FIC Blog

That’s the question asked by a (Danbury) News-Times article this past weekend and I am inclined to answer yes–when every unborn child is welcomed in law and protected in life. A day that will never come, you say? The News-Times quotes me on the present darkness…and the glimmers of hope:

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, credits the increase [in abortion in CT] to the lack of restrictions on those seeking abortions in the state. In Massachusetts and Rhode Island, teenagers need parental consent before getting an abortion. In Connecticut, they don’t. “If you’re a minor in Connecticut, you need your parent’s consent to get a tattoo or an aspirin in school,” Wolfgang said. “You don’t need it for an abortion.”…

But Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of Connecticut said the polls [showing a majority are now pro-life] may reflect a real change in American opinion. “I’m sure sonograms have had a lot to do with it,” he said. “When you see one, it’s impossible to deny the baby’s humanity.”

Several recent missteps by Connecticut’s senior U.S. Senator have caused some to question his integrity. Today, it’s my turn:

Peter Wolfgang, who leads the Family Institute of Connecticut, said that Dodd’s reversal was motivated by political expediency.

“He took a position against same-sex marriage when he was running for president because that was the most politically palpable position,” Wolfgang said. “Now suddenly he’s in favor of same-sex marriage because he is in a very tight campaign for re-election. … He needs every dollar he can get and he cannot afford to alienate the very well-heeled cultural left.”

You can read Dodd’s history with the issue–and FIC’s history with Dodd–here. FIC Action Committee does not make endorsements in federal races.

Yesterday’s Parade magazine ran an article by President Obama, touting the importance of fatherhood. Media reports pushing the article described it as part of his wider strategy of not alienating social conservatives–a strategy noticeably absent during a high profile visit to Hartford. 

In fairness, the new president has given more attention to the topic of fatherhood than most politicians. And it is easy to see why:

But I observe this Father’s Day not just as a father grateful to be present in my daughters’ lives but also as a son who grew up without a father in my own life. My father left my family when I was 2 years old, and I knew him mainly from the letters he wrote and the stories my family told. And while I was lucky to have two wonderful grandparents who poured everything they had into helping my mother raise my sister and me, I still felt the weight of his absence throughout my childhood…I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill.

In other words, no substitute–be it a person or a government–can make up for the absence of a father in a child’s life. It is a point FIC–indeed, the entire pro-family movemement–has made repeatedly in our fight against the redefinition of marriage, the scourge of divorce and so forth. Is the president about to join us in the fight to restore a marriage-based culture for the sake of our children and of society?

Not quite. The only solution offered by the president to the crisis he rightly laments is that fathers be…”involved.”

As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well—but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling. That is when they need us most.

Not a single word about marriage–the best guarantor of fatherly involvement–in an article on how “we need fathers to step up.” Thanks for the profile in courage, Mr. President.

Connecticut’s Episcopal Diocese would rather sell off a 245-year-old church in Watertown than give in to its pro-family dissenters. From Tuesday’s (Waterbury) Republican-American:

And last year Palmer was there [at Christ Church] when nearly all of the congregation left to form their own church because of the national Episcopal Church’s stance on homosexuals and other issues.

On Sunday, Bishop Laura J. Ahrens of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut told the congregation the final services in the building will be July 26. It is closing.

Today’s Rep-Am has a follow up story peddling the line of Christ Church’s current leadership, that the closing would have occurred regardless of controversy over homosexuality and scripture because of money troubles. And yet there is this:

Even before the split [over practicing gay clergy], Christ Church had fewer than 100 members. On Jan. 6, 2008, when it held its first service without the break-off members, only three worshipers were in the pews. In the six months since Kemmerer has been there, Sunday morning worship has inched up to between 20 to 30 members — an improvement but not nearly enough to sustain the church.

The article cites national data to back up Rev. Kemmerer’s claim that Christ Church simply fell victim to the decades-long trend of a membership decline in mainline denominations–without any discussion of the role of theological liberalism in causing that decline. From a portion of the article not available to non-subscribers:

“Episcopalians do not define themselves by what they believe, but by how they worship,” said Bradley.

