not free to marry whoever they want either.  There are laws that would prevent me from marrying my daughter or my sister, two women, or even my first cousin.  As a man, I have a right to marry any woman who is not already married and who is the correct distance from me in kinship.  Laws based on moral objections prevent me from marrying those who do not fit the definition.  Homosexuals have the same rights.

But a homosexual man might say he doesn’t want to marry someone kin to him, he wants to marry a man.  Unfortunately, what he wants isn’t “equal” rights because he already has those.  What he truly wants is a “special” right - an exception.  He wants more than the same freedoms and rights than I have.  I do not believe society has any obligation to provide him with any such right.  Even if our society were open to providing “special rights” to certain groups those rights could only be determined by a majority who would undoubtedly have moral objections to the rights in question just as they would if I asked to have the “special right” to marry my sister. 

Furthermore, opening up the possibility of “special rights” for special interest groups such as homosexuals would require us to open those same considerations for all special interest groups.  As you might imagine, such a move would quickly and catastrophically overwhelm our government and our society with demands for “special rights” for every group imaginable - and if we took moral objections out of the equation we would have very little grounds on which to deny any such request.

I believe that as Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American enjoys, however, I do not believe homosexuals should have any special standings under the law.

You are correct when you say that the Bible promotes love, respect, and tolerance.  However, you are incorrect in implying that opposition to “equal rights” for homosexuals somehow violates these tenets. 

As I mentioned, Christians believe homosexuals are sinning and are in need of salvation.  Christians want mostly for homosexuals to find salvation through Christ.  They also wish to prevent the open acceptance of homosexuality by society because of the implications such acceptance could have for the salvation of so many souls.  The reasoning is that if more people accept homosexuality as normal and not as sin then even more people will be in danger of not finding salvation.  This is completely in line with the message of love that the Bible teaches.  In fact, it is the message that the Bible teaches - that we should wish for the salvation of all of mankind.

On the issue of tolerance - I think you have to be careful not to confuse tolerance with acceptance.  Christians are tolerant of homosexuals as far as allowing them the freedom to live their lives the way they choose so long as it does not effect society as a whole or infringe upon Christian rights.  Christians, however, do not accept the homosexual lifestyle as normal or unavoidable nor does the Bible teach them to do so.  It is a fallacy to assume that Christians should roll over and never express their opinions on moral issues because the Bible teaches us to be understanding of the sinful nature of man.

I understand that not all of the people who claim to be Christian believe the same way.  If it is arrogant to think that my form of Christianity that believes homosexuality is a sin is the correct one then I suppose I shall have to endure the label of arrogant.  But at least I have reasons for believing what I do that are based on scripture and historical evidences.  I have made logical and reasonable decisions to come to the conclusion that what I now believe is the truth.

This post is a direct response to a comment I received on an article I did called Heinz Ad Pushes Gay Marriage and Family - Features Homosexuals Kissing.  I knew when I posted it that the article might spark a debate, but I don’t think I realized how much of a debate it would be.

The comments on that article were really kicked off by Tamara who felt I was misinterpreting the Heinz ad.  She argued her point intelligently and others got involved in the debate.  The discussion got in to politics and religion, however, and the comments started getting long and fairly in-depth so I decided that breaking a couple of them out into their own posts might be a better way for me to respond and for others to get involved in the discussion should they desire.

I already posted a separate reply to a comment by Michael in a post I called Michael’s Comment: “Some guy said that God told him to tell you…” - Jason Responds.  There were also two other articles that derived directly from my reply to Michael which were How Do We Know The Bible Is The Word Of God? and An Explanation of the Apparent Contradictions Between the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible - either of which I may refer to in this post.

I understand that not everyone will agree with my opinions (nor those who oppose my opinions), but I do ask that we all keep the debate and discussion civil and respectful as I always try to do.  I have a firm grasp of my own beliefs and why I believe the way I do so I always enjoy debating and discussing my ideas and beliefs be they religious or political or whatever, but it’s only constructive and only enjoyable when everyone feels free to share their honest opinions.  I welcome and encourage everyone to do so.

