Print 
PDF
Shakespeare asked, "What's in a name?"
His question demonstrates the nature of the ongoing Great War on the Culture of 2016---where words, or the lack of them, are the weapons of destruction.
Nowhere has that been more evident than in the recent Supreme Court hearing regarding the fate of the Little Sisters of the Poor and their deeply held pro-life beliefs.
While warriors on the Left redefine the meaning of good, evil, tolerance, bigotry and equality, the Supreme Court of the United States defines religious freedom by the words they choose "not" to use.
Terence Jeffrey describes the scene this way:
Many reporters attending oral arguments in the Supreme Court sit in assigned chairs on the far left side of the chamber.
These chairs stand behind a double row of massive marble columns. Brass gates, some opened and some closed, stretch between the columns; burgundy curtains, pulled back by cords, hang behind them.
Given their assigned seats, some reporters may not be able to see any of the justices holding forth at the front of the chamber.
All they hear are their voices.
Their words.
As the case was laid out by the lawyers, far Left champion warrior Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words were heard echoing from the marble columns, the brass gates and the burgundy curtains.
And they were revealing.
She said, "No one doubts for a moment the sincerity of the belief of your client [Little Sisters of the Poor] and all the others, and since sincerity of their belief is accepted, it's off the table."
This case is, simply stated, about government forcing organizations to carry insurance that covers sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs and devices---something the Catholic Little Sisters and the Protestant owners of Hobby Lobby find a violation of their right of free exercise of religion.
Tens of millions of American citizens hold these same beliefs.
Following Ginsburg's words, the voice of Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed through the chambers.
She asked, "How can the government function if it cannot demand people do things they believe will damn their souls? Because every believer that's ever come before us, including the people in the military, are saying that my soul will be damned in some way."
She continued, "I'm not nay saying that, that is a very substantial perceived personal burden by them, But if that's always going to be substantial, how will we ever have a government that functions? How will we ever have anything that the government can demand people to do in objecting...that won't be a problem?"
Jeffrey notes the First Amendment itself answers Sotomayor's question--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
When the government forces pro-life Christians to buy health insurance plans that include the anti-life coverage, they are denying Christians the "free exercise" of religion.
However, a look at the transcript---the words of the Court---not one word includes the term "free exercise" of religion.
This is because the far Left warrior activists on the Court have decided to "not" use the words of the First Amendment. Rather they have chosen to use the words of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
That Act says, "Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest."
We remember the Hobby Lobby case a couple of years ago regarding this same matter.
A 5-4 majority--Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia---ruled that the Obamacare regulation was a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Hobby Lobby's owners, because they are biblical pro-life Christians.
But that majority also "assumed" that the government was furthering a compelling interest with the regulation.
Where the government failed in the Hobby Lobby matter was in convincing 5 justices that it was furthering its compelling interest by the least restrictive means.
To successfully surrender the "free exercise of religion," all the government needs is one more far Left word warrior on the Supreme Court.
And we are 1 election away from that becoming a reality.
No one questions what Hillary or Bernie will do to the Court, with as many as 4 justices leaving the Court over the next 4 to 8 years.
The question looming over our country, our culture, our freedoms and the freedoms of our children and grandchildren is, "What will you do?"
There is only one way to ensure that the Supreme Court will defend not only the free exercise of religion, but every word of the Constitution.
The prophet Hosea (ch.14) writes about the restoration of his country. Speaking for God he tells his countrymen, "You have stumbled because of your iniquity...take your words with you, and return to the Lord, say to Him 'Take away all iniquity, Receive us graciously, for we offer the sacrifices of our lips."
Words and the lack of words are powerful---to save and to destroy.
Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.