Persecution of Christianity

With the jailing of Rowan County Kentucky Clerk of Court Kim Davis for refusing to compromise her Christian beliefs to issue same sex marriage licenses, the progressive left’s covert war on Christianity is now fully out in the open for all to see.

Christian conservatives have been warning of the progressive left’s covert war on Christianity for decades only to be met with ridicule from the left and its media lapdogs dismissively categorizing conservative complaints as mere conjecture and kooky conspiracy theories. The progressive left has incrementally removed prayer from school, removed Nativity scenes from the public square, and introduced immoral sex education into the classroom as part of their sinister campaign to increase clients for their grisly abortion mills all while claiming that Christian conservatives were overreacting in their resistance, narrow-minded in their intolerance, and extremist in their values and views. In each case of their incremental war on Christianity, the left’s actions have been carefully presented as “reasonable” with the assurance that these actions would address some wrong along with the subtle insinuation that resistance to the progressive agenda marked one as an intolerant right-wing religious extremist bigot who was un-American and must either relent to the inevitable or be driven from the country as being unfit for proper society.

Religious freedom is a foundational concept of America so deeply ingrained that the Founding Fathers sought to enshrine its reverence in the Constitution as an unimpeachable right naturally flowing to man from God. The Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620 did so in pursuit of the religious freedom they did not have in Europe. They originally came from the congregations of the Brownist English Dissenters which were persecuted by the English government until they fled to the Netherlands where they lived in relative peace for a number of years. Faced with the unpleasant notion of losing their English identity by remaining in Holland, the Pilgrims embarked on a journey to the American Colonies in 1620. When they boarded the Speedwell at Delfshaven that July to leave for America, they were saying goodbye to family and friends they would never see again, all in pursuit of religious freedom. This was not today’s version of goodbye with cell phones that put us in instant contact with anyone in the world or jet travel that can put us anywhere in the world over the course of a few hours. This was goodbye with the realization that they would never be seeing each other again. The best they could hope for would be a letter that would take several weeks to arrive, if at all.

The Pilgrims had experienced religious persecution in England to the point of death, and their innate desire to worship God in their own way had led them to Holland where they enjoyed the freedom of religion they had not had in their home country. However, the fear of losing their English identity forced them to seek the religious freedom they could not enjoy in their home country in the English colonies of America. There they would be far enough removed from England that they could practice their religious beliefs free from the oversight and persecution of the English government, but remain true to their English identity without fear their children would intermarry with the Dutch and dilute both their identity and their beliefs.

This flight to America in pursuit of religious freedom was so powerful that it led others to follow the same path and reinforced the idea that religious freedom was a concept that required absolute protection from the hand of government. America’s independence movement was rooted in religious freedom with numerous references to the innate and natural rights granted to man by God and the inability of any government formed by man to infringe upon these natural rights for any reason in the Declaration of Independence. After winning our freedom from the British, so important was the concept of religious freedom that our Founding Fathers sought its protection in the very first Amendment to the Constitution to specifically forbid any trespass against it by the new government which they sought to establish. This followed the establishment of the thirteen state constitutions each of which specifically enshrined absolute protection for religious freedom from the hand of government.

Each time America has embarked upon the course of war to uphold its sovereignty and protect its citizens, its leaders have humbly and reverently called upon God to bless their efforts secure in the knowledge that America was founded by His Providence and continued to demonstrate its reverence for Him. Our leaders have called upon God in times of crisis for the strength and wisdom to guide America through difficult times and bless us with prosperity so that we might remain a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world to emulate.

So strong has been the concept of religious freedom that the progressive left in its early years cast their evil intentions in the guise of religion by invoking the Name of God to justify their creeping incremental undermining of America. They would say something to the effect of “surely God would want us to address this dire human need and alleviate this suffering” in their attempts to extend state control over the lives of Americans. This approach both fed into our desire as a nation to be pleasing to God and masked the progressive left’s true intentions of removing God from public life.

