Obamacare Exemptions Granted for Convenience or Cost … But Not for Conviction

In my August 2, 2013 blog posting – A Godly Victory for Religious Conscience – I briefly shared about Hobby Lobby and their battle waged against the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., Obamacare).  But this war for religious liberty is far from over.  Read these words from David Green … the Founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

 

“When my family and I started our company 40-years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames.  Our first retail store wasn’t much bigger than most people’s living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God’s Word.  From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation’s largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states.  Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

 

We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money.  And that’s what we’ve tried to do.  We close early so our employees can see their families at night.  We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest.  We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and He has blessed us and our employees.  We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row.  Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.  But now, our government threatens to change all of that.

 

A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance.  Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions … which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill.  We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.  It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one.  If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.  Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy.  Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running.  Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs.  It’s not right.  I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it’s the same for everybody. But that’s not true.

 

The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost.  But it won’t exempt them for reasons of religious belief.  So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice.  With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business.  We don’t like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice.  We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

 

My family has lived the American dream.  We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult.  The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law.  I say that’s a choice no American and no American business should have to make.  The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief.  They have exempted thousands of companies, but will not except Christian organizations … including the Catholic Church.”

 

If you are truly a Christian, you may not be faced (like David Green) with choosing to buy into the health care mandate or pay a hefty fine as a business owner; but you may be faced with purchasing the individual health insurance mandate.  How will you avoid contributing to the American holocaust?  How will you avert the blood of the innocent from being on your hands?   

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

With Liberty & Justice for All … Except Christians

You may say that there is no discrimination against Christians in United States or casually dismiss it because Christians need no protection in America … because this is allegedly a Christian nation and the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian.  But there is plenty of such discrimination.  (read many of my former blog postings)  Our nation’s laws don't say that everyone except for members of majority groups is entitled to equal protection under the law.  They don't forbid discrimination against only members of minority groups.

 

There is no question that our liberal secular culture frequently targets Christians and Christian practices for discriminatory treatment and rails against the expression of Christianity by public officials or the presence of Christian symbols in the public square … whether that be banning of Christmas trees in public squares, the censorship of high-school valedictory speeches with references to Jesus Christ, the denial of access to public facilities to certain Christian groups, or the forbidding of the voluntary exchange of Christmas cards in some public school classrooms.  Some even make the outlandishly argument that the U.S. Constitution forbids public officials from permitting their Christian beliefs to inform their policy positions.  Many of these discriminatory acts are not grounded in the law … as evidenced by the many highly competent public interest law firms specializing in religious liberty that do a great job of vindicating Christian liberties.  Despite the law, discrimination against Christian liberties persists.

 

According to David Limbaugh, the prevalence of political correctness fosters a climate of intimidation and also causes many to assume Christians have less liberty than they do.  For example, many assume high-school administrators are within their rights to prohibit Christian references in valedictory speeches on the ground that they violate the ‘establishment clause’ of the Constitution.  “It apparently never occurs to them that when a student refers to Jesus Christ, he is merely exercising his religious liberty under the ‘free exercise clause’ of the Constitution or a similar provision of a state constitution.  Though both of those clauses in the 1st Amendment exist to protect religious liberty, the government's practice, as shown by these public school actions, is often to stifle religious liberty in the phony name of protecting it,” says Limbaugh. Limbaugh goes on to say, “A similar misunderstanding is behind a Millington, TN elementary teacher's forbidding her 10-year-old student from choosing God as her subject in an assignment to write about the student's ‘idol.’”

 

Todd Starnes of FoxNews reported that the student, Erin Shead, told her mother that her teacher wouldn't allow her to use God because it had something to do with religion and that she had to take her paper about God home because it could not remain on school property.  Note that the teacher didn't forbid the student's choice of God on the grounds that God is not a person and thus outside the scope of the assignment.  No, the ban was apparently on ‘church/state’ grounds.  A spokesman for the school district, according to Starnes, said, “Teachers are prohibited from promoting religious beliefs in the classroom.”  To which Limbaugh responds – “Fine, but what does that have to do with the incident at hand?  This was a student, not her teacher, discussing God.”

