I just scanned through the majority opinion of Christian Legal Society V. Martinez, 08-1371 and found some very disturbing items. 

First, some background.  In September of 2004, the Christian Legal Society applied to Hastings College of Law (part of the University of California system) to become a Registered Student Organization (RSO).  Hastings denied the application because the CLS required its members and officers to sign a "Statement of Faith."  The CLS bylaws excluded homosexual students and students from other religions from membership and leadership positions because those students failed to comply with the Statement of Faith.  It also excluded those who practiced sex outside of marriag and other actions that violated Biblical principles.  It did not exclude those students from participation in events - just from voting membership and leadership positions.  Hastings has a requirement that all RSO be open to all students regardless of religion or sexual orientation.  CLS appealed for an exemption from Hastings.  When Hastings denied the exemption, CLS sued Hastings for violating its constitutional right to free speech, association, and the free exercise of religion.  The Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 vote decided in favor of Hastings.  Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion.  Justices Kennedy and Stevens wrote concurring opinions.

Now for the disturbing logic of the majority.

1.  Adherence to a set of beliefs and a commitment that voluntary members of a group adhere to the beliefs of the group is harmful to intellectual development. 

Justice Ginsburg argued in her opinion that the exclusivity of CLS did not "contribute to the Hastings community and experience."  Kennedy argued that such adherence to principles of faith stifled intellectual development on campus.  "The era of loyalty oaths is behind us.  A school quite properly may conclude that allowing an oath or belief-affirming requirement, or an outside conduct requirement, could be divisive for student relations and inconsistent with the basic concept that a view's validity should be tested through free and open discussion.  The school's policy therefore represents a permissible effort to preserve the value of its forum." (p. 4) Kennedy most be applauded for consistency.  He has disregarded his own loyal oath to protect and defend the Constitution and he will now allow it in others.  I assume that perjury and treason charges will now be abandoned because they both require loyalty oaths.

2.  Hastings did not violate the rights of CLS because it still allowed them to function on campus with the use of some campus resources but without official sanction as a RSO.

Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Stevens all made much of the non-relevant point that Hastings allowed CLS access to venues for their events and to use of chalkboards and message boards around campus.  Their argument boiled down to the fact that separate but somewhat equal treatment of Christians was legal and constitutional.  No where did the justices rule that Hastings had to treat the CLS in such a way but all three applauded the treatment as showing the benevolence of the Hasting administration and the ingratitude of CLS.  I assume that we have returned to the days of Plessey v. Ferguson when separate but equal governed the segregation of the races.  Except now it is the Christian who can be treated as separate but somewhat equal.  Never mind that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that separate is inherently unequal.

3.  The general tone of dismissal and the vehemence of the majority toward Christians.

Ginsburg and Kennedy rejected the logical scenario that an organization which could not restrict membership or even leadership might be taken over by members who did not support and might actually be hostile to the stated goals and principles of the group.  They deemed it improbable and said that it was not Hastings responsibility to prevent such a scenario.

Ginsburg dismissed much of the complaint as without merit or even standing.  Kennedy, through his loyalty oath comment, indirectly compared Christianity to Joe McCarthy.  Justice Stevens compared the discrimination directly to discrimination against "Jews, blacks, and women."  He bemoaned the fact that:  "A free society must tolerate such groups.  It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities." (p. 6)

4.  While the majority claimed to confine itself to a narrow ruling on the case, its rhetoric soared beyond the case and will have a larger impact on society.

Ginsburg argued:  "The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization's expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be.  But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity."  (p. 2) Subvention means endowment or subsidy.  Ginsburg argued that the state had a right to determine which groups it subsidized and which it did not with public tax dollars.  She did not rule out the fact that the state might even subsidize some exclusionary groups and not others.  The power of subsidy and official endorsement gives the state substantial influence over which groups will succeed and which will fail.  She made no apologies and denied that uneven "incidental effect" merited a constitutional challenge. 

In short, the highest court in the United States held, in an official court document that will set legal precedent, on June 28, 2010 that the adherence to traditional Christian beliefs stifled intellectual development and the free exchange of ideas, that adherence to said beliefs discriminated against fellow citizens in the same way as those who discriminate against Jews, blacks, and women, and that the government had the right to discriminate against those groups.

