A Sunday Thought About Those Supreme Court Decisions that Further Degrade our Society and our Religious Liberty
The Supreme Court - now without Antonin Scalia - arrived at two decisions that bolster the ability of pregnant women and abortion purveyors to take innocent life. This further degrades our society. In a separate ruling, they decided that we Catholics (and any others who oppose abortion on religious grounds) aren't entitled to act according to an informed conscience. This further degrades our religious liberty.
In one decision, the court refused to hear a case that would overturn a court decision that opposed the State of Texas in its decision to require abortion facilities to meet the same standards as any medical/surgical facility. The lower court's decision stands, and these death centers may continue to perform abortions without the safeguards required for any other type of surgery. In the other decision, pharmacists in the State of Washington who oppose abortion now must, under the law, offer abortifacients in their pharmacies. They had refused to sell these lethal chemicals, but were willing to direct customers to pharmacies that would sell them. Apparently they thought such a concession would get the state off their backs and allow them to follow their consciences, while adhering to a law that required making these poisons available in pharmacies. The court, however, insisted that they personally - in direct opposition to their religious beliefs, and therefore their consciences - offer abortifacients.
These decisions further degrade our society and our religious liberty. We continue to suffer, as we have for decades under the unholy alliance between those who believe religion has no place in a "secular" society and those who seek to promote sin and perversion.
"Secularists" typically claim that our Constitution erects a "wall of separation" between church and state. It doesn't. They should know better. The concept of such a wall is not to be found in the Constitution itself, but rather in a letter by Thomas Jefferson addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut on January 1, 1802. The intent of the letter was to reassure the Baptists that the government could not, under the Constitution, promote a particular denomination of Christianity over any other. In this case, the Baptists would have been concerned that the Episcopal Church might be deemed a "state religion." Jefferson wished to assure them they no longer need be concerned. But this is a far cry from the claim that the state must forbid any and all forms of religious expression - the current interpretation of "the wall."
As for the purveyors of sin and perversion, well I can only give my own opinion. So-called "gay marriage" provides us with a striking example of the machinations of these people. Catholics understand that homosexuals who are not chaste commit sin - plain and simple. Those homosexuals who have fought tooth and nail to see to it that our legislators and judges establish a "right" to marry have perverted the very meaning of marriage. Pornographers, who now can legally distribute their filthy degradation on the internet would be another awful example of those promoting sin and perversion. Such people, again in my opinion, push these sinful, perverse, and degraded notions in order to justify their own sin, perversion, and degradation. The more the merrier.
So where does this leave us on our current slide into Hell? Well, we've certainly slipped a few more feet, and may soon feel the flickering flames. One assumes - or rather hopes - that feeling the edge of the inferno will wake up at least a few more of us who once openly acknowledged our beloved country as a Christian land whose laws were derived from those of nature and nature's God. Meanwhile, perhaps this reminder from Psalm 2 will serve as both a reminder and a call to arms:
Or maybe a musical setting will better serve as inspiration. Here the great Samuel Ramey sings "Why do the nations so furiously rage" from Handel's Messiah (St. James Bible translation):
In one decision, the court refused to hear a case that would overturn a court decision that opposed the State of Texas in its decision to require abortion facilities to meet the same standards as any medical/surgical facility. The lower court's decision stands, and these death centers may continue to perform abortions without the safeguards required for any other type of surgery. In the other decision, pharmacists in the State of Washington who oppose abortion now must, under the law, offer abortifacients in their pharmacies. They had refused to sell these lethal chemicals, but were willing to direct customers to pharmacies that would sell them. Apparently they thought such a concession would get the state off their backs and allow them to follow their consciences, while adhering to a law that required making these poisons available in pharmacies. The court, however, insisted that they personally - in direct opposition to their religious beliefs, and therefore their consciences - offer abortifacients.
These decisions further degrade our society and our religious liberty. We continue to suffer, as we have for decades under the unholy alliance between those who believe religion has no place in a "secular" society and those who seek to promote sin and perversion.
"Secularists" typically claim that our Constitution erects a "wall of separation" between church and state. It doesn't. They should know better. The concept of such a wall is not to be found in the Constitution itself, but rather in a letter by Thomas Jefferson addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut on January 1, 1802. The intent of the letter was to reassure the Baptists that the government could not, under the Constitution, promote a particular denomination of Christianity over any other. In this case, the Baptists would have been concerned that the Episcopal Church might be deemed a "state religion." Jefferson wished to assure them they no longer need be concerned. But this is a far cry from the claim that the state must forbid any and all forms of religious expression - the current interpretation of "the wall."
As for the purveyors of sin and perversion, well I can only give my own opinion. So-called "gay marriage" provides us with a striking example of the machinations of these people. Catholics understand that homosexuals who are not chaste commit sin - plain and simple. Those homosexuals who have fought tooth and nail to see to it that our legislators and judges establish a "right" to marry have perverted the very meaning of marriage. Pornographers, who now can legally distribute their filthy degradation on the internet would be another awful example of those promoting sin and perversion. Such people, again in my opinion, push these sinful, perverse, and degraded notions in order to justify their own sin, perversion, and degradation. The more the merrier.
So where does this leave us on our current slide into Hell? Well, we've certainly slipped a few more feet, and may soon feel the flickering flames. One assumes - or rather hopes - that feeling the edge of the inferno will wake up at least a few more of us who once openly acknowledged our beloved country as a Christian land whose laws were derived from those of nature and nature's God. Meanwhile, perhaps this reminder from Psalm 2 will serve as both a reminder and a call to arms:
Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things?
The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord and against his Christ. Let us break their bonds asunder:
and let us cast away their yoke from us.
He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them:
and the Lord shall deride them.
Then shall he speak to them in his anger, and trouble them in his rage.
Or maybe a musical setting will better serve as inspiration. Here the great Samuel Ramey sings "Why do the nations so furiously rage" from Handel's Messiah (St. James Bible translation):
Comments