Now then, you might want to hop over to the other article if you want to read all of the comments, but I will be quoting and responding directly to the last comment made by Tamara.

The people who do not follow its (the Bible’s) commandments would also include yourself–Leviticus is filled with various nuances that very few people hold to the letter of the law (including the wool linen mixing).

You’re absolutely right about there being a lot of laws in Leviticus and the Old Testament in general that people today do not follow.  However, there are legitimate reasons why not all of those rules are being followed today.  I think I managed to give a pretty decent breakdown of those reasons in my post entitled An Explanation of the Apparent Contradictions Between the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible.  I think if you’ll read that it will clear up some of the common misconceptions people have regarding this subject.

Humans are by nature “sinners”. “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone”, was Jesus’s rebuttal to people who pointed fingers at others who were sinners without first cleansing themselves of their own sins.

It is true that we are all sinners.  In the example of the woman brought for stoning, it wasn’t just about people passing judgment on someone else.  There were a lot of other things going on in that scripture.  The scribes and Pharisees who brought the woman to Jesus was trying to trick him into saying something that would go against the law.  The Bible says she was caught in the act (of adultery) yet they only brought the woman and not the man (for whom the law also ordered a death sentence).  Jesus saw through their hypocrisy and used the situation to show that God looks past the sin and is able to forgive the sinner.  However, the scripture doesn’t really say anything about the actual judgment on the woman.  She was guilty.  Jesus even told her to go and “sin no more.”

I do not believe this scripture or any other scripture says or implies that we should turn a blind eye to open sin.  But as I’ve said before, there’s a difference between judging someone and saying that the actions of an individual are sinful.  The woman in the example committed adultery which is clearly a sinful act.  However, as Jesus implied, the scribes and Pharisees may have been qualified to point out the sinful act, but they were not qualified to pass judgment over her.

So how is it one goes about cleansing their own sins? Must one go to church every Sunday? Must it consist of reading the Bible frequently?

It is not possible for one to “cleanse their own sins.”  Only God can forgive a sin.  There is nothing we can physically do to make that happen.  Jesus has already died for the forgiveness of sins.  The Bible teaches us that we must first accept Jesus as the son of God - as our savior.  We must accept that he came to Earth in the form of a man, lived a sin-free life, took our sins upon himself, died on the cross for those sins, was resurrected on the third day, and rose to heaven to return again one day.  Basically, we must be “saved.” 

In 1 John 1:7 we learn that the blood of Jesus Christ is responsible for cleansing us from sin.  So, the means by which we are cleansed is not dependent upon our actions, but based upon what Jesus Christ has already done for us.

If a saved person sins, as we are all prone to do, then we should acknowledge to God that we have sinned and repent.  Going to church every Sunday or reading our Bible every day or doing whatever won’t help because it’s not our works that free us from sin, it’s God’s grace.

From what I have read in the Bible, God says simply this, “ask and you shall receive, knock and the door shall be opened onto you” He will not turn away anyone who looks to Him for guidance.

Your interpretation of the scripture isn’t entirely accurate.  You are quoting from Luke 11.  It is familiar scripture to many and is often known as the parable of The Importunate Friend:

Then Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.’ And suppose the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’  I tell you, even though he will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship, yet because of your shameless audacity he will surely get up and give you as much as you need.

“So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; those who seek find; and to those who knock, the door will be opened.”

“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:5-13)

This parable was a direct answer to a disciple’s request to learn about prayer - specifically, how to pray.  I could probably fill a lot of pages concerning what it all means, but the gist of it is that it is instructions for how we should pray to God and not so much an open invitation for anyone to just ask God for whatever they want whenever they feel like it.

It isn’t true that God won’t turn away anyone who turns to Him for guidance.  If you haven’t truly repented for your sins then you are living in a state of rebellion against God.  Although God is sovereign and can choose to answer any prayer He finds to be in accordance with His will, John 9:31 declares, “We know that God does not listen to sinners.  He listens to the godly person who does his will.”

We must assume from this scripture and from other scripture in the Bible that God does not, generally, listen to nor answer the prayers of those who are not saved unless they are prayers asking for forgiveness.

