Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Has The Christian Church Lost Its First Amendment Rights?

But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1 Timothy 1:8-9New King James Version (NKJV)

Has The Christian Church Lost Its First Amendment Rights?
The separation of Church and State.

Opinion Editorialist for
By de Andréa,
Published August 10, 2016

I have been saying for years that one day, the traditional church in America will no longer exist.  It will instead as it has in many other autocratic tyrannies, be driven out of their church buildings and eventually, and quite literally, underground as in secret basements or bunkers.  In the meantime it will meet secretly in private homes after parking ones car blocks away or just walking to a meeting one or two at a time, so as not to raise suspicion that something seditious might be going on there.

The Communists of course want it both ways.  They want a separation of Church and state as long as it means the Church must separate itself from the State and doesn’t mean that the government would have to separate itself from the Church maintaining its authoritarian control over the church.
A Des Moines Iowa church just wants to be a free American Constitutional church and preach the gospel, as is its right according to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  In other words it is the supreme law in the country that protects the church from the government. But the Iowa State’s unconstitutional nondiscrimination requirements could block the church from doing just that.  It is not because the church violates the anti-discrimination law or discriminates against anyone, but because the Biblical truth heard from the pulpit might hurt the feelings of some individuals.  Of course that would depend on whether or not an individual who chooses to be homosexual would voluntarily attended the church, (the active ingredient here is the word “voluntarily,” no one forces anyone to be subjected to the truth.)  No one would force a homosexual to attend the church. Nor would anyone purposely berate a homosexual or anyone else. Or force anyone to become a heterosexual.  Which is more than one could say about the homosexual community or the state in this case for that matter.
I myself have on many occasions heard something from the pulpit or in a church that I thought was wrong or offended me.  I have never thought of going to a lawyer or a court and sue the church for my angst.  If it was serious enough I would do one of three things – One, go and speak to the offender. Two, just get over it, or three leave the church.
One must ask oneself while reading this article, what is the real motive behind this exercise of power here?  It is to protect the rights of a minority group?  Or is it just to create a menu of power and control over the Christian Church for the purpose of eventual elimination.
Lawyers for the church are asking a federal court to prevent the State government of Iowa from force censoring what the religious group can say about homosexuality, same-sex “marriage,” transgenderism and other related topics.
At issue is the state’s nondiscrimination requirements that specify any “public accommodation” can be ‘ordered’ not to say anything that might make a homosexual or a transgender feel “uncomfortable,” such as even reading from the Bible any reference to such behavior.
Lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom, ADF who are representing the church, have filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction that would protect the church members’ constitutional rights while the case plays out.
Without that order, they contend the speech of the Fort Des Moines Church of Christ and its pastors and members is being unconstitutionally limited.
Now one should note that in no way does the church or anyone force the homosexual to attend the offensive church, thereby forcing someone to risk the possibility of subjecting oneself to the blatant Biblical truth from God.  But on the other hand the State forces the church to censor the Word of God.  As I previously said the State wants all the power even though in a self-governing society such as ours, the people are supposed to have the power.  Moreover, just in case one is ignorant of the fact, I will present it at this point.  Quite simply…No one, and I mean no’ one’…has the authority to censor, change, or eliminate any part of the Word of God.    
And if that is not enough to show the criminal tyranny of the State then let us take a look at the law that is relevant to the Church:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”  Pretty clear, except that the designation of ‘Congress’ has been extended by the U.S. Supreme Court to include all legislatures local and state.  So the State of Iowa is in violation of “prohibiting the Free exercise of religion”.
“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”- An opinion written by John Jay, First chief justice US Supreme Court.
Christiana Holcomb, legal counsel for ADF, said the issue is about the basics of the Constitution.  “Churches should be free to communicate their religious beliefs and operate their houses of worship according to their faith without fearing government punishment. It’s not good enough for government officials to say we should simply trust them to tell us what is religious and what isn’t. The law must be clear, and at present, the only thing that’s clear is that the law gives too much power to government bureaucrats who don’t even seem to understand the most basic constitutional principles,” she said. 
Boy is she ever right-on’ about that.  I have personally found that most legislators whether they are Local State or Federal,   know little about the U.S. Constitution.  Or they have been taught in law school that it no longer applies and is irrelevant. I refer you to an article I published last month, “Titled U.S. Judge Says Constitution Has No Value”
ADF Senior Counsel Steven O’Ban said “that in the meantime, the court should issue an injunction that makes certain that this law won’t be enforced against our client while this lawsuit proceeds.  Neither the commission nor any state law has the constitutional authority to dictate how a church uses its facility or what public statements a church can make concerning human sexuality,” he said.
The Iowa Civil Rights Act bans places of “public accommodation” from expressing their views on human sexuality if they would “directly or indirectly” make “persons of any particular … gender identity” feel “unwelcome.”  The state claims churches are a”public accommodation under the anti-discrimination law.”
But the state’s interpretation could be used by bureaucrats to bar churches from making any kind of so-called “unwelcome” public comments during an activity that the commission deems not to have a “bona fide religious purpose.” This shows just how much the commission knows about what goes on in a church on Sunday morning…I can assure the commission that “Church” is for a “bona fide religious purpose.”  While a Mosque on the other hand is for a bona fide criminal purpose.  But they are exempt because they kill homosexuals.
The state commission is also forcing the church to give access to restrooms, showers and locker rooms according to whatever a person claims his or her “gender identity” happens to be at the time, creating a platform for perversion and sexual assault such as has been the experience at the Target Stores.  
The new brief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa said the commission’s “overreach is entirely predictable in light of Iowa’s constitutionally flawed definition of public accommodation, which clearly encompasses churches. The commission has twice tried to inform ‘churches’ and ‘places of worship’ what activities will bring them under the act. But in doing so, the commission only highlights how the act interferes into the internal affairs of churchs, and why a preliminary injunction is absolutely necessary to protect the church from further harassment and the violation of its constitutional rights.”
WorldNetDaily reported in July that the state commission had published guidelines that declared it had the authority to decide what constitutes a religion. 
Oh really! If that is true then the Muslim jihadist problem is solved.  All we have to do is get the Iowa State Commission to decide that Islam doesn’t constitute a religion and the terrorist problem is solved…

