The Supreme Court of California has overturned a referendum passed by voters (first in 1977 and again in 2000) that defined marriage as being "between a man and a woman."  From the court's decision, a person can get a much better understanding of the basis for the case by reading the opinions of the judges involved.

As has been reported, a ballot initiative will likely appear on the ballot in November that will elevate the stricken law to a constitutional amendment, perhaps ending the debate in California for some time to come.  The case, however, will still be referenced as precedent by other courts considering the legal language of similar laws in states that do not have the initiative process, where voters cannot directly amend their state constitutions.

In any event, reading through the opinions of the justices will give the layman a better understanding of the importance of selecting judges who interpret the law, rather than those who might otherwise legislate from the bench.  Or redefine words in the dictionary, as the case may be.

The Washington D.C. premiere of Newt's new DVD Rediscovering God in America went great this past week.  Here's a quick review of the event by Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin of The Examiner:

If the judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals can drag themselves away from their docket and see Newt Gingrich’s new flick, “Rediscovering God in America,” they won’t leave the theater singing.
 
The movie is intended to be a direct attack on their 2002 decision that would have banned the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
We asked Gingrich whether his new film was intended as a rebuttal to Christopher Hitchens’ popular book, “God is Not Great.” The 64-year-old snapped back, “No! I intended it as a counterpunch to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.”
 
Hosted at Agraria restaurant Tuesday night, Newt’s movie shindig was sprinkled with D.C. celebrities. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman was in attendance, as was WMAL’s Chris Plante, Rep. Dan Burton and the McLaughlin Group’s Tony Blankley.

You can order your copy of the DVD here.

The First Freedom

by William J. Murray, chairman of Religious Freedom Coalition
 
The concept of religious freedom was important to the Founders of this nation because they believed it was the “first liberty” and without it no freedom, no liberty could exist at all.
 
Were they right?
 
Allow me to pose these questions to you:
 
If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of assembly?
If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of speech?
If the people do not have religious freedom, do they have freedom of the press?
Can any nation which does not allow true religious liberty then call itself free?
 
The answer to all these questions, of course, is a resounding NO!
 
In the past the light of freedom has burned so brightly here in America that it has set fires throughout the world.  When our Bill of Rights was ratified by the states there was not a single free nation in the world, not even one other democracy.  Some European nations such as Monaco and Lichtenstein are still monarchies.
 
Europeans seem never to have thought much of human liberty in general and surely not of religious freedom, which is why our ancestors fled to these shores. So many times did totalitarian European armies move against the United States that we were finally forced to impose democracy in Europe at the point of a gun.
 
Even after World War II, Europe had huge areas under totalitarian rule including Spain, which did not become a full fledged democracy until 1982.  Newly established democracy in Europe has been no guarantee of freedom. Even today in Europe the governing democratic nations have difficulty establishing and protecting religious liberty. France leads the way in religious persecution, with numerous laws on the books to limit expression, proving that freedom and democracy are not the same thing. In both Sweden and Canada people have been arrested for simply quoting the Bible.  Elected governments definitely have the ability to take away religious freedom.
  
The greatest enemies of our republic and of our freedoms have always been the nations where religious freedom does not exist. Our first two wars were against an England that repressed religious dissent.  In our third war we fought the Islamic pirates of the Barbary Coast who had terrorized Christians and Jews for centuries.  There was no religious freedom in Nazi Germany, and Japan was a near theocracy.   In Vietnam and Korea we fought those who killed Christians for sport.  During the cold war we faced nuclear annihilation at the hands of the godless dictators of the Soviet Union whose goal was to eradicate all religion.
 
Today our greatest enemies in the world are those who continue to repress religious freedom.  The atheists who rule China and North Korea continue to build their nuclear arsenals, and the mullahs who rule Iran are no less fascists than Hitler’s Nazis and seek the same nuclear weapons to destroy those whose religions they see as “apostate.”
 
