Why Don’t Secularists Just Be Honest and Outlaw Christianity?

The Barronelle Stutzmann decision amounts to a Christian ban.

By John Zmirak Published on February 19, 2017

As Michael Brown wrote here last week, Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and court costs that could wipe out not just her livelihood but her retirement fund and leave her homeless — all for the “crime” of not taking part in a same-sex wedding that violated her religious beliefs. And my reaction is: “Get on with it, already! Show the courage of your convictions and just ban Christianity outright.”

I’m getting really sick of this death by a thousand cuts. The elites who dominate our society and run the U.S. government via the courts clearly do not want to tolerate Christianity. Since they don’t have the votes to amend the Constitution and outlaw the practice of that faith entirely, instead they pack the bench with leftist sophists who twist our Constitution like saltwater taffy — amending it via judicial diktat dozens of times a year (if you count lower courts as well as SCOTUS), enshrining leftist secularism beyond the reach of shuffling, deplorable voters.

Oh, they’ll make room for progressive Christians that mutate the Faith, discard whatever secularists tell them is out of fashion, and “discover” that Jesus really meant to say precisely what the world wants to hear at this very moment. (Funny coincidence, that.)

Worship Caesar

What the Ivy League, the federal bureaucracy, the media, and the courts who do their bidding will not endure is genuine Christianity, the historic faith in any form that would have been recognizable, say, in 1963, on the day C.S. Lewis died. It’s precisely that “mere Christianity” Lewis explained which Baronelle Stutzman faces ruination for practicing. It’s the same creed which the Obama administration tried to snuff out among the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Here are two Christian principles that simply will not be tolerated:

  • Marriage is between one man and one woman.
  • Killing the innocent is wrong and must be punished.

I know, I know: What’s with all the esoteric theology, John? Do you really have to try to impose things that only Roman Catholics believe, because the Blessed Virgin Mary told them to peasant kids in some apparition? Can’t you stick to something … basic, which people could know is true just by thinking about it clearly? How about something that most people in most societies, even without the Gospel, knew was true?

Okay, kidding. These aren’t Catholic-specific. The two claims above are not exclusively Christian, or Jewish. You don’t even need to be a monotheist to see these things, since the Zeus-worshipping Greeks saw them too. But they are truths which the Christian faith accepted and built on, and which it can’t live without — any more than advanced physics could survive if you outlawed simple arithmetic.

If Baronelle Stutzmann or the Little Sisters of the Poor cannot assert these truths, and act on them — by refusing to take part in fake marriages or chemical abortions — then Christianity is in effect illegal. You know, the way it was in the Roman Empire, when Christians were ordered on pain of death to worship the emperor. The parallel is exact. No one claims that Ms. Stutzmann or the Little Sisters were running around disrupting same sex marriages, or stealing people’s abortion pills. No, they faced government persecution for not taking positive action to do what they know to be evil. They wouldn’t burn incense in front of Diocletian. They wouldn’t recite the Shehada when ISIS told them to.

Ruth Bader Ginbsurg and Anthony Kennedy could come up with some narrative that “proves” that the whole Bill of Rights is really a recipe for chicken mole.

Enough Half-Measures Already

So I wish that our masters would just admit what they’re really up to and try to enact a Christian ban. All they would need to do is create a case that makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which gives the judges the pretext to exempt Christianity from the First Amendment’s protections. I am sure that the legal brains at the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center could find the right test case, and aim it at the creative jurists of the Ninth Circuit Court — confident that the same five-vote majority that issued Obergefell v. Hodges would vote their way. In fact, they really ought to, if they want to honor that precedent, as well as that shining lodestar of American moral thinking, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps the case could center on Christian parents who wish to home-school a child, or a Christian college that doesn’t want to hire openly homosexual faculty, or a doctor who won’t perform abortions. I leave the specifics to our betters. I know that they’re up to the task.

I have faith that Ruth Bader Ginbsurg and Anthony Kennedy can come up with some narrative that proves that the Founding Fathers really meant to ban orthodox Christianity, while protecting other creeds. Those justices could “prove” to their own satisfaction that the whole Bill of Rights is really a recipe for chicken mole. And the rest of our elites (including too many Republicans) would back them up, and call that decision “settled law.”

Decades of training and practice of modern legal theory have trained these experts to see through the tangle of messy words with specific denotations and plausible connotations, and ignore the grubby historical context and plain intentions of the Founders — and hear the clear, pure voice of our “living Constitution.” That god, whom Caesar demands that we worship, will never fail. It can be trusted. It will always tell the world just what the flesh and the devil would like us to hear.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Triple T

    I’ve had it. It’s time to let the Left know that Christians will not be the last and only group against whom discrimination remains acceptable.

    • SophieA

      What concrete suggestions do you have in mind? Not sarcasm. Honest query.

      • Kevin Quillen

        stand up and make it very clear that we will not comply with any law that violates our Christian beliefs. Period.
        we must not be violent, but unfaltering. never comply. never. take what comes, support each other and when one falls, it is next man up!

      • Triple T

        I’m a member of a group of people who goes to lobby with elected officials. We go meet with them every few weeks to discuss just this sort of thing. As long as you make an appointment and keep the tone of what you say respectful, they want to hear what you have to say. I certainly recommend this for all who are able.

    • Kevin Quillen

      stand up and make it very clear that we will not comply with any law that violates our Christian beliefs. Period.
      we
      must not be violent, but unfaltering. never comply. never. take what
      comes, support each other and when one falls, it is next man up! Stand strong brother.

  • Jim Walker

    These are the end times prophecy that the bible warned us about. It will only become worse.
    We have to start to draw strength from our Lord and surrender totally to Him.
    “For when I’m weak, he is strong”.

    • Kevin Quillen

      it will become worse if we allow it. Do not use “end times” beliefs to hold you back. Your “end times” may not be what you expect. We may be in this mess partially because too many think the “end” is near so why bother? The end is not near.

  • Patmos

    The current modern left is so backwards that they can be pretty easily rebuked on their own grounds, that is to say, by even staying within secular terms. The scary thing is that they don’t even change upon being rebuked. They prefer life under tyranny, because without it would mean they would have to think.

    • St. Kolbe

      True. The left has de-intellectualized their ideology to the point where one only has to form a cogent argument to overcome all but a few of the leftist apologists. But beware – proving them ignorant and illogical is not hard, but they WILL get violent. They are growing in violence more than logic.

    • Jim Walker

      When you give them logic and common sense and they are force to a corner to think, their instinct will kick in and start to chat and rant : Bigot, Fascist, Homophobe, Racist.
      And they thought they have won over you.

      • Kevin Quillen

        rules for radicals

  • Gary

    Real Christians are facing a stacked deck in the “legal system”. Courts ignore the US Constitution continually so there is little chance that Christians will get a fair hearing. That is why I advocate avoiding the “legal system” as much as possible. Stutzman would have been far better off to have found a way around the legal problems that are very likely to leave her broke. She should have known before she began that she would stand no chance in a liberal state like Washington. Everyone should take a lesson from her misjudgment. There are multiple ways to avoid doing business with those you want to avoid. You just have to be clever about it. But, having a business that is involved in “weddings” makes it a bit more complicated, I understand.

    • Kevin Quillen

      The solution for Christian businesses is to become “clubs”, like Sam’s. Pay a fee for membership. Fee goes to fight abortion, queer issues, etc.. However, in other issues like free speech, never back down or try to evade. Fight to the end by just saying NO! Take the consequences and the guy up next stands up.

      • Gary

        I like the idea of the clubs. But I’m not going to give anyone the grounds to sue me, or for the state to accuse me of breaking the law. I’m going to try to find a way to refuse business I don’t want and avoid entanglements with the law. I am not going to subject myself to legal action that I know I won’t win. And even if I thought I might win, I still don’t want to spend time and money fighting in the “legal system”. Of all the options I might have, going to court is the least appealing.

      • BeeKaaay

        Clubs are regulated by anti-discrimination laws, so this won’t work either.

  • Wayne Cook

    There are pastors on this same site who side against Christianity with the left. They should also stand up for their beliefs instead of hiding behind their illogical and anti-Biblical opinions.

    There really isn’t room for the flavor of the month and Paul’s admonition to stand on truth. I agree John. This creeping judicial devil only falls apart because they are afraid to come right out and say what they practice, and what the 9th practices behind closed doors isn’t protected by the Constitution, only the border between California and the rest of the nation.

    • St. Kolbe

      true. But as long as we are the silent majority, we arent really standing up against it. We are tolerating it. The same thing happened 1000 years ago and led to the Crusades. Western Christendom didnt help the Eastern brothers and mohomed and his followers slaughtered them all. The west only reacted when the moslems came after them…almost won too. I suspect there are comparisons to be made with then and now. And I suspect we will only stand up for ourselves when it gets overtly oppressive and the false ‘believers’ or those at least sensitive to Christianity have died and subsequent generations drift into levels of cultural illiteracy that they wont realize they are repeating a cycle.

  • Autrey Windle

    Can I adopt you?!

  • Linda

    Yes, you have a point. Unless the American church that still truly exists – not the false church with pew fillers there for the sake of tradition – continues to offer the country spiritual protection from annihilation that we are unaware of…then it might be a mistake to have the courts declare the USA no longer a Christian nation. The presence of a Jewish population is offering spiritual protection too.

  • Len Johnson

    Well, I suspect there would be one positive result. It would unite the true followers of the Way and send the nominal and progressive Christians running for the exits.

    • SkippingDog

      Funny how so many people think they alone have found the Truth.

      • Kevin Carr

        Christ said he is the truth. Did he lie or is he crazy?

      • squishee

        Actually there are not so many… “Make your way in by the narrow gate. It is a broad gate and a wide road that leads on to perdition, and those who go in that way are many indeed; but how small is the gate, how narrow the road that leads on to life, and how few there are that find it!”

  • Sgt Carver

    There was, and still is, a perfectly legal way for her to never have to arrange flowers for a gay marriage. Simply stop for all marriages.

    No discrimination involved and she could have complied with the court from the outset. No legal fees, fines or negative publicity. Just a sign stating “We don’t arrange flowers for any weddings” and a slight drop in revenue.

    The same applies to bakers, photographers and even limo renters.

    • St. Kolbe

      The risk there is that Christians are purged from all aspects of life. The government is just fine with that. The Christian schools close because they wont promote homosexuality as an option. Good. Less Christians educating our children. Adoption agencies are nearly gone due to abortion, but the Christian ones that wouldnt allow non-married (real marriage) couples to adopt. Great. No more Christian problem there either. I see what you are suggesting as relief from legal action, but I also think THAT is the goal. Neuter Christianity so were just a bunch of do-gooders engaged in humanistic acts.

      • Sgt Carver

        Er no….

        The florist in this case could have just said “Sorry Dearie I don’t arrange flowers for weddings. I can sell you flowers you can arrange or you can go to Mrs Green down the road. BTW I attend church on Blue Street and I would love if you joined us on Sunday.”

        • St. Kolbe

          I understand your perspective, I simply think you reinforced what I said. The point is that the less of a role Christians play in our culture *is the goal*. The punishment doesnt care whether we get in line or go away. THe point is to purge Christianity and its influence.

          • Sgt Carver

            There is no purging, that was my point. Just a simple reworking of business models to comply with the law.

          • St. Kolbe

            I see your point. I think if the cake bakers and florists of the world posted a big sign out front saying that they are major donors of Family Research Center or other pro-family groups and thank people for the fact their patronage allows them to give greatly to these pro-family groups…well, the alt-marriage groups might decide they dont want to fund those groups and patronize someone else. Thats the reason I dont patronize starbucks – fed up with my money supporting groups that call me a bigot because I disagree.

          • Sgt Carver

            You just shifted the goalposts!

            At no point was the legality of a business supporting a charity under question. Nor was it the desirability of any given business owner and how they spend their profits.

            It is clear that any Christian can obey the law without compromising their strictly held beliefs.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      You really want the government to be able to compel speech you disagree with? You really want a society in which people can be financially ruined because they decline to participate in a certain event they find morally wrong? Where will this kind of coercion end? Have you thought about that?

      • Sgt Carver

        What part of my comment led you to that conclusion?

    • ImaginaryDomain

      Very perceptive. I’m a lawyer and I’ve often thought about a solution along those lines. The backbone of discrimination in this context is that these businesses are generally open to the public. So, my advise to such a baker, florist, etc., would be to NOT make yourself generally open to the public for certain activities, i.e., weddings. For example, have the baker post on her website that her business ONLY bakes wedding cakes for marriages performed at named x, y, z, selected churches. She is therefore NOT open to the general public for weddings, and voila, no discrimination can be found (the government cannot force you to participate in any market if you are not open to the general public). Just my two cents…

      • Sgt Carver

        Your solution is better than mine!

        I thought “the fly in my ointment” was wedding planners. I had thought the solution for those businesses was to rebrand themselves as event planners (as much of their work would be identical). But, as you show, by simply limiting their services to certain criteria the businesses would not discriminate.

        Not stocking an item or providing a service for all people is not discrimination, it is a business model.

        • ImaginaryDomain

          Bingo!

      • The Evangelical

        This is a great solution and is one that I think should have been followed. Our local church has already restricted weddings at the chapel to members only, which prevents this as well.

        • Lisa Cooper

          But how long will church legally be able to limit it’s membership to those who won’t insist on “marrying” someone of the same sex?

      • BeeKaaay

        “ONLY bakes wedding cakes for marriages performed at named x, y, z, selected churches.”

        And then the baker gets sued for discrimination on the basis of religion. Won’t work.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    So, you think the devil has had a hand in this ? Well, thats one more thing the secularists are incapable of discerning. The left has been waging this battle ever since they rewarded this nation the option of murdering as many voiceless innocents as profit & inconvenience could provide. This is so much more than a political battle, as those w/a conscience not seared by radical self idolizing pundits of the left side of damnation understand. This is a battle that must be undergirded by the proverbial on your knees posturing. Hey, it’s just possible that these proclamations of justice for the crime of conscience are nothing more than the agonized & crazed rantings of the condemned before the executioner flips the switch …

  • MJC

    Oh, I think the plans are well underway to limit the rights of Orthodox Christians to exercise their faith. This is why the global Left has thrown its support behind the inchoate ponderings of Pope Francis. They are interested in having the Catholic Church redefine its doctrine. Once that happens, no Catholic will be able to use the first amendment as a protection against opposition to gay marriage or abortion.

    And you don’t have to look very hard at the current Pope’s circle of admirers to see that this is where he intends to drive the Church.

    Why the emphasis on the RCC? Because it is the single largest bulwark against complete secularism. That’s partly due to its historical and institutional structure. Leftists will have a much easier time rolling over evangelical Protestants.

    • JTLiuzza

      “They are interested in having the Catholic Church redefine its doctrine.”
      That’s not possible. It may appear to happen, but it’s not possible.

      “Leftists will have a much easier time rolling over evangelical Protestants.”

      No need to roll over anyone twice. Protestants already have leftist tire marks all over them. It’s called the “reformation.” Protestants are rolled over Catholics.

      The Church is not the “largest” bulwark (excellent choice of words), she is the only bulwark (1Tim3:15). Right now She is infested with modernists, sodomites, marxists, freemasons. She will prevail, as She always does.

      • MJC

        It’s not possible for the RCC to change doctrine in the theological sense. But in the practical realm, i would suggest that is happening right now. All there needs to be is enough of a paper trail coming from Vatican approved sources for a biased US Court to point to.

        That’s what bothers me so much about our current Pope. He exhibits a pattern of intentional deviousness in order to avoid formal heresy.

  • ArthurMcGowan

    We have our first pro-abortion Pope. Bing for emma bonino pope francis.

    He kneels 12 times to wash the feet of Muslims. He cannot genuflect once before the Blessed Sacrament. His written speech at Rome’s Third University contained references to God and Jesus Christ. He omitted all of them.

  • J. Boanerges

    It will never be outlawed but it already has been subverted. The bishops are rolling over and turning Christians into heretics so their agenda will be more easily implemented.

  • Serlio

    Thank you, Mr. Zmirak. Your sarcasm levels a very good charge against our enemies. If, in fact, mere Christianity was outlawed, perhaps a distillation process would occur, whereby people inclined to live as real Christians would be even more emboldened to embrace the Faith to the very end. As Tertullian put it, “The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church.” As we are now, we live in a murky ether, where we think we can still get along and have dialogue. The reality is, we can’t. There are those who can see, and there are the hopelessly blind – or near hopelessly, anyhow.

    • Kevin Quillen

      well said brother. stand strong.

    • Len Johnson

      Concur – Quit the facade of “freedom” and draw the battle lines. Those advocating complete freedom as the ultimate good never tell you what they want freedom from and freedom to do. And who/what gets to define “good?” The post modern tells us there are no truths and no absolutes, but they sneak in their own truth claim that their is one absolute–that man is free to define his own meaning for significance.

  • Liz Litts

    If our faith was outlawed, the ‘powers that be’ will only be defeating themselves. When the followers of Jesus are oppressed , they grow stronger.

  • RickinSD

    As always, well stated John. I prefer the fight to the very end as Jesus has called us to do (until the rapture or in other christian theologies our return with Jesus to rule).

  • Josh Shapiro

    I couldn’t agree more, it’s about time we get rid of all religions, they serve no legitimate purpose.

    • Steven Cornett

      You mean except secularist humanism, you mean. That being the unstated religion of the Western world since the French revolution.

      All societies have a religion whether they acknowledge it or not. Everyone serves some god, beer it the holy Trinity or a strange one (or more).

      • standtall909

        It is a documented and proven fact that society needs ‘something’ or ‘someone’ to believe in that is beyond themselves. Take religion away, and what does society cling to? THE GOVERNMENT……their new GOD. It’s EXACTLY what they want.

        • James

          Why should people trust unelected priests/ministers/rabbis/imams/etc more than elected officials?

      • James

        You are right that all societies do have a religion, whether they acknowledge it or not.

        The difference is whether one believes that religion is the product of divine revelation or whether religion is merely a social construct of man.

        To a religious person the contests is between, God’s own Truth vs a philosophy of man. To a secular humanist, the contest is between two different social constructs.

      • BeeKaaay

        Or the religion called “the sexual revolution” which says there are no ethics when it comes to sex. The Pelvis worshipers have done more harm than thousands of years of religion’s worst.

  • John Flaherty

    I think there is a very simple way to fight this aggression: Refuse to honor any law that demands that you serve a homosexual couple even though they demand it. If fined or penalized, refuse to pay any fine or penalty inflicted to “correct” behavior. Ultimately, suffer being arrested, but ensure plenty of people with cameras and phones record it and place it on the internet. Insist on a public defender, refusing to pay even for such services. Go to jail, making clear throughout the trial that you are the victim of bigotry and hatred.

    This will certainly be vicious, true, but considering the degree of malice that we have ignored since the 50’s, I think this may be the only means left to compel America to wake up.

    • Gary

      Bakers, florists and photographers might be able to do what they do in most locations without a license, if they don’t claim to be “in business”. Advertising might be a problem though. If you list your bakery in the Yellow Pages, or advertise on the radio, the government could probably make a legal case that you were in business and thus subject to licensing, which would bring you under the anti-discrimination laws. If you have been in business for a while, and have repeat customers, you might be able to pull it off. Its an interesting idea.

      • John Flaherty

        I originally suggested widespread civil disobedience, but decided this might violate the commenting rules. Ultimately, I think these sorts of businesses may face an ugly choice: Suffer being legally bullied into servicing LGBT “weddings” or other events, …or go out of business completely. It is possible that we may not see the nation recognize the violations of the First Amendment we have tolerated until we can’t seek these sorts of things for other, legitimate, reasons.

  • James

    Because they do not have the political power to do so.

    That being said, 1/3 of 18-30 year olds believe that religion does more harm than good and should be tightly regulated by the state. In other words, they trust the state more than the church. This is not so much a matter of faith in the state as much as it is a lack of trust in the church.

    If this seems odd, consider this: Which would you trust more, the government of a secular nation or of an Islamic Republic?

  • Robert D Hosken

    Who is “Ginbsurg”?

  • Gail Finke

    I think the cases are already being prepared.

Inspiration
If the Foundations are Destroyed, What Can the Righteous Do?
David Kyle Foster
More from The Stream
Connect with Us