Remember these words

Christopher D. Morris wrote a column in the Boston Globe this week. He "suggests that Christian leaders -- both Roman Catholic and Evangelical -- should be called before the Senate Judiciary Committee to say whether they would discipline a church member who, as a judge, voted to uphold Roe v. Wade," as Al Mohler summarizes.

Catholic bishops talked of refusing John Kerry from receiving communion last fall during the election race.

Morris writes:

Asking the bishops to testify would be healthy. If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians who support Roe v. Wade would gain renewed confidence in their advocacy. If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.

There you have it folks. The first step has been taken towards putting Christians in jail for their beliefs.

Morris is saying that it should be unlawful for Christians' beliefs to have any role in how they make their decisions as public officials or judges. Once that kind of a law is drafted, say during Hillary Clinton's administration, then Christians who refuse to obey the law of man and obey the law of God instead will be prosecuted and jailed.

And it will all be in the name of maintaining "judicial objectivity" and preventing a "judicial conflict of interest" as Morris writes.


This is wrong for two reasons. One, it is a specific targeting of Christians. Every non-Christian judge or official makes their decisions based on their own beliefs about God and ultimate reality.

A man who calls himself an agnostic or an atheist is still religious. Because we all have gods. We all worship something or someone. We all put our hope or find our meaning in something. Whatever that is, it is our god.

Most intelligent people (judges, politicians) have thought in some measure through their belief system, and so they might call themselves an agnostic. Well, that worldview will shape how he makes decisions on an abortion case.

Roe V. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973, was decided by Supreme Court justices who used their own "religious views" to justify the legalization.

Chuck Colson explains:

Basically, the ruling had three legal pillars. It held (1) that the constitutional "right of privacy" broadly includes a woman's freedom to choose abortion; (2) that the unborn are not "persons" entitled to constitutional protection; and (3) that the state has a compelling interest in, or may protect, only the viable fetus (the fetus that might survive outside the womb, even with artificial life support).

The view that an unborn baby is not a person is a belief. Science has not proven otherwise. If anything, scientific evidence has led us to the overwhelming conclusion that the unborn are persons. (If you don't believe me, click here). But we already knew that also, from Psalm 139:13.

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

Why, if the evidence supports that the unborn are persons, do our politicians and groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood agitate so violently in support of abortion?

A woman's right to choose.

Al Mohler:

"We are obsessed with personal safety, but have made the womb a place of great danger. Our concerns for personal "rights" have eclipsed our understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Great advances in medicine have prolonged life for many, but we accept the most barbaric forms of the murder of the unborn. We have elevated convenience over conviction, and comfort over compassion. We have treated the blessings of parenthood as a burden. We have rejected the gift of life, and claimed this as a "right to choose."

We are living on borrowed time. A nation cannot long prosper in its economy when it has sold its soul for personal choice. A nation is not strong when it destroys its weakest members. Americans demand rights rather than righteousness, and we are reaping a harvest of unrighteousness unparalleled in its magnitude.

Over the past three decades, Americans have aborted nearly 40-million unborn children. We have allowed an entire industry of murderous clinics to rise in our midst, and many politicians stand ready to defend, if not to celebrate, these abortuaries and their operators.

Second, apart from all that I've already said, Morris' argument is also unconstitutional.

Mohler breaks it down:

The reason this proposal must not be pursued is that it runs into direct conflict with at least two sections of the U.S. Constitution -- the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty and Article VI, Clause 3: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

To read the Constitution, click here.