Attacking Religious Freedoms – Real and Imagined

First published in The Daily Sentinel, Friday September 12, 2008


Yesterday was the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States. People paused for moments of silence to somberly remember those who lost their lives on that day. There is no doubt that what happened on September 11, 2001 was an attack on the United States and its commitment to freedom, liberty, and democratic process.

In particular, religious freedom was under attack. The men who hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as crashing into the Pennsylvania countryside, were religious extremists – determined to force their religious views onto the United States through fear and intimidation.

Other times, though, we defend ourselves against religious attacks and enemies that aren’t necessarily real. I received word of such an attack this week: an email that claimed our federal government – through the U.S. Mint – was attacking a core symbol or our religious heritage.

The email said, “The U.S. government to release new dollar coins. You guessed it ‘In God We Trust’ is gone!!! If ever there was a reason to boycott something, this is it!!! Do not accept the new dollar coins as change. Together we can force them out of circulation. Please send this to everyone on your mail list!!!”

I was skeptical. Anything that comes via email (especially with lots of forwarding) with that many exclamation points deserved some quick fact checking. One of the best resources for dealing with internet rumors is www.snopes.com. I went to that website and did a search on “dollar coin” and found out the following:

“In 2007, the U.S. Mint began a series similar to the 50 State Quarters program launched in 1999. The new series, the Presidential Dollar Coin program features dollar coins identical in size, color and composition to the earlier Sacagawea dollar, each one bearing the likeness of a former president on the front, and a representation of the Statue of Liberty on the back. The email erroneously asserts that the new dollar coins do not include the phrase ‘In God We Trust.’

“Actually, the coins incorporate a few new design features not found on other current U.S. coins. The year of minting, the mint mark, the motto from the Great Seal of the United States (‘E Pluribus Unum’) and the national motto of the United States (‘In God We Trust’) are instead included as edge-incused inscriptions. That is, all of these elements appear on the edges of the new dollar coins rather than on their fronts or backs.”

So, clearly, the U.S. Mint is NOT trying to take away our religious freedoms. Christians who cherish “In God We Trust” are probably the guiltiest of spreading this email rumor without first checking the facts. We want this nation to remember – even if only symbolically – that we are a people who claim to trust God. So the call to boycott spreads with the speed of light – but at the expense of the real truth.

Jesus spoke about truth extensively in the Gospel of John. “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. So if the Son sets your free, you will be free indeed. I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 8:31-32, 36; 14:6)

Therefore, as Christians, we are obligated to seek the truth because all truth comes from the one who IS Truth. So before you hit that “forward” button on your email, stop and seek the truth. We don’t need to make up attacks against our faith, they are really out there.

The California Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that clearly attacks religious freedom. In the case, “Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group,” the majority ruled that sexual liberty trumps religious liberty. So although both the US Constitution and the California State Constitution guarantee the right to religious freedom, the Court ruled that a doctor can be compelled to provide a medical procedure – one completely elective and non-life-preserving – even if doing so becomes a violation of the doctor’s religious beliefs.

A little more than five years ago, Guadalupe Benitez (shown below with her partner and three children) sought to be artificially inseminated so that she and her lesbian partner could have a child. The doctor to whom Benitez initially approached for the procedure had moral qualms about impregnating a woman without a husband. Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallager wrote, “When a man at a bar has such qualms, he’s a ‘mensch’ [a decent, responsible person with admirable characteristics]. When a doctor at a fertility clinic has the same moral qualms, the California Supreme Court says she is now an outlaw, an evil discriminator.”

So in a state and nation that promises to protect religious freedoms – California has now truly restricted religious freedom. And the freedom is restricted even in the midst of such an abundance of medical choices that persons like Benitez could easily find another doctor without these religious beliefs -which is exactly what she did. But unsatisfied with getting the service she wanted, Benitez wanted to punish the doctor for attempting to exercise religious beliefs because they “violated her sexual identity.” Now all doctors who believe in the sanctity of one-man, one-woman for life as God’s original design for what constitutes the best family can no longer apply that religious belief in their actions.

James 2:17 says, “Faith by itself, if not accompanied by action, is dead.” When government denies anyone the opportunity to act according to their faith, it’s guilty of trying to kill that faith. So which attack is more diabolical, the supposed disappearance of ‘In God We Trust’ on a coin, or the very real disappearance of freedom to act according to one’s faith? Which freedom is worth protecting – even worth dying for?

A Crash Course in Palin Politics

First published in The Daily Sentinel, Friday September 5, 2008


A week ago hardly anyone had heard of Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Then suddenly her name is on the lips of every person interested in presidential politics. I am even more behind the times than most. I didn’t know anything at all about her – not even that Republican candidate John McCain had named her as his running mate – until the same day she gave her speech to the Republican Party Convention last Wednesday night.

My preparations for her speech included a crash course in the media coverage leading up to Wednesday night. And I am amazed at one aspect of the reporting: Sarah Palin is being accused of seeking office to the detriment of her family by some of the same people who have screamed the most loudly that women can take on any role and be just as good as a man. Now that they’re confronted with the reality of a woman who might just take that idea seriously enough to prove it, they suddenly think she has no business being governor of Alaska – let alone potentially the Vice President of the United States of America – when she’s got five kids, including a four-month-old son with Down’s Syndrome.

Why is that? What makes Palin unacceptable as the Republican VP candidate when we almost had Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential candidate? Is it that Clinton’s one daughter is grown and Palin’s two daughters are still young? Is it because Chelsea Clinton has not become pregnant out of wedlock and Palin’s 17 year-old-daughter Bristol is? Or is it that only Democrats should lead the way to women’s breaking of the political glass ceiling in America?

I am not at the point where I am ready to declare my vote, but I am at the point when I can declare my dislike for how this election has been covered. I am ready to stand up for unbiased reporting in the media. And I am ready to stand up for the truth that women CAN be both great mothers and great career people – no matter what career that may be.

Of course, sacrifices must be made when one is striving to both raise a family and make a difference in the world. That’s true for both mothers and fathers. Several times in my family, my wife chose to give up career-enhancing activities and opportunities in order to meet family obligations. And I’ve been Mr. Mom – devoting myself full-time to raising my kids rather than building my career.

Jesus recognized that family obligations and other obligations can often come into conflict. Here’s what he said in Matthew 10:34-37: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Some people have interpreted that passage to mean that family doesn’t matter to Jesus. But that’s not what Jesus is saying. Rather, he emphasized the choices that must be made when one is truly committing him or herself to a cause – in this case the cause of Jesus Christ.

When Jesus calls us to action, we are expected to respond – even if Mom, Dad, or other family members disapprove. Love God first – then you have the right resource to love family.

So does Sarah Palin love her family? Watching them on TV Wednesday night, I would say, “yes.” Does she love them more than politics? That’s impossible for me to decide. If God has called her into politics (including becoming candidate for Vice President), then responding to that call DOES become more important than family. It’s a tough decision – and only Palin can make it. Voters can affirm it or reject it; but they cannot decide it. Nor can the media – as much as they may want to try.

God called me into ministry, and I thank God every day that my family was behind me and supported me in becoming a pastor – even though it meant giving up so many things and accepting so many changes in their lives. Others who have been called into ministry tell a different story. A spouse or child cannot handle the change; relationships break down. Divorce ends the marriage. Estrangement ends the parenting. But those called by God must be willing to accept that loss and have faith that God will use the loss to bring a greater good in its place.

Maybe we need a VP candidate who causes us to think about these things. We certainly have a Savior who does.