Religious freedom means the end of Middle Eastern monarchies and dictatorships.  The resistance to freedom in Iraq and the willingness of men to die as suicide bombers from Baghdad to London illustrates the desperation of those who oppose religious freedom.  Totalitarian nations such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia see the threat to themselves.  If religious freedom is successfully planted in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the fascist mullahs of Iran, the corrupt dictator of Syria and the perverted monarchs of Saudi Arabia will join Hitler, Stalin and Moa in the dust bin of history.
 
Nations with religious freedom -- with real freedom, will never be a military threat to America and it is for this reason that religious freedom has become a strategic goal of our nation.  The external threat to our religious freedom must be recognized and met – but – the battle must be fought properly and must be fought to win.
 
There is also an internal threat to our religious freedom that must be combated. The religious symbols of our heritage are being stripped from public view and the courts have tried to suppress our freedom of religious speech.   When a child cannot invite a classmate to his church or a teacher cannot wear ash on Ash Wednesday, does this not damage our underlying liberties?  How can we send good men and women to die in Afghanistan and Iraq to in an attempt to establish something that our courts are so willing to remove from us here?
 
President Thomas Jefferson warned of a judicial threat to our freedoms.  In a letter written in 1820 he said: “…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.  They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ainpliare jurisdictionem,’ [good judges have ample jurisdiction] and their power the more dangerous as they are in once for life (he continued). . . The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
 
The Supreme Court and its inferior courts have created new “rights” in the past few decades which they believe overrule those established by god and guaranteed by the founders. One of these supposed new rights is the right of an individual not to be offended by another individual.  Praying in public, wearing religious clothing or quoting the bible is now deemed unfit for elected public officials.
 
Pardon me, but freedom is about offending others.  If I am not allowed to offend someone today then I must not have freedom of speech.  No one can have an opinion without offending others.  
 
It is this new “freedom” not to be offended that the courts would use to strip away the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag.  It is this new freedom that the courts would use to prohibit pastors from teaching that marriage between one man and one woman is god given.
 
In my book, The Pledge: One Nation Under God I quote president john Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
 
Once all aspects of our Judeo-Christian faith are removed from government there will be no inherent reason to continue to defend religious liberty. We must resist the temptation of yielding to those who would vilify us for our beliefs, and we must continue the battle for our first liberty, our religious freedom. We must continue the battle for basic moral principles while, as Jefferson so elegantly stated, protecting the beliefs of all because to do otherwise would be “…a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion.”
 
We must be unified in raising our voices in defense of our rights to preach not only in the pulpit, but in every venue our nation has to offer. As Christians we must not allow ourselves to be prevented from applying our moral principles while participating in government. We and our religious leaders today have as much right to speak out in public and to participate in government as did those of previous generations, like Reverend John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, Rev. John Brown and Rev. Martin Luther King.
 
In my work on Capitol Hill, I frequently visit the Capitol Building and there I find reminders of the men of God who battled to establish our republic. They stand out to me as a warning of how far secularists have carried us from the intentions of the founders.
 
In the small House Rotunda between the Main Rotunda and the old House Chamber, stands the statue of Reverend John Peter Muhlenberg who pastored two churches in Virginia in the early 1770’s, one an English speaking Episcopal church and the other a German speaking Lutheran church.   He was also a member of the Virginia legislature at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. After the British seized Virginia’s armory in Williamsburg, Pastor Muhlenberg forged a course of action.   On January 21, 1776 he stood at his pulpit and delivered a message from Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3 (“to every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven”). In that message he told his flock that the time was not one of peace, but of war.
 
At the conclusion of his sermon he took off his clerical robe to reveal his uniform as an officer of the Revolution.   Outside he rallied some 300 men from his congregations that day to join him.   This was the birth of the Eighth Virginia Regiment that fought throughout the war, including the last battle at Yorktown in which the British were defeated.   At Yorktown he protected Washington’s right flank with the First Brigade of Lafayette’s infantry. Without Pastor Muhlenberg the possibility exists that the British could have been victorious at Yorktown and the war lost.
 