If a gay or lesbian person opens themselves up to God and welcomes the Lord into their hearts then that is their communion with God.  Likewise, whatever communion Michael and I have with God is personal and private.

The problem with this assertion is that it goes against what the Bible actually says.  I maintain that the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin and not a natural state of being.  This point of view is supported by scripture.

In the Old Testament, the Law of Moses said, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22; also 20:13).

The New Testament is even more clear on the subject.  In Romans 1, Paul was discussing how the Gentiles had failed to live up the revelation of God given them.  In that book he wrote about the evils they did while suppressing the knowledge of God:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1: 26-27)

Although homosexuality is not specifically named in this passage the act is clearly described and there can be no mistaken what he is talking about. 

In 1 Corinthians, Paul was even clearer in his message when he plainly stated that homosexuals will not “inherit the kingdom of God” and that being saved frees you from homosexuality.

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God?  Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 

Some of you were once like that.  But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

In the second half of that passage Paul makes it clear that once you are saved, you stop doing the things he named - homosexuality being one of them.  He says that “some of you were once like that,” clearly implying that they are no longer.

This scripture clearly says that if a gay or lesbian person “opens themselves up to God”, truly, they would no longer be gay or lesbian.  If they continued in their homosexual lifestyle they would be living in sin and then would be faced with other scripture:

“But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear.” (Isaiah 59:2).

“We know that God does not listen to sinners.  He listens to the godly person who does his will.” (John 9:31).

You might also check out, Does God answer the prayers of unbelievers?

I do not believe that “your” God is any different than the Yahweh that Jewish pray to, or Jehovah of the jehovah’s witnesses, or Allah that Muslims seek. Each has their own “word of god” that they follow in order to please “Him” these scriptures hold the same value as your Bible and all “scripture” belongs to Him.

I’m guessing that you mean all of us are actually praying to the same God, but have each created our own “word of god” in order to have directions by which to follow His will? 

You can say that they all have the same value and that all the “scriptures” belong to Him, but that is completely ignoring the fact that the scriptures between the religions are incompatible.  All of the religions you mentioned do use elements of the Bible (which actually helps prove my point about it being the most widely accepted text), but the Jews ignore the New Testament scripture that announces Jesus as the Messiah, the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the holy trinity, hell, and even the existence of a spirit that continues after death for all but a few, while the Qur’an that the Muslims use as scripture is in complete opposition to the teachings of Jesus concerning the trinity since Muslims consider it blasphemus to even say there is a trinity.

None of the adherents to any of the above mentioned religions would accept your statement as factual or agree with what you said.

I think the way is like a mountain, the peak being God. The mountain has many sides and many paths leading up to “Him” whichever path we choose, they ultimately lead to the same direction. Those who do not venture the climb will never know his grace. God has poured himself into many vessels in order that we may know Him. To me, religion is an institute by which we separate ourselves in order to prove that our chosen path is the correct one, however God has made the mountain and every path on it. His WORD is in everything. He has ultimately shown us the way in many different forms. I do not call myself religious but adhere to the spiritual principal that my life is a continuous path that shall eventually lead me to Him–and that if I see Him in all things, my path will unfold effortlessly.

The problem I have with your statement is that all religions are not equal.  They do not all teach the same things.  Therefore, there is no way that people following, say, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism would all end up heading in the same direction or to the same peak.  The religions have fundamental and irreconcilable differences of philosophy that prevent them from being easily melded into one belief system no matter how much one wants to believe everyone is correct.

You made the statement that those who do not venture the climb (attempting to find God) will never know His grace.  I find that statement fascinating because I’m not sure you’re even aware that Christianity is the only religion that teaches the “grace” of God. 

Christianity is the only religion that is a religion of grace.  Every other religion besides Christianity is based on people doing something; followers are forced to struggle to somehow earn the favor of God.  In other faiths the adherents have to use a prayer wheel or go on a pilgrimage or give money to the poor or avoid eating certain kinds of meat or do an unspecified number of good deeds or pray at a certain time each day or do something.  In these faiths you attempt to earn God’s favor by doing the right thing, the right way and thus earn some form of salvation.