 

Our culture has become so paranoid about the expression of Christianity in government-owned facilities that some teachers obviously believe that they must forbid their students from voluntarily writing about the God of the Bible in a harmless school assignment.  Limbaugh concludes by asking – “Can someone please explain how the student's unprompted selection of God as a subject for her assignment violates the Constitution's prohibition against establishing a national church?”

 

It is a sad commentary that militant anti-Christian secularists have bullied passive, lukewarm Christians in our society into surrendering their fundamental religious liberties in so many cases.  Whether the upset parties prevail in correcting this action in Tennessee, the fact remains that Christians' apathy and spinelessness are responsible for allowing such tyranny against their own religious liberties – liberties whose protection was at the very forefront of the foundation of this nation.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Thinking Right About Rights

It’s hard to imagine these days that there could be anyone who hasn’t at one time or another referred to their “constitutional right to free speech.” While this common phrase may roll off the tongue of so many people, few truly understanding where their rights come from; it is a misunderstanding that undermines many of our most fundamental policy debates.

 

The fact is the U.S. Constitution protects our God-given rights.  The government does not grant those rights to us as citizens.  This is perhaps the most widely misunderstood aspect of our system of government.

 

The idea that the power of government is derived from the consent of the governed was first articulated by John Locke in his 1690 Second Treatise of Government, when he wrote, “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.” Locke’s words are the underlying basis of the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

 

Many people refer to their right to free speech as though it is the 1st Amendment that grants them the right to say what they like.  That is looking at it the wrong way.  Were the Constitution the granter of the right to free speech, religion, assembly and so forth, the 1st Amendment would not start out, “Congress shall make no law.”  That part of the sentence clearly states that the government has no rightful authority over those things and is blocked from infringing upon them.  Government is not granting you the right to free speech.  That right already exists. Government is expressly forbidden from attempting to infringe on it.

 

The Declaration of Independence asserts that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.  In other words, our rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are God given, not government given.  But if you believe that we are granted our fundamental rights by the government, then you are more likely to seek additional favors from the government.  If the government bestows all good things, what is to stop someone from thinking up more good things that could and should be conferred by our elected leaders?

 

Any fair-minded reading of the Constitution reveals that it does not grant us the wonderful rights we embrace.  It prohibits the government from infringing upon them.  Or at least it used to be that way.

 

Our Founding Fathers did not see government as a benevolent ‘Santa Claus’ who guarantees an ever-expanding wish list of rights.  Rather, they viewed government as a necessary evil – far preferable to anarchy – but nonetheless a serious threat to liberty.  Liberty was the ultimate goal of our founders, and for its sake, they were willing to pledge their sacred honor and lay down their lives.  In the famous words of Patrick Henry, “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

 

That spirit of liberty continues to inspire oppressed people around the world.  It should inspire all of us fortunate enough to live here every day. And it certainly should deter us from thinking that our rights come from anyone other than God.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Factors in a Declining Demand for Abortion

Did you know at least 58 U.S. abortion clinics (almost 1 in 10) have shut down or stopped providing the life-ending procedure since 2011?  The reporting from Bloomberg.com, coupled with data from Guttmacher (who conduct surveys every few years), show that during the past three years, an average of 19 clinics closed each year.  That’s more than double the rate in the decade ending in 2008.

 

A wave of regulations that makes it too expensive or logistically impossible for facilities to remain in business drove at least a third of the closings.  Demographic changes, declining demand, industry consolidation, doctor retirements and crackdowns on unfit providers were also behind the drop.  In addition to these factors, the article also cites contraceptive use, having increased dramatically since the Food and Drug Administration decided to make it more accessible, as another reason for the abortion clinic decline.

 

While these stats may well be true, I question the assumption that the “declining demand” for abortion clinics is merely due to facility regulations and the accessibility of contraceptives.  Another likely reason women don’t need to make the trip to abortion clinics is because they are joyfully choosing to give their children life … no matter how ‘inconvenient’ their situations.  Improved technology spawned by the use of ultrasounds, for instance, has convinced 78% of mothers to give birth after seeing the miracles that are growing inside them.