Rev. John Peter Muhlenberg is not the only preacher, nor the only Muhlenberg, to be remembered in the art and statuary of the capitol.  His brother was revered Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, a New York City pastor.   Originally critical of his brother for joining the war effort, Frederick himself joined the revolutionary movement after the British invaded New York City.   He was later elected to Congress and became a Speaker of the House and it is for that reason that his portrait hangs in the speaker’s lobby just outside the House chamber.
 
Officers in the Continental Army included pastors from the Baptist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the German Reform Church and the Lutheran Church, and those are but the ones I have identified.  Presbyterian clergy accounted for two generals and at least five colonels in Washington’s army.
 
Clergy served not only on the battlefield.  Pastor Elisha Fish published a sermon entitled, The Art of War Lawful and Necessary for a Christian People, that was widely distributed.  Fish argued that free men bearing arms to defend liberty were the “true strength and safety of every commonwealth.”
 
A month before the battle of Lexington and Concord, Rev. William Emerson preached to the Concord militia.  During his sermon, he warned the British: “it will be to your unspeakable damage to meddle with us, for we have an unconquered leader that carries his people to victory and triumph.”  Five weeks later, the first man to muster at the North Bridge in Concord against the red coats was Reverend Emerson!
 
The pastors of New England used their pulpits to teach the colonists about the right to resist tyranny and to be willing to die to establish a new nation based upon religious freedom, limited government, and free speech!  The black regiment of pastors can be credited with inflaming patriotic passions against British tyranny.
 
The historical record is clear: from the beginning of this nation, civil leaders and pastors alike believed that America was founded “under god” and that our nation had a special calling from god to fulfill in history.
 
Patrick Henry affirmed this truth when he wrote in March 1775: “it cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
 
This is a heritage, a Christian heritage of our nation that our children have a right to hear in our classrooms rather than revisionism, the likes of which would make Joseph Stalin pale.  We have the right to protect our children from both the nonsense of the anarchist and the mind control of the secularist with the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  We must not retreat; we must not surrender religious liberty or our religious heritage, not today, not ever.  If we do surrender and accept that government is the new god and that legislators and judges are the new priests, it is not just Americans who will lose that first and most basic right of freedom of religion; it will be all of humanity.
 
As stated clearly by our Founders, our freedom as a nation is a gift from God, but we must also always remember that our spiritual freedom is gift from God through the death and resurrection of his only Begotten Son.
 

REALLY STRANGE PRESIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENTS

by William J. Murray (Pictured with Gov. Mike Huckabee)

Rev. Pat Robertson has endorsed pro-abortion, pro-gay presidential candidate Mayor Giuliani. Mayor Giuliani stands at the opposite end of everything Pat Robertson has claimed to work for all of his life. This strange endorsement has caused immediate problems inside the Christian Right. Randal Terry of Operation Rescue said, "I am literally sick to my stomach over Dr. Robertson's decision.”Reverend Wiley Drake, a former Second Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention, called upon his church and all Christians to boycott CBN and the 700 Club as a result of Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani.

The next strangest development after Robertson’s backing of Giuliani is the National Right to Life Committee’s endorsement of Fred Thompson. As a politician, Fred Thompson never received a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. On the other hand presidential candidates Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Senator Sam Brownback and Governor Mike Huckabee all have had 100% pro-life ratings. I believe the highest Senator Thompson ever achieved was 88% and it was far lower at times. Just prior to the National Right to Life Committee’s endorsement, conservative columnist Robert Novak had this to say about Senator Thompson:

“Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) may have seriously wounded himself with his handling of the abortion issue on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Thompson unequivocally stated he opposed a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which is a plank in the Republican platform. Without prompting, he then attacked the idea of "criminalizing" abortion and locking up mothers who procure abortions -- images that are used as scare tactics by the pro-choice lobby. Throughout the long discussion of the topic, Thompson was incoherent at best and thoroughly objectionable to his party's pro-life base at worst. He backed away from his firm opposition to the platform, but he never quite set himself right on the whole issue.” (Nov. 07,2007)

Another pro-life leader, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation then endorsed former liberal (now conservative) Governor Mitt Romney. When running for Governor of Massachusetts, Romney campaigned as “pro-choice,” pro-gay rights and anti-gun. In office he continued to promote the “pro-choice” and pro-gay agendas. Now running for President, he says he has had a change of heart and that he is anti-abortion and against gay-marriage. Another of Romney’s supporters is Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition which fights against homosexual marriage. In the past Lou Sheldon has been critical of governors such as Romney who seemed to have pro-gay agendas.

