Christianity Is Not Private But A Bakery Is
I am fisking only parts of the article. Those who want to read the whole article by Clark are encouraged to go to the site provided.
Despite the 1st amendment and his (Constitutional) oath, Sen. Schumer (D-New York) says that religious Americans have a choice: hold their religious faith or go into business but, according to Sen. Schumer, religious people cannot both practice their faith and conduct business in America. Why on earth would an American senator, who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of United States say such a remarkable thing?
Note here at the outset that Dr. R. Scott Clark (RSC) begins his article outraged that a sitting Senator is speaking against religious freedom in the common realm and ends the article complaining that Natural law is not being followed in the common realm. It sounds to me what RSC is really upset about is that his religion (Natural law as he interprets it) is not being allowed in the common realm.
Also, note, that R2K has consistently insisted that the common realm is common and that the common realm is grounded in Natural law and not religion. Well, if that is true then RSC should hardly complain that Sen. Chuck Schumer is getting rid of religious freedom since the common realm is not religious conditioned. How is it possible to have “religious freedom” in a common realm where religion doesn’t exist?
Thirdly keep in mind that it is R. Scott Clark who has said “good riddance” when speaking of the demise of Christendom. Well, the flooding of the common square with those things that the Westminster-California objects to is but the natural consequence of ridding ourselves of Christendom.
Clark complains,
The first part of the answer is that, in the modern period, as I explained my post for Independence Day 2014, it became a given in the modern period that religion is an essentially private, theoretical matter. With this assumption, politicians and policy makers assume that when the founders spoke of religious freedom—when they think about the original intent of the founders—they were speaking about the right to hold private religious views. Many of those who make our laws and write the policies by which we live seem to have never come into contact with anyone who does more than hold private religious beliefs. This shapes the world within which politics and policy are formed. Further, as several writers have noted recently, as the federal government grows and becomes more involved in our daily lives, the less freedom citizens have to practice their religious convictions. When the federal government was smaller (before the Great Society) and therefore less intrusive there were fewer opportunities for such a collision. Now, the collision between government and religious conviction is not only inevitable but a daily occurrence.
Bret offers,
The whole burden of R2K has been to sanitize the common realm of the Christian religion and now that it has succeeded in that venture Clark wants to complain that the State wants to sanitize the common realm of the Christian religion? We have had it from some friends or students of Clark that Bestiality should not be legislated against, and that same sex civil unions could be supported by Christians or that Brothers marrying Sisters is a legitimate possibility and now Clark wants to raise his voice against a US Senator who likewise believes that private religious beliefs be only private?
For Pete’s sake, R2K has been telling us for at least a decade now that religion is essentially a private, theoretical matter when it comes to the common realm. Why should we be surprised that now Sen. Schumer agrees with Irons, Van Drunen, Horton, and Clark et. al.?
Thirdly, note that RSC can’t seem to connect the dots between his “good riddance to Christendom” and the rise of the Messiah State. Only Biblical Christianity, with its Jurisdictionalism, can provide a bulwark against Messianic Statism. It is not an accident that the power of the Messiah State has grown as Christendom has gone into abeyance.
RSC bemoans,
The second part of the answer is really a question. How did it come to be that, in America, a nation founded on the principle of the right of relatively unencumbered religious practice, in which civil and religious freedom was defined not as “agreeing with the majority” or “agreeing with the reigning political party” but rather “the relative absence of civil restriction” that a politician would feel free to say what Sen. Schumer said? The Bill of Rights used to be sacrosanct in American politics. Even the biggest of the Big Government Democrats in the 1960s (e.g., Hubert Humphrey) would never have said what Sen. Schumer said. The world seems to have been turned upside down. God (he’s out), mother (unless she’s a Lesbian), and apple pie (only if it’s fair trade) all seem to be politically incorrect today.
Bret queries,
Clark asks how did these things come to be? We answer, “because we have surrendered notions of Christendom in favor of notions of the Messianic State.” Where now your “Good riddance to Christendom” Dr. Clark?
Secondly, R2K has wanted God and His explicit law out, in terms of the common realm, since Lee and Misty Irons were brought before a Church court. Oh, sure … R2K is all for Natural Law being “in” but for R2K God and the idea of Christian Family (Mom) has been politically incorrect, for the common realm, from the beginning.
Clark presses on,
As I’ve been arguing for a while, we are experiencing some unintended consequences from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We can see these consequences in Sen. Schumer’s remarks. By going into business, by forming a corporation, according to the senator, one’s property is no longer his. It is no longer private. This is part of the reasoning behind forcing bakers and photographers to serve homosexual weddings. When homosexual couples use the strong arm of the state (and when courts support them) they are saying that one may privately think that homosexuality is sin but one is no longer free to act on their conviction.