Or, as Jesus never put it, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of Whatever, teaching them not to observe all that I have commanded you; only to not define themselves by what they believe but by how they worship.”

While it’s certainly true that each person can believe what they will, according to the dictates of their conscience, it’s always interesting to observe people who attempt to misappropriate the label of Christianity when their system of belief actually contradicts the teachings of Christ and His apostles. This is often the case with liberals who seek to advance the cause of secular humanism under a false banner, by trying to portray themselves as merely part of a dissenting and more liberal branch of Christianity. Really this is a form of “false advertising”. Either you are on board with the teachings of Christ as described in Holy Scripture, or you’re not. As it says in the good book, “For those of you who are lukewarm, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

I wrote about this at some length, roughly 2 years ago, in my blog article, “Beware the False Prophets”. But what prompts me to write again today is a letter to the editor in the Connecticut Post, by The Rev. William Duchon. This major newspaper in southeastern CT has apparently been running a series of letters seeking to rehash the same-sex marriage debate, and to ridicule the biblical teaching that homosexual behaviors are sinful. Together with the preceding letter by Lynne Porter, the argument is raised that biblical teachings of the Old Testament ought to be set aside altogether since some would seem not to apply anymore. This is essentially equivalent to the same tired old argument that if you eat shellfish (prohibited in Leviticus 11) then you would be hypocritical to condemn homosexuality (prohibited in Leviticus 18 and 20, and yet also reaffirmed as sinful at numerous other points in the Bible including most notably Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Jude). Following this thinking through to its logical conclusion, those who advance this argument would seek to set aside the entirety of Old Testament law and empower man to decide for himself what is good and what is evil. In essence, this argument is used as a key to unlock and justify the philosophy of secular humanism.

Yet it is clear among reasonable people that we ought still to follow the 10 Commandments as a society, even if an individual person should happen to profess his disagreement with these principles. Does anyone honestly believe that the “eating shellfish” escape clause could justify negating God’s commands “thou shall not steal” and “thou shall not kill”? One’s liberty to believe according to the dictates of conscience does not give broad license to redefine good and evil. Even those people who consider themselves outside the Abrahamic covenant tradition must nevertheless face the reality that society will expect them to abide this commonly understood definition of right and wrong.

So the question really becomes this – what part of Old Testament teachings are still applicable to us in the present day? That is a question biblical scholars have typically addressed by identifying that there are 3 distinct elements of such teachings:

1. Moral-Ethical law
2. Ceremonial law
3. Judicial-Civil law

The moral law encompasses the unchanging sense of right and wrong that applies to all persons throughout history, including today. As described in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), “The moral law doth forever bind all”. While the 10 Commandments would be the most obvious example of this moral law, other teachings given in the Old Testament also fall into this category.

The ceremonial law pertains to the ordinances of worshipping God in the times predating Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. In the Christian tradition, these laws were abrogated by the New Testament since we now have direct access to the Father. So we no longer need to bring animal sacrifices to high priests at a temple, for example. You can read more about this in Hebrews 9 & 10.

Finally the civil law pertains to the governing regulations of the ancient Jewish state as it once existed, prescribing a list of infractions and penalties. This would include many items related to the moral code, but tied more specifically to a concrete punishment. By way of example, adultery is a violation of both the civil and moral code. It is a sin that separates us from God, in the sense of the moral code. And it is a crime worthy of the death penalty, in the sense of the ancient Hebrew civil code (e.g. Deuteronomy 22). Today it nevertheless remains a moral wrong, even though we are no longer bound under the civil law expressed here. In addition to items that span both moral and civil law, there are items that exclusively fall into the civil law category like the ancient Jewish regulations pertaining to the treatment of servants.

An excellent review of this subject – the 3 categories of law found within the Mosaic Code – is the article “Should We Obey The Law?” by David Philips. Another is the article “Jesus and the Mosaic Law” by Casey Carmical.

