This critical debate is not truly between homosexuals and heterosexuals;
it is between two opposing worldviews, one secular and the other
religious. [2] Approximately 80% of Americans hold a religious
worldview, [3] but the secular left has done an excellent, yet
nefarious, job of dividing those with a religious worldview through
false stereotyping. Their manipulative divide & conquer strategy has led
many religious people to erroneously fear other religious people more
than they fear the secular fundamentalists set on destroying religion
and Judeo-Christian values. Thus, many Americans are understandably
confused about the same-sex marriage issue and its ultimate driving
force, secular fundamentalism.

Everyone does not fit neatly into the purely religious or purely secular
worldviews, but sitting this one out is not a viable alternative. The
stakes for our families and free society are too great. We have to join
one team or the other, so we must each choose which team is closer to
our own personal values, or which team is further from our values. To
avoid a choice is still a choice - one for the other team.

The Religious Position

Everyone knows the secular and radical gay rights side of the argument;
the public schools, universities, and mass media faithfully present it
to us. Fewer understand the religious side of the argument, which is
falsely portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and
homophobic. A proper understanding of the religious position is
necessary if a real debate is to take place prior to the destruction of
a 5,000-year-old institution by a minority of citizens, against the will
of the majority.

To discuss the religious view of human nature is not to ignore science,
which also informs the opinions of Americans. Many people may not be
aware that modern science is belatedly learning that the Biblical view
of human nature is more accurate than the views that have been the
foundation for most of secular liberalism. In his courageous new book,
The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature, MIT professor Steven
Pinker, himself a secular liberal, concludes the theory of human nature
coming out of the cognitive revolution has more in common with the
Judeo-Christian theory of human nature than with behaviorism, social
constructionism, and other versions of the Blank Slate. Those that think
religion is just ancient superstition should take a second, or in many
cases, a first look.

To discuss the religious view in dealing with matters of public policy
is also not to ignore Separation of Church and State, a 19th century
metaphor mistakenly assumed to be in the U.S. Constitution. Unlike
humans who are born morally tabula rasa with a blank slate, the United
States was not created morally tabula rasa as a secular nation. The
unifying moral principle of this country’s founding was a religious
faith in a divine Creator and the freedom of each individual to practice
his or her religion (or no religion) without interference from the
government.

The Founders believed that religious faith, particularly the Judeo-
Christian tradition, provided the objective ethical basis needed for a
free society to properly function. To this very day, the majority of
Americans share this belief, so to ban religion from the public square
is to radically redefine America into a secular nation in opposition to
both the principles upon which it was created and the wishes of the
majority of its citizens.

The government, as defined in the First Amendment and explained by its
author James Madison, must remain neutral between various sects of
religion, but is not required to remain neutral between religion and
irreligion. [4] In the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, so frequently and
erroneously presented as an atheist, The God who gave us life, gave us
liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we
have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are a gift from God

A review of traditional Judaism’s opposition, to homosexuality and most
importantly its public sanction with the legal recognition of same-sex
marriage, will highlight the fallacies many well-meaning people, Jew and
non-Jew, have apparently accepted. [5] (Judaism will guide this
discussion, although the general ideas should be in agreement with
traditional Christianity.)

To have compassion and tolerance for all of God’s children is admirable
and a mitzvah (commandment) under Jewish law, but there is no way Jewish
law and tradition can be perverted to endorse and publicly sanction
same-sex marriage.

The Instruction Manual is clear and unequivocal. You shall not lie with
a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination. [6] The ultimate
punishment for homosexuality along with the other sexual sins listed in
this section, such as bestiality and incest, is kares; Gods cutting off
their souls (spiritually) from the midst of their people. Kares is
generally understood to be exacted after death, and is considered one of
the most severe punishments for a sin. In Judaism, the harshness of the
punishment assigned to a sin, whether or not meant to be carried out by
humans, helps us understand the relative seriousness of the sin.