We saw the progressive left’s movement to undermine Christianity accelerate in the chaotic ‘60s and ‘70s as counterculture youth rejected the conservatism of their fathers which was the basis of American prosperity and social unity. We’ve witnessed the disastrous results of this upheaval in societal norms in the profligacy of illegitimate births, the horrors of abortions and their inherent banality of evil, the destruction of marriage and the undermining of the family unit upon which all successful societies have been built, and the moral decay which has turned the great experiment in government that America, with its reverence for God, has always been into something more closely resembling the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah from which God turned away and destroyed as undeserving of existence in His Creation. We can easily draw parallels between the decline of America and the decline of great civilizations of the past whose downfall all followed the same familiar path upon which our leaders have placed this country.

With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the progressive left achieved a pinnacle of power which it had never before known in America, and it wasted no time implementing its agenda of evil to remake America in its own image. The pace of American decline has accelerated exponentially faster under President Obama as he has unleashed the full fury of his Muslim and communist intentions to destroy America as we know it by removing any vestiges of conservatism and its observance of any of the traditions which made America the exception in the world. That Barack Obama is a liar practiced in the art of evil to gain power and position from which to enact his satanic agenda is by now an established fact. All who care for the truth are aware of his past opposition to gay marriage when it was politically expedient only to suddenly embrace it when it became politically convenient in service to its final destruction of the institution of marriage weakened by forty years of no-fault divorce and church ambivalence in its protection.

Churches have very much become complicit in the undermining of America and the advancement of the progressive agenda with their appeasement of it in their attempts to grow the numbers of their congregations while failing to provide for the spiritual growth of their members. Their attempts to water down church doctrine to appeal to greater numbers who wish to merely feel good without the bother of hearing the truth have done no one any favors and have only served to pave the way for the progressives to enact their agenda. By failing to stand firm for God’s truth, Americans have increasingly come to view the church as irrelevant and made the decision that it is not worth the investment of their time listening to a sermon that is written only to make them feel good about themselves. There are numerous avenues available which will provide one a good feeling in a much more entertaining and less expensive manner than attending a boring old church on Sunday morning.

Since taking office in 2009, President Obama has constantly referred to Americans having the freedom of “worship” enshrined in the Constitution instead of the correct freedom of religion. This was a deliberate subtle shift of language intended to distract Americans from the actual wording of the Constitution and get them used to a much more restrictive concept of this freedom. The left is adept in the art of language substitution and the subtlety which certain words convey. The Founding Fathers sought to protect freedom of religion for all Americans from the heavy hand of government coercion, not the freedom of “worship.” Freedom of religion conveys the notion that one practices their religious convictions 24/7 in all areas of their life, while the freedom of “worship” progressive fabrication conveys the notion that one is only free to worship where one chooses on Sunday morning with the rest of the week reserved for the state to dictate what one believes. Freedom of “worship” is restricted to church attendance on Sunday morning only, and reserves the rest of the week for state sanctioned beliefs.

It is this critical distinction in which Rowan County Kentucky Clerk of Court Kim Davis now finds herself ensnared. Under the Founders’ concept of religious freedom, Ms. Davis’ case would have been quickly resolved in favor of religious freedom and she would have been exonerated had the federal judiciary cared to uphold the Constitution and the intentions of the Founders. However, the federal judiciary has become infiltrated by the progressive left intent upon advancing their evil agenda, and neither the Constitution nor the intentions of the Founders are given any credence in this matter.

In their dissent of the Obergefell decision, Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all took pains to warn that the Court’s decision would create a conflict between the newly created right to homosexual marriage by the majority and the right of religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The progressive left and its media minions took great pains to pronounce this as an unfounded fear that would never happen, yet we are a mere two months away from that disastrous decision and those very fears are being realized. To be clear, the Court’s Obergefell decision did not create a right for homosexual marriage. All it did do was interpret Ohio’s ban on same sex marriage and declare it to be in violation of the Constitution. As bad as that decision was, it did not create a new law giving gays the right to marry. Ohio could have resisted recognizing same sex marriage until forced to do so by some future court.

