World Views

The Fight for Religious Freedom in Our Own Backyard

In recent years, the Supreme Court has secured some important religious victories, and yet the fight still continues. The attacks on religious liberty protected under the First Amendment seemingly never end and so must our vigilance to defend against them. The question of what constitutes religious liberty and the limits of the state are constantly being contested. Even when courts rule favorably towards religious liberty, the process becomes punishment. State and local government officials are willing to subject their citizens to onerous fines, costs and court battles that can last for years, no matter what the Supreme Court says or for that matter the Constitution. Case in point is the Christian baker and owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, Jack Phillips. He and his family suffered through 12 years of legal battles and harassment by the State of Colorado's, Civil Rights Commission. Despite winning his case in the Supreme Court he was almost immediately sued again, but the case was finally overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court.

That brings us to the case festering in our own backyard in Carnegie borough located in Collier township. The Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church was founded by refugees that settled in Carnegie, PA after fleeing communism and The Soviet Union in the 20th Century. In 1951 they purchased 2 parcels of land in Collier Township on which they built a church and the other a 41 acre property, they built a mausoleum and a cemetary. In 2023 they drew up plans to build a Shrine dedicated to Mary and the sanctity of life, a retreat center, parking garage and a bell tower on the property. To do so they had to conduct a traffic study, submit their plans and application to amend the zoning law to allow building. A similar request was granted by the Board of Commissioners for a 93,000 square foot complex of buildings on a 19 acre campus for The Carpenters Union Training Center. However, The Board of Commissioners denied the application from Holy Trinity, citing traffic concerns, fundraising issues and objections to the pro-life message. A scaled down version of the plan was re-submitted and approved but with restrictions that included when they could conduct services, when they could ring their bell, how long they could ring it and even for whom it could be rung, only for people who died after a certain date. This precluded them from ringing the bell on All Saints Day which they commemorate in their tradition.

The Church filed suit in federal district court, represented by the First Liberty Institute, citing First Amendment violations of the Free Exercise Clause and the RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) The court denied the church's motion for a preliminary injunction. The decision to deny was upheld on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Christy Wiegand wrote the opinion for the majority, in it she stated there was a failure to demonstrate "Irreparable Harm," among other specific procedural and legal reasons. So what does this mean for Holy Trinity? A denial of a preliminary injunction does not mean they lost the lawsuit. In fact in Wiegand's decision she wrote that the church has a "strong likelihood of success on the merits," regarding its RLUIPA discrimination claim. The church needs to continue to slug it out, proceeding to a full trial. As I stated before the punishment is in the process. What then does irreparable harm mean? You can not place a monetary cost on something as intangible as a denial of a Constitutional Right, that is true, but is not the denial of an inalienable right damage enough? What is happening in Carnegie to Holy Trinity could very well happen to Beverly Heights in Mount Lebanon, albeit it might be under totally different circumstances. The process is the same, the wheels of justice turn slowly and will grind you under them, if you do not have the means to sustain a long legal defense. What can we do? Donate to organizations like First Liberty that defend their clients pro bono and pray for Holy Trinity Church. As for me when they win, I just might see if I can take a turn ringing their bell as hard and as long as I can.

Reaping What We have Sown

Y

"You will recognize them by their fruits."  (Matthew 7:16) ESV

A seismic shock occurred when a Budweiser commercial hit the air depicting a 'sexy' Dylan Mulvaney, a transexual 'woman', in a bubble bath swilling down a Bud-Lite. As it turned out, this Bud was not for you! Corporate took a beating on sales as people boycotted Anheuser-Busch. The company lost $1.4 billion in sales revenue forcing layoffs and losing their long coveted market position as the number one selling beer in America to Modelo Especial. Morally repugnant? I think so, but what is the difference between Mulvaney's commercial and Sidney Sweeney's sexually provocative commercials for jeans and sports betting apps, other than she is a real woman and Dylan is not? Sex sells, just not trans sex? Many commercials previously, have had weird androgynous people running around like in a Bad Bunny concert, so bizarre that it was hard to tell what exactly was being advertised. People seemed to be relieved that we were going back to depicting 'normal' sexually titillating commercials. The sexual revolution has become so mainstream that sexually explicit programming is not shocking anymore, it's expected. Commercials and programs depict same sex couples, salacious ED advertisements and sports betting, which are played during prime time programming slots. I find these commercials to be as morally repugnant as the other, but where is the blow back that Anheuser-Busch experienced? I hear crickets, as a society are we are ok with this? Your children and grandchildren are watching and are innocently being indoctrinated into the sexual revolution. ALL ABOARD!! The 'Crazy Train' is leaving the station and the next stop is Abaddon.

Speaking of Abaddon,'The Cornell 7' sex scandal has made national news notoriety. Arising from a two year old alleged gang rape case that resurfaced after the alleged victim, 'Jane Doe,' filed a civil lawsuit against seven Cornell University, Chi Phi fraternity brothers. The schools internal Title IX inquest resulted in an expulsion, a suspension and one person had to write an essay. The Tompkins County DA did not pursue criminal charges.The blowback on the University, the Campus Police, the local DA and PD has been Jacobean in nature. To further muddy the waters, New York's Governor, Kathy Hochul and Attorney General, Letitia James, inserted themselves into the mix, by re-opening the criminal investigation of the case.(in my opinion warranted, but...) Both of whom have prejudiced themselves against the defendants through previous statements made before their widely aired press conference. Hochul and James are on the ballot for re-election in November, which is less than 30 days away.(A political motive?) Stupid, is what stupid does. The allegations made by 'Jane Doe' and the leaked text messages between all involved, as well as public statements made by both sides make for a boiling cauldron of stew that is confusing, contradictory and morally repugnant. The finger pointing towards who is to blame is rich and believe me there is plenty of it to go around.

