Tag Archives: Christian testimony

What is the big deal about the Supreme Court and marriage?

Last Friday night, the White House in Washington, DC, was bathed in the colors of the rainbow as the President of the USA expressed his delight with the decision of the Supreme Court in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. The decision ends with these words:

The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

The words “that right” refer to the alleged right of homosexuals to marriage, a right carved out of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The word them refers to the plaintiffs in the case, all of whom desire to be granted marriage licenses or the recognition of marriage licenses authorizing a union of homosexuals to be called a legal marriage. The judgment that is reversed is an appeals court’s determination that no such right existed.

The lights on the White House and the nationwide frenzy that followed the announcement of the decision celebrate the belief of many that this decision compels every state in the union to recognize and license a union of two gays as if it were a marriage.

Many activists who advocated for this outcome belittled those who pushed back against the whole idea that any union other than that of a man and a woman could be a marriage. Activists scornfully accused Christians of trying to force Christian views on other people when the Christians simply declined to be part of wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. LGBTQ activists, many of whom are atheists, produced complex theological arguments to prove that Christian refusal to participate in a wedding ceremony for a gay couple was hate-powered unwillingness to be loving and Christlike. Blog posts and op-eds tried to equate sexual attraction with Christlike love which, they argued, was all they wanted. In the final paragraph of the decision, Justice Kennedy joined their mournful complaints, saying, “[The hope of the plaintiffs] is not to be con­demned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civiliza­tion’s oldest institutions.”

I respectfully submit that lonely homosexuals are not the only people who suffer loneliness and the desire to cure it with a bizarre sexual union. While we were all treated after the decision to photographs of ecstatic brides kissing brides or grooms kissing grooms, other people whose sexual orientation or gender struggles have not been included in the nationwide conversation were still all alone. If loneliness is the problem, and marriage is the solution, then it must be noted that there are many lonely people besides homosexuals. The trans community. Pedophiles. Polygamists, or wannabe polygamists. A father dating his eighteen-year-old daughter. All of these people are lonely, and every one of them believes that one or more companions in some relationship they want to call a “marriage” would rescue them from loneliness.

Writing the decision of the majority, Justice Kennedy pretends to throw the Constitution a bone carved out of the Fourteenth Amendment, but dissenting opinions by Justices Roberts and Scalia reveal the deceitfulness of that claim. Justice Roberts says:

Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the oppor­tunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

Justice Scalia says:

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so.

Scalia later says:

They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amend­ment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.

Keep your eyes open. Blog posts and news reports already are airing complaints that this new cure for loneliness and new right to same-sex marriage is being applied too exclusively. The cry is simply, “If marriage is for homosexuals, why not for me?” How can you blame them? Where in the 33 pages of the court’s decision do you find any logical justification for denying marriage to any of these people, or to anyone else, for that matter? If marriage is by court decree the cure for loneliness, how can any lonely person be denied that consolation, in whatever form he finds most consoling at the moment?

What is the big deal about the Supreme Court and marriage? The big deal is that redefining marriage sends shock waves into every part of the culture. This decision will shred the fabric of the culture in a thousand different ways. It is hard to imagine anything that will not be touched by redefining the foundation of families.

For Christians, the problem lies in the way the culture perceives religions. The secular view is that a religion is about dealing with concepts labelled “religious” or “spiritual,” all of which secular thinkers confine to defined worship spaces. Christians do not confine their faith inside a church building. They live their faith all day every day wherever they are. For Christians, words and deeds are testimonies to their obedience to Christ. They rely on the Bible for guidance in word and deed. If the Bible tells them that something is a sin, they make diligent efforts to avoid it. Even though no human being is ever sinless, Christians believe that we all have an obligation to Christ to reject sin in our lives.

The big deal is that Christians believe the Bible is their guide for faith and life—life, daily life, not just church service. They read in the Bible that God ordained marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They read that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. The Christian’s call to be Christlike mandates that a Christian not instigate or participate in a union of homosexuals. A Christian who believes and lives by the Bible cannot call a union of homosexuals a marriage.

