Tag Archives: family values

Religion and Politics

The Ninth Amendment is Your Amendment, Too

The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This amendment is in danger of being forgotten and abandoned as the US government makes serious efforts to pretend that the text of the Constitution is “living and breathing,” which is to say, that the text is subject to reinterpretation in the light of a contemporary government agenda that is unconstitutional. Citizens need to be assertive about the rights protected by this amendment. The recent denial of refugee status to the Romeike family who fled Germany because the German government prohibits them from teaching their children any values that the government does not approve is an example of the potential for an unenumerated right to be suppressed and lost.

The crux of the matter in the US lies in the intention of the Founders who worded the Constitution specifically to limit the power and growth of the federal government. Students of American history will recall that prior to the American Revolution, the thirteen colonies that ultimately broke away from the British Empire were governed as if each was a nation of its own – a colonial nation, but a nation, nonetheless. If one views a map of Africa today, one will see several nations along the west coast of Africa which once were colonies in the British Empire. When those colonies obtained independence, each stood alone in the effort to become independent, and each stood alone after independence. In North America, the thirteen British colonies along the east coast of the continent worked in concert under the leadership of a gathering of representatives from each colony, a group which called itself the Continental Congress. Each colony functioned as an independent state which chose to cede some of its power and sovereignty to the group which chose George Washington to head their military efforts. The colonists used the term “state” in the sense of being an autonomous, sovereign nation in its own right. After the Revolution, the former colonies continued to think of themselves as independent nations which simply ceded some authority and power to the group in order to achieve better military defense and to protect international and interstate commerce. At no time did those states believe themselves to be departments of the federation. At no time did they believe that they or their citizens had surrendered any rights and powers to the federal government except the ones named in the Constitution and its amendments. During the circulation of the Constitution for purposes of ratification, the Ninth Amendment was proposed precisely for the purpose of preventing the loss of unenumerated rights. The federal government was to be limited to the powers enumerated, but the citizens were not to be limited in that manner.

The Ninth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights passed during the First Congress after ratification of the Constitution, was intended to assert and reaffirm the fact that the Constitution only named rights and powers which the states had ceded to the federal government. The Ninth Amendment, more than any other words in the Founding documents, asserts that citizens of the United States of America have broad and comprehensive freedom to manage their own affairs without interference from the government.  The men who created the Constitution actually believed that human freedom including a vast treasure of human rights was bestowed on every human being by God himself. Those who wrote and those who voted to enact and those who ratified the Ninth Amendment would be appalled to hear a contemporary Attorney General of the United States of America say that no liberty was lost by anyone if a law that cancelled a basic human right applied equally to everyone.

This notion is the logic behind the recent denial of refugee status to the Romeike family. The family fled Germany because German law forbids parents to educate their children themselves and specifically forbids them to teach any alternate social or moral value system different from that of the state. The law dates back to the Nazi era and is a deliberate expression of the Nazi view that children belonged to the state, not to their parents. The law is enforced by forbidding parents to homeschool their children, and enforcement extends to measures such as huge fines and even the loss of parents’ custodial rights to their children, who are removed from the home and placed with families who agree to comply with the law requiring children to attend state-operated schools.

The Romeikes are being denied refugee status because the Attorney General of the United States of America does not recognize a universal human right which is protected in the United States by the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution. It could be anyone. It could be you. The fact is that in the United States, education is compulsory everywhere, for good reason, but in the United States, there is currently no prohibition against homeschooling. Until now, every parent in the USA had every reason to believe that the Ninth Amendment protected the right of parents to choose and control the education of their children. Even though education is compulsory, the parents have the right to control the content of that education, including the right to educate their own children according to their own values. For American citizens, the universal right of parents to control the education of their own children has meant that families who object to the teaching of homosexual practices have the freedom to homeschool their children and teach their own values in sex education. Families who believe that God created the universe in which we live, and that God created the first and all subsequent human beings, may homeschool their children and include that teaching in the children’s education. Parents who believe that their children need the freedom to pray openly during the school day as part of the education process can homeschool their children in that environment. To date, the Ninth Amendment has upheld the universal human right for parents to control the education of their children.

Interestingly, both the USA and Germany are signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in Article 26, section 3, “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” Obviously the national commitment of Germany to the rights contained in this Declaration has not extended to its law controlling education. While some citizens may have thought that the fact that the US signed that declaration meant that parental control of the education of their children is protected, the evidence of the Romeike case suggests otherwise.