Obviously, sexual immorality is a very serious matter for Jews, but
Judaism also teaches that sexual immorality, including homosexuality, is
universally prohibited to all humans as one of the seven Noahide Laws,
Gods natural law for all mankind. [7]

The very first commandment in the Bible comes immediately following Gods
creation of human beings, male and female together and equally in His
image. God commands us to Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and
subdue it. [8] The great 19th century sage, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch
describes this fourfold mission as a guide to the whole free- willed
moral development of the human race: Fruitful is marriage, multiply is
the family, fill the earth is society, and subdue it is property, i.e.
the mastering, appropriating and transforming the earth and its products
for human purposes. [9]

Rabbi Hirsch further points out the critical nature of heterosexual
relationships, based on the Commandment for man to leave his father and
mother and cleave unto his wife, and they will be one flesh. [10] Man is
not unique among living beings in having a sexual life. But other
creatures require mating only for the purpose of breeding; because male
and female were created simultaneously, they can function independent of
one another. Man is different: woman was created from man to show that
only in a partnership do the two of them form a complete human being. [11]

While a small percentage of humans may subconsciously desire a same-sex
relationship because it is less complex and challenging, God warns us to
consciously overcome that desire and understand that He created the
female to be a helper corresponding to the male. As the sages explain, A
wife is neither mans shadow nor his servant, but his other self, a
helper in a dimension beyond the capability of any other creature. [12]
Interestingly, the Hebrew word, kinegdo, here translated as
corresponding to him, may also be translated as against him or opposite
him; reflecting the built-in complexity and difficulty of the
complementary relationship between man and woman.

So humans, originally created as male and female, then separated, must
rejoin not just physically, but spiritually to create a civil and
prosperous society. Our Creator did not design us to achieve this
necessary spiritual unity with same-sex relationships.

But humans do not like rules defining and inhibiting our behavior, so we
use our God-given ability to rationalize almost anything and accept
erroneous ideas in order to ignore those rules.

Fallacy #1: Natural Inclination Equals Acceptable Public Behavior

Whether a homosexual inclination is caused by genetics, hormonal changes
in the womb, psychological development, or mere whim is completely
irrelevant. The Creator of human nature would not have prohibited
homosexual activity if He did not design this inclination to be
controllable by human free will. He gave us free will to control the
multitude of inclinations that we all possess to varying degrees. Some
are extremely difficult to control, but we are discussing human
behavior, not a passive trait such as skin color.

God also gave we mortal and physical humans commandments to guide us in
the choices we make, in order to elevate ourselves spiritually - not to
live as instinctual animals, but as rational human beings created in His
image. And our volitional efforts are necessary so the spirituality we
attain will have a distinct human involvement.

As Maimonides (1135-1204), one of Judaism’s greatest philosophers and
legal codifiers, taught:

It is possible for a person to be born with a tendency to one of the
virtues or one of the shortcomings i.e., conduct [representative of
this trait] will come easier to him than other types of conduct. He
should not say that these shortcomings are already ingrained in his
character and cannot be removed. For in every situation a person has the
choice of changing from good to bad, and from bad to good. The choice is
in his hands. [13]

Without free will, there is no basis for morality or for that matter
Judaism or Christianity; so to argue that homosexuality or any
prohibited behavior is OK because it is a natural inclination is an
oxymoron. [14] After all, some scientists believe that people are born
with inclinations to be violent or criminal or even pedophiles Do we
then condone and sanction these anti-social actions because they were
born that way

Those who believe modern science has proven homosexual activity is
impossible to control, resist, or even change; and believe that people
who disagree are ignorant and homophobic, should be more open-minded and
check their premises. [15] Regardless of propaganda in the mass media,
there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is
either innate or immutable. [16]

Fallacy #2: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Is Hateful Homophobia

Many view the legalization of same-sex marriage as eliminating
discrimination in a desire not to make anyone feel uncomfortable, as if
there is a Constitutional right not to feel uncomfortable. They even
tie-in discussions of same-sex marriage with hate crimes legislation.
Therefore, it is important to distinguish between hating the sin and
hating the sinner.