Taking a step back, who is to blame,? How did this happen on a prestigious Ivy League campus? Is it the school's libertarian approach to students sexual conduct which includes advice on everything sexual, including fetishes, bondage, sex toys, abortion, birth control and STD tests on demand? Is it New York's sexual assault law that considers consent to be legitimate, when given under the influence of drugs or alcohol? The Federal Government's Title IX's Kangaroo Court laws? A cover up by Campus Police? 'Fraternity culture' on campus? 

Here is my take.The seven men and the woman, were bad actors before they ever set foot on campus. To be clear, I am in no way justifying what happened to 'Jane Doe' as her fault; she certainly did not deserve the violence she suffered. The answer is that as a society we have kicked Christianity out of the public square and with it the moral formation and structures that teach and uphold the importance of good character development and virtues.These folks clearly lacked good character, virtuous behavior and moral boundaries. It must be foreign to them that there is, right and wrong, good and evil, absolute truth, and that there is a creator God who is revealed to us through his creation and his written word, the Bible. I can't explain their behavior any other way. From a faith perspective, it is a God-given task for parents to teach our children about right and wrong, restraint and self- control, diligence and discipline, sympathy and justice, loyalty and hard work. If we fail in this task the repercussions can be enormous for the child and more broadly for society itself. Hopefully, we surround our kids with other adults who are Godly influencers such as pastors, the church, teachers, coaches, all of whom can have positive contributions to our children's moral formation. The need for virtue is great in our society because we depend upon citizens who govern themselves and their passions and who lead decent, law-abiding, God fearing lives. Like it or not, Christianity is the cornerstone of our society, if we abandon it, we will see more behaviors like the Cornell sex scandal and worse. We are reaping the rotten fruits of the sexual revolution, a Godless, morally depraved, virtueless society and it's ugly

Darwin's Two Weeks in Court

July 10th marked the One Hundred and First anniversary of "The Scopes Monkey Trial." How I missed the Centennial event is beyond explanation, but only a year late is better than letting it pass by without any comment. In 1925 the state of Tennessee passed the Butler Act, which made it a misdemeanor to teach any theory that denied the the Biblical truth of divine creation. The ACLU wanted to challenge the law's constitutionality and so they placed an add in the Chattanooga Daily Times newspaper offering to defend any teacher who would teach evolution. Enter John T. Scopes, a twenty four year old high school substitute teacher and football coach, who never taught biology before, a useful idiot if there ever was one. Scopes was recruited surreptitiously to teach a lecture on evolution by local business leaders, in order to reap publicity by creating a '"tourism trial" and thereby filling their coffers. Scopes was the substitute that day for the regular Biology teacher and taught from a text book that had evolution in it. Tennessee v Scopes was nearly a two week's long trial that became a national sensation. It was the first trial ever broadcast live on radio. WGN, Radio a 50,000 watt blow torch out of Chicago can be heard throughout the Midwest and East Coast, broadcasted the event at a cost of $1000.00 a day. The trial had become a circus that P.T. Barnum would have been proud of. To add to the excitement two famous legal juggernauts squared off, Williams Jennings Bryan for the prosecution v Clarence Darrow for the defense.

So what was the outcome? After two weeks of testimony, the jury deliberated for nine minutes, and by a unanimous decision found the defendant guilty. The judge fined Scopes $100.00. Two years later the State Supreme Court overthrew the appealed conviction on a technicality, the Jury, not the Judge was to decide the fine. The statute was never used again to prosecute a case and was only taken off the books in 1967 by the state legislature. After the trial, Scopes said he really didn't remember if indeed he had taught a lesson on evolution or not.

What really was on trial those two weeks in July 101 years ago? It wasn't about whether or not Mr. Scopes would be convicted of a misdemeanor. How could that ever have elicited the rapt national attention over a trial that would be akin to watching Traffic Court about a disputed parking ticket. No, this was the roaring twenties version of the OJ trial, in terms of national interest. It was a trial of Worldviews, pitting Naturalism against the Christian Worldview. If Darwin's theory would stand, there would be no need for a Divine Creator. According to Darwin we evolved from primordial soup over billions of years, by chance, and favorable mutations; we evolved from a one celled organism, step by step, into complex human beings. The mystery of life could then be explained only through biological processes, there is no soul or the metaphysical. We are but a product of time and chance, a perambulating vessel of water and chemical reactions, living meaningless lives. The 'elephant in the courtroom,' was the question begging to be asked, "Who is your God, is it Science or is it the Creator God of the Universe?" Darrow's intent as an ACLU lawyer was to mock the Bible and Bible believing Christians, painting them as "bigots and ignoramuses," who sought to control education in America. The Hollywood liberal spin machine took the reins after the trial making the movie Inherit the Wind, which portrayed Darrow as standing for the cause of science and progress, against the backwardness and intolerance of Bible believing Christians. Unfortunately, this is the narrative that many Americans believe today. Despite the fact that science has debunked Darwin's theory, it is still taught as fact in our High Schools and Universities. Those who oppose and speak out against evolution are shunned by peers and cancelled. This is the legacy of the Scopes Trial, a farcical publicity stunt that changed history for the worse.