When Christians are asked to participate in any respect in the formation of such a union, they must decline because of their deeply held religious convictions. Among the things that constitute participation are things like providing flowers or music or wedding cakes or art or other elements that celebrate that union. When Christians decline to take part in a wedding ceremony for homosexuals, they are not trying to prevent the couple from marrying; they are simply declining to be part of that ceremony. They are exercising their faith, living by the principles of their faith, when they take this position. Many people act as if by declining, Christians are attempting to force the couple to join the Christian religion. That misconception creates serious problems with the refusal of Christians to participate in something that the court calls a right established by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment was written to give former slaves all the rights of citizenship. Nothing in that amendment suggests that the Supreme Court is authorized to redefine the social structures of human society. Every citizen has the same privileges and immunities, the same right to due process and equal protection of the laws, according to that amendment. That amendment nowhere redefines marriage. When that amendment was passed, people all over the world agreed that marriage was the union of one man and one woman, and neither the authors of the amendment nor those who ratified it had any notion that within its words lay a new definition of marriage.

There is a huge threat inherent in the decision that extracts a right for homosexuals to marry from the rights in the Fourteenth Amendment. The rights in the Fourteenth Amendment are rights generally classified as Civil Rights. The threat is that while the First Amendment to the Constitution is supposed to protect citizens from state oppression when they act on their convictions, actions that limit or deny Civil Rights have been exempted from First Amendment protection in the past. By redefining marriage within the boundaries of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court’s decision threatens, rather than protects, the right of Christians to live by their faith principles—that is, to exercise their faith. John Roberts in his dissent says:

The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

If the omission of the word “exercise” alarms John Roberts, it certainly alarms me.

The redefinition of marriage by the act of five justices on a court is cause for alarm. The potential changes now implied by the new definition will likely shock even the most avid advocate for same-sex marriage and will certainly horrify many citizens. The implied threat to people who have long held the religious conviction that the unions authorized by this court decision are immoral and sinful is seriously alarming.

That is the big deal about the Supreme Court and marriage.

Championing Religious Liberty is not Equivalent to Testimony to Christ

In the book Infidel author Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks about a time in her life when she was sufficiently enthusiastic in her commitment to Islam that she and her friends became evangelistic. They attempted to lead some Christians to convert to Islam. At the time Ayaan was under the influence of a female teacher of Islam who must have been charismatic. Ayaan calls her Sister Aziza.

Unlike other teachers of Islam who convinced Ayaan over a lifetime that Christians simply need to submit to Islam, Sister Aziza convinced her students the it was their duty to convert Christians. It reminded me of my own childhood, when I first began to worry that my unsaved friends would go to hell. Sister Aziza convinced her students that non-Muslims were destined for hell, and it was the duty of Muslims to lead them away from this fate.

It is the first time, actually the only time, I have ever heard of Muslim evangelism. So far in my life, Muslims have appeared to be uninterested in saving people from hell. They have appeared to be very assertive about converting to Islam, but not because of hell. Rather, the Muslims I have seen actively telling Christians to convert are doing so by threatening the Christians with death if they refuse.

Ayaan, however, and her friends, dutifully made the effort to convert their Christian classmates. To my surprise, the Christian classmates did not respond as I expected. I thought the Christians would tell the Muslim children about Jesus and explain what Jesus did for all people. Instead, the Christian children simply asserted their right to believe something other than Islam. Ayaan writes that the Christian children responded saying, “How would you feel if I tried to make you a Christian?” That seems like a very un-Christian response, since it equates Christian evangelism with forceful conversion, and the equation is being stated by a Christian. If Christians consider that sharing Jesus with people is an attempt to force anyone to do anything, those Christians have a truly skewed view of their own faith.

Ayaan continues by saying that the Christian children “said their parents had taught them about Jesus just as mine had taught me about the Prophet Muhammad, and I should respect their beliefs.” Respect for one another’s beliefs is a prime element of a definition of religious liberty. The assertion of religious liberty is the proper response to efforts at forced conversion or efforts to prevent Christian expression or worship. It seems like a poor response to an evangelistic effort. Without judging either the children or their parents or the teachings of their churches, I nevertheless do not intend to mimic that strategy when someone attempts to convert me to some other faith.

