DIVERSITY   TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY

A new law school in Canada wanted its student body to maintain traditional Christian standards when it comes to marriage and sexual behavior. Several provincial law societies declared that graduates from that school would not be allowed to practice law in their provinces. It finally went to the Canadian Supreme Court which sided with the provincial law societies.

The following is a good article containing some of the lessons coming out of the Canadian Supreme Court decision:

“Secularism and Diversity: Lessons from Canada” by Brian C. Stiller

From the article:

Trinity Western University, a Canadian liberal arts university, planned to open a law school as part of its vision to prepare Christians to serve in public and civic life. It wasn’t long before their plan triggered the ire of provincial law societies…their objection to the university’s community covenant: It requires students to agree to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and woman.”  …

First, it shows how a country’s top court can render a verdict in favor of human rights but biased against religious freedom. When the two ideas butted heads, religious freedom was the loser.

Second, it makes short shrift of the model that within a diverse society a plurality of ideas and beliefs can exist together.  …

Third, it keeps faith from being public.  …

Fourth, it assumes that Christian standards and beliefs for an institution are not essential to its identity, self-definition, or existence, but a preference.

Fifth, the decision is based on what the justices determined are “values,” neither defined nor included in the Charter: Here they become what the court deems is implied.

<Read the whole article>

Response: This may come from Canada but I believe that it illustrates where the left would also like to take us in the USA. Fortunately we still have a Constitution and a Supreme Court that mostly supports it.

There are several lessons to be gained from this affair:

One: traditional Christianity has no place in the ‘diversity’ that the left says it is seeking. Most leftists hold that Christianity must be changed and/or forced to reflect modern values or be taken out of the public square and be relegated to private worship and faith only.

Two: Many on the left believe that diversity and civil rights should trump religious freedom. At least when it comes to conservative Christianity and maybe not so much when it comes to Islam.

*Top

The InterVarsity Christian student organization has sued the University of Iowa after being expelled off of the Iowa campus. It is all about leadership. The Christian student group wants their leaders to be actual Christians while the university policies demand that leadership position be ‘non-discriminatory’ and available to all comers. From the Christian Post:

An InterVarsity Christian student group is suing the University of Iowa after the school kicked it and several other religious groups off campus over what has been deemed as discriminatory leadership policies.

InterVarsity Graduate Student Fellowship filed a federal lawsuit against the university Monday after the club was de-recognized as an official campus student group last month because of its policy requiring that all group leaders be Christian and sign a statement of faith.

<Read the whole article>

Response:  It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out. Universities and colleges all across America have adapted similar student group policies which originally seem to be intended to target Christian groups. In many cases the college administrators have ignored Muslim groups who demand actual Muslims as leaders or some political organizations while kicking Christian groups off campus.

At least the University of Iowa has been consistent and has applied their policies to other groups including Muslim and Mormon student groups. Nevertheless, these policies need to be challenged and resolved in federal court or Christian Student groups will cease to be anything like they have been in the past. That is why I submit that these university policies were originally formed to target Christian and conservative groups. It is ironic that the university rule that ends up causing discrimination against Christian groups is referred to as a ‘non-discrimination’ policy.

The following are some of the articles were have written in the past on this issue:

-Colleges Continue the Assault on Christian Student Groups

-Christian Student Groups Seek Help from Civil Rights Commission

-Catholic Student Group at Vanderbilt U. Forced Off Campus

-Update on Vanderbilt U. ‘Nondiscrimination Policy’ Directed Against Christian Groups

*Top

Officials trying to shut down a home Bible studies are becoming far too common occurrences in America considering that freedom of religion and speech is still guaranteed in the Constitution.

When we read about government authorities trying to shut down home fellowships we try to post about it and send out an alarm to the Christian community hoping that the controversy which follows will help to resolve the situation. Usually it is all about parking and noise. But in this case the ‘offending’ family lives on a farm so this situation is rather unique. Plus the family has been threatened with a $500/day fine  plus court costs for non-compliance.  From Charisma News:

The owners of a Pennsylvania farm have been ordered by the Sewickley Heights Borough to cease and desist holding Bible studies on their private property.

Borough leaders accused Scott and Terri Fetterolf of improperly using their 35-acre farm as a place of worship, a place of assembly and as a commercial venue. …

The Independence Law Center filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the farmers against the borough alleging an egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution.

