I’d like to offer a few words about the separation of church and state—a concept long abused by “progressives.”

The religion clauses of the First Amendment were intended to protect religion from the intrusive power of the state, not the reverse. The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” That does not mean religious convictions are prohibited from informing political values and decisions. To expect or demand that political decisions be divorced from personal religious beliefs is an untenable, unconscionable breach of the intent of the First Amendment which also includes the oft-neglected Free Exercise Clause which states that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

People from diverse faith traditions and no faith could all arrive at the same position on a particular public policy. For example, although Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, and atheists may all oppose abortion because they value human life, the reasons (or motives) for that valuation of life differ.

If there is a secular purpose for a law (i.e., to protect incipient human life), then voting for it—even for religious reasons—does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The source or motives of the various parties’ desires to protect incipient life are not the concern of the government. It would be not only absurd but also unethical for the government to try to ascertain the motives or beliefs behind anyone’s opposition to abortion and equally unethical for the government to assert that only those who have no religious faith may vote on abortion laws. Such an assertion would most assuredly violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Legal theorist Michael Perry explains that,

forcing religious arguments to be restated in other terms asks a citizen to ‘bracket’ religious convictions from the rest of her personality, essentially demanding that she split off a part of her self . . . [T]o bracket [religious convictions] would be to bracket—indeed, to annihilate—herself. And doing that would preclude her—the particular person she is—from engaging in moral discourse with other members of society.

To paraphrase First Things founder, Richard John Neuhaus, that which is political is moral and that which is moral, for religious people, is religious. It is no less legitimate to have political decisions shaped by religion than by psychology, philosophy, or self-serving personal desire.

If allowing religious beliefs to shape political decisions did represent a violation of the Establishment Clause and an inappropriate commingling of religion and government, then American history is rife with egregiously unconstitutional actions, for religious convictions have impelled some of our most significant social, political, and legal changes including the abolition of slavery, antiwar movements, opposition to capital punishment, and the passage of civil rights legislation.

“Progressives” seem to have no objection to people of faith participating in the democratic process so long as their views comport with “progressive” positions. “Progressives” never cry foul when Quakers or Catholics oppose war because of their religious convictions, and “progressives” do not object that Catholic opposition to the death penalty represents a violation of the separation of church and state. When conservative people of faith participate in the political process, however, suddenly the Establishment Clause has been violated.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is replete with references to his Christian faith which informed his belief about the inherent dignity, value, and rights of African Americans, a belief which he lost his life to see enshrined in law. He wrote what would now certainly generate howls of opposition if expressed by a conservative:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

The same people who argue vociferously against the presence of religiously informed political decisions that are conservative in nature are curiously silent with regard to those Catholics, Jews, United Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Unitarians, and Episcopalians who were politically active in the movement to effect speech codes or revolutionize marital laws. One could argue that those who attend houses of worship that support legalized same-sex unions are similarly attempting to enshrine in law their religious beliefs.

When politicians like presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, former president Barack Obama, and Senator Rob Portman or celebrities like Jason Collins cite their Christian beliefs as the justification for their support for the redefinition of marriage, or fiscal policies, no one in the press or homosexual community accuses them of violating the separation of church and state.

Neuhaus argues persuasively in his book The Naked Public Square that a polity denuded of religion will be clothed soon enough in some other system that functions as religion by providing “normative ethics.” A democratic republic cannot exist without objective normative ethics that render legitimate the delimitation or circumscription of individual rights.

Historically, the sources of the absolute, transcendent, objective, universal truths that render legitimate our legal and judicial systems have been “the institutions of religion that make claims of ultimate or transcendent meaning.” Neuhaus explains that this “does not represent an imposition of the private into the public spheres, but rather an expansion or transformation or recollection of what is public.” He argues that when religion is utterly privatized and eliminated as a “source or transcendence that gives legitimate and juridical direction and form, something else will necessarily fill the void, and that force will be the state.”

If the body politic claims that there are no absolutes or delegitimizes religion as an arbiter of right and wrong, or good and evil, then the state will fill the vacuum, relativizing all values, and rendering this relativization absolute. Many would argue that there is little indication that society has heeded Neuhaus’ warning about the political implications of society’s rejection of religiously derived transcendent truths. And so, the coercive power of the state increasingly fills the space vacated by religious institutions.

Lawmaking absent an understanding that there exist moral truths that are objective and universal would represent an illegitimate and hubristic arrogation of power by the state. Acknowledging that there is objective truth regarding what is right and wrong and that it is universal and knowable is essential to democratic institutions. What sense does outrage at human rights violations make if we assert there are no universal, transcendent, eternal, objective truths? And if we agree that these truths exist and that they transcend the subjective opinions of any particular individual, then what is their source other than a supernatural, eternal, transcendent being?

Some argue that reason alone is sufficient to serve as the objective source of truth, but a recollection of Hitler’s eugenic reasoning reveals the problem with reliance solely on man’s reason. Claims of unalienable, self-evident rights, as our founding fathers understood them, both presume and require for justification, the existence of God. Robert L. Toms wrote that it was this understanding that generated “the concept that the state, the monarch, the dictator, the tribal leader, was no longer a deity to be obeyed unquestionably.” And the state neither creates ex nihilo nor confers our fundamental rights but, rather, provides legal protection for extant rights.

Charges of violating the separation of church and state are selectively hurled. Remember that next time a lefty tells you your political views must be severed from your religious views.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/cCHristians_church-and-state_audio.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

That was what I told the TV reporter the other day when he asked for my thoughts on NBA player Jason Collins.  In spite of that comment, they came to my office for the interview anyway.

When asked about this previously unknown mid-level player, I said “with 12 million Americans out of work, 48 million Americans on food stamps, and 32 million US adults functionally illiterate, an athlete announcing that he wants to have sex with other men isn’t really that newsworthy. It is all media hype.”

I also pointed out that, as a parent, I don’t appreciate hearing about the sexual behavior of athletes over the airwaves.  I didn’t like hearing constant coverage of Wilt Chamberlain’s claim to having slept with 1,000 women, and I don’t like hearing about this Collins matter at every top of the hour news break. What we should care about is how they play basketball.  I also said that we should never base our standard of what is right and wrong upon the behavior of athletes.

However, upon later reflection, I realized that this isn’t entirely true.  There are some things that can be learned from Jason Collin’s stunt.  For example, Mr. Collins’ announcement was a surprise to his former fiancé, Carolyn Moos, who played in the Women’s NBA.  It was also a surprise to Jason’s twin brother, Jarron.

The media may mention Ms. Moos, but they may not want to mention Jason’s identical twin too often.  Doing so may remind people that, unlike race, there is no genetic cause or “gay gene” driving homosexual behavior.  If there were, Jason’s happily married, father of three, twin brother would also be involved in homosexuality, and he’s not.

Another obvious point is the media’s intentional fawning over Collins and their desire to compare him to Jackie Robinson. (Robinson was a devout Christian who may not have appreciated a comparison between sexual behavior and skin color.)  Collins’ announcement that he wants to have sex with other men landed him on the cover of Sports Illustrated and a phone call of congratulations from President Barack Obama, and many more accolades.  There was no heroic act by Collins to earn him a similar comparison to the bigotry and attacks that Robinson faced.

It is a strange world we live in when we elevate athletes who deviate from natural norms, we heap fame on musicians who run afoul of the law or father multiple children out of wedlock and turn our backs on those of honorable behavior like Tim Teabow.  We mock or even attack anyone who stands for traditional values. All the while, we continue to wonder why we have so many social problems.

As  C. S. Lewis once complained, “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

(The media, culture and the homosexual political agenda . . .a cartoon can sometimes say it like an entire 1200 word essay.)

ESPN sports analyst and columnist Chris Broussard was asked for his “take” on the announcement by NBA player Jason Collins that he is homosexual. Broussard responded and has been pilloried for not having the culturally approved “take.”

Broussard, who is a Christian, shared his view that homosexual acts are sinful and that one cannot engage in homosexual acts—or any other biblically proscribed sexual acts—and still remain in a right relationship with God. Here is that short ESPN video: 

Two days later he appeared on a radio program and offered a remarkable defense of the Christian position on homosexuality. He answered the kinds of challenging questions only conservative Christians are asked by the mainstream press who lob softball questions at “progressive” Christians and secularists.

Please listen to the entirety of this outstanding radio interview and circulate it to friends by clicking HERE. One word of caution: due to an inappropriate question by one of the radio hosts, this may be unsuitable for younger listeners.

While Broussard is being attacked for answering honestly when asked for his opinion on the Collins story, FOX News Chicago anchors Bob Sirott and Robin Robinson catch no flak for offering their unsolicited views that conservative beliefs are tantamount to racism and ignorance.

So much for tolerance and diversity.

Chris Broussard is inarguably the courageous man in this larger cultural story.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

As most of the nation now knows, NBA player Jason Collins recently announced in a splashy Sports Illustrated article that he is homosexual, an announcement characterized by White House Spokesman Jay Carney as courageous.

After President Barack Obama had concluded a press conference and left the lectern, a reporter asked a question about Jason Collins. Obama uncharacteristically returned to the lectern to say that he “ couldn’t be prouder” of Jason Collins for announcing he is homosexual. What a dispiriting time and place this is that the president of this great but declining nation can’t think of any action that a professional athlete could do to make him “prouder” than having him announce he’s sexually attracted to men. And what a terrible message both men have sent to our nation’s children.

The First Lady of our declining nation then announced that she’s “got Collins’ back,” which raises the question, from what might she need to protect Collins? From the gushing mainstream press? From the rhapsodic Hollywood elite who suffer from an astonishing dearth of philosophical diversity (and depth) on homosexuality?

Oh, wait, it must be those intimidating pastors, priests, theologians, philosophers, and other conservative scholars writing erudite papers on the nature and morality of homosexuality and marriage that no one reads who pose a threat to Collins. Collins can breathe easier knowing that fit-as-a-fiddle Michelle Obama will defend him against those brainiac bullies with her uber-buff arms.

Like so many other words manipulated by the Left, “courage” has taken on a whole new meaning. In fact, it now means the opposite of what it used to mean. Courage is now demonstrated by publicly affirming the fallacious values, beliefs, ideas, and behaviors that our Leftist-dominated culture celebrates. Courage is demonstrated by publicly affirming those values, beliefs, ideas, and behaviors when doing so not only costs nothing but elicits encomia galore. 

In my state of utter unhipness, I think Barronelle Stutzman, the 70 year-old florist in Washington State, is heroic. Because of her faith in Christ, Ms. Stutzman steadfastly refuses to use her gifts, time, and labor to profit from a same-sex “wedding” and consequently is being sued by the State of Washington. I wonder what the Obamas, who claim to be followers of Christ, think of Ms. Stutzman. I wonder if President Obama is proud of her. I wonder if Mrs. Obama has got her back. I wonder if the mainstream press will ask the Obamas if they think Stutzman is courageous.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.