In today’s combative cultural landscape, it is easy to feel that tamping down conflict is the first priority. It is easy to feel that every difference of opinion is intended to initiate conflict and to show a critical attitude toward other opinions. When people feel that way, they often back away from expression of their own convictions. This consideration may have been at the root of parental teaching to the Christian children. While I agree with people who seek to prevent conflict, I do not see that as a legitimate reason to suppress a Christian testimony, especially in the circumstances Ayaan described. Those Muslim children were acting with the best of intentions toward their Christian friends, and it seems to me that the Christian friends missed a great chance to say, “We love you as much as you love us, and we want to share Jesus with you as much as you want to share Muhammad with us.” I obviously do not know what would have happened next, but I do know that throughout the book, I grieved that this author sought all her life for the blessings Jesus gives, but nobody shared them with her. She is not dead, so there is still hope. I pray Ayaan will meet someone who will share Jesus with integrity and touch her heart.

My grief for Ayaan fuels greater concern for all the people I meet. When I am standing in the checkout line at the grocery store, there are usually people in front of me and behind me, as well as a checker, and maybe a bagger, too, whose faith convictions are unknown to me. For some time I have made it a practice to pray silently for all of them, and to watch for any opportunity to testify to Jesus. Sometimes I express a blessing to the checker or to people in line if the opportunity arises. Sometimes I ask the checker how I can pray for him or her. I do make a habit of reading name tags, and I even ask them to uncover the tags when I can’t read them. I say things like, “Judy, may the peace of Christ be with you.” Or I say, “Ed, how can I pray for you?”

I do these things, because I want the thought of Christ to be in their heads, and because I pray that someone with a closer connection will be able to share Jesus with them.

In various sorts of conversations, online or in person, I do encounter people who want to change my mind about many things. So far, nobody has tried to convert me to Islam, but people do try to convert me to support for same-sex marriage or to sympathy for rioters who burn their own towns. When this happens, I cannot reply to such efforts with a demand that the people stop talking to me and show respect for my point of view by not sharing their own. Maybe that kind of response would tamp down the edginess that sometimes develops. Maybe. But I don’t think that is what Jesus would do, and I don’t do it. I state my faith principles, and I do it with a view to sharing the love of Jesus as part of the statement.

Sometimes real anger erupts as a response to my statements. Jesus had the same experience. Think of all the times he approached people possessed by demons and the demons shouted, “I know who you are! What are you doing here?” Satan and his demons still act in and among people. I don’t think a plea for religious liberty will even slow down the work of Satan in the hearts of human beings. I do believe the name of Christ puts makes demons afraid. I think I can promise my readers that if a Muslim ever approaches me to save me from hell, I will reciprocate with a testimony to Christ, not a speech on religious liberty.

By Katherine Harms, author of Oceans of Love available for Kindle at Amazon.com.

Quotations taken from Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, © 2007, New York: Simon&Schuster, pp 83 and 86

Christ has Already Overcome the World

For Christians, life in the USA today feels like a war. There is a reason for that feeling. Jesus told us long ago, “In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33 ESV)

Prayer_Christ _in_the_Garden

The Founders and Framers of the USA were wise men. They were all men of faith, even though they might not all have expressed it in the same way. They all recognized the significance of faith in their own lives, and all were well aware that their lives would have been very different if the original colonists in North America had brought with them the power structure of state churches in the Old World. Some of the most egregious offenses to religious liberty in the New World were simply old bad habits. Some of the colonies had state religions, while others eschewed any such thing. After independence from England, when the colonies recognized that they needed each other for security and trade, they also discussed whether to have a state church. In the government they designed in the Constitution, a national established church was forbidden. State churches in individual states were not forbidden, and some were already in place. However, over time it became clear that the interests of liberty-loving citizens would best be served by keeping the church out of the political structure.

A study of the Bible makes it very clear that when religion integrates with politics and power structures, it becomes like them. Priests, pastors, and any other religious leaders are not immune to the temptations of power. Immersed in the political structures, they start acting like political animals. The oil of political progress, compromise, comes to seem like gospel, and when that happens, the Gospel is discarded in favor of “bipartisanship” or “getting things done.”