At issue in the Iowa case, are state mandates that protect “transgender rights.” Among them are allowing men to enter women’s shower rooms, dressing rooms and restrooms if they say they are women and banning statements in meetings open to the public that might cause individuals to believe that they are unwelcome because of their perceived gender identity.”
ADF explained that when it initially sued over the constitutional dispute, the state revised its guidance document.
But the result was just as bad as the first, ADF said.
“The commission continued to single out places of worship for special instruction and to sanction churches that communicate their beliefs about biological sex, and operate their facilities consistent with those beliefs, when they engage in ‘non-religious activities.’ The commission does not define the newly minted and vague term ‘non-religious activities,’ reserving to itself the unbridled discretion to determine for a church which of its activities are religious and which are not,” the lawyers explained earlier.
The brief said that for “the first time in our nation’s history, state officials are reaching into the internal affairs of churches to silence them from teaching and publicly promoting a central tenet of their faith and forcing them to operate their own facilities in a way that contradicts their faith.”
“Not only do defendants ignore the applicable free exercise case law, they completely ignore the church’s arguments that the speech ban … is content and viewpoint-based discrimination and, therefore, presumptively unconstitutional,” the filing warns.
ADF lawyers noted Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote to Iowa officials explaining the “approach taken by the ICRC plainly violates both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”
Let’s hope they don’t get the Judge that says the U.S. Constitution has no value!   Eventually that will be the rule rather than the exception.
Thanks for listening my friend!  
- de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials. 

No comments: