FIC Blog

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. 

Pastor Eric Thompson of Wayfaring Ministries will appear on the Dan Lovallo Show at 5 pm today to discuss SB 899 and the pro-ssm side’s misuse of analogies to racial discrimination. Go to www.talkofconnecticut.com for the station near you.

FIC wishes a Happy Easter and a Happy Passover to all!

The Lawlor-and-McDonald-controlled Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote on S.B. 899, the same-sex “marriage” bill, for TOMORROW (Monday, March 30th)! In its present form, this bill will lead to the same-sex “marriage”-fueled attacks on religious liberty that we have seen in other states (Catholic Charities forced out of adoptions in Boston, Methodist church losing tax-exempt status over a pavilion for refusing to rent it to a lesbian ceremony, etc.). We must strike now to prevent this from happening in Connecticut!

If you click here you can send an e-mail to the members of the Judiciary Committee to tell them to do the right thing on S.B. 899. Here is what that e-mail says:

The Judiciary Committee was already used once this session to attack religious liberty. Don’t let it happen again! Please amend Section 7 of S.B. 899 so that same-sex marriage does not lead to attacks on religious liberty. Here is the amendment I support:

“No individual and no religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society shall be penalized or denied benefits under the laws of this state, including but not limited to laws regarding employment discrimination, housing, public accommodations, licensing or tax-exempt status, for refusing to solemnize or recognize the validity of any marriage, where solemnizing or recognizing the validity of that marriage would cause that individual or religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

This amendment is supported by the Family Institute and the Catholic Conference and simply restates federal protections already provided by the U.S. Constitution.

I also ask that you amend Section 17 so that only subsection 4 of CT general statute Sec. 46a-81r is repealed. This statute protects public morals in several different ways; even GLAD lawyer Ben Klein admitted that the Kerrigan ruling does not require it to be repealed. Only subsection 4 conflicts with Kerrigan and only subsection 4 should be repealed.

Finally, I ask that you remove Section 2 entirely from S.B. 899. The CT General Assembly has no power to export same-sex marriage to other states, as this section attempts to do. 

You can read more directions on sending the e-mail when you click on the link above. You can help FIC Action fight these attacks on faith and family in Connecticut by clicking here to donate. We invite all our supporters to attend TOMORROW’S debate and vote on S.B. 899, which will take place in Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building beginning at 12 PM. We need as many people as possible to e-mail the Judiciary Committee to tell them to stop yet another of the Committee’s attacks on religious liberty in our state. Thank you! 

FIC Action yesterday called upon Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams and House Speaker Chris Donovan to remove Sen. Andrew McDonald and Rep. Michael Lawlor from their positions as co-chairs of the Judiciary Committee. You can read the details on our homepage. The best media reports available so far come from The Courant and from CT News Junkie.

One clarification: What I told CT News Junkie was that I did not expect legislative leaders to heed my call to oust Lawlor and McDonald right away. Whether or not it happens at all will depend on how many people contact Sen. Williams and Rep. Donovan to request it–that’s how we beat the bishop removal bill and assisted suicide. To be sure, it would be unusual for them to heed our request. But it’s unusual for 5,000 people to descend on the state Capitol on a few days notice and it is unusual for the Judiciary Committee to summarily cancel hearings on two bad bills in the space of a week. This is a time for unusual occurrences.

I’ll be on Dan Lovallo after the 5 PM news today to discuss all of this.

We had a big victory at the state Capitol last week with the effective defeat of S.B 1098, the bill which would have removed the authority of Catholic bishops over their parishes. I’m just back from the Capitol, where it appears we may have had another major victory today–though I can’t say too much about it yet (watch for more info in your in-boxes tomorrow).

Many legislators–including several who are not normally known for supporting us–are approaching FIC to congratulate us on our success and to encourage us to keep it up. Their comments got me thinking about the strategies that helped bring us to this point. As we move to the next level of this battle (again, see tomorrow’s e-mail), it might be good to do a quick review.

Our adversaries have a certain idea of what a social conservative is and they desperately want to put us into that box. That is why The Fairfield Weekly–without making so much as a phone call to us first to check their facts–has falsely attributed to FIC a flyer that was distributed at last week’s rally. In fact, the flyer we did distribute that day was a bit more sedate.

That’s FIC’s style: tough but professional, assertive but civil, storming the bastions, yes, but in a spirit of truth speaking in love. That’s why even The Courant reported on my “steady voice and earnest, scholarly demeanor” (their words) in a 2007 front page article. That’s why we became the state’s leading voice for faith and family in the halls of government, the media and other elite institutions.

And that is what we must remember going forward. Rep. Lawlor and Sen. McDonald have repeatedly used their authority as co-chairs of the Judiciary Committee to put the Christian faith on trial. FIC members will work to hold them accountable for it in the same manner we always have: by being polite, courteous and civil–while confident in the truths we are defending.

The Fairfield Weekly’s shabby excuse for journalism is a reminder that the path we walk is not an easy one. Things said or done by others will be falsely attributed to us.

And even our willingness to take the high road will be used as a weapon against us. In a public hearing just last week, for instance, Rep. Gail Hamm (D-East Hampton) claimed she was “offended” by my “rude” refusal to play along with a particularly hostile line of questioning from Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor.

The task before us is to speak the truth in love while not kowtowing to those opponents–like Rep. Hamm–who would have us believe that the only way to behave is to do as we’re told. (Hamm, ever the schoolmarm, even had this complaint about me: “I heard snickering!”)

Watch for more information about FIC’s next steps. And God bless you all for being neither what our adversaries pretend we are or what Gail Hamm would like to make us into.