This does not mean that laws ought not to embody God’s moral teachings. The Founders never advocated that the nation put religion in a locked box and make up morality as the notions came to them. The people who fought for independence and then wrestled with the concept of self-government believed profoundly in the importance of morality expressed in the lives of citizens, especially in the lives and actions of citizen leaders. They firmly believed that the Constitution was shaped by their faith, and they believed that law and order in the new nation would also be shaped by moral and ethical constructs of people of faith. They did not believe it was wrong to live and act by faith; they did believe that it was wrong for government to tell people what faith they had to live by. The Founders and Framers expected that people would want the body of law in the new nation to have a moral and ethical flavor in keeping with their personal moral and ethical principles. Government of, by and for the people should have the same moral flavor as that of the people governed.

The design of the Constitution means that Christians must influence the culture by being distributed throughout, expressing and acting on faith wherever they are. Jesus said the same thing when he said that we were to be salt and light. Instead of being the power at the top, Christians best influence the culture by being distributed through all the layers of the culture. When ordinary citizens like Crystal O’Connor simply live and act on their faith, the faith is most faithfully preserved and protected, and the culture is most powerfully influenced. As a consequence of her act, people who donated to a crowdfunding project on her behalf cast thousands and thousands of “votes” for faithful obedience to God’s moral teachings.

The crucifixion of Jesus demonstrates what the powers that be in the world will do to expressions of faith. The priests and church leaders were utterly absorbed in the political structure of Jerusalem and the Roman Empire. Their influence as God’s witnesses operated like a mold, not a seasoning. A mold is strong, solid, and unforgiving. A culture pressed into a mold will have all the noncompliant elements carved off. A culture seasoned with the salt and light of faith in Christ promotes the best expression of all the different ingredients.

There is a nonreligion in the USA today that is creating the role of the state church. This religion says that there is a mold all people must fit, or be carved and prodded till they do fit. The peculiar aspect of this nonreligion is that it loves all religions except Christianity. This nonreligion read news that Muslim bakers refused to bake wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies that pretend to be weddings, but the nonreligion was not even interested in hearing about it. There was no Twitter war against a Muslim bakery that rejected participation in homosexual sin.

This nonreligion advocates “interfaith dialogue” where many religions get together, pour all their convictions down the disposal, and agree to adopt the secular language of diversity and inclusion. Instead of worshiping their individual gods, the various religions agree to worship the god of “getting along” by never differing from one another over such trivial issues as a real god or a fake god. Much better to light some candles and hum a meaningless syllable for hours than to fundamentally transform sinful human nature into something better.

Christians will never win this war. Christ wins this war. It is a secular teaching that if you believe something strongly enough you can make it real. Christians do not believe in an idea. Christians do not believe in themselves. Christians believe in Christ. Our faith, our words and our deeds participate in the victory, but they do not bring the victory to pass. Right now, the world is simultaneously trying to ignore us and to clobber us. It will not succeed in either goal, because Christ himself has overcome the world. The world’s apparent victory at times is only temporary. People like Crystal O’Connor participate in the ultimate victory of Christ before it even happens by testifying to their faith by word and deed. May all Christ’s followers be encouraged and motivated to do the same thing. We will not bring the victory of Christ to pass, because on the cross, he has already won the victory. If we fail to testify to it by our faithful words and deeds, it is not Christ who loses. We lose.

By Katherine Harms, author of Oceans of Love available for Kindle at Amazon.com.

Image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABaltasar_de_Echave_Orio_-_The_Prayer_in_the_Garden_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Baltasar_de_Echave_Orio_-_The_Prayer_in_the_Garden_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

By Baltasar de Echave Orio (ca. 1558 – ca. 1623) (Spanish) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Eritrea #9 World Watch List

Flag of Eritrea



For many Christians in Eritrea, the threat of arrest and imprisonment is a daily reality. Since January, at least 120 Christians have been arrested in a renewed crackdown by the government. An estimated 1500 Christians are imprisoned in metal shipping containers and military prison camps across the country.

Eritrean believer Yohannes spent a year in one of these prisons after being arrested at Christian wedding he was attending. Here is his story in his own words…

“We were just entertained with our dinner when suddenly some policemen came to the wedding tent. I started asking them, what was the problem? There was no preaching at that time, there was no Christian music, it was only ceremonial things.

“They told me that they were being told to bring us to prison. I was taken from the wedding ceremony to prison. And I was jailed for more than one year.

