Freedom to be Christian but banned from acting Christian

[John81]

KNIGHT: Freedom to be Christian but banned from acting Christian
Secularists and the ACLU strip First Amendment of meaning
By Robert Knight
-
The Washington Times
6:17 p.m., Friday, February 18, 2011

Christians, Orthodox Jews or anyone with traditional views of sex and marriage should be barred from state university counseling programs unless they agree to violate their beliefs. That’s the gist of theamicus brief the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed Feb. 11 in a case in which a Christian student is challenging her dismissal from a graduate counseling program at Eastern Michigan University in 2009.

Julea Ward had asked that another student take the case of a homosexual suffering from depression because, being a Christian, she could not affirm the person’s sexual relationships. Miss Ward was dismissed and filed a lawsuit charging unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, religious discrimination and compelled speech. On July 26, 2010, a U.S. district court denied her claim, and she appealed to the 6th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ACLU‘s brief to the appeals court contends that compelling someone to act against her beliefs does not violate her freedoms of religion or speech. The ACLU quotes the university’s response to Miss Ward saying she had a “conflict between your values that motivate your behavior and those behaviors expected of your profession.” In other words, you’re a conscientious Christian, so get lost.

This is one of several cases in which Christians have been told to conform to “diversity” requirements or leave counseling programs. At Augusta State University in Georgia, Jennifer Keetonsued last year after being told she had to take re-education courses to counter her Christian morality or be expelled from a master’s program. After losing in a U.S. district court, she has appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit.

In the Michigan case, the ACLU‘s brief rests heavily on the American Counseling Association‘s (ACA) Code of Ethics, which prohibits discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and a dozen other characteristics. Miss Ward contends that the code allows referrals to other counselors in situations such as hers.

The brief cites last year’s egregious U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which upheld the decision by Hastings College of the Law at the University of California at Berkeley to eject a Christian legal group for not allowing open homosexuals in leadership positions. Writing for the majority in that case, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: “Condemnation of same-sex intimacy is, in fact, a condemnation of gay people,” and “our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context.”

By this reasoning, if you don’t support gluttony, you “condemn” overweight people. Let’s further take this apart. If, as former ACLU attorney Justice Ginsburg says, conduct defines status, and the ACA‘s code says counselors must conform to what amounts to a positive or neutral view of sex outside marriage, then Christians must conduct themselves in a way that violates their beliefs. Their status becomes that of either outlaws or liars.

This is not rocket science. We are witnessing radical ideologues bent on replacing natural law with a wholly different set of values, which is what Justice Antonin Scalia said about the legal profession in his dissents in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Many professional associations have climbed aboard this runaway train. If this trend is not halted, the result will be a world full of signs that say, “Christians need not apply.” Just ask Catholic hospitals that are being told to perform abortions - or else.

The underlying problem in the Michigan counseling case is twofold: First, there is no credible scientific evidence that homosexuality - unlike Miss Ward’s black race - is inborn and unchangeable. As Colin L. Powell once pointed out, comparison of race with sexual orientation is “convenient but invalid.” Second, the Constitution explicitly protects religious freedom but is silent on “sexual orientation,” a term concocted in the 20th century as a bludgeon against Judeo-Christian morality.

Story Continues →
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/18/freedom-to-be-christian-but-banned-from-acting-chr/

[JerryNumbers]

KNIGHT: Freedom to be Christian but banned from acting Christian
Secularists and the ACLU strip First Amendment of meaning
By Robert Knight
-
The Washington Times
6:17 p.m., Friday, February 18, 2011

Christians, Orthodox Jews or anyone with traditional views of sex and marriage should be barred from state university counseling programs unless they agree to violate their beliefs. That’s the gist of theamicus brief the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed Feb. 11 in a case in which a Christian student is challenging her dismissal from a graduate counseling program at Eastern Michigan University in 2009.

Julea Ward had asked that another student take the case of a homosexual suffering from depression because, being a Christian, she could not affirm the person’s sexual relationships. Miss Ward was dismissed and filed a lawsuit charging unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, religious discrimination and compelled speech. On July 26, 2010, a U.S. district court denied her claim, and she appealed to the 6th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ACLU‘s brief to the appeals court contends that compelling someone to act against her beliefs does not violate her freedoms of religion or speech. The ACLU quotes the university’s response to Miss Ward saying she had a “conflict between your values that motivate your behavior and those behaviors expected of your profession.” In other words, you’re a conscientious Christian, so get lost.

This is one of several cases in which Christians have been told to conform to “diversity” requirements or leave counseling programs. At Augusta State University in Georgia, Jennifer Keetonsued last year after being told she had to take re-education courses to counter her Christian morality or be expelled from a master’s program. After losing in a U.S. district court, she has appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit.

