San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, April 3, 2015

Man's Law Vs God's Law...Which One Wins?

The furor over the protection for religious freedom law passed in Indiana recently continues unabated.  In reaction to all of the negative backlash the Indiana state legislature quickly passed a corrective bill affirming that all heterophobes will continue to receive most treasured and honored status from the government.  The idea that some homosexual somewhere might have had a second or two of negative self esteem was too much to take and the law had to be changed.  Arkansas had a similar bill in the wings and it was also amended to make sure that the militant homosexual lobby was satisfied prior to it being signed into law.  As I have written before, there is no debate in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika about the moral propriety, or lack thereof, of homosexual behavior.  The heterophobes have won.  That means Christians who hold to the historic orthodox doctrine of the sinfulness of homosexuality have lost.  That is not surprising.  All government laws that go beyond those necessary to protect life, freedom and property always create winners and losers.  In this case it is the Christians who have lost.  And yet nobody seems to care that the Christians have ended up holding the dirty end of the stick.  Heterophobes scream bloody murder whenever they perceive they have been treated unjustly yet millions of Christians are abused by the law and nary a word of complaint rises up.   I wonder why?
There is no question that "freedom" of religion (yes, homosexuality is a religion) only goes one way.  Homosexuals are free to discriminate against Christians according to the terms of their religion but not vice versa.  This truth was nicely described by this blog writer when he wrote:  
"Should a lesbian photographer be compelled to accept a job taking pictures at a celebration of Fred Phelps at the Westboro Baptist Church?  Or does this photographer have the right to either accept or decline this job based on her comfort level and freedom of choice?  Does she have a choice, or is she under compulsion to go and be uncomfortable, to do a job against her will?  Which option, choice or compulsion, would be considered 'freedom' as opposed to 'tyranny'?
How about:
  • a black photographer at a white supremacist ritual,
  • a Jewish photographer at a neo-nazi political rally,
  • a vegan at a slaughterhouse,
  • a Mennonite at a pornography convention,
  • a Muslim at a pig farm,
  • a Jehovah’s Witness at a flag-raising ceremony,
  • a Tibetan at a function honoring Chairman Mao?"
I think we all know the answer to his rhetorical questions.  The folks mentioned on the list of classes of citizens preferred by the government would never be required by law to do any of the things listed.  In the SDA it is only Christians who are compelled to behave against their consciences.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, a man whom I respect, wrote this opinion about the Indiana law:  "Thus, it is clear that one may not violate any law, state or federal, and escape the consequences of that violation on the basis that one’s religious views compelled the disobedience. Were this not the case, then nothing would prevent animal sacrifice, the use of mind-altering drugs, and even racial or gender or national origin discrimination in public accommodations and housing — all allegedly based on one’s claimed religious views. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in housing and public accommodations based upon race, gender, religion, beliefs or national origin, and quite properly permits no religious-based defense."  (Judge Andrew Napolitano, found here.)
I am afraid I must differ with the good Judge on this issue.  He believes that federal law commanding non-discrimination, even when religious beliefs demand discrimination, is always superior and must be enforced.  We have to admit that we have a conflict.  Civil law and biblical law disagree on the matter of homosexuality.  It wasn't always that way but it is that way today.  Homosexuals have a privileged and protected status as citizens of the SDA despite the fact that biblical law demands they be executed by the state for their sin.  What is a Christian to do when the law of the land specifically requires him to disobey the law of God?  The Bible answers that question.  Here is a quote from the Bible about precisely this issue:  "But Peter and John answered and said to them, 'Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard.'" (Acts 4: 19-20)
Peter and John had been ordered by the governing authorities to cease preaching that Jesus had risen from the dead.  They informed the authorities that they would not obey that command because the commandment of God is superior to the commandment of men.  Christians believe that God's law trumps man's law every time.  Or at least some Christians do.  Modern evangelical Christians who love government and the all powerful warfare state while simultaneously hating the law of God revealed in the Bible (they are called Antinomians) align themselves with the law of man.  I am not concerned with Evangelicals.  They will have to answer for their own sins.  I am concerned with historic Christian orthodoxy which has always asserted that the law of God is superior to the law of man and whenever a conflict arises it is the law of God that is to be obeyed.  Sadly nobody believes that truth anymore.
R.J. Rushdoony wrote an entire treatise on biblical law.  He introduced his book with a series of assertions that very much speak to the issue we are facing today. Here is what he wrote, "Law is in every culture religious in origin....It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society.  If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society....modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in the state and thus makes the state, or the people as they find expression in the state, the god of the system...there can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion.  Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system."  (R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law)
Rushdoony's insights are right on the mark.  The source of law in any country is always the god of that country.  The god of the SDA is civil government, especially the federal government.   The federal government has a zero tolerance policy for biblical law. Whenever biblical law and civil law clash it is a guaranteed outcome that biblical law will be pushed out.  The law of the SDA maintains its existence by being hostile to the law and God of the Bible.  This is the way it must be in a land of idolaters who bow down to the throne of the state, praised be its name forever.  So expect more conflicts between God's law and man's.  The homosexual issue is just the beginning.  The God-hating sinners who make up the vast majority of the citizens of this wretched land have many more laws they would like to enshrine that will directly violate God's moral principles.  There is a war taking place in this land.  It is between those who believe in God's law and those who worship government.  You can count on one hand the number of people who love God's law so it is not hard to figure out how the war is going to turn out.  Meanwhile those of us who obey God's law will continue to do so, despite the consequences that will fall down upon us from the intolerant and hateful civil government.

UPDATE:  April 4, 2015
I was reading the Denver Post this morning and was surprised to see a story about a Castle Rock man who claimed that a Denver bakery discriminated against him by refusing to write an inscription on a Bible shaped cake he had ordered that said homosexuality is immoral behavior.  The owner of the bakery agreed to make the cake but refused to write the inscription.  The man filed a claim with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies claiming he was discriminated against because he was a Christian.
At face value his claim is obviously true.  The cake declared homosexuality to be a sin and the bakery owner, who is operating a public business and subject to all the same non-discrimination rules and regulations that Christian businesses are subject to, refused to serve her customer because of her own religious beliefs that homosexuality is just peachy.  According to Colorado law that is religious discrimination and quite illegal.  Do you want to guess how the Regulatory Agency ruled?
"There is insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff's claims."  Shocking!

No comments:

Post a Comment