“In the prison they used to torture Christians. They tie you in a helicopter position. They make you lie with your face down, then they tie both of your legs with your hands upwards. And they used to paint your face with water mixed with sugar, so that the flies can come and torture you sometimes. This kind of torture is really painful. Some of the Christians become disabled because of this torture.

“In prison, we don’t have the Bible. Some people can secretly help you to get a Bible, but you have to read it in a secret way. If you’re found reading the Bible, you’ll be taken to a solitary place, or to a very small cell where you can’t lie down, you have to stay standing the whole time. And sometimes if they find a Bible, they burn it in front of you.

“At times, they just mix you up with other prisoners, and that is an opportunity to preach the gospel. During this bad time for them, they are very eager and hungry to share the love of Christ. And I saw many, many souls accepting Jesus Christ.

“In my country, as a Christian, going to prison is not a strange thing, it’s a daily threat. So, it’s not a question of if I am going to jail or not, but when I am going. And when the day came, I was not surprised. I was ready for that.

“The problem was with my family, more than with what was happening to me. They had to come to the prison twice a day in order to feed me. And in addition to that, I had a baby while I was in prison, but I was not able to hold my baby, so it was really terrible.

“When I was going through this experience of being in prison, I was always considering that God is on my side. And I was always praying so that He can give me favour in front of those who tormented me, and I asked God, ‘Forgive them.’ I don’t have any bitterness or hatred towards these people.

“As to me, the hope for Eritrea is Jesus. I believe that so many people from this small nation will be missionaries to reach out to these Arab nations surrounding us.

“Sometimes you feel that you are totally neglected, totally forgotten. But I believe the body of Christ is praying for Eritrea for the freedom of religion in our country. And I want to say thank you to the Christian community all over the world.”

Eritrea slumA woman named Wehazit Berhane Debesai is the 25th known person to die for Christ in the wretched prisons of Eritrea, where several thousand people are behind bars because of their faith. But the phrase “behind bars” is a misnomer. At the Me’eter Prison in the Eritrean desert, inmates, mostly Christians, are held in large metal storage containers that become ovens by day and freezers by night where dehydrated victims drink their own sweat and urine to stay alive.

The only hope for satisfaction is to change the government. There have been no elections since the country achieved independence May 24, 1991. The nation has a requirement of compulsory military service for 18 months for every citizen. Currently, it is very difficult to arrange discharge from military service, and desertion is a major crime. Prisoners accused of desertion from military duty receive no better treatment than Christians. The nation is independent, but independence has brought only a different tyranical government.


  • For the hundreds of Eritrean Christians who have been imprisoned for their faith
  • That the government would soften its stance on evangelical Christians and give them the freedom to worship Jesus without restrictions
  • That the rise of Islamic extremism will be stifled in 2015


By Katherine Harms, author of Oceans of Love available for Kindle at Amazon.com using material from http://www.opendoorsuk.org/news/stories/eritrea_130429.php

Image: Flag of Eritrea
Courtesy of Free-Country-Flags
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported


Image: Eritrea Slum Source: http://www.opendoorsuk.org/persecution/worldwatch/eritrea.php
Used by permission 



When in Doubt, What do you Do?

pediatrician with baby edited

A generally accepted principle of Christian living is that when people feel confused about the right thing to do, they should prayerfully look for an answer in the Bible. Christians are taught that the Bible is clear enough for a child to understand important teachings, and there is plenty of evidence of this truth. Christians also discover, as they mature in the faith, that there is depth and complexity in the Bible that baffles people with astronomical IQs. There is plenty of evidence of this truth as well. For this reason, Christians learn to look for mentors to help them prayerfully study the Bible and listen for God’s guidance. It all boils down to a problem: people of faith may or may not agree on the right thing to do in every situation.

Recently a pediatrician, Dr. Vesni Roi, in Michigan was faced with a situation in which she was uncertain what to do. Two lesbian women who live together in a union they call a marriage selected her for the care of a child yet to be born. The article that reports the story does not make it quite clear who would give birth to the baby. The articles do report that after reviewing the credentials of numerous pediatricians, the two women decided to ask Dr. Rio to care for the child.