 

Though the pro-choice advocates may lament this news, the pro-lifers can celebrate the rapid loss of abortion facilities.  Each clinic closed equals another baby (or babies) being saved.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

A Stimulating Stimulus Sermon

There is a lot of talk these days about the lack of preachers in America willing to address public policy from the pulpit. (read my August 19, 2013 blog posting)  Today, I would like to recognize the pastor of a predominantly black church in Virginia.  This clergyman is a leader to his congregation.  Here are portions of his sermon.  Note how things have changed very little over the past 4,000 years.

 

“Good morning, brothers and sisters!  It's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word.  Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will, to the 47th chapter of Genesis.  We'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27.  Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us?  (read Genesis 47:13-27)

 

Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray.  So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt, and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them.  And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built.  So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain.  And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.  So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock – their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey … to barter for grain; and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year.  But the famine wasn't over, was it?  So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives.  ‘There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land.  Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land?  Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh.’  So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government; and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.

 

What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters?  That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery?  Yes ... That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master?  Yes! After Jacob and Joseph passed on, and the Jews began to drift away from their God, even they too became slaves in the land of Egypt.

 

I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one – We see the same thing happening today!  The government today wants to ‘share the wealth’ once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us.  It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us.  And when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind.  And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people in Egypt did four thousand years ago – as slaves to the government, and as slaves to their leaders.

 

What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same.  A lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a ‘Messiah,’ don't they?  Is he a Messiah?  A Savior?  Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, ‘You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh’?  Well, I tell you this – I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. OBAMA IS NO MESSIAH!  No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.

 

Bow with me in prayer, if you will.  Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone.  We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be.  We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says ‘And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day...’  Lord, we acknowledge that day has come.  We cry out to You because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation.  Lord, we pray for this nation.  We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters.  Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of a new Pharaoh's government.  In God We Trust!  And all of God’s people said – Amen!”

 

This contemporary pastor is like those of this nation’s historic ‘Black Regiment’ … not because of the color of his skin, but because of his fulfilling the call to be ‘salt and light’ in a dark and foul tasting world.

   

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Feds Accommodate Muslims & Regulate Christians

American history records numerous accounts of churches gathered at river banks for baptisms.  Preachers would lead new believers into the water, draped in white robes as a choir sings, “Shall We Gather at the River.”  It’s the way it’s been done for generations – baptizing in creeks, lakes, and rivers “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”  But now the tradition of “taking the plunge” has been drawn into a controversy with the federal government.

 

The National Park Service (NPS) recently began enforcing a policy that required churches to obtain special use permits in order to baptize in public waters.  As part of the same permit process, the NPS also mandated that churches give the Park Service 48-hours advance notice of pending baptisms.  But as any Baptist or Pentecostal in good standing knows – that’s a problem.  “If the Holy Spirit is working on Sunday morning, you’re going to baptize Sunday afternoon,” Dennis Purcell told The Salem News.  “You may not know ahead of time.”  Many Christians interpret that the Bible commands new followers of Christ to be baptized immediately after their conversion.  It’s a public expression and celebration of their new-found faith in Christ.

 

The NPS told local churches in Missouri that the permits were needed to “maintain park natural/cultural resources and quality visitor experiences, specific terms and conditions have been established.”  In the Ozark Mountains, the feds also closed vehicle access to a sandbar along a popular creek … meaning churches could no longer drive their elderly members to the outdoor baptisms.  And to make sure the Baptists behaved, they placed large boulders in the area to block car traffic.  “Like the Baptists and Pentecostals are going to harm natural resources and adversely affect quality visitor experiences by occasionally baptizing new converts?” asked local resident Lewis Leonard.  “I can think of a whole lot more activities along the river ways that are not conducive to maintain the natural resources.”

 

Rep. Jason Smith fired off a letter to the NPS on August 21 demanding answers.  “I am very troubled by any federal rule that requires churches to apply for a permit for the purpose of baptism, especially when these traditional activities have been done in the rivers and streams of this nation since its founding,” the congressman wrote.  He pointed out the NPS does not require a 48-hour notification from fisherman or swimmers – so why churches?  “One would hope that the answer is not because the National Park Service wants to limit the number of baptisms performed on the river.”

 

The Park Service responded within 24-hours.  They said the reason they needed 2-days notice is to “give the park staff adequate time to prepare the permit.”  But based on local outrage (and Rep. Smith’s promise to bring the matter before Congress), the Park Service had a change of heart.  “As of today, the park’s policy has been clarified to state that no permit will be required for baptisms within the Riverways,” Supt. William Black wrote in a letter to the congressman.  “I can assure you the National Park Service has no intention of limiting the number of baptisms performed within the park.”  Rep. Smith called the decision a “victory for common sense.”  “The notion that permits would be required for baptisms on our riverways is ridiculous,” he said.

 

It’s not the first time government officials have tried to discourage public baptisms.  In Olympia, WA, a church was denied a permit to hold a baptism at Heritage Park a few weeks ago.  Their request was rejected because the attorney general said the religious sacrament was a violation of the state constitution.  In 2011, a church’s beach baptism was shut down by lifeguards in Miami, FL.

 

But while the government cracks down on public expressions of the Christian faith, they are embracing public expressions of the Islamic faith – many times at the taxpayer’s expense.  Universities across the nation are spending thousands of dollars to install foot baths so Muslim students can wash their feet before their five-times-a-day prayers.  The New York Times reported that the University of Michigan-Dearborn spent $25,000 to install the foot-washing stations in restrooms.  The university defended the expenditure, claiming it was for health and safety measures, not religion.  A number of airports have spent public tax dollars to provide foot-washing basins for Muslim taxi drivers.  Airport officials declined to reveal how much tax money was spent, but a spokesman for the San Francisco International Airport told the San Francisco Chronicle they just wanted to maintain “a good relationship with ground transportation providers.”  (read more about it in my July 19, 2013 blog)

 

It appears to be increasingly evident that our government is accommodating those of the Muslim faith, while attempting to regulate the Christian faith.  Sure seems like governmental ‘double talk’ in reference to the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

John Adams once wrote: “Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Pentagon Targets Our Nation’s Domestic Enemy

George Washington would not be welcome in today’s U.S. Armed Forces.  Neither would Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, according to the Department of Defense (DOD) training documents that depict the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as “hate groups.”

 

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training guide was obtained by Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act Request. It was acquired from the Air Force, but originated from the Pentagon. “This document deserves a careful examination by military leadership,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Fox News.  “Congress needs to conduct better oversight and figure out what the heck is going on in our military.”

 

Included in the 133-pages of lesson plans is a student guide entitled ‘Extremism.’  The DOD warns students to be aware that “many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights and how to make the world a better place.”  Under a section titled ‘Extremist Ideologies,’ the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements.  The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

 

“It's disturbing insight into what's happening inside Obama's Pentagon,” Fitton told Fox News.  “The Obama Administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism.”

 

The training guide warned that participation in groups that are regarded as extremist organizations is “incompatible with military service and is, therefore prohibited.”  “It's craziness,” Fitton said.  “It's political correctness run amok.”  The training documents also focus on those who cherish individual liberty.  “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights and how to make the world a better place.”  The document relied heavily on information obtained from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing organization that has a history of labeling conservative Christian organizations like the Family Research Council (FRC) as “hate groups.”  Fitton said the reliance on SPLC material is troubling.

 

In 2012, a FRC guard was shot during an attack in the lobby of their headquarters building.  The gunman admitted he was influenced by the SPLC's branding of the Christian group has a hate group.  It's not the first time the military has been caught using training materials that depict conservatives and Christians as extremists.  In April Fox News obtained an email sent by a Lieutenant Colonel at Fort Campbell to three dozen subordinates warning them to be on the lookout for any soldiers who might be members of “domestic hate groups” like the FRC and the American Family Association.  When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values – don't just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem,” the email advised.