I think it is very important to consider the context of the Old Testament verses that speak about homosexual behavior as sinful. If you look at the rest of Leviticus 18, you will find prohibitions against many other things we would still agree are immoral: adultery, incest, bestiality, and human sacrifice. It is in this context that we find homosexuality listed as an offense. Given this context, it’s clear that it is not a ceremonial law, but a combination of civil and moral law. To the extent that it is civil law, we have the opportunity as a nation to be merciful in our treatment of offenders (compared with the strict penalties that would have been imposed under the ancient Hebrew system of government). But to the extent that it is also moral law, it remains as much an offense now as it has always been. We should therefore realize that fundamental principles of right and wrong do not change, and are not subject to the whims of mortal man.

Some folks have said that Jesus Himself never spoke about homosexuality. But if you study Matthew 15:10-20 it is clear that only portions of the Mosaic law are to be set aside. Indeed, to be specific, while Jesus overturned the ceremonial laws (OK, you can eat lobster now) he concomitantly reaffirmed that the ethical laws remain intact. Moreover, among the examples that Jesus chose to underscore in reaffirming these portions of the law are: murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. The reference to “sexual immorality” in this verse was originally expressed as “ervar davar” (Hebrew) and translated as “porneia” (Greek). In both cases, this is a term that encompasses a wide range of illicit sexual activity including: adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, etc. – in other words, by implication, the sexual taboo code of Mosaic law as it would have been commonly understood to contemporary Jews in the days when Jesus walked among them.

Having said all of this, let’s return to what originally prompted my comments today – the letters from Ms. Porter and Rev. Duchon, in which they incorrectly reason that all 3 categories of law in the Mosaic Code are of equivalent standing. By their flawed reasoning, if they can pick apart any elements of that code as being archaic and no longer applicable in modern society, then it ought all to be set aside as meaningless drivel. How wrong they are, as shown by literally hundreds of years of biblical study!

At least Ms. Porter admits that she’s not a biblical scholar, so we might be tempted to give her a pass based on sheer ignorance. Nevertheless she reveals her true colors at the very end in her exhortation to “use the Bible to embrace our shared humanity”. This comes straight out of the secular progressive handbook, and waters down the true purpose of the Bible’s epic story. I always thought the Bible was meant as God’s story of His relationship with His chosen people, and how - despite our fall into sin – He formulated a plan for our redemption and salvation, to free us from the bondage of sin and death. Yet strangely absent in Ms. Porter’s letter is any reference to God whatsoever. Not even one! Oh well. In her world, the Bible must need to be understood from a humanistic perspective alone.

In the subsequent letter from Rev. Duchon, I noticed how the signature line did not include any mention of a church affiliation. I wondered, who is his congregation? Particularly since his comments showed an odd dissonance with the Christian faith, by failing to recognize one true God and by deviating from Jesus’ words “No one comes to the Father except through me”. You see, Duchon wrote instead about the value in one’s spiritual journey not only of the Bible but also “the Quran, the Upanishads, poetry and music”. And yet that title “Reverend” lent the impression that one was reading the musings of a Christian pastor. Not an Imam from the Muslim faith. Not a Brahman from the Hindu faith. But in this case it was being used as a generic title of no faith in particular, under the auspices of a seminary diploma and nothing more. How sad indeed, for in seeking to embrace every faith, he remains true to none of them. And in the end he falls into the same secular progressive trap, claiming that “the overwhelming message of the Scriptures is simply to love, respect and serve one another and the world”. Once again, this is a wholly humanistic point of view – focused upon “one another and the world”, and entirely missing the point about God’s relationship with us. Ultimately the problem with sinful behaviors is not merely how they affect other people in this world. More than anything it is how they damage our relationship with God. The same God whose eyes it is said are “too pure to look on evil” and who “cannot tolerate wrong” (Habukuk 1). The same God who is love and yet is also uncompromisingly holy, righteous and just. The same God one ought to have learned about had one attended a seminary that honored the true and ancient faith, passed down through the apostles, rather than a man-made humanistic faith in which we choose for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Oh well. Duchon must have missed reading Paul’s admonition in Galatians that if anybody preaches a different gospel other than what was passed down originally via the apostles, let him be eternally condemned. Duchon can certainly choose to conform his faith to the world’s expectations, rather than God’s. But those of you who are wiser can discern the truth, and steer clear from his false teachings.