In the Michigan case, the ACLU‘s brief rests heavily on the American Counseling Association‘s (ACA) Code of Ethics, which prohibits discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and a dozen other characteristics. Miss Ward contends that the code allows referrals to other counselors in situations such as hers.

The brief cites last year’s egregious U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which upheld the decision by Hastings College of the Law at the University of California at Berkeley to eject a Christian legal group for not allowing open homosexuals in leadership positions. Writing for the majority in that case, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: “Condemnation of same-sex intimacy is, in fact, a condemnation of gay people,” and “our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context.”

By this reasoning, if you don’t support gluttony, you “condemn” overweight people. Let’s further take this apart. If, as former ACLU attorney Justice Ginsburg says, conduct defines status, and the ACA‘s code says counselors must conform to what amounts to a positive or neutral view of sex outside marriage, then Christians must conduct themselves in a way that violates their beliefs. Their status becomes that of either outlaws or liars.

This is not rocket science. We are witnessing radical ideologues bent on replacing natural law with a wholly different set of values, which is what Justice Antonin Scalia said about the legal profession in his dissents in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Many professional associations have climbed aboard this runaway train. If this trend is not halted, the result will be a world full of signs that say, “Christians need not apply.” Just ask Catholic hospitals that are being told to perform abortions - or else.

The underlying problem in the Michigan counseling case is twofold: First, there is no credible scientific evidence that homosexuality - unlike Miss Ward’s black race - is inborn and unchangeable. As Colin L. Powell once pointed out, comparison of race with sexual orientation is “convenient but invalid.” Second, the Constitution explicitly protects religious freedom but is silent on “sexual orientation,” a term concocted in the 20th century as a bludgeon against Judeo-Christian morality.

Story Continues →
http://www.washingto...rom-acting-chr/

When the apostles suffered persecution, they did not sue, they were happy they were worthy to suffer for Christ. yet, today's Christiansrun to the courts, very unhappy that they might suffer for the sake of the Savior.

[brosmith]

Why would a truly born again child of God want to even go to a state university for counseling training? It is illogical, unethical, and unbiblical.

[John81]

Why would a truly born again child of God want to even go to a state university for counseling training? It is illogical, unethical, and unbiblical.

Others here have said, in different threads, that such is necessary for certain careers. I would think that perhaps that might be a sign one should check carefully as to whether the career they are pursuing is something they are sure God wants them to do or if they are rather following their own goals. With regards to the career of counseling, they should also ask themselves if they plan to be an openly Christian counselor or just another general counselor.

Unfortunately, many Christian and Bible colleges today bring much secular material into their counseling programs that are not compatible with the Bible.

[chev1958]

When the apostles suffered persecution, they did not sue, they were happy they were worthy to suffer for Christ. yet, today's Christians run to the courts, very unhappy that they might suffer for the sake of the Savior.

Paul used his legal rights as a Roman citizen to avoid punishment for violating the law at that time. In Acts 16, when he was being released from prison, he insisted that the ones who imprisoned him come down to release him. In Acts 22, he used his status as a Roman to stop the scourging he was receiving from the captain of the guard. While he didn't technically "sue," he still used the legal system to protect himself.

1 Corinthians 6 deals with lawsuits between believers, which Paul says we shouldn't do as a testimony to the world. As Christians, we should settle our differences without going to secular court, since the world doesn't understand spiritual things.

The Bible doesn't say anything about Christians never using the legal system. In fact, Romans 13 tell us that God instituted government to administer justice. If you had an auto accident and your insurance company refused to pay, would you not go to court to force them to live up to their agreement? How can the God-ordained government administer justice if the injustice is not brought to its attention?

The apostles were breaking the law by preaching Christ. They knew it and they knew what the consequences were. They decided to defy man's law and follow God, which is what all Christians should do. They were imprisoned for breaking the law. Christians who break the law should be prepared to pay the penalties.

However, this student has a legal right as an American to practice her religion freely, and she is suffering for it. The school is breaking the law by trying to silence her. Therefore, she is using the God-ordained government to correct this injustice, just like Paul did.

[Guest]

Paul used his legal rights as a Roman citizen to avoid punishment for violating the law at that time. In Acts 16, when he was being released from prison, he insisted that the ones who imprisoned him come down to release him. In Acts 22, he used his status as a Roman to stop the scourging he was receiving from the captain of the guard. While he didn't technically "sue," he still used the legal system to protect himself.

1 Corinthians 6 deals with lawsuits between believers, which Paul says we shouldn't do as a testimony to the world. As Christians, we should settle our differences without going to secular court, since the world doesn't understand spiritual things.