 

At the time, the Army denied there was any attack on Christians or those who hold religious beliefs.  “The notion that the Army is taking an anti-religion or anti-Christian stance is contrary to any of our policies, doctrines and regulations,” an Army spokesman told Fox News at the time.  However, in a separate incident, an Army training instructor listed Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism – along with Al Qaeda and Hamas.  The same Army spokesman said the training session was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.”

 

Fitton told Fox News the military seems to be having a lot of isolated incidents and it appears the Pentagon is sending a message to Christians.  “They are putting out the not-welcome sign to conservative Christians,” Fitton said.  “They are trying to make the military an unwelcome place for conservative Christians.”

 

I retired from the rank-and-file of the U.S. Army one year ago.  If I had not come to my mandatory retirement date and remained to this day, I probably (by now) would have been awarded (by the SPLC) the badge of ‘extremist’ … with several oak leaf clusters.  I would wear it with ‘extreme’ pride … knowing that I was among the likes of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

When the Cross Becomes Offensive, It Is a Sign of Societal Depravity

In Coos Bay, Oregon, a veteran’s memorial cross was bombed by an atheist group known as the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The violent atheist organization had sent letters demanding they take the cross down.  The monument is small in comparison to many; but big enough for this bunch of atheist bullies.  The very sight of a cross is offensive to these atheists … and for that matter to Muslims, homosexuals, and others for whom the sight of a cross is an offense. The FFRF in their hate attempted to destroy the cross in Oregon, but they didn’t completely destroy the memorial … they merely damaged the cement structure.

 

Now some atheists are outraged over a 9/11 Memorial Cross in Princeton, New Jersey.  Deputy Fire Chief Roy James wants to put up a 9/11 memorial using a Christian cross … which he says is a proper and loving tribute to the people who lost their lives on 9/11 … Those who died so senselessly at the hands of Muslim terrorists determined to destroy the infrastructure of our country.  “It is the only fitting tribute for a memorial that happened on the soil of a Christian nation.  At least, we used to be a Christian nation.”  The cross-shaped hole was cut by welders into a 10-foot length of twisted steel beam salvaged from the ruins of the World Trade Center (WTC) during the recovery efforts following the attack.

 

The American Atheists are up in arms about the 9/11 Memorial Cross calling this religious image “grossly offensive.”  Thought the cross seems an appropriate tribute (a symbol of life in the face of death), the atheists see it as an affront.  “This particular beam has a religious symbol on it,” American Atheists president David Silverman told Fox News.  “They have a beam with a religious symbol and that makes it a religious icon.” Silverman said placing the beam on public land would be a “clear violation of the separation of church and state.”  He also said the cross symbol would send a terrible message to non-Christians.  He said the city would be giving the “appearance that all of the people who suffered and died on 9/11 and their families are being memorialized by a Christian symbol.”  “That is wrong,” Silverman told Fox News.  “That is un-American.”  American Atheists attorney Bruce Afran sent a letter to the city leaders warning that they may file a lawsuit to stop the memorial.

 

But Princeton Deputy Fire Chief Roy James said the cross symbol has nothing to do with religion.  “I’m a Jew,” he told Fox News.  “Ironically, I’m fighting to have this cross there because I believe that someone’s story is behind that.  That story needs to be told.  It has nothing to do with religious faith.  It has something to do with telling history.”  James came up with the idea for a memorial several years ago.  Last year, he got permission from the New York Port Authority to acquire a beam from the WTC.  “We had to sign a paper saying we would take care of it and respect it,” he said.  The cross had already been cut out of the beam before it arrived in Princeton.  James explained that in the days after the terrorist attacks, symbols like the cross and the Star of David were routinely cut out of the beams and given to family members.  “We got a historic piece,” James said.  “There’s so much behind that. If we do not show the cross, we are leaving out someone’s story.  We are basically saying someone’s emotions that day didn’t matter.”

 

Silverman said a way for the city to avoid a lawsuit is to create a free speech zone where plaques representing all religions could be posted.  “I think that makes the monument better and it also makes the monument legal,” he said.  One suggestion involved putting a plaque next to the beam explaining the cross symbol in its context.  However, the American Atheists objected to the compromise.  “The problem is you can’t allow a city to obviously endorse one religion and then put up a disclaimer saying they are not doing it,” he said.  “Anyone driving by the memorial would not see the disclaimer.”

