As I watched some of the Olympics coverage this week I couldn’t help reflect on the central role “rules” play in an ordered society. Image if two soccer teams showed up for their match and the refs announced that the rules were mere “guidelines,” that the public expected them (the refs) to “keep up with the times.” “In the end,” says the Head Ref, “the final score will be determined by how well we think each team played.”
I suspect: “Say what?” would be the mildest of the reactions from the players.
Yet the American public seems to not care much whether our government plays by the rules of the Constitution or not. Just saying.
It Seems To Be All About The First Amendment This Week.
Can a church operate on Biblical beliefs?
I wonder how many states, besides Iowa, have a “Civil Rights Commission.” My guess is that most do. Does your state? If so, you might want to start monitoring it to see if its members intend to follow the lead of Iowa’s Commission (ICRC).
In 2007, the Iowa legislature expanded the state’s Civil Rights Act to make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The ICRC then issued an onlinebrochure
that stated churches would “sometimes” be held accountable for the guidelines. Naturally, this caused great confusion among the state’s churches, with some charging that the ICRC was forcing gender-neutral bathrooms on them
and even that the ICRC intended to monitor sermons for compliance. Those on the Left called it a non-issue
With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, other churches filed suit to have the brochure clarified
It appears the ICRC has no intention, for now, of filing complaints against churches for failing to allow gender-confused individuals to use the bathroom of their choice or for preaching bible-based admonitions against homosexuality. But there remains great confusion over whether churches must become “members-only” in order to be totally immune.
How’s gender-confusion being dealt with in your state?
Mosques vs Churches.
Does the First Amendment require government at every level to accommodate every religion equally? I know what the Framers of the Constitution would have said. We’ll soon find out what today’s courts think.
Muslims of Sterling Heights, Michigan, asked for a zoning waiver that would allow them to build a second mosque in the city, and were turned down. Claiming bigotry, the Muslims filed suit
and, rather than wait for the suit to be resolved, the Obama administration jumped into the fray and launched their own investigation of the claim.
If a Christian Church had instead been denied a zoning variance for similar reasons, I doubt the result would be a lawsuit. But the way things are going in this country, with Christians being told to “shut up and color,” I won’t be surprised to see churches being similarly restricted and reacting similarly. But back to the central question: must government, in this case city government, treat all religions equally? If a variance is given to one religion or denomination must it then be given to all? Can there still be valid reasons for turning down a zoning request? Or to avoid any hint of bias, must we allow Muslims in America to erect mosques wherever they desire? The landscape of America is changing, and the pace of that change is quickening. At some point Americans will have to decide whether they wish to retain some sort of a national identity. What do you think?
What does Free Speech Include?
People often point to Canada as our “enlightened neighbor to the north.” Sporting a nationalized healthcare (from which the wealthy flee to obtain their care in America) and a bold, brash young Prime Minister, it is easy to overlook the “dark side” of Canadian life. Like this: would we be comfortable in America with unelected commissioners dispensing fines when comedians’ jokes start crossing imaginary lines in the sand?
Quebec’s Human Rights Tribunal fined a Canadian comedian
$42,000 for joking about a disabled boy. Unfortunately, the boy he chose to joke about really existed and was sort of a national icon; that certainly didn’t help. But I think we can all agree that while such a joke is clearly in poor taste, we’re headed down a steep, steep slope if we start prosecuting people for poor taste. On the bright side, the aisles of Walmart would quickly empty
That Nasty Bible Again. Mikey Weinstein
of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation continues to wage his one-man crusade against Christianity in the Air Force, this time complaining about a Bible left in plain view on an Air Force Major’s desk
Official Air Force policy says Bibles on desks is acceptable, but that didn’t stop Mr. Weinstein, who hoped to capitalize on a ruling last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces which upheld the bad conduct court-martial of a Marine who displayed Bible verses on her computer workstation. Weinstein’s complaint will fail, but I predict the publicity-hungry ex-Air Force officer (you don’t know how much it pains me to acknowledge Weinstein was such) will not be dissuaded.