In the United States, for most of its history, education was managed locally and within the states. Only since the inception of the federal Department of Education has the federal government extended its tentacles into local schools. The demands and mandates delivered and enforced upon public schools around the nation would have no effect if the schools dissociated themselves from federal money, but the perceived need for money has led the schools to give away their own rights, and with them the rights of parents to have a voice in their children’s education. As a result, there arises the specter of a Congress which might have the same view of this human right as the current Attorney General. A Congress which believed that if a human right is denied to all people equally, then it is not persecution, might very well pass a law that forbade American parents to homeschool their own children, and American parents might be at risk of arrests, fines and loss of custody of their children, just like the Romeike family. Where will that family go in all the world to find a country that actually enforces the protection of the universal human right for parents to control the education of their children? If they cannot be granted refuge in the land of the Ninth Amendment, then where will they go?

Christians have a profound reason to be concerned about this. Christians need to recognize that when they assert their First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religion, they may not be able to claim that protection for the education of their children. Certainly most Christians believe that God expects parents to educate their children in the faith. The attitude of the current Attorney General suggests that he does not share that understanding of the “free exercise” of religion. Likewise, the narrowly worded conscience exemption for employers who object to the mandate to provide contraception, sterilization and abortion as preventive health services in an employee insurance package points to a very narrow interpretation of the meaning of religion and the meaning of the exercise of religion by the federal government. Christians would be very wise to include prayer on this subject in their daily prayers. However, it seems likely that God would act on those prayers through human beings obedient to his call to speak up and speak out for the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment as well as all the rights protected by the First Amendment.

When the Constitution was being circulated among the states for the purpose of ratification, many people were concerned because it did not enumerate all the possible rights that might need to be protected. The original authors of the Constitution responded to this concern at first by pointing out that the Constitution defined a government of limited powers.  They recognized that people feared the possibility that if something were not forbidden to the federal government, it would assert its authority there and claim that no law prevented its doing so. Many is the child who has engaged in destructive anti-social behavior and claimed the right to do so, because “there is no law against it.” The authors of the Constitution specifically designed the Constitution to list the powers of the federal government, and their understanding of the document was that if a power were not granted to the federal government, then the federal government did not have that power.

Other people claimed that in the absence of a prohibition, aggressive and assertive political leaders would encroach on the powers of the states and the rights of the people, perhaps in the name of some universal good, but nevertheless in violation of the intent of the Constitution. Fortunately for the country, those wiser voices prevailed. The Ninth Amendment was written to assure that people could not be deprived of any of their natural rights due to a failure to list them in the Constitution. A reading of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will immediately confirm the problem of listing all the rights people possess by virtue of their being human. The Founders were wise not to attempt it as part of the discussion of the design of government for the thirteen new states in the United States of America.

A refugee from persecution in some other country is not considered a citizen of the United States of America, and that means that the Constitution does not give the refugee the rights of a citizen. The protection of universal human rights within the Constitution and other founding documents, however, implies a respect for those rights. It is our respect for those rights that creates a sense of obligation to identify individuals and families fleeing persecution by governments that ignore or defy the existence of those rights. A refugee who has fled for his life from a country where his faith or his political views make him a target for violence will find safe haven here. A refugee who is not only forbidden free exercise of his faith but is also at risk of imprisonment and torture in attempts to compel him to recant will find safe haven in the USA. It is hard to believe that parents who flee a government that has assessed huge fines and threatened the kidnapping of their children because it does not protect the universal right for parents to control the education of their children would be deported back to the very government which has threatened them.

Christians must care about the protection of fundamental, universal human rights. The right of Christian citizens in the USA is at risk as certainly as the rights of refugees seeking asylum. Even if this case were centered on an atheist family fleeing persecution in Bhutan or Buddhist family fleeing persecution in Uzbekistan, Christians should be concerned. When the Attorney General of the USA says that a law that suppresses free exercise of the right of parents to control the education of their children does not create persecution as long as it prohibits everyone equally, then something is terribly wrong. Christians must pray about this problem, but Christians must act to assert protection of the God-given responsibility to educate children in the values of the parents. Ignore this problem at your peril.

Cultural Restriction

Can Christians Impact Cultural Change?

2 Comments

The culture of the USA is a toxic stew of issues that challenge Christian values. Some of the issues challenge the values of other religious groups as well. Without any intent to diminish the concerns of other groups, this blog focuses on the concerns of Christians. The purpose of this blog is to inform Christians about the issues that challenge Christian faith and to inspire Christians to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their responses. It is a call to Christians in the USA to recognize their civic duty as voters to be informed of the issues that make our country more free or less free, especially relevant to religious liberty, It is a warning to Christians in the USA of the parallels between social and political developments in the US and similar developments which lead to cultural restriction and religious persecution in other countries. It is an exploration of the fine line between the legitimate expression of the views of a citizen with Christian moral views and the illegitimate attempt of a citizen to assert a “right” to win the discussion simply because his views are Christian. Here you will find discussions of issues on which Christians are as divided as the rest of the country. This blog will advocate a viewpoint believed to be in accord with Scripture, but you will not find any advocacy for abrasive, abusive, or aggressive language in the discussion of this viewpoint.