The idea that opposition to homosexual activity and its public sanction
is equivalent to or leads to hatred of individual homosexuals is a big
lie created to demonize, intimidate, and silence opponents of the gay
rights agenda. And the data confirms the big lie. Every crime of
violence against another human being is reprehensible, but according to
the latest FBI Hate Crimes statistics, it is estimated that less than
0.0001 of homosexuals were victims of violent assaults; not exactly an
epidemic of homophobic rage spreading across America. [17]

In one of the founding documents of the gay liberation movement,
published in the mid-1980s, the National Gay Task Force laid out their
plan to create this big lie. [18]

* The first order of business is the desensitization of the American
people concerning gays and gay rights.
* Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to it
enough. * * The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue
becomes thoroughly tiresome.
* Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are
plainly the most powerful imagemakers in Western civilization. The
average American household watches over seven hours of television daily.
Those hours open a gate: the private world of straights, through which a
Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned,
the medium is the message of normalcy. *
* Portray gays as victims. In any campaign to win over the public we
must be cast as victims in need of protection, so that straights will be
inclined by reflex to assume the role of the protector. *
* We can undercut the moral authority of homophobic churches by
portraying them as antiquated backwaters badly out of step with the
times. *
* At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights, it will be time
to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be
vilified. The public must be shown images of ranting homophobes whose
secondary traits and beliefs disgust Middle America . These images might
include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burnt alive or
castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to
a degree that looks both comical and deranged. These images should be
combined by a method propagandists call the bracket technique.
* The propagandists have been extremely successful! We let their Trojan
horse enter our homes unabated, and we let them infect the minds of our
children. But it is still a lie, built on anti-religious bigotry.

Judaism and Christianity both abhor the sin of homosexual behavior, but
only teach love, respect, and toleration for individual fellow humans -
all created in the image of God. Religious people who believe homosexual
behavior is a sin and oppose same-sex marriage can sincerely say, Some
of my best friends are gay!

The fact is that a person practicing homosexuality has committed a
religious sin, a very serious one in Gods eyes, but so has a Jew that
doesnt keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath, or violates any of the
Commandments. They are no less Jewish, and society lives and deals with
these sinners in a variety of amicable, tolerant, and neighborly ways
without creating special legal rights. This same tolerance applies to
homosexuals. [ 19]

Truly religious people are tolerant of others with whom they disagree
and can live peaceably and neighborly with them in a free society. [20]
This is especially true in America where the political environment has
always been one based on respect for and protection of individual
rights. But the gay rights movement does not want tolerance; they want
nothing less than forced acceptance of their lifestyle as normal,
healthy, and moral; a position most religious people must reject for
themselves and their children. And this is where the problems arise.

This undemocratic use of government force by a minority of citizens is
at its most despicable when public schools are used to impose these
ideas on children of religious families. [21] And as if this use of
public schools for ideological indoctrination were not enough, they then
use judicial activism to control private organizations, such as the Boy
Scouts, which are only remotely connected to the government.

Are there intolerant religious people Of course, but they represent only
a small minority not fully observing a basic tenet of both Judaism and
Christianity, Love thy neighbor as thyself. [22] Their religious
practice, however flawed, at least constrains their behavior, and in the
long run it is an effective tool for improving their humanity.

On the other side, without religion as the basis for the public moral
culture, what will constrain behavior and lead to an improvement of
humanity What will restrain secular intolerance from infecting not a
small minority, but a large majority History’s grand experiment with a
secular society, Communism, was an evil and dismal failure that killed
approximately 100 million innocent people in the 20th Century. [23] Add
to that the Holocaust perpetrated by the socialist, neo-pagan Nazis. All
of the (Judeo-Christian) religious wars in the history of the world pale
by comparison. [24]

Could a secular society result in a nation as great as the United States
Anything is possible in a perfect world, but in our imperfect world,
no such society has yet approached the freedom and the spiritual and
material prosperity of the United States .