The Bible doesn't say anything about Christians never using the legal system. In fact, Romans 13 tell us that God instituted government to administer justice. If you had an auto accident and your insurance company refused to pay, would you not go to court to force them to live up to their agreement? How can the God-ordained government administer justice if the injustice is not brought to its attention?

The apostles were breaking the law by preaching Christ. They knew it and they knew what the consequences were. They decided to defy man's law and follow God, which is what all Christians should do. They were imprisoned for breaking the law. Christians who break the law should be prepared to pay the penalties.

However, this student has a legal right as an American to practice her religion freely, and she is suffering for it. The school is breaking the law by trying to silence her. Therefore, she is using the God-ordained government to correct this injustice, just like Paul did.

Yes. However, this young woman needs to be in prayer and scripture to see if this is God's answer to her chosen career field. In other words has God told her to get out of this apparently perversion preferring profession. A plus to your comments!

[JerryNumbers]

Paul used his legal rights as a Roman citizen to avoid punishment for violating the law at that time. In Acts 16, when he was being released from prison, he insisted that the ones who imprisoned him come down to release him. In Acts 22, he used his status as a Roman to stop the scourging he was receiving from the captain of the guard. While he didn't technically "sue," he still used the legal system to protect himself.

1 Corinthians 6 deals with lawsuits between believers, which Paul says we shouldn't do as a testimony to the world. As Christians, we should settle our differences without going to secular court, since the world doesn't understand spiritual things.

The Bible doesn't say anything about Christians never using the legal system. In fact, Romans 13 tell us that God instituted government to administer justice. If you had an auto accident and your insurance company refused to pay, would you not go to court to force them to live up to their agreement? How can the God-ordained government administer justice if the injustice is not brought to its attention?

The apostles were breaking the law by preaching Christ. They knew it and they knew what the consequences were. They decided to defy man's law and follow God, which is what all Christians should do. They were imprisoned for breaking the law. Christians who break the law should be prepared to pay the penalties.

However, this student has a legal right as an American to practice her religion freely, and she is suffering for it. The school is breaking the law by trying to silence her. Therefore, she is using the God-ordained government to correct this injustice, just like Paul did.

Ac 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Ac 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

How about Peter and the others, did they sue.

No, yet today Christians turn to the court to keep from suffering for their beliefs in God, no happiness in the suffering for the sake of their God.

Did Paul sue for money? To in rich himself? No. And in todays world, does anyone use the court to preach God's Word as Paul did, or to gain money.

Jas 5:11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
1Pe 3:14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
1Pe 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified

Oh how today's people, Christians and all, loves the courts and the enrichment they can receive. And when done wrong, they strike back, never turning the other cheek. Yet I will add, to be Christ like in such situation, it takes faith.

[John81]

Ac 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Ac 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

How about Peter and the others, did they sue.

No, yet today Christians turn to the court to keep from suffering for their beliefs in God, no happiness in the suffering for the sake of their God.

Did Paul sue for money? To in rich himself? No. And in todays world, does anyone use the court to preach God's Word as Paul did, or to gain money.

Jas 5:11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
1Pe 3:14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
1Pe 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified

Oh how today's people, Christians and all, loves the courts and the enrichment they can receive. And when done wrong, they strike back, never turning the other cheek. Yet I will add, to be Christ like in such situation, it takes faith.

You do raise an interesting point Jerry. When the apostles were engaged within the legal system, they used it as a means of pointing to Christ. When defending his position, Paul put forth the Gospel. Today when we read of a Christian in the courts it's all about the person doing the suing. They "my rights have been violated", they talk about how this will affect them, their career, their future. While some of this may be true, where is Christ in all this? Are we not to lay down ourselves and put on Christ? Are we not to do all for His glory and honour? Where is the proclamation of the Gospel? Why do so many Christian groups rally around each case like this when most often it actually has little or nothing to do with Christ?

Recall how quickly so many Christian groups rallied around the "Christian" pagaent woman who was booted from the pagaent. Then it comes to light this woman certainly wasn't conducting herself as a Christian. Even then, many Christian groups backed her and kept pushing the legal fight. Then more and more of her real self became known and it wasn't Christ honouring at all.

American Christians have put far too much into worldly fights and this worldly life. There are so many Christian groups out there spending millions of dolars and countless hours of time pursuing legal battles yet the Gospel isn't being proclaimed and these Christians aren't seen as being the light and salt.

It's little wonder so many view Christians negatively when they don't see Christ in them but instead they see pursuit of political control and court victories. Are we really putting Christ first and honouring Him when we pour such an abundance of our time and treasure into such things or are we pursuing our own interests while neglecting to live Christ for all to see?