Will future attacks upon churches an other Christian organizations follow the same path?  Will their adherence to Biblical principles be called anti-intellectual, divisive and thus be deemed harmful to society?  Will their adherence to Biblical principles be called discriminatory and deemed on the level with race segregation, anti-semitism, and sexual discrimination?  Will the government use its power to reward compliance with its own directives to create counter groups deemed more constructive to society?  Christian Legal Society v. Martinez says yes and provides precedence for such action.

Following the rally on the capital steps, I decided to go over the office of Representative Solomon Ortiz (D, TX-27) to express my opinion that the current healh care legislation stinks and that he should vote NO.  I found the office door locked and the staff barricaded inside.  As they were unresponsive to knocks at their door, I called the office phone.  After two attempts I reached a staff member and asked if anyone was in the office.  When he answered yes, I stated that I was a constituent and asked to be allowed into the office so I could speak with my congressman.  I was denied entry but a staff member did step outside to speak with me. 

The staff member listened to my points and argued with every one of them.  She stated that Mr. Ortiz was still undecided but leaned toward voting yes.  I asked how he could do that considering he previously would not vote on the House version without the Stupak Amendment.  She said that his concerns about abortion had been addressed and that the law would not allow federal funds to be used in that way.  After pressing her and another staff member hard on that point, they admitted that the current legislation did not block federal funding but other legislation like the Hyde amendment did.  When I asked about the recent comments from Mr. Stupak, they said that he was simply angry that his language had not been adopted.  I asked them if the Catholic Mr. Ortiz was able and willing to justify his vote.  They said that he was and would not vote on legislation that promoted abortion. 

When I raised several other points about the bill which I found offensive - penalty for military tricare members, the Nebraska deal, the Louisian bribe, etc. - they said that Mr. Ortiz was not voting on those measures.  When I pointed out that he was voting on those measures, they said that no he was not because those measures would be removed or corrected by future legisation.  Again I pressed the point and they finally admitted that he was voting on them with the good faith that subsequent legislation would remove those issues.  I asked them if they trusted the Senate to remove those.  She emphatically said NO.  Which really did not make since to me but what do I know about the wonderland of politics.

Throughout the interview the staff member had a running battle with anyone who tried to speak to her about the bill that was not from the 27th district.  She argued that constitutionally the office did not have to deal with people who were not their constituents.  Another staff member complained that everyone who stopped by harassed them and only wanted to talk about the Constitution. 

When a supporter of the bill who was not a constituent stopped by to visit, Mr. Ortiz' office staff were more than happy to be of assistance.  She did not chase him off to speak to his member of Congress and one of the staff guys even made photocopies of some of his material so that he could continue to pass those out.  Previously, the staff claimed that the resources of the office could only legally and constitutionally be used for constituent work.  Yet, they had no problem helping a non-constituent who supported the bill.

On a side note, I saw none of the rudeness or racial comments now claimed by the MSM and AP.  I saw several congressmen - not Mr. Ortiz who I never saw or spoke to - actually be rude to the people at the rally. 

The principles of social conservatism are much deeper than the three usually given by critics.  In fact – abortion, marriage, and creationism – are not principles at all but rather the natural outworking of much deeper principles.  Here are a few of the deeper principles. Please tell me with which you disagree.

1. The sanctity of human life. All individuals have value and should be treated accordingly.  Therefore, social conservatives oppose policies that cheapen human life – i.e. abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, health care death panels, health care rationing, tyrannical unlimited government, etc.

2. The sanctity of marriage and the family.  Marriage is the building block of western civilization and the foundation of any functional society.  Marriage should not be entered into lightly, nor should it be discarded on a mere whim.  The family is the next building block of society as it provides for the nurturing and instruction of the next generation.  Therefore, social conservatives oppose policies that lead to the destruction of marriage and the family – no fault divorce, welfare, absentee fathers, spousal abuse, government run daycare, public education coerced by the federal government and removed from local control, the glorification of self-indulgence, etc.

3. Freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.  The separation of church and state is a Biblical principle practiced in both the Old and New Testament.  The problem is that liberals and some libertarians do not want a separation of church and state.  They want a separation of the state from God.  They want the state to disregard all moral mandates from God and to not acknowledge His headship over the state.  In so doing, liberals and likeminded libertarians actually elevated the state as the highest authority and makes the state unanswerable to a higher power.  The Founding Fathers, even Jefferson, would not accept such a premise.

