Are the LGBT and Progressives Attacking American Christianity, the Source of their Freedom

The liberal attack in the United States against Christian principles has been shocking to most Americans. The leaders of the attack -- the Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-sexual community, the LGBTs -- were energized by Tom Cook, the gay CEO of Apple, who wrote an OpEd piece published in the Washington Post. His comment, an ill-thought out attempt to defend "freedom," mixes up racial equality with religious freedom : "Men and women have fought and died fighting to protect our country’s founding principles of freedom and equality. We owe it to them, to each other and to our future to continue to fight with our words and our actions to make sure we protect those ideals. The days of segregation and discrimination marked by “Whites Only” signs on shop doors, water fountains and restrooms must remain deep in our past. We must never return to any semblance of that time. America must be a land of opportunity for everyone." ~~~~~ Let's start with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1791, along with the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights : "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." ~~~~~ There is no "except" in the First Amendment right to freedom of religion -- no except when athiests disagree, no except when any religious group feels injured by another religious group's practices, no except when Tim Cook and the LGBT community protest its existence. Although I have said it before, let me say it again : 75% of Americans describe themselves as Christian. The Constitution is a Christian document. It is the political fulfillment of the aspirations of Christians who left Europe because they were denied religious freedom and persecuted in their home countries - Massachusetts Puritans, Pennsylvania Quakers, Maryland Catholics and many others. Yet, these Christians were careful not to discriminate themselves, even stating in the Constitution that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust..." ~~~~~ In the mid-20th century, as racial equality became a key issue in America, the courts used the Fourteenth Amendment -- ratified after the Civil War to make it clear that black Americans are citizens who are guaranteed equal protection and due process under the Constitution -- to protect the rights of black Americans and other minorities. But, these Fourteenth Amendment cases have nothing in common with cases brought under the First Amendment to protect religious rights. These cases grew in number as minority groups increased after World War II. In this wave of cases, Amish religious education and the religious use of peyote by Native Americans were protected or constrained, respectively. Then, an athiest decided to try to keep compulsory Bible reading out of public schools. In the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, a landmark Supreme Court ruling ended official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963. This came just one year after the Supreme Court had prohibited officially sponsored prayer in schools. Madalyn Murray's lawsuit largely led to the removal of compulsory Bible reading from public schools in the United States, and had other lasting and significant effects -- ending sectarian religious instruction itself and preventing schools from including prayer as a compulsory activity required of every student. With the success of the lawsuit, the intent of the Constitution concerning the relationship between church and state came under critical scrutiny and has remained there to this day. ~~~~~ In the early 1990s, Congress became concerned that the free exercise of religion was too restrained. So, Chuck Schumer, then a congressman, and Senator Ted Kennedy introduced a bill that became the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by all the Senate and all but three House members, and signed by President Clinton in 1993. The law reinstated the Supreme Court Sherbert Test, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion. So, the FRFA states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest." Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly to core constitutional issues. The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. A later Supreme Court decision restricted the applicability of the RFRA to the federal govetnment. So, 20 states adopted their own version of the federal-only RFRA, without public demonstrations against them. That brings us to Indiana and the LGBT lobby. ~~~~~ Indiana passed an RFRA that the LGBT lobby, and many major businesses, believed permitted discrimination against LGBT people. The battle went national, with most media siding with the LGBTs and often accusing Indiana Governor Pence of pandering to the the GOP religious right. Pence asked for and got legislative clarification that the Indiana RFRA does not permit discrimination against LGBTs. ~~~~~ The timing of renewed interest in religious freedom laws – coming just before the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether same-sex marriage is the law of the land – is undoubtedly not a coincidence. Barney Frank, the former Massachusetts representative who was the first openly gay member of Congress, says : “There were a number of states where they never had to worry about same-sex marriage because they knew they were never going to pass it. And then the appeals court and Supreme Court ruled and now they have to confront the reality of same-sex marriage in their states. It’s all about marriage.” ~~~~~ It is about marriage, an area of the law that has always been left to each state to regulate - until the Supreme Court carved out an area of federal benefits that it said federal benefits must be granted to same-sex married couples, as well as heterosexual couples. This is much like what the Supreme Court did with the RFRA. What the Court decides about forcing all states to perform and recognize same-sex marriage will be ground-breaking -- not only because it could eliminate one more area of states rights, but because it will certainly lead to a future challenge to the right of a church to refuse to marry same-sex couples, and that will be a stark challenge to the essence of the First Amendment. ~~~~~ But, dear readers, in all these legal and legislative battles, the real issue is Christianity. There seems to be a liberal progressive determination to equate being Christian with being what the left considers the 'unwashed religious right.' This puts 75% of Americans in that column, even tbough we know that the religious right is a minority in the Republican Party that represents about 40% of American voters. The Supreme Court has taken away the right of the substantially Christian American majority to put a creche in a school or mayor's office, to put a Christmas tree in the town center, to say a prayer before the school day starts. But, forcing acquiescence in same-sex marriage and making honestly held religious beliefs heretofore protected by the First Amendment subservient to the recently granted recognition of the rights of the LGBT community may be one step too far. No Christian is asking that LGBTs be treated unfairly or denied their constitutional rights. Christians would simply like to see their majority rights honored.