When the time came for the child’s first visit, six days after birth, the women were told that Dr. Roi had decided not to accept the baby as her patient. She referred them to another pediatrician in the same practice. She explained in a handwritten note to the women that her decision was made after considerable prayer. Her expressed reason for the decision was stated in her note: “I feel that I would not be able to develop the normal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients.” While the note never mentions the issue of homosexual union, the two women consider the decision to be a rejection of homosexuality, even though as one of them pointed out, it could not be about the sexual orientation of the baby, since the baby was too young to have expressed any sexual orientation. Since all conversation about the care of a newborn would necessarily take place with the adult (or adults) charged with the care of the child, it makes sense to conclude that, when the doctor referred to the “patient doctor relationship” in her note, she was saying that she did not feel she could have the same relationship with the two women that she would normally have with the parents or guardians of a child in her care.

Why would she feel this way?

Dr. Roi’s bio includes earning an undergraduate degree from Livonia’s Madonna College, a private Catholic school, in 1987. While graduation from a Catholic institution does not necessarily mean that she is Catholic, her behavior suggests strong Christian background. Secular thinkers do not pray through moral and ethical decisions. If it is proper to conclude that her concern about the patient doctor relationship is rooted in the homosexual lifestyle of the two women, it seems highly likely that Catholic teaching of Christian principles for life figured in her choice. No reports consulted as background for this post ventured to say one way or the other.

The central issue appears to be whether a person of faith who engages in the normal Christian practice of praying about a decision is justified in acting on the guidance received that way. Can the culture permit people of faith to act on the guidance they receive through prayer? Or, must the culture suppress the free exercise of religion if it hurts someone’s feelings? The uproar surrounding this story makes it clear that some people believe that nobody has the right to do what Dr. Roi did. Some even appear to believe that there should be a law forbidding Dr. Roi to make such a choice.

While secular thinkers leap from Dr. Roi’s action to allegations of discrimination, that is a very simplistic reaction to the story. Dr. Roi is a person of faith who did what people of faith do. Christianity is not the only faith that turns to prayer for guidance in making decisions, but in the US, it is probably the most visible religion that considers prayer vital to faith. Dr. Roi prayed about her decision.

Since secular thinkers reject the existence of God, they have no use for decisions based on communion with God, but among Christians, this practice is, nevertheless, central to the faith. Sermons, books, seminars, devotional guides and discipleship mentors all teach Christians to pray when they do not know what to do in any situation. Dr. Roi demonstrated that she not only believes in prayer, but she also acts on prayer. Many is the Christian who has, on one occasion or another, expressed regret that, having prayed about a matter, he did not act according to the guidance received. Dr. Roi engaged in prayer according to the full definition of prayer; she asked for guidance, and she listened until she received it.

Dr. Roi is living her faith. That is exactly what the First Amendment to the Constitution is written to protect. The Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” To pray and to act on the guidance received is the free exercise of religion. American citizens all should applaud the fact that the Constitution is working exactly as it should in Dr. Roi’s case.

One more point. The two women who wanted Dr. Roi to care for a baby felt hurt by Dr. Roi’s decision. There is no question that such a thing would hurt anyone’s feelings. However, part of being an adult is learning to deal with hurt feelings. Hurt feelings do not justify tyrannizing a nation. In this case, not only are the hurt feelings not justification for tyranny, but there is also a completely satisfactory solution for the problem. Even though the two women do not get exactly what they wanted, they will get what they need. They were referred to a competent doctor, and their disappointment in not getting their first choice does not justify an attempt to deny free exercise of the faith of a citizen.

The important issue in this story is that citizens of the United States of America have the right to live their faith. If Dr. Roi had alleged that God told her to beat the women or kill the child they care for, nobody would believe that she was exercising her faith. It would be an exercise in madness. However, Dr. Roi simply listened to God in prayer and acted responsibly, not leaving the women without care for the baby but actually making a professional referral to a well-qualified colleague, something she is entitled to do for any reason whatsoever.

May God protect and sustain the freedom he has given each citizen in the USA. May it long remain the land of the free.

By Katherine Harms, author of Oceans of Love available for Kindle at Amazon.com.

Image: Pediatrician with baby
License: Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License
Photographer not named