 

Last March, the American Atheists lost a battle to have a giant cross made from WTC beams removed from a memorial museum in New York City.  The atheists argued the cross was a “government enshrinement of the cross.”  A Judge disagreed and threw out the case.  And in 2011, a group of New York City atheists objected to a street sign that honored seven firefighters killed in the terrorist attacks.  They alleged the street sign – “Seven in Heaven Way” – was insulting to atheists.  The city refused to change the name of the street.

 

Princeton Deputy Fire Chief James said he’s been frustrated by the threats from American Atheists and stressed that the Princeton memorial is about “trying to remember those that died that day.”  “I’m not forcing people to go and visit the memorial,” he told Fox News.  “If people get offended by it, they don’t have to go.”  The beam is being stored at a Princeton fire station while city leaders determine their next step.

 

As Christians we should not be surprised.  The apostle Paul spoke of “the offense of the cross” in Galatians 5:11.  He argues that criticism is to be expected.  He preached that persons can only be saved through the Cross of Christ … a message the world finds offensive.  People may be able to deal with the fact of Christ's suffering; they may be willing to concede their sinfulness; but they recoil at the idea that there is nothing they can do to gain salvation.  They hate the idea that we are at the mercy of God.  The cross reminds them that there is only ONE way for us to be reconciled to God.  God (Himself) had to take up human residence; live a holy life despite constant temptation from Satan; and then give His life to unimaginable suffering – all to pay for our sin.  It is the only way. His glorious resurrection was the exclamation point to His sacrifice.  The world considers this whole idea to be foolishness; the idea of God becoming man; the notion that a perfect God would reach out in such a way to rebellious humanity.  The notion seems fanciful.  The world laughs.  And the world dies.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Another One ‘Bites’ the Dust

I wrote about a Colorado bakery facing a law suit in my blog posting dated July 24, 2013.  Now a Gresham, Oregon bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple … prompting a state investigation … has shut its doors.

 

According to KGW.com, reporters stopped by ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa’ and found the bakery completely empty.  All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone.  Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read “Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham.”  As first reported in Wweek.com, ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa’ posted on their Facebook page – “This will be our last weekend at the shop we are moving our business to an in home bakery.  I will post our new number soon.”

 

In January, Laurel Bowman said ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa’ refused to sell her a cake after learning it would be for a same-sex wedding.  Aaron Klein, one of the owners of the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa,’ refused to sell the cake because he said marriage should be only between a man and a woman.  Bowman later filed a complaint with the justice department, which Klein’s attorney, Herbert Grey, responded to.  In his letter, Grey says his client “elected not to participate in an event that is not even officially recognized under Oregon law when doing so would violate their constitutionally-protected conscience and religious beliefs.”

 

In August, the Bureau of Labor and Industries said it was conducting an investigation to determine if the bakery violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians.  Most of the comments on the bakery's Facebook page are largely supportive of the business.  “I'm sorry to hear this.  It’s very frustrating to have people do all they can to cause others strife just because they don't agree with a lifestyle.  I will keep you all in my prayers.  Don't let them get you down. You will survive this and all other tests through your faith.  God bless Melissa,” one woman writes.

 

As I concluded my July 24 posting – “Those who believe in religious liberty had better earnestly pray for a Godly ruling … or the dominos will fall one after another on business owners of religious conscience.”

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Discrimination Laws Pit Gay Rights Against Religious Rights

I wrote about it in my blog posting dated April 24, 2013.  The New Mexico Supreme Court has now ruled that a Christian photographer who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. 

 

In 2006, Vanessa Willock asked Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, owners of Elane Photography, to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” in the town of Taos.  The Huguenins declined the job because their Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.  Willock found another photographer at a cheaper price, but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation.  The photographers were later found guilty and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in fines.  “The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,” Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.  Bosson said the Christian photographers are now “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”  “Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering,” he wrote.  “It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.”

