Enough said...

 

Conviction and conscience

"We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate." [James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance to the Assemby of Virginia]

The word "exercise" suggests action. Thus, it is the right of every man to act in a manner dictated by his conviction and conscience, even if his conviction dictates that he should not provided abortion-inducing drugs to his employees or make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. It is not the place of government to forbid such actions under penalty of law. But what if his conviction dictates that he shoot his next-door neighbor in the head? This is where the case for governance by "conviction and conscience" breaks down. The conviction of the Nazis was that Jews should be eliminated, and for many, this was completely consistent with the dictates of conscience. Today we see the wholesale slaughter of people in Iraq, and the perpetrators are believe they are simply carrying out the duty they owe to their Creator. 

This is why biblical morality is the only solution. Everything else is merely human opinion or preference. The Bible stands firmly behind those who are unwilling to contribute to killing babies or legitimize sexual immorality, but it utterly condemns the murderers of Jews, Shiites, and next-door neighbors. This means that conviction and conscience must be informed by biblical precept. This is not to say that government should force anyone to embrace the Bible; God doesn't even do that. It merely means that the government must not seek to prevent people from following the dictates of their biblically-informed conviction and conscience. There is nothing about real Christianity that threatens the peace, security, or freedom of a society. Just because an employer is not providing certain easily obtained "contraceptives" to his employees does not mean he is preventing them from having them. If they want them, they'll just have to get them somewhere else. 

The real issue in all the backlash against the Hobby Lobby decision has nothing to do with women's health or personal freedom; it has to do with legitimizing the killing of pre-born babies. The same is true of the wedding cake matter. Those people could go somewhere else to get a cake, but the fact that one store refused to make them one made a statement against same-sex marriage, and that could not be allowed to stand. So they appealed to the government to either force the cake-maker to make them a cake or penalize them harshly for refusing to. It's all about calling good evil and evil good. It's all about the public justification of sin. The policy of Holly Lobby was a public statement against abortion; therefore, our anti-God government could not let it stand. Fortunately Anthony Kennedy saw the light on this one and swung the decision in the right direction. Thank you Justice Kennedy.