Why the odd juxtaposition of the title of this post and that picture above. Well, this is a Christian blog. So I don’t suggest searching the Internet for images associated with the word “pervert”. In addition, I think we should be more interested in promoting our own causes than condemning those of others. So that picture above illustrates the focus of this post, the welfare of children.
On Monday we celebrated Martin Luther King Day. Not having anything to post, I let the occasion pass. Today, however, I thought I would say something about the busybodies and copycats who have sought to misuse the good done by the Civil Rights Movement that King helped to lead. How? Consider this famous quote.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. — Martin Luther King, Jr. (quote from here)
King did not deny we have the right to judge each other. He just wanted us to judge each other by the content of each others character. How do we do that? The character of a person (see here) relates to their moral excellence and firmness. That is something we can only perceive from a person’s words and deeds, that is, from their behavior. Therefore, what was King advocating? Instead of using a person’s race to determine whether we want to associate with them, do business with them, honor them, befriend them, and so forth; we should consider quality their behavior.
So what did the busybodies and copycats do to the Civil Rights Movement? They did what people have a tendency to do. They carried it to the extreme.
- The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution, passed after the Civil War, contain a straightforward prohibition of slavery. Otherwise, those amendments prohibit either the Federal or State governments from depriving citizens of their rights or treating citizens unequally. Nonetheless, Congress gave itself the authority to extend its powers to apply civil rights laws against private businesses.
- The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution were quite obviously designed to prevent discrimination against blacks based upon race. Nevertheless, the busybodies and copycats decided to extend civil rights protections (especially AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1) whatever identity group it pleased them to “protect”. Thus, instead of protecting us from the unreasonable biases of public officials, civil rights laws now allow public officials to force their personal biases on others.
When people twist the law this way, that is a form of legalism. Even though the statutes may now say what the busybodies and copycats want, and judges may agree, the obvious text of Constitution — the spirit of the Constitution — does not give our leaders the power to force us to accept behavior we consider unacceptable.
Here is a prominent example, Christian group’s lawsuit against University of Iowa pits freedom of religion against gay rights (foxnews.com).
A conservative Christian student group’s lawsuit against the University of Iowa is pitting the right to religious beliefs and the institution’s policies barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The 10-member group called the Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC) waged a legal challenge last December after the university suspended their activities on campus over the denial of a leadership position to a gay student.
The Christian group said anyone can become a member, but the leaders must affirm a statement of faith that rebukes homosexuality, which is within their rights according to laws guaranteeing freedom of religion.
In the lawsuit, the group says it “cannot and will not ask leaders who do not share its beliefs to lead members in prayer or to convey those beliefs.”
The university prohibits any discrimination based on sexual orientation and accused the BLinC of violating the school’s Human Rights Policy and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Fox News reported last year.
The group, founded in 2015, was meeting weekly for Bible study and focused on service projects and to teach students “how to continually keep Christ first in the fast-paced business world.”
Since the loss of license to operate, the group is no longer able to reserve campus meeting space, attend student recruitment fairs or access funds from student activity fees. (continued here)
Consider this quote from University of Iowa lawsuit pits gay rights against religious freedom (nbcnews.com).
Jennifer Pizer, law and policy director at LGBTQ legal group Lambda Legal, said the Masterpiece and BLinC cases undeniably share similarities.
“The core idea is the same,” she said. “People saying, ‘Because I have a religious reason for wanting to do something contrary to law, I should get to do what I want … even if it involves harm to someone else.’” (from here)
“Harm” is not being allowed to lead an organization that promotes beliefs contrary to your own? If that is not a perverse idea, what is? Can you imagine a devout Christian complaining because an LGBTQ organization would not let him organize one of their obscene demonstrations? Would an LGBTQ organization want to depend upon a Christian to speak in their name? Would anyone take that Christian seriously if he complained about not being allowed a leadership position in an LGBTQ organization after he had refused to affirm their vile beliefs?
What complicates matters is the fact the government is sticking its big nose into almost everything. Hence the government either owns or provides funding for all kinds of causes, especially educational institutions. Since government can and does attach strings to “its money”, those strings can make it extremely difficult for each of us to exercise our personal right to discriminate based upon the dictates of our conscience.
So what is the solution? It is in that very same Constitution the busybodies and the copycats so much want to abuse. Let’s look at the text of AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (from here)
When our government is forcing us to accept as appropriate words and deeds we find reprehensible, why isn’t that an abridgement of our privileges or immunities as citizens of the United States? What sense does it make to force people to accept leaders who don’t believe in their cause. Doesn’t the 1st Amendment also give us the right to peaceably to assemble? How can we peaceably assemble if the government insists upon interfering in our choice of leaders?
Consider also the 10th Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (from here)
If we don’t want busybodies and copycats constantly empowering themselves at the expense of others — if we want the right to exercise our own freedom of conscience — then we have to constrain our government to the powers the Constitution actually gives it. The Framers intended the Constitution to be a charter that specified what the Federal Government can do, but busybodies and copycats would have us believe the opposite. They would us believe that whatever the Constitution does not prohibit the Federal Government can do. Hence, to remind generations to come of their true intent, the People insisted upon adding that last amendment to the Bill of Rights.
The Framers of the Constitution never expected the Federal Government to operate or fund endless health, education, and welfare programs. So there is nothing in the Constitution that provides for any such programs. The Framers understood the massive power that would give the Federal Government. Yet because it seems easy and harmless — deceptively so — we have allowed the Federal Government to slowly become a Behemoth. So instead of the values of our People guiding our government, we now risk busybodies and copycats imposing sick and depraved beliefs upon our children.
Instead of letting politicians take so much of our wealth from us and spending it to further their own personal political interests, is it not time that we each said “NO!”? It is our money. We each have a conscience of our own. Why can’t we choose the charitable causes upon which we spend our own hard-earned cash? Won’t we spend our own money more responsibly than politicians bought and paid for by special interests?