<Read the whole article>

Response: For hundreds of years families in America have hosted Bible studies in their homes. In fact lots of churches have gotten their start in home fellowships and for many generations home Bible studies were considered to be a ‘Good’ thing. But we are now in a ‘post-Christian’ era when some folks are actually ‘offended’ when their neighbors worship or study the Bible with friends.

But in any kind of reality what kind of actual offense and harm can be done by a family and friends worshipping and studying the Bible on a 35 acre farm? Plus this is a case of outright discrimination since apparently other groups meeting in homes have not been restricted in any way by town officials. This cannot be allowed to stand.                *Top

A new job for robots was recently introduced at an expo in China- conducting funerals and praying for the dead. From PJ Media:

China unveiled a robot priest capable of performing funerals and praying for the dead, using artificial intelligence (AI) to meet the needs of a burgeoning funeral market.

The AI robot priest made an appearance at the 8th China International Funeral Expo (CIFE) in Wuhan city, central China’s Hubei province, on June 18.

According to a caption from Imaginechina,

     "This AI Robot priest provides funeral services and can pray for the deceased."

<Read the whole article>

Response: Sometimes priests seem like robots when performing their duties and giving prayers but this is ridiculous. One wonders what kind of value or meaning can possibly be assigned to actual robots praying to God.

Presumably the atheist Chinese government is ok with generic unaffiliated AI priests performing ‘religious’ services including ‘artificial’ prayers.

For years the Communist government has been contending with the Catholic Church officials over choosing and ordaining Bishops and priests. This takes it to an entirely different level. It is just a matter of programming which can be entirely controlled.

Meanwhile, government officials are trying to get the growing Christian community under control though one of the most severe times of persecution ever; which recently included the tearing down of several large independent churches. Plus a new campaign to force Christian families to take down pictures of Jesus and replace them with those of the Chinese president in their homes.               *Top

Happy Independence Day 2018.

The following is our traditional message for the 4th of July:

Flags are flying, parades are moving, drinks are flowing, and politicians are speaking today in America.

242 years ago a message was confirmed by representatives of 13 colonies proclaiming their freedom, a freedom that was considered to be derived from God:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Much has been made of the variety of beliefs held by the founders of this country but their words and convictions remain not only on paper but also in the hearts of the people.

Declaration of Independence: The Emphasis Upon God

When it comes to the Declaration of Independence, the words- “by their Creator” were a major part of the message, the subject, and the emphasis.

Many secularists and atheists today want to de-emphasize the role of faith in the founding of this country to the point that many are attempting to actually rewrite history itself. For them, God could have easily been left out of the document with little or no effect.

But in the context of 1776, those words were the whole linchpin of the document and appealed to as the ultimate authority and source for the rights of the Americans to rebel against the King of England.

In the context of the 18th century the Europeans believed that their Kings reigned and ruled ‘by Divine right’ under the authority of God and were His direct representatives. In fact, the King of England was also the head of the church and was supposed to defend the Christian faith against heresy and all enemies. In that cultural context, to rebel against the King was tantamount to rebelling against God the Creator himself.

In the Declaration the founders made it clear that they were not rebelling against God but that the Creator was actually the ultimate authority they were appealing to saying that their ‘rights’ were derived directly from the Creator and not given to them by the King of England or some parchment or Parliament.

It was a radical document at the time and changed the whole course of human history and ‘the Creator’ was part and parcel of the Declaration of Independence and the ultimate authority appealed to in the whole process.            *Top

The U.S.Supreme Court has made a number of rulings this season that supported the First Amendment. In this case free speech was the First Amendment issue cited as being violated by the State of California. From Christianity Today:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to block a California law requiring pregnancy centers post referrals to state-funded abortion providers and birth control resources, forcing them to promote services that violate their beliefs.  …

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion of the court,

     “It imposes a government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement that is wholly disconnected from the State’s informational interest.” …

Thomas’s ruling, with John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch concurring, has reversed the Ninth Circuit court decision that upheld the state act and sends the case back for further proceedings.

<Read the whole article>

Response: California had passed the law in 2015 requiring Pro-Life pregnancy centers to list referrals to abortion providers. Here’s our take on this law at the time:

“-California: New Law Forces Pro-Life Centers to List Referrals for Abortions”

A lot of folks noted at the time that the law was an obvious violation of free speech but the radical supporters of abortion in California, including the Governor, did not care and apparently 4 Supreme Court justices do not care about free speech and the First Amendment either.

The slim 5-4 ruling tells us that it will be very important for our First Amendment rights that President Trump appoints the right person to replace the retiring Justice Kennedy.               *Top