In fact, several states are resisting same sex marriage on the basis that the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision did not create a specific right for homosexual marriage but merely invalidated Ohio’s same sex marriage ban. In a noteworthy example of this idea, the state of Texas instructed its clerks of court to continue refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples with both Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton warning clerks who ignore their intentions and issue same sex marriage licenses that they would face legal consequences from the state until the issue is settled by the Fifth Circuit which includes Texas. Since the resolution, a number of clerks have resigned around the country rather than issue same sex marriage licenses in violation of their religious convictions. This action stands in stark contrast to the rush by other states to recognize the legitimacy of same sex marriage when any court issued the vaguest of opinions on the matter. Same sex marriage was defeated every time it was put to a vote of the people, even in that liberal bastion of California, so the left resorted to its usual end run around the will of the people to realize its goals through the courts. This action once again reaffirms the importance of a conservative administration in selecting appointees to the federal bench.

Note that under President Obama’s freedom of “worship,” these clerks of court, and anyone else in an official government capacity, refusing to accommodate same sex marriage are not being denied their ability to worship at the church of their choice on Sunday morning, but have no right to follow their religious convictions the rest of the week, especially in their official capacities as government agents. Under the Founders’ concept of religious freedom, these people would have their rights to observe their religious convictions upheld over the intentions of those who wish to deny them these rights in pursuit of their own selfish agendas.

Despite the left’s intention to portray this fight as a denial of rights and the imposition of Christians’ religious beliefs upon others, nothing could be further from the truth. Absolutely no Christian involved in this situation is seeking to impose their beliefs upon anyone. They are merely asking for their Christian religious beliefs to be respected. It is the intolerant forces of the progressive left which seek to impose their immoral beliefs upon Christians and force them to subvert their religious beliefs in obedience to the evil of the progressive agenda. The entire gay movement has been one of intolerantly forcing acceptance of their immoral beliefs upon Americans who would otherwise continue blithely ignoring homosexuals and leaving them to their own destruction. It is not the Christian who angrily gets into the face of the homosexual demanding that they accept Christian beliefs, but it is always the homosexual angrily demanding that the Christian subvert his views to accept the homosexual’s views. The Christian concept of live and let live while being at the ready to witness to the lost whenever called upon to do so is not acceptable to the progressive left and its homosexual bloc who angrily demand Christian acceptance of and obsequiousness to their immoral agenda.

And so, having perverted the idea of American jurisprudence with its clearly unconstitutional demands of new rights never envisioned nor intended by the Founders, the progressive left continues to sow discord and destruction which rends the societal fabric and drives us further apart as a nation. It is now in open rebellion to the Judeo-Christian concepts upon which America was founded and overtly at war with Christians. Its intolerance is on full display as anyone daring to resist its agenda of evil can expect to suffer the same fate as Kim Davis.

The progressive left has performed on cue with respect to Kim Davis. Its media minions have researched Ms. Davis to dredge up all manner of dirt on her life to cast aspersions upon her motives. In a familiar refrain, they point out her four marriages to subtly imply she is an unworthy Christian warrior hoping that Americans enticed away from God’s word will not remember that we are all sinners unworthy of His mercy and grace and certainly not worthy to represent Him. They rely on ignorance of the Bible in Americans forgetting that none of the people God called upon as warriors in His service were either up to the challenge or worthy of the opportunity. This was precisely so they would rely completely upon God to deliver their victory and not come under any illusions that it came from their efforts. “For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God” Romans 3:23 reminds us. Jesus admonishes us in John 8:7 “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Christians are all too aware that we are imperfect and unworthy, and that it is these imperfections which bring even more honor and glory to God when overcome in His service.