Why is the social conservative movement in the United States committing suicide? The answer is power politics. Evangelical conservative leaders are backing candidates they think will win rather than those who have been consistent social conservatives with 100% pro-life records. Many other endorsements I will not mention here have surprised me, but all seem to have one theme: “We need someone who can beat Hillary.” The assumption is that the GOP must choose a “centrist” presidential candidate or Hillary will win. The logic goes, “We need a New York liberal to beat their New York liberal.” By that logic Ronald Reagan would not have gotten the GOP presidential nomination. Reagan was too conservative to be electable by the National Right to Life Committee standards and those of many other social conservative leaders today.

Meanwhile the rank and file members of social conservative organizations are being turned off by their leadership. While National Right to Life has endorsed Fred Thompson, his numbers continue to fall in Iowa and New Hampshire while those of Governor Mike Huckabee continue to rise. Huckabee is now in a solid 2nd place in Iowa behind Governor Mitt Romney who has spent $21 million in that state alone. Huckabee has spent just $500,000 there and he has such momentum that he may well take first place on Election Day. Thompson is in fourth place in Iowa and fifth place in New Hampshire where Huckabee recently passed him. The national polls don’t matter at all because most of those folks will actually never vote in a primary.

THE RESULT

Regardless of who wins the GOP nomination the social conservative movement, and particularly evangelical leaders, lose. In an attempt to gain influence by backing pro-abortion and pro-gay candidates, evangelical leaders are losing their credibility. Had these leaders backed 100% pro-life social conservatives such as Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback or Tom Tancredo, their integrity would have remained intact and their word trusted when it counts next year. Unfortunately the desire of some evangelical leaders to walk with the seemingly powerful rather than with the righteous will discourage their base. In my opinion this loss of credibility of “religious right” leaders will actually boost the odds of a Hillary victory.

Dr. Murray is chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition.

Newt released his new DVD, Rediscovering God in America, this week and wrote about it in this week's newsletter.  Read the newsletter here and order the DVD here.

Also in the God and Public Life area, Rick & Vince of Leading the Majority interviewed our guest blogger this week, Dr. William J. Murray, Chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition. Dr. Murray is the son of the former famed atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair and has been active on issues related to aiding Christians in Islamic and Communist nations. He has a new book, entitled, The Pledge: One Nation Under God.

Look for blog posts from Dr. Murray shortly!

Newt writes in his newsletter this week about the effort to remove religious references from flag certificates given out by the Capitol and the "incomplete victory" in how it was resolved.  Click here.

No Christmas for Oak Hill Schools 

In Oak Hill, IL the public school system has decided to cancel its Halloween and Christmas celebrations, citing complaints by at least one parents who claims Muslims aren't represented by the celebrations:

"There was some heated discussion between parents outside Columbus Manor Elementary School in Oak Lawn on Friday. The thought of no more traditional holiday celebrations has many parents really upset.

For now, children in Ridgeland School District 122 will celebrate fall festival instead of Halloween and winter festival instead of Christmas."

A post titled “Liberalism and Secularism: One and the Same” written over the weekend by Stanley Fish at his New York Times blog has an interesting point on the marriage of the two philosophies:

“[Liberalism] is a form of political organization that is militantly secular and incapable, by definition, of seeing the strong claim of religion – the claim to be in possession of a truth all should acknowledge – as anything but an expression of unreasonableness and irrationality. Berlinerblau and Krattenmaker hold out the hope that secularists and strong religionists might come to an accommodation if they would listen to each other rather than just condemn each other. That hope is illusory, for each is defined by what it sees as the other’s errors.”

See the full article here.