Steven F. Hayward explains how the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s has been corrupted. As a matter of fact, Dr. King believed that homosexuality was unnatural, a disorder. Only a few years ago our president was opposed to homosexual marriage, he said, because of his Christian convictions. In other words, as late as 2012 it was culturally permissible in as late as to form policy on the basis of one’s religious convictions and to act on that policy but in 2014 it is not. That is a cultural Blitzkrieg. Hayward traces the roots of the loss of the freedom of association and the free use of private property (including one’s business) to the attempt to redress slavery.
Bret,
Long ago the Messianic state overthrew the Constitution’s recognition of the pre-existing right we call the freedom of association. It stands to reason, by the reasoning of the Messianic State, that if we are not allowed freedom of association because of one type of perceived barrier then we should not be allowed freedom of association because of another kind of perceived barrier. Given RSC’s R2K convictions I really don’t know what he is complaining about? The Messianic State has said that nature teaches that freedom of association is archaic. What is he complaining about if the Messianic State broadens its boundaries for disallowed freedom of association? Christendom is dead. Good riddance.
RSC offers,
The American solution is to recognize that bakeries and photography shops are private property. They may serve whom they will. They are not tax-funded public entities (e.g., busses and trains). Unless we recognize the fundamental right of private property owners to act according to conscience the American definition of civil liberty is dead. At the same time, secularists and Christians alike must recognize that religious convictions are not merely privately held beliefs without public consequences.
Bret
This is rich. One of the most rabid defenders of R2K — a “theology” that insists upon the maintenance of the religiously common realm — is insisting that religious convictions are more than privately held beliefs and that said religious convictions have public consequences.
RSC embraces Peyote smoking in order to restore private property rights
In an attempt to shame us into repudiating the notion that religious beliefs have public consequences some critics have attempted a reductio ad absurdum: if we allow Hobby Lobby not to provide abortifacients to employees or photographers not to serve homosexual weddings, what then? We shall have allow Native Americans to smoke peyote. Using the ghoulish Lemon Test, the Supreme Court (1990) has held that there is not a right to use peyote, even if for religious purposes. Nevertheless, in the interests of maximizing religious and civil liberty, I would support permitting the religious use of peyote if that’s the price we must pay to regain the freedom to act according to conscience. If the use of peyote renders one unemployable (because of intoxication), that is not the employer’s problem. It is reasonable to expect employees to be able to be employed and employable. What about polygamy? A natural law argument can be made against both homosexual marriage and, on similar grounds, polygamy. Both are contrary to the nature of marriage. The state may license unaided human flight but it is still against the laws of nature. Anyone who tries it will suffer the consequences. So it is with homosexual marriage. Courts may license it but such marriages are legal fictions.
Bret,
You heard here first folks. Dr. Clark is for legalizing all drug usage that is religious if Christian businesses are allowed to refuse sodomite customers.
(Wait a minute Scott, per your R2K I didn’t think it was possible for photographer or bakers to practice their craft as Christians? If it is not possible for businesses to be Christian why are you so worried about their religious convictions in the public square? Shouldn’t you be telling these Christians to “get over it?”)
Scott weighs in,
Why may the state regulate homosexual marriage but not compel a private business to serve a homosexual marriage? The state has no compelling interest in compelling a private business to associate with (by doing business) or endorsing a homosexual marriage. No one has a natural right to my cake or my services as a photographer—unless of course we’ve abolished the very notion of private property. Until I sell it to you, the cake and my services are mine. They are not yours. That’s why we have laws on the books against theft. There is a fundamental difference between mine and yours. We all learned that in kindergarten. Apparently Sen. Schumer missed that session?
Bret answers,
And the state does have a compelling interest in regulating sodomite marriage?
If the State does have a compelling interest in regulating sodomite marriage then I would suggest that, by the Messianic State’s reasoning, it also has a interest in compelling a private business to associate with (by doing business) and endorsing sodomite marriage. The Messianic State, upon their premises, can argue that as all citizen should be treated equally, no citizen has a right to refuse service to another citizen service upon any pretext concerning the person with whom they are doing business. Sodomites have every right to the cake-makers cake as any other person has a right to the cake-makers cake. R2K teaches us that Christian cake-making is a myth after all and so since there is no such thing as Christian cake-making there likewise should be no such thing as common realm cake makers having a right to deny service. Christendom is dead. Good riddance.
RSC throws dust in the air when he talks about “theft.” I’m sure that the Messianic State will require all customers they are forced to do business with to pay for any services rendered.
RSC opines,
In contrast, the state has a compelling interest in limiting what sorts of marriages may be contracted. No one has a fundamental right to do things that are contrary to nature.
Bret queries,
Who says that the state has a compelling interest in limiting what sorts of marriage may be contracted?
