RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: Why Such Hostility to This Fundamental Freedom? | Eastern North Carolina Now

    The Masterpiece Cakeshop, and in particular, its owner and cake artist, Jack Phillips, was targeted with particular enthusiasm and determination by the progressive left. In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake for their wedding. (Note that it was against the law in Colorado for Craig and Mullins to marry and so they went to Massachusetts for the ceremony). Phillips declined, in a very polite way to do so on the grounds that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his deeply-held religious beliefs. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art through which he can honor God and that it would displease God to create cakes for same-sex marriages. He offered them one of the other cakes that were made in the shop, but they were not interested.

    Craig and Mullins filed charges of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD), alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), enacted in 2014. After the Division issued a notice of determination finding probable cause, Craig and Mullins filed a formal complaint with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation in violation of CADA. The Alliance Defending Freedom defense team, agreeing to take the case, argued that the CCRD seemed determined to go after him for his Christian values when the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act recognized exceptions for several individuals and organizations. These exceptions were free to decline to serve clients whose message offended them.

    The Administrative Law Judge found in favor of Craig and Mullins and then the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Phillips appealed the case to the US Supreme Court.

    The issue presented to the Court was this: Does the application of Colorado's public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment? The Supreme Court reversed the ruling, in a 7-2 decision, holding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner's reasons for declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the Free Exercise Clause. In the opinion for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that that while gay persons and same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views and can also be protected forms of expression. The Colorado law at issue in this case, which prohibited discrimination against gay people in purchasing products and services, had to be applied in a neutral manner with regard to religion. The majority acknowledged that from Phillips' perspective, creating cakes was a form of artistic expression and a component of his sincere religious beliefs. The ultimate decision of the Court failed to answer the fundamental issue - Does a state law that compels a cake maker to design a cake that violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs violate his First Amendment religious right to free exercise? The Court found in Jack Phillips' favor on the issue of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's animus in going after him and Masterpiece on account of his religious beliefs.

    There are many more cases involving threats to religious liberty in the courts now and every indication suggests that these cases will proliferate as officials try to keep religious people, churches, and organizations from freely living out their faith.

    Evil does not come at us dressed up with a sign that says "I am evil." Evil comes at us seductively, in an appearance that appears freakish or satanic, dressed in provocative outfits, spouting half-truths. It sounds good and makes sense - until you peel off the veneer and expose it for what it is. The data shows how our society has declined, rapidly, in the wake of the Court's decisions to remove religion from our schools and from the public arena.

HbAD0

    In a famous 1791 educational policy paper, Dr. Benjamin Rush offered numerous reasons by the Bible should never be taken out of American schools. He even warned: "In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, if we remove the Bible from schools, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them."

    Rush knew that if religious teachings were excluded from education, widespread misbehavior would result, and the increase in crime would become a national problem. Yet today, the First Amendment now prohibits what it once protected - the inclusion of religious principles in public education.

    Noah Webster provides additional corroboration of the Founders' views on this subject. Webster today is primarily known only as an educator (his impact on education was so profound that he has been titled the "Schoolmaster to America"), yet he was also a Founding Father, serving as a soldier during the Revolutionary War and a legislator and judge afterwards. He was one of the first Founders to call for the Constitutional Convention (in Philadelphia, in 1787) and was personally responsible for specific wording in the Constitution. In a textbook he authored for public schools, Webster informed students: "All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

    Very simply put, the Founders understood the numerous societal benefits produced by Biblical precepts and values and had no intention of expunging those principles from the public square. They even believed that American government would not function properly if separated from religious principles. As John Adams explained: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

    The Founding Fathers had specifically forewarned of the adverse effects of excluding religious influences from the public arena. Recall that Declaration of Independence signer Benjamin Rush, Bill of Rights' signer John Adams, and Speaker of the House Robert Winthrop had specifically warned that if the public teaching of the Bible were restricted, crime and violent behavior would escalate. It is therefore not surprising that there have been measurable societal changes in the wake of the Court's rulings.