 

A recent Rasmussen survey found that 85% of the Americans polled support the right of a photographer to refuse participating in a same-sex wedding.  Justice Bosson said the case provokes reflection on what the nation is about.  “At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote.  He said the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of the Christian photographers to pray to the God of their choice and following religious teachings, but offered a sobering warning.  “But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice wrote.  “The Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.  That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”

 

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said this: “This is a ‘compromise’ that requires the Huguenins to give up their convictions or go out of business.  What does the ‘compromise’ require of those who push for the normalization of same-sex relationships and the legalization of same-sex marriage?  Nothing.”

 

Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases, represented the photographers.  Attorney Jordan Lorence said the ruling in effect means gay rights now trump religious rights. “Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country,” Lorence said.  “This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free.”  Lorence said the New Mexico Supreme Court undermined the constitutionally protected freedoms of expression and conscience.  “If Elane Photographer does not have her rights of conscience protected, then basically nobody does,” he told Fox News.  “What you have here is the government punishing someone who says, ‘I, in good conscience, cannot communicate the messages of this wedding.’”

 

Amber Royster, the executive director of Equality New Mexico, called the court decision a big victory.  “What it came down to is this was a case about discrimination,” she told Fox News.  “While we certainly believe we are all entitled to our religious beliefs, religious beliefs don’t necessarily make it okay to break the law by discriminating against others.”  Royster said forcing a business that offers services to the public to abide by discrimination laws does not violate the 1st Amendment – and does not pit gay rights against religious rights.  “It’s about discrimination,” she said. “We have a law on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons.  It makes it illegal for business to do that and this business broke the law by discriminating against this couple.”

 

Ken Klukowsi, of the Family Research Council, called the ruling profoundly disturbing.  “This decision may bring to Americans’ attention the serious threat to religious liberty posed by overbearing government agencies when it comes to redefining marriage,” he said.  “Rather than live and let live, this is forcing religious Americans to violate the basic teachings of their faith or lose their jobs.”

 

ADF Attorney Lorence said they are considering appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.  “This is very coercive, very authoritarian to crush those who do not agree and make public examples of them – and in a free society, that simply should not be,” he said.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Why Move From Welfare to Work? It Doesn’t Pay!

Most decisions in life are the result of a cost-benefit analysis.  When residents in Connecticut consider getting a job, they assume they would be better off having a job than not.  Well, that would be wrong; because in Connecticut, it pays not to work.

 

The Cato Institute is about release a new study looking at the state-by-state value of welfare.  Nationwide, the value of benefits for a typical recipient family ranges from a high of $49,175 in Hawaii to a low of $16,984 in Mississippi.

 

In Connecticut, a mother with two children participating in seven major welfare programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, utility assistance and free commodities) could receive a package of benefits worth $38,761 … the fourth highest in the nation.  Only Hawaii, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia provided more generous benefits.

 

When it comes to gauging the value of welfare benefits, it is important to remember that they are not taxed … while wages are.  In fact, in some ways, the highest marginal tax rates anywhere are not for millionaires, but for someone leaving welfare and taking a job.

 

So, take the mother with two children in Connecticut.  She would have to earn $21.33 per hour for her family to be better off than they would be on welfare.  That’s more than the average entry-level salary for a teacher or secretary.  In fact, it is more than 107% of Connecticut’s median salary.  And let’s not forget the additional costs that come with going to work (i.e., such as child care, transportation and clothing).  Even if the final income level remains unchanged, an individual moving from welfare to work will observe some form of loss – namely a reduction in leisure as opposed to work.  That’s not to say welfare recipients in Connecticut are lazy — But they’re not stupid, either.

 

Surveys of welfare recipients consistently show their desire for a job. There is also evidence, however, that many are reluctant to accept available employment opportunities.  Despite the work requirements included in the 1996 welfare reform, only 24% of adult welfare recipients in Connecticut are working in unsubsidized jobs, while roughly 41% are involved in the broader definition of work participation … which includes activities such as job search and training.

 

We shouldn’t blame welfare recipients.  By not working, they are simply responding rationally to the incentive systems that our public policy-makers have established.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel