Diary

Churches aren't next

Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all three hold that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  For practitioners of any of these faiths, when approached with the request to marry two men or two women, there can be only one answer: “No.”  Fortunately, for now, as long as performing a marriage ceremony remains a matter of personal choice, pastors, rabbis and religious leaders of all sorts can simply say, “no.” to any marriage they don’t want to be involved in.  But, what about religious individuals who do not have the option of saying “no”?

I have a friend who is a lawyer, and as he put it, if he were a judge today and was approached by a homosexual couple requesting him to perform a marriage as a matter of performing his routine job duties, he could not refuse and still be a judge by the end of the week.  In fact, in all probability he would lose his position even faster than that.  If a state has issued a wedding license, and if a couple requests him to recognize that wedding license and to marry them, he does not have the right to refuse to do so.

This is where the next attack will come against religion in general, and Christianity specifically in our culture.  It is not the pastors and the teachers who will be attacked, but the magistrates, the judges, the Christians serving in public office who are bound by oath to administer the laws of the land and to carry out the duties required for their office.  And the effect will not be felt immediately, but it will slowly and definitely lead to a continued degeneration of society.

When Christians realize that they can be economically ruined for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple, you will have fewer Christian baking wedding cakes.  When Christians find that they can be sued for refusing to photograph a wedding, or even a renewal of vows, for a gay couple, you will have fewer Christians doing wedding photography.  There are laws to nature that apply in the realm of economics just as much as they do to physics.  When the risk of loss is too high compared to the opportunity to gain from a given activity, you will have fewer people performing that activity.  When the risk is higher for Christians, who refuse to compromise their beliefs for the latest fad, then Christians will be less likely to engage in that specific activity.  It is not Christianity that will suffer for this, but culture.

Likewise, when Christians realize that public service will require them to act against their faith, they will simply choose not to engage in public service.  The result will be more judges with no moral center, more lawyers who think the right thing is whatever they can get away with in the courtroom, and a less moral, less constrained government.  Christians may still serve in state houses, the U.S. House or Senate, or other elected positions, but they will not be the ones “interpreting” the laws written, or arguing the laws before those who do the interpreting.  We have already seen that the clear wording of laws is irrelevant when our Nine Robed Gods determine that they know better than the people who wrote the law in the first place, why should we assume that this interpretive behavior will not simply grow worse when the moral center of religion is utterly absent from those arguing and interpreting the law in the first place?

The next attack on the religious center of our nation will not come on the churches or the pastors, it will be the magistrates, the Christians already serving in positions of public service.  Unlike pastors, who can still claim some level of freedom of association, these men and women will not be allowed to refuse.  Eventually pastors and churches will be attacked, and those attacks may be coming very soon, but the low hanging fruit is what the political activists will want to pick first.  Attacking churches is still politically dangerous, but simply “requiring judges to obey the law,” well, isn’t that what we all want?