    For example, following the Court's 1962-1963 decisions to exclude basic religious teachings from students, violent crime increased 700 percent, with metal detectors and uniformed police officers becoming a normal part of the student educational experience. In fact, crime so exploded among junior high students that the federal government began separate tracking of murders, assaults, and rapes committed by students ages 10-14 (significantly, none of these categories of statistics existed before the Court's decisions). That is, these crimes occurred so infrequently that separate monitoring of these problems was unnecessary. Yet, despite these alarming trends and burgeoning increases in violent crime among students, they still cannot be permitted to see words such as "do not steal" or "do not kill," or even teachings such as the Golden Rule or the Good Samaritan because God forbid, they just might obey those teachings. That would be unconstitutional and it also might cause them psychological harm.

    The senselessness of this public-school policy became apparent to Colorado's State Board of Education following the frightful school shootings at Columbine. After serious introspection in the wake of that incomprehensible tragedy, the Board issued a letter openly acknowledging:

    "As we seek the why behind this infamous event, we must find answers beyond the easy and obvious. How weapons become used for outlaw purposes is assuredly a relevant issue, yet our society's real problem is how human behavior sinks to utter and depraved indifference to the sanctity of life. As our country promotes academic literacy, we must promote moral literacy as well...... Our tragedy is but the latest, albeit the most terrifying and costly, of a steadily escalating series of schoolhouse horrors that have swept across the nation. The senseless brutality of these calamities clearly reveals that a dangerous subculture of amoral violence has taken hold among many of our youth.... We must remember, respect, and unashamedly take pride in the fact that our schools, like our country, found their origin and draw their strength from the faith-based morality that is at the heart of our national character. Today our schools have become so fearful of affirming one religion or one value over another that they have banished them all. In doing so, they have abdicated their historic role in the moral formation of youth and thereby alienated themselves from our people's deep spiritual sensibilities. To leave this disconnection between society and its schools unaddressed is an open invitation to further divisiveness and decline. For the sake of our children, who are so dependent upon a consistent and unified message from the adult world, we must solve these dilemmas...."

    The liberal Left has a real problem.... a religion problem. The lack of religion on the Left, and its feverish push to demonize religion in general means that the Left approaches moral issues differently than conservatives. The liberal Left approaches such issues as abortion, gay marriage, gender fluidity, transgenderism, the sexualization of children, public prayer, the Ten Commandments, Christian symbols, etc without respect, without deference, and with total hostility. The Left cannot achieve their progressive agenda and their social change as long as Americans can still "cling to their religion."

    Luckily, defenders of religious liberty continue to stand and fight for their rights under the First Amendment.

HbAD1

    I dare to think what would happen if God were to send down his Ten Commandments today. I believe that there would be a great condescending laughter from the left. And what if Christ were sent to us today. I'm absolutely sure he would be labeled a racist, a supremist, a xenophobe, a bigot, and a misogynist. Would his teachings be accepted? Would he be able to start a church today?

    References:

    Greg Chafuen, "Religious Liberty: First or Fading Freedom," NCFamily.org, Fall 2021.

    David Barton, Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant, Wallbuilders, Library of Congress (2007).

    Bill McCormick, SJ, "Why Does the Left Have a Religion Problem?" The Jesuit Post, April 25, 2017. Referenced at: https://thejesuitpost.org/2017/04/why-does-the-left-have-a-religion-problem/

    Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) - https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/98us145

    Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 S.Ct. 1 (1947) - https://law.justia.com/cases/rhode-island/supreme-court/1961/176-a-2d-73-0.html

    Engel v. Vitale, 370 S.Ct. 421 (1962) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421

    Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 S.Ct. 203 (1963) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/203/

    James Rogers, "The Most Hated Woman in America," US History Scene. Referenced at: https://ushistoryscene.com/article/madalyn-murray-ohair/

    Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf

    Amy Howe, "Justices Side With High School Football Coach Who Prayed on the Field With Students," Scotusblog, June 27, 2022. Referenced at: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/justices-side-with-high-school-football-coach-who-prayed-on-the-field-with-students/

    Employment Division v. Smith, 494 S.Ct. 872 (1990) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/

    Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 S.Ct ____ (2021) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf

    Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf

    Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 S.Ct ____ (2018) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/16-111/#tab-opinion-3910082

    Engel v. Vitale, 370 S.Ct. 421 (1962), oyez - https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468

    Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 S.Ct. 203 (1963), oyez - https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/142

    Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), oyez - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-418

    Employment Division v. Smith, 494 S.Ct. 872 (1990), oyez - https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213

    Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 S.Ct ____ (2021), oyez - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-123

    Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017), oyez - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-577

    Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 S.Ct ____ (2018) - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
Go Back
HbAD2

 
Back to Top