This is very much about discernment and the caution given in the New Testament to beware of false prophets. Christians must remain vigilant, and keep these wolves at bay through the Light of the Word.

If you’re an Obot, you might be thinking that June is meant to be LGBT Pride Month.

But for thousands of years, it has been celebrated as a time that signifies the special nature of the union between male and female. Even beyond our Judeo-Christian traditions, the ancient peoples of the earth recognized this time of the year based upon the Summer Solstice as the calendar opposite of the Winter Solstice – in the same sense that male and female genders exist as natural complements to one another. It is for this reason that Celtic people referred to this day as “the wedding of Heaven and Earth”, and the ancient stone circle at Stonehenge is oriented to mark the position of the rising sun at the midsummer solstice.

Nordic people have long celebrated this day as Midsummer Eve, a holiday whose popular appeal rivals even that of Christmas Day and is strongly associated with romance and fertility. The name we now give to a married couple’s traditional vacation getaway, the “honeymoon”, actually originates with the ancient significance of the Midsummer moon during weddings performed at the solstice and celebrated by drinking mead made from fermented honey – hence the name “Honey Moon”.

The Chinese likewise recognized this “ying-yang” principle of complementary opposites within a greater whole. In this culture, the solstice is associated with the goddess “Li” who represents light and femininity, and is considered a patron of brides.

Roman tradition dedicated this calendar month to the goddess “Juno”, believed to be the wife of the chief deity “Jupiter”, and ruling as queen of heaven and guardian of women. In that culture she was the patron goddess of marriage. The month of June as we know now it draws its name from this aspect of Roman mythology.

It is not surprising that ancient peoples, who had not received the Bible message, would nevertheless be able to recognize the truth of God’s natural order.

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1: 20)

We are all children of God’s creation, and as Christ so aptly reminded us of the Genesis story:

“In the beginning God ‘made them male and female.’ … ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19: 4-6).

Let’s try to remember the sacred purpose of marriage, rather than let it be corrupted.

We live in troubling times. Throughout the United States – at the local, state and federal levels of government – assaults continue upon our religious freedom. Recent examples include:

• Enforcement action by San Diego County against a local pastor and his wife, for daring to hold a bible study group in the privacy of their home. Never mind those pesky First Amendment rights, like freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. The county wanted to know “Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say ‘amen’? Do you say, ‘Praise the Lord’?”. When the pastor’s wife answered “yes”, the county responded with a written threat that they must cease and desist their “religious assembly” unless they obtain a permit. How ridiculous, and what an unbelievable and unconstitutional intrusion into their right to freely exercise their religious faith! Only after a tsunami of protests raised this conflict to a nationwide level of visibility did the county finally back down, apologize, and agree that their enforcement actions were improper.
  

 

•  Right here in Connecticut, oppressive action taken by the Office of State Ethics against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport for daring to exercise their First Amendment rights including freedoms of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.
  

 

• Federal courts have so far failed to uphold the religious freedom of a child and his parent, in a school program that invited families to read a selection from their “favorite book”, for daring to select a passage from the Bible as an example of their favorite book. Never mind those pesky First Amendment rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Amazingly this school’s administrator thought it would be appropriate to suggest an alternative selection to the parent – a book about witchcraft – but he forbade her from reading a selection from the Bible. Yet another parent in the special program was allowed to read a book about Judaism without objection. In this case, it seems, the principle of “separation between church and state” is being applied exclusively against Christian families, whereas other faiths are permitted to be expressed according to a selective and discriminatory application of school policy.
  