It is very challenging to live by Christian values in a culture that increasing devalues any idea associated with Christian teaching. It is very difficult to discuss issues with other citizens when those citizens attempt to turn the conversation from a discussion of ideas to an assault on every opponent as a selfish, bigoted, brain-dead throwback to prehistoric times. Laws are actually being written that Christians may not be able to obey. If cultural pressure produces legislation in keeping with all the social changes, it may soon be very difficult to live by Christian teaching in the USA.

US Christians who feel threatened by such developments can learn something by looking at what Chinese Christians are doing. Chinese Christians have lived with severe cultural and governmental restrictions since 1949. In 2013, small changes are encouraging Christians in China. There is some light on the horizon both culturally and legally. The government is becoming somewhat less aggressive against Christians. The culture is becoming somewhat more open to the expression of Christian faith. Open Doors International is suggesting to Chinese Christians that they begin to take advantage of tiny openings where they may be able to impact culture and government. The pressures that seem to be slightly subsiding in China are actually increasing for US Christians, and this situation represents a shrinking window of opportunity to influence government and culture, but the same strategies recommended for China should have value in the US. In fact, these strategies have always been part of the way Christians affect culture and government around them.

The key recommendation to Chinese Christians is “to impact their society by embedding Christian values through contextualization and community engagement.” US Christians might argue that Christian values are already embedded in the society, and that Christian values are dominant in most communities. The nation was founded by people who held Christian values, a fact expressed in the Founding documents repeatedly. However, due to major changes in the way the history is taught in schools, many children graduate from public education without a firm grasp of those facts. Due to massive changes in both culture and government during the past fifty years, the curriculum, the standards, the employment policies and the administrative regulations for education are all established at state or federal levels, far from the communities where the schools operate. Media, social and political activist organizations, and even government promote definitions of Constitutional terms and principles that are at odds with the historical interpretations, resulting in growing restrictions on Christian faith expression. Christians must be realistic about the fact that there are and will continue to be changes in the culture and the government. It is not easy for one Christian or even all the Christians in a small community to make an impact in Washington DC.

Christians may need to think creatively about ways to embed Christian values in the society. Probably the first idea that comes to mind is to be sure they rear their children according to Christian values. Unfortunately, there is actually a movement under way to make that plan difficult. Just last week it was suggested that children do not belong to their parents and that the “collective” should take more authority in the way children are brought up. Further, the President of the United States wants children to start school at the age of four, an age when children are extremely malleable. God created children to want to learn, and they most naturally learn from the people with whom they spend their time. In God’s plan, the influential people in a small child’s life would be his parents. Moses warned the Israelites about the importance of teaching the faith to children when he said,    

These words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. Deuteronomy 6:6-7

Making government kindergarten the major influence in the lives of four-year-olds would vastly reduce the ability of parents to shape the values and perceptions of their children according to Christian teaching.

The most important statement in the Open Doors suggestions for Chinese Christians is the most important thing every Christian needs to remember: “Christians need to be encouraged to live out biblical values and show people what it looks like to be followers of Christ.” This is something every Christian ought to write on his heart. In fact, it is so important that a failure to do it is probably at the root of many social and political evils in the US today. Timothy Dalrymple recently wrote, “As our nation struggles to clarify the status of same-sex relationships, it’s all too easy to ignore the fact that the foundation of America’s social, economic and military success has been our society’s broad, voluntary commitment to Judeo-Christian morality.” He develops a strong case for the failure of Christians to live by their own values as a major enabler of the cultural momentum to revise the whole concept of marriage and family, a change of cosmic proportions and apocalyptic portent for human society.

If the future depended on human ability to live like Christ, all hope would be lost. Fortunately, Christians do not believe that the future of the human race is dependent on human perfectibility, as secular thinkers do. The book of Revelation, terrifying images notwithstanding, is actually filled with inspiration and hope for the future. It isn’t a book of pep talks: Hang in there. Never give up. Just do it. Instead, the author of Revelation warns that terrible cataclysms will be the expression of the ultimate war between good and evil in time and space. Hope for the future, however, resides in God’s complete victory over Satan through Christ’s death on the cross. Because Satan himself has already been defeated in the realm of eternity and infinity, the horrific clashes between good and evil in time and space are simply the dying gasps of a defeated enemy. The apparent reality of Satan’s power is transcended by the real reality of Christ’s power through his death and resurrection. Revelation reminds us not to limit our understanding to the measure of our senses.

How does this truth shape our interaction with our culture? Why should we suffer if it is all up to God? The answer is that our battles are important. Our suffering matters in the eternal scheme of things. That is why we go ahead and stand up to socialist activism that wants to snatch children away from their parents, that wants to redefine marriage and family in self-indulgent terms, that demands that we lock God and all references to him inside buildings. God’s purpose for time and eternity requires that we live so close to Christ that he is our only treasure, so that we testify with Paul,

I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. Philippians 3:8-10

Religion and Politics

Who is Forcing Views on Whom?

2 Comments

In any discussion there are at least two opposing views. Else there would be no discussion. Life would move on. The foundation for decisions and plans and aspirations would not need to be named or assumed, because everybody would be in agreement.

 

Yet in the US today, a vicious allegation permeates public discussion of controversial issues, and its purpose is to shut down the conversations. People who hold some viewpoints are accused of trying to “force” their view of morality on other people. People who hold other views are held up as heroes for fighting entrenched oppression and denial of civil rights. Instead of discussion of the various viewpoints and explanations of the foundation for those viewpoints, “discussion” consists of assigning labels and agendas to people who hold opposing views.

 

A common allegation against certain viewpoints is that the person who holds those views is trying to “force” his own religion on everyone else. The implication of that accusation is that viewpoints rooted in religious teachings and experience are unjustified and therefore they have no validity among human beings at large. Vice President Biden stated in a debate that he would not “force” his church’s views about abortion on other people. The message of the statement was that his own moral convictions should not be the basis for his action as a public servant. This concept flies in the face of the teachings of all religions. Religion is always about the way people live, and it does not make sense for someone to claim that a religion rules his life but not his morals in public service.

 

The discussions of marriage, family and abortion are discussions permeated with contentious attitudes that pointedly reject the inclusion of certain viewpoints in the discussions. It is common for people who hold historic views on these issues to be accused of attempting to force religion on everyone else. Secular thinkers in the conversations say that views based in science and reason are legitimate while views based in religious teachings are not legitimate for the public to consider.

 

Secular thinkers believe that all ethical decisions must be based on analysis of human experience. Science collects the information, and reason does the analysis. However, when secular thinkers use science to collect information about marriage, family and abortion, the teachings, experience, and cultural wisdom derived in the context of religion are rejected from the mix of information to be analyzed. Secular thinkers reject the context of religious faith as a legitimate element in the construction of personal or public morality.

 

It is fine for secular thinkers to have their opinions, but Christians, Hindus, Muslims and adherents of religions around the world bring to the public discussion concerns that are the legitimate concerns of society at large. The First Amendment to the Constitution grew out of the recognition that human beings are naturally religious. The numbers of US citizens who claim to be exclusively secular in their views may be growing, but it is actually a very small portion of the population. This minority status does not justify the rest of society being rude to secular thinkers, but it does suggest that Christian views and other views growing out of religious traditions legitimately concern the culture as a whole.

 

When the discussions move from conversation to voting, the numbers who hold specific views matter. The view with the largest number of adherents will win the vote. This is not “forcing” a view on someone. It is the concept of majority rule. Majority rule keeps the peace, even though it may not be perceived as “fair.” (The word fair seems to mean what each person who uses it wants it to mean. It has no value in discussion of the legitimacy of an opinion.)

 

There will always be tension in a culture which is, to use politically correct speech, inclusive and diverse. The tension is best resolved by respect, not by pejorative labels and insulting accusations.   The Constitution of the USA is an example for the whole world of a good way to deal with a culture that is truly a melting pot of religions, ideas, values and social practices. The Constitution provides that the majority wins the day, and the First Amendment to the Constitution provides that opposing ideas, whether secular or religious, may continue to be spoken without fear. The First Amendment assures that the rule of law is enforced in a way that flexes with reasonable accommodations for religious practices that conflict with the law.

 

There is a way to end all the conflict. It is called totalitarianism. One person’s ideas and preferences and values rule everyone. It has been tried over and over, but human beings do not thrive in such an environment. God created human beings to love freedom. Secular thinkers may not agree that God is the origin of the love of freedom, but they cannot argue that it is unnatural. Freedom for all requires respect for all. To differ, to discuss, to vote, and to live by the outcome of the vote is not “forcing” anybody’s views on anyone. It is the best way to live free.

Related articles