Those who wish to ban religion from the public square and impose
secularism on the majority of Americans would do well to rethink their
position the grass is not always greener on the other side As Benjamin
Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine in an attempt to persuade Paine to
abandon his anti-religion essays: If men are so wicked with religion,
what would they be if without it. [25]

Fallacy #3: Same-sex Marriage Is A Private Act Between Consenting Adults

The hidden [sins] are for Hashem, our God, but the revealed [sins] are
for us and our children forever, to carry out all the words of this Torah.

(Deuteronomy 29:28)

The sages explain that Moses is teaching, hidden sins are the province
of God alone, and He holds no one responsible but the sinners
themselves. But everyone is obligated to safeguard against openly
committed sins. [26] Thus, homosexual activity between consenting adults
practiced in privacy is primarily a sin against God, and He will deal
with it. It is not a matter for government regulation. The same cannot
be said about same-sex marriage. Most people may be surprised to know
that the debate over same-sex marriage is not new. As the wise King
Solomon taught us, There is nothing new under the sun. The Bible teaches
that God brought on the Flood in Noah’s time because, all flesh had
corrupted its way upon the earth. [27] A fascinating Midrash (ancient
rabbinic commentary on the Bible) teaches: the generation of the Flood
was only blotted out from the world because they wrote marriage
contracts for males and for females. [28]

Later, the Talmud teaches that Noahides (monotheistic non-Jews) who did
not observe all of the Noahide laws at least did not write a marriage
contract for males [29] In explaining this discussion, Rashi, the great
11th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, points out the vital
distinction between private actions and public policy:

Even though they are suspected of homosexuality and sequester themselves
with males for intercourse, nevertheless, they are not so irresponsible
about this commandment that they would write a marriage contract for them.

There are serious consequences to a society that officially sanctions
activities the vast majority of its citizens accept as immoral. We
ignore, at our own peril, the infinite difference between acceptable
private and public behavior, especially for families raising children
with a focus on future generations, a challenge very few homosexuals share.

To publicly sanction same-sex marriage is to implicitly sanction the
short-term outlook on life inherent to homosexuality. A perfect example
of the disastrous public policy effects of this sort-sighted viewpoint
was the father of FDRs New Deal, economist John Maynard Keynes. A major
flaw in Keynes thinking was his concentration on the short-term. He
thought that focus on the long run was utterly futile and one of the
great mistakes in economics. He abhorred "savings," thought the
"abstinence" of people impedes the growth of wealth, and believed
savings are always a potential threat to economic progress.

One of the leading economists of the 20th Century, Joseph Schumpeter,
noted the connection between Keynes flawed ideas and his "childless and
essentially short run philosophy of life" when he said, "for a person
committed to homosexuality, who is without descendants, there is little
for them to focus the future on." [30] It is not a coincidence that the
Hebrew word in the Bible for children is linguistically the same as
builders.

As economist and political philosopher Thomas Sowell explains, [31]

Marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to
unions of two people instead of three of four or five Why limit it to
adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages,
sexes, and species. Marriage is a social contract because the issues
involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman
produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society
depends. Society has something to say about that.

If society elects not to say anything about it and abandons the primacy
of the traditional family, with its focus on children and future
generations, we also abandon our connections to past generations,
traditions, and history. All we will be left with is a present filled
with hedonistic irresponsibility. And we dont have to wait too long -
just look around! This current attempt at a perpetual age of
adolescence, if not halted soon, will lead at an increasingly rapid rate
to the uncontrollable destruction of civil society.

The Emperor Nero reportedly went so far as to write a marriage contract
for one of his favorite male lovers. [32] Do we really want to follow
the Roman Empire into decline and ruin It is critical to recognize the
essential difference between a society where homosexuality is practiced
privately and one that actually gives it official sanction and recognition.

Fallacy #4: Economic Benefits For Homosexuals Can Only Be Obtained By
Government Force

Proponents of same-sex marriage claim all they really want are equal
rights for homosexuals who live together as couples. This is very
appealing to Americans who historically been tolerant and fair, but it
is a false argument.