 

•  LGBT activists are seeking Federal enforcement action via the IRS to muzzle the free speech rights of the Roman Catholic Church in the State of Maine, for daring to speak about Biblical truth in relation the sanctity of marriage. Voters in Maine are seeking to exercise their rights to a “people’s veto” of recently adopted same-sex marriage legislation, and the church is understandably acting in support of this grassroots lobbying effort to inform people about their right to sign the petition. Nothing in the IRS regulations prohibits a church from issue-based activism, as long as it is not acting to the benefit or detriment of specific candidates. Even the left-wing “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” admits:
  

  The free speech rights of religious leaders are already broadly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Clergy can and do address public policy concerns, ranging from abortion, gay rights and gun control to poverty, civil rights and the death penalty. They may support legislation pending in Congress or the state legislatures, or call for its defeat. They may endorse or oppose ballot referenda. Indeed, discussion of public issues is a common practice in religious institutions all over America.

  The only thing houses of worship may not do is endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns.

• Sadly the Obama administration and the mainstream media have shown themselves eager to portray devout Christians as “right wing extremists” and “hate mongers”, merely because they hold fast to principles such as the sanctity of life and the teaching that marriage is meant by God to be a relationship between one man and one woman. Our left-wing opponents seek to lay blame for the slaying of Dr. Tiller at our feet, merely because we have consistently expressed our opposition to abortion. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the left is trying to smear us with labels like “Christian Taliban” and to persuade others that Christianity is as dangerous as Islamic terrorism.

We live in an upside-down world now, where traditional values are being scorned rather than cherished. Secular progressives are exploiting their recent political victories, and seeking to oppress people of faith. Be aware of this growing threat, and ready to stand up for your rights.

This is a test.

I’ll be on Dan Lovallo’s radio program at 5 pm to discuss the first-ever Gallup poll showing that most Americans are pro-life. Go to www.talkofconnecticut.com to find the station near you.

 

The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. – Edmund Burke 

While legislation may circumscribe the boundaries of our actions, it is beyond the legitimate reach of government to regulate our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. In this sense, there is an inextricable link between our “freedom of thought” and “freedom of religion”. And it is for this reason that our Federal Constitution guarantees within the First Amendment that laws may not be made to interfere with religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Likewise, the United Nations acknowledges in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” 

I’ve been wondering lately, why is it that people are tending to view religious freedom as something evermore narrow? Is that freedom only for the clergy? Is it only applicable when practiced in a certain building, or upon a certain day and time? Yet as I read the text of the First Amendment, I can find no such limitations. The freedom is guaranteed for all citizens, at all places and times. It is for everyone, 24×7. 

We used to understand as a society that it is morally wrong to compel someone to act in a manner contrary to their conscience. (We used to understand a lot more about morality, but I digress). Nations have recognized that individuals may acquire a valid status as “conscientious objectors”, and thereby refuse to participate in armed military service. In the wake of Roe v. Wade, during the 1970s, laws were formalized at the Federal and State level to exempt health care providers from being compelled to facilitate abortion or sterilization procedures when those actions “would be contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions”.

In fact, it is often a hallmark sign of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes – like the former Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China - when the people’s freedom of conscience is suppressed. In contrast with such darkness, one of the qualities that have made America great has been its ability to peacefully incorporate a diversity of viewpoints, without trampling upon an individual’s right to the liberty of their own conscience. Each person has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Moreover, it is imperative that government should find an equitable balance between the interests of society and the interests of individuals when it seeks to compel someone to action that is contrary to that person’s conscience. 

Finding that delicate balance between our collective and individual interests can be tricky. Probably few among us are thrilled to pay our taxes, particularly when we disagree with how the money is being spent, but conscience or not we are all compelled to pay. The key factor in such cases tends to be whether there is a “compelling interest” that cannot reasonably be satisfied through some other means. Indeed, our own state’s laws (CGS 52-571b) provide that the government shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion – even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability – unless the state both demonstrates a compelling governmental interest and enacts the least restrictive means of furthering that governmental interest. 

What this seems to suggest is that when there are reasonable alternatives that might resolve a particular concern or issue, we should tend to favor those that place the least burden upon an individual’s liberty. In essence, government should seek to minimize its footprint upon our freedom of conscience. If only our elected representatives would take this principle to heart, perhaps then we could all live in greater peace and harmony.