A Threatening Christian Assault!

At the start of 2017 one of my fellow employees placed a calendar in the employee break room. It featured beautiful high definition photographs of nature scenes. Along with each picture was a single praise verse from the Psalms. The overall tone of the calendar to a non-Christian would have been rather generic, along the order of a sweet Helen Steiner Rice poem.

Last week the calendar was taken off the wall.  The explanation from the supervisors was that there had been a complaint.  Someone had found the calendar to be offensive and threatening. Threatening?  REALLY???

Our national tradition in the United States is freedom of religion and a separation of church and state. Some have begun to believe that this means that any mention of religion must be removed from public sight.  Religion must be stifled and repressed.  Utter hypocrisy!

They, in effect, do what they accuse others of doing; they impose their religious view (agnosticism, humanism, or atheism) on others. They deny to others the right to practice or express their religious views.

Liberals and progressives scoff at and ridicule the idea that there is a War on Christianity in all corners of the United States.  In ways large and small, the evidence is ample and glaring that they are wrong or disingenuous.

Freedom of Religious Association

At his Religion Law Blog , British attorney Neil Addsion discusses the legal case, Fernandez-Martinez c. Espagne .  This is a case before the European s in which a Roman Catholic Religious Education teacher (Jose Antonio Fernandez Martinez) at a State school brought a lawsuit against a Roman Catholic bishop for his refusal to renew the teacher’s contract because the teacher was an advocate of “pro-optional celibacy.”

This is an interesting legal case which concerns the issues of freedom of religion and freedom of association for religious groups.  Similar issues are currently being hotly discussed in the United States over the issue of whether or not religious groups can be forced to provide for their employees insurance coverage for contraception and/or abortion.  A secondary issue in the United States is whether or not church-sponsored schools, health clinics, food ministries, etc. which are not directly “religious” in nature are also “church;” whether or not these institutions are also covered by the same freedoms and guarantees as are literal churches.

Laws from one nation are not directly applicable to another since each country or group of countries is autonomous, but rulings in one country can establish a precedent which can be taken into consideration in deliberations in another.

“ … the teacher was submitted to an increased obligation of loyalty because of the special nature of his position. …  The judgment is undoubtedly important in the sphere of Human Rights jurisprudence and could strengthen the position of Faith Schools in the UK in relation to ensuring that the conduct of teachers conforms to the beliefs of their religion.”  Neil Addison

Without approving or disapproving of the action of the bishop in this case or any other, it is clear that the real underlying issues are far more fundamental than they, at first, seem to be.