The intolerance of the left was further displayed in their rejoicing as Ms. Davis was held in contempt of court and led away to jail similar to the rejoicing of those who demanded Jesus be crucified when granted their wish by Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. State persecution of Christians is certainly nothing new although we Americans have grown comfortable in the notion that it could never happen here despite Jesus’ clear warnings to His followers to expect as much given the persecution of Him by those intolerant of His teachings. Kim Davis is the first Christian to be openly persecuted for resisting the progressive left’s evil advancement of homosexuality as morally acceptable. She will not be the last, and each of us Christians can expect to be faced with the threat of subservience to this plank in the agenda of the progressive left. It may be as subtle as refusing to speak up to declare one’s religious objection to homosexuality when the notion is presented in a manner which assumes unanimous conformity in the mistaken belief that silence does not imply acceptance and compromise of one’s beliefs.

In the mistaken hope of purchasing peace, we Christian conservatives have appeased the forces of evil by allowing the progressive left to incrementally advance their agenda. Having tasted success, the left will be loathe to back down in the face of Christian opposition and will fight with a tenacity and fervor that will be truly frightening. We must gird up our loins, take up our shield and sword, and fight the good fight with an even more resilient tenacity and fervor than we can even imagine. Make no mistake; it is only by complete reliance upon God that we will emerge victorious in His service for we are unprepared, unworthy, and unimpressive to the forces of evil arrayed against us. The time of Christian ease and comfort is over as we have lazily abdicated our defense of the conservative Christian principles won so dearly by the Founders and enshrined so prominently in the Constitution. We are seeing their warnings come to full fruition and we must fight ever so much more savagely to regain the freedom which we have so obtusely allowed to slip away.

This entry was posted in Government, Marriage, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Persecution of Christianity

  1. If Kim Davis did not like the law, she should have resigned from her post or petition the representatives of Kentucky to change it. Arbitrarily deciding which laws you will enforce or abide by and which laws you will not is antithetical to the concept of law and order.

  2. Tom Roberson says:

    Kentucky did change the law to accommodate Kim Davis, but this did not satisfy the lefties who then demanded that her signature be placed upon their marriage licenses.

  3. Tom Roberson, I have a few questions I would like your thoughts on. They are as follows: 1: In your personal opinion, should the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that bans on same-sex marriage are Unconstitutional stand or that it should be overturned? 2: Even if there was any recognition of same-sex relationships legally, should this be done on a state by state basis or should the federal government be involved?

  4. Tom Roberson says:

    I don’t believe that the question of marriage is even in the purview of the state. Marriage was intended to be a holy sacrament fully encompassing the concept of holy matrimony as defined by God, not a legally binding contract filed at the courthouse for the administration of federal benefits. The compromise offered to homosexuals was the creation of civil unions which properly addressed the state’s use of marriage to facilitate certain functions such as benefits and contracts. By surrendering marriage to state control, the church has effectively turned marriage into nothing more than civil unions with the sacrament of holy matrimony completely eliminated.

  5. Tom Roberson, I am not aware of all of the specifics regarding benefits that are available for couples in a marriage or in a civil union. There are differences, obviously, however, what benefits should be available to people in civil unions or in marriages that are the same legally speaking?

  6. Tom Roberson says:

    To name a couple, married couples are allowed to double their standard deduction under the tax code to further minimize their tax obligation, and under the HIPAA law, married couples are entitled to hospital information for spouses whereas unmarried couples run afoul of this law when attempting to check on loved ones.

  7. Tom Roberson, I can agree with that. Unless this was already addressed, I think that joint tax filing for same-sex couples who are in a civil union should be legally recognized. I also believe that hospital visitations should be available if a partner is ill without discrimination.

  8. Tom Roberson says:

    Ah, but recall that civil unions were expressly rejected by homosexuals who held out for marriage instead. The legal protections of civil unions were not the end goal of homosexuals who were merely seeking to destroy marriage by any means necessary.

  9. Tom Roberson, what benefits should be available for same-sex couples that are in a civil union that are similar to those in a regular marriage?

  10. Tom Roberson says:

    Gay marriage is a reality, so there’s no point in answering your question. The ship has sailed on the question of whether there should be civil unions or gay marriage, so why do you persist in beating this dead horse?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.