4. Support for the classical virtues and moral character – honesty, hardwork, diligence, thrift, self-control, self-disciplined, peaceful, self-reliant, and countless others.  Therefore, social conservatives oppose policies and actions that undermine these virtues and contribued to the undermining of individual moral character.  Social conservatives do not claim to be perfect in these virtues but everyone should strive for perfection.  I would also note that these virtues will lead to the fiscal restraint you fiscal conservatives want.  However, you can not expect to get the fruit without first plantng the seeds and watering the plant.

Although I will stop there, you can plainly see that that social conservatives encompasses much more than what you think. I would also point out that these are not necessarily religious issues but are moral and ethical principles essential to western civilization.

Jude warned the early church about apostates. “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4)

Scripture clearly and repeatedly condemns the practice of homosexuality. (1 Corinthians 6:9;1 Timothy 1:10) In accepting the practice, the ELCA has essentially denied the authority of Scripture as Truth. No matter what some supporters of lifting the ban may say, the ordination of homosexuals is not a dispute over the interpretation of Scripture, but rather a direct challenge to the teachings of Scripture and thus the Lordship of God over their church.

Jude urged the true believers to “contend earnestly for the faith” and many in the ELCA did that prior to the recent vote.  Now, however, the leadership has decided to reject Scripture and follow their own understanding. The duty of the true believer now is to separate himself from the apostate church.

As Paul told the Corinthians: “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)

Supporters of lifting the ban do not believe in the authority of Scripture and are thus unbelievers. Since they control the denomination, I urge all faithful Christians – Christians faithful to the teachings of Scripture – to follow the command of Paul to the Corinthians and separate themselves from the apostasy of the ELCA. 

I quote from the Libertarian Party platform: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

To paraphrase, in the libertarian world, a person has "sole dominion" over his life and can live any way he chooses as long as he does not "forcibly" interfere with that same right in others. To the libertarian there is no standard higher than the individual and the individual is completely free to choose his own course as long as he is willing to live with the consequences. This is the very definition of anarchy and will lead to the breakdown of civilization and culture. The individual is not a self-contained entity whose life choices only impact himself. His actions will have an impact on others even if he does not "forcibly interfere" with their personal autonomy. A dad addicted to drugs or pornography will negatively impact his family even if he carefully avoids "forcibly interfering" with their autonomy. Look at the data on single moms and the impact failed fatherhood has on children. The choices individuals make have a larger impact than just upon the individual making the choice; therefore, individuals have a responsibility to society to make the right choice. A nation of people selfishly choosing to gratify themselves will lead to the crumbling of society.

Although some individuals will choose to use their personal autonomy to do the right thing, many will not and why should they if personal freedom is the ultimate goal. Our Founding Fathers defined liberty as the ability to do the right thing not as the ability to do whatever the individual wanted. They considered that to be licentiousness. Conservatives hold with the Founding Fathers.

Conservatives are not libertarians. We want liberty but liberty as defined by the Founding Fathers. We recognize that man is flawed and must be guided by morality, tradition, and law to make the right choices. Man does not have sole dominion over his life because he was created and thus was created for a purpose. Dominion over his life belongs to God who bestowed life upon the individual. 

Libertarians are not conservatives. What do they want to conserve but personal "liberty" and personal "liberty" cannot be conserved when the individual is exalted above everything else. Left to his own nature, such "liberty" will give way to licentiousness and the individual will find that his pursuit of unfettered "liberty" will have enslaved him.

Like the individual, government is a creation of God and only serves its true purpose when it submits to His headship and precepts. Only God can take away the inalienable rights of men and define reality (truth). Only God is an authority unto himself. Mr. Obama and the Democrats, in infringing on the rights of men, redefining truth, and setting themselves up as the final authority, are claiming the authority of a god. Conservatives and Libertarians can work together on these lines but a libertine society is not the solution to our larger problems.

 The USA of 1776, of 1865 and of 1945 is all but gone - except for a few glimmers here and there. Too many of us have benefited from the discipline, commitment, and sacrifice of previous generations but have not responded in kind. Instead our society has grown lazy and apathetic. Our time is consumed not with personal improvement or the improvement of our society but with the lowest common denominator that has now become our pop culture.

Stayed tuned for the highly anticipated first post of The Gylippus.