By what standard are we saying that no one has a fundamental right to do things that are contrary to nature? Is it nature that is the standard and if so and if I’m a sodomite I’m insisting that this is a serious misreading of nature.
And besides, by R2K reasoning, this idea that RSC has put forward is merely a religious shibboleth of RSC’s that has no place in the common realm.
RSC offers,
Thus, incest is properly illegal. Pedophilia is properly illegal because it is contrary to nature. Bestallity is properly illegal. This is why suicide is properly illegal—not because it is immoral or sinful but because it is contrary to nature. Humans do not have a fundamental right to murder others or themselves. No society, as the Netherlands shall soon discover, can legally sanction suicide and survive. One Dutch physician writes, “Deliberate termination of life of newborns (involuntary euthanasia) with meningomyelocele (MMC) is practiced openly only in the Netherlands.” A society that gave legal approval to bestiality could not be cohesive even if gave the broadest possible definition to the word. Imagine a man and his bestial “wife” checking in to a hotel. Now, that’s absurd. The family is a natural, creational institution and these practices, even as they are gaining approval among some influential intellectuals, are destructive of any sense of family. In other words, if we are going to live together, there must be basic rules common to a society if it is to retain that title. Otherwise we shall have descended into a Hobbesian state of nature.
Bret
Apparently there is disagreement among the R2K lads about matters like incest, bestiality and pedophilia because some of them have said that the state supporting these issues is most certainly not a absurd position.
Here is R2K Pastor and Westminster-California Grad Todd Bordow on the non absurdness of Beastiality in the common square,
“Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state’s role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don’t want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That’s allowed. That is the distinction. Another example – beastiality (sic) is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I’m content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality (sic) laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions,(sic) that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world.”
Here is R2K Doctor and Westminster-California Professor Dr. Michael Horton on the non absurdness of Sodomy in the common square,
““Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.”
Again,
“The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.”
And another graduate of Westminster-California, Rev. Steve Lehrer, has offered in the book, “New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered.” — pg. 154
“Suppose that it were legal in our country for a man to marry his sister. If this were the case, and a man who attended your church wanted to marry his sister, would your church perform the wedding?”
Answer
“We need to get our initial shivers and our “yuck, ick, disgusting” first reactions out of the way. . . . In the New Covenant Scriptures no mention is made of the impropriety of marrying one’s sister. Although the practice is illegal in many countries, which makes it sinful for Christians living in those countries to do (Romans 13:1), it seems that if you and your sister are both believers and you live in a country that deems marriage between siblings to be a lawful practice, then your marriage would be holy in God’s sight.”
Apparently absurdity is in the eye of the R2K beholder.
Further, is RSC trying to tell us that all things contrary to nature are illegal because ipso facto if is contrary to nature it is immoral and sinful? Really, what Scott is saying here is that if something is contrary to nature then it is, by definition, immoral and sinful. Yet Scott wants us to believe he doesn’t have a problem with something immoral and sinful in the common realm though he draws the line at something contrary to nature. (Insert rolling eyes icon.)
Incest, Pedophilia, Bestiality, and Suicide are bad not because they are immoral or sinful but because they are against nature? Really? I can’t wait to preach that.
“Incest, Pedophilia, Bestiality, and Suicide are bad, not because they are in violation of God’s law, but rather they are bad because they are in violation of nature.”
A few questions for Dr. Scott given this last paragraph,
1.) Who says that survival and cohesiveness are according to nature?
2.) By what standard does RSC measure “absurd,” and is he saying that “absurd” is immoral and sinful? How does he know?
3.) Where do these “basic rules” come from if not from some kind of religious presupposition RSC?
4.) RSC calls for Nature to be the ruling standard but then turns around and complains about the Hobbesian state of nature? What gives RSC? Why complain about Hobbes? Isn’t his judgment of Nature as valued as yours?
Finally, the family indeed is a Creational institution but as Creation fell and all the institutions along with it, Family must be restored by Grace, and as such this Creational institution can only find its true self as it finds itself, as part of nature, restored by Grace.
Scott finishes,
We should all hope that Sen. Schumer and all who think as he does on these issues will reconsider the history of the Republic and the violence that must be done not only to our constitutional documents and principles but also to the very idea of liberty itself. They may get their wish and banish religious objections but they may come to regret it when their most deeply held and formerly protected convictions are also sacrificed on the same altar. To what will Sen. Schumer appeal then, when his basic liberties as well as ours have rubbished?
Bret responds,
1.) They will never banish all religious objections. That is not their goal. The goal of Schumer and Reid and people like him is to banish all Christian objections. This is the character of the Messianic State. Christendom is dead Scott. Good riddance.
2.) R2K has a “Theology” has contributed to the creation of this fecal sandwich all Biblical Christians are being forced to eat. Dr. R. Scott Clark has been one of the major proponents of R2K. I think he should just get used to the consequences of his “theology.”