However, in Christianity the Bible tells us that God’s gift of salvation through Jesus originated with God and was God-given.  The gift is not from man to God through our efforts.  It is from God to man.  Christianity alone is based on grace and not works.  On the basis of this point alone, Christianity is different from any other religion in the world.  No other religion or ideology teaches a free forgiveness to those who have done nothing to earn it and in fact deserve judgment instead.

Getting back to your statement, it would seem unlikely that a God who wanted us to discover Him would go around the world and teach different people completely different and contrary things about Himself.  Why would He create more than one path to discover Him?  Given this situation there would be virtually zero chance humankind would ever grow to understand God in any meaningful way.

As far as Michael’s separation of church and state–on Jason’s part, it is true the this separation has historically been hard to come by. Religions do have Moral basis, but these morals can still be applied to the general people without catering to a specific religion and that proves to be difficult in politics because people hold fast to the idea that theirs is the One true religion and therefore the correct “moral”–finding politicians who were not raised on some religious principle or other is difficult–personal beliefs do influence the laws as they are written through the ages.

Most of the time morals can be applied to everyone without a specific religion entering into the discussion.  However, I maintain that there is nothing wrong with politicians using their religious convictions and personal moral beliefs in making governing decisions if the general moral belief is being debated.  Our nation was founded by men with strong personal religious and moral beliefs and I see no reason why it cannot continue to be run by men with similar personalities nor why Christians shouldn’t ask for and expect their politicians to share their viewpoints.

Thou shall not Kill–is a moral found in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and even tribal communities in Africa and Native America–your religious translation of it being “thou shalt not murder” is also a moral but it does not REPLACE the first moral–it just defines it in a way that fits your chosen path. However, what is your definition of “murder”? Regardless of which word makes for a better “translation” you still have to come up with the definition of murder.

I think you’re getting dangerously close to splitting hairs on this one.  I’m not using a religious translation of “thou shall not kill.”  I believe the moral has always been “thou shall not murder” in almost every society as war and self-defense which required killing has always existed.  Sure, murder must be defined, but that isn’t any different from any other moral law.  We can say “thou shall not steal,” but we still have to define what constitutes theft.  Is it theft if I planned to return the item I took?  Is it theft if I stole food to feed myself because I was starving?

I would like to reiterate something you stated a while back. How do I teach my children that it (gay and lesbian union) is wrong when the rest of the world shows it as right? (I too am paraphrasing) If you truly believe in the Word as it is written in the Bible then you should have no troubles passing this on to your children. What your children choose to believe as they grow is their path and their communion with God.

Of course I can teach my children what I believe to be right and wrong.  Of course I can teach them what the Bible says.  However, it’s either naive or disingenuous of you to insinuate that the world around us plays no part in the information that my children will be exposed to.  I believe I have every right to limit as much as possible those outside factors and influences which I believe will hinder or harm the education of my children and/or their spiritual well-being. 

Surely you must admit that having gay marriages be a part of normal, every day life would adversely effect any teachings I might give on the subject to impressionable children?

The California courts are at it again.  The same California Supreme Court that created a “right” to homosexual “marriage” earlier this year has now ruled that the state may force healthcare professionals to provide services to homosexuals regardless of the whether or not providing those services violates the healthcare professional’s religious beliefs.

California’s highest court was unanimous in its decision on Monday that Christian doctors may not refuse to perform artificial insemination for homosexual patients. (See California court says no religious exemption for doctors).

Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) had this to say concerning the ruling.

“This is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of individuals to live and practice their faith.  Forcing doctors to have to choose between being a doctor and being a Christian in the State of California is an outrageous violation of the fundamental rights of every American to be able to practice their faith and not to have to leave their occupation because of it.”

The case stemmed from a lesbian who sued two Christian fertility doctors who would not artificially inseminate her because, as they told her at the time, their beliefs prevented them from doing so.  The court ruled that the doctors have neither a free-speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.”

What you probably won’t hear in the mainstream media is the fact that the doctors actually provided the lesbian woman with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home.  They also referred her to another doctor who would perform the elective treatment.

This wasn’t a life saving type of situation.  The doctors didn’t refuse to help someone in dire need of medical assistance.  They simply and respectfully opted not to provide an elective treatment that they believe to be morally wrong.  One might compare their refusal to a plastic surgeon who refuses to give breast implants to a fifteen-year-old on the grounds that she’s too young and not mature enough.  Many doctors do such procedures, but many do not.

Attorney Brad Dacus agrees:

“This is not about denying people services.  This is, instead, about the ‘thought police’ attempting to censor Christian beliefs and Christian perspectives that don’t agree with homosexuality.  We’re talking…about individuals being able to force doctors or other professionals to violate their faith in order to keep their job.” 

In my opinion this ruling clearly violates an individuals rights to freedom of religion.  The court simply cannot force someone to do something that violates their religious beliefs if it does not endanger another person.

This verdict opens up the Pandora’s Box that I alluded to in another post when I spoke about homosexual marriage.  The court’s ruling is so broad that it will apply to almost every profession in the state.  That means that Christian professionals and service providers could be forced to provide services to homosexuals that support their lifestyle and violate the Christian’s religious beliefs.

For example, lawyers could be forced to execute documents for homosexuals wanting to adopt children or a Christian who owns a wedding service could be forced to conduct wedding services and wedding preparations for lesbian or homosexual couples under threat of legal action or lawsuits.

This sort of thing would virtually shut down many Christian businesses who simply could not compromise their religious convictions in some of these regards.  The ruling could also lead to the sort of thing I spoke about previously where speaking against homosexuality actually becomes a hate crime and Christians are virtually silenced.

This is an outlandish and ridiculous ruling that should be overturned immediately.

I’ve been reading some really interesting articles concerning Pastor Rick Warren’s presidential candidate “Civil Forum” at his Saddleback Church on Saturday night in which he hosted both Barrack Obama and John McCain for a sit-down interview type forum.  In case you don’t know, Rick Warren is the author of the second best selling non-fiction book in history (behind the Bible) called The Purpose Driven Life.

Most of what I’ve read has been more of a debate on whether Rick Warren has any business hosting such an event at his church in the first place.  And this debate stems from both Christians and non-Christians. 

In an excellent article entitled Pastor Warren: Stop politicizing religion, Star Parker had this to say:

For whatever good intentions Pastor Warren may have, by posturing as a neutral broker between different points of view, many of which have profound moral and religious implications, he contributes to the moral ambiguity we’d expect a pastor to be combating.

We have institutions for civic and political forums. The press, universities, town halls, etc. If they’re not delivering well, let the marketplace work to improve what we’re getting. But this is not the job of pastors or churches. If it is, where do we go to learn about good and evil?

In another article on the WashingtonPost.com entitled What Rick Warren Should Have Asked, David Waters summed up his opinion by saying this:

I still think a church is no place for a campaign event, and a clergy person has no business posing as political moderator.  But if the church is going to insert itself into the electoral process, it should do so as the church and not as a political action committee.

Now I am certainly not the person you should talk to if you want someone to support the opinion that Christians have no business in politics.  As a Christian, I think Christians should be more involved in politics because our Christian heritage and even many of our religious rights and freedoms are in danger of being taken away.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with what Rick Warren did.

I tend to agree with what Star Parker said.  The problem with Rick Warren and other pastors who try to act as some sort of mediator in a forum such as the one he had on Saturday night is that acting in that capacity prohibits him from really making judgment calls on what the candidates actually said.  And the pastor of the church should be most definitely be telling his church members what the Bible says about the issues and the pastor should be able to speak his mind freely concerning those issues.

Rick Warren effectively took himself out of a position of moral authority over his church when he decided to host the forum as more of a mediator than a pastor and allow both candidates to speak freely on a bunch of soft questions. 

Had he acted as a pastor he would have been able to take the candidates to task for any answers they gave that didn’t line up with his Christian beliefs.  Of course, had he said he was going to host the forum as a pastor, it seems unlikely that at least one of the candidates would have agreed to come.

I agree with Star Parker when she said, “If anything characterizes the problems we’re having today it is relativism and ambiguity, a blurring of lines between everything.”  I don’t think a pastor of Rick Warren’s stature should be contributing to that blurring of lines.