Before new rights are created, it is only logical to ask what is their
source. The revolutionary achievement of the Founders of the United
States was their recognition that neither they nor any government could
create rights. This was in complete contrast to the historic Divine
Rights of Kings or the modern systems of man-made collective rights,
such as in the former Soviet Union .

The individual rights of man were from God, as the Declaration of
Independence clearly states: We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights President John F. Kennedy confirmed the
divine source of these rights in his Inaugural Address, the same
revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue
around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the
generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

Same-sex marriage, by any stretch of the imagination, is in complete
contradiction to Gods Instruction Manual, so if the rights of man come
from the hand of God, it is inconceivable that God would view same-sex
marriage as a right.

If proponents of same-sex marriage truly want just the economic benefits
(not rights) that heterosexual sexual couples have, those benefits can
easily be provided in the free market on a voluntary basis, without the
use of government force. Many corporations such as Disney, General
Electric, and Wal-Mart accommodate their employee benefit programs for
homosexuals and many already include insurance coverage for domestic
partners. Just as voluntary sexual activity should be a private matter,
economic benefits for private sexual relationships should be voluntary.
This may entail modifications in some State laws concerning contracts
and benefits, but it does not require laws destroying the sanctity of
marriage between a man and a woman that has been the cornerstone of
civilization for over 5,000 years.

A Final Fallacy: Same-Sex Marriage Hurts No One

In America , we believe in Live and Let Live, so who is hurt if two boys
or two girls want to marry each other

Live & Let Live is a great hallmark of American political life, but it
is only effective in matters between fully developed adults. The
introduction of children and a concern for future generations change the
equation.

This is especially true when it comes to public sanctions and forced
indoctrination of children in the public school system. Parents should
not be forced to teach their children that a fundamental religious and
moral prohibition, one that has been a standard of Judeo-Christian
morality for thousands of years, is not only condoned, but is publicly
sanctioned by their government.

Many homosexuals, such as those with a religious worldview and
especially those with children or strong family ties, understand and
accept the position that same-sex marriage will be harmful to society;
yet it is understandable that many other homosexuals might not see the
harm in same-sex marriage.

But, why do so many heterosexuals support same-sex marriage It seems
apparent that most are misled with the nice sounding, but intentionally
false idea that government force is necessary to eliminate hatred,
uncomfortable feelings, and differences in economic benefits. What about
those leading this battle and intentionally misleading the public Why
are they so vociferously demanding the right to impose this potentially
disastrous policy on the majority of Americans

The answer lies in the fundamental difference between the secular and
the religious worldviews; therefore, it is not unimportant that the vast
majority of Americans hold a religious outlook on life. The third
chapter of the Talmud, Pirkei Avos, (Chapters of the Fathers), asks
three of the most critical questions humans grapple with. [33] As Rabbi
Daniel Lapin explains, each of these transcendental questions can be
answered in two primary ways, defining the difference between the two
worldviews. [34]

1. How did human beings come to be on this planet
Religious: God created us in His image and placed us here.
Secular: By a lengthy, random process of unaided materialistic
evolution, primitive protoplasm became Bach and Beethoven. [35]

2. Where is the human race headed?
Religious To an ultimate day of Gods choosing when a grand Messianic
redemption will take place resulting in the whole world recognizing God
and His truth.

Secular To an ultimate day of destruction and oblivion that will wipe us
out through overcrowding, poverty, global warming, acid rain, nuclear
explosion, off- course meteorites or any combination of the above.

3: What are we supposed to be doing here?
Religious: We are supposed to be developing our relationship with God
and becoming closer to Him through studying and following His Torah and
obeying His mitzvoth. In other words, we have a set of objective ethics
to live by.

Secular: There are no objective ethics, so everything is subjective and
relative. Anything goes is good enough as far as our personal lives go!
Our primary focus on the future is to head off the threats to humanity
in the Secular answer to question #2. If they are too formidable for us
to solve alone, we should urge our government to solve them. If they
are too much for one government to solve, we should urge governments to
cooperate through the United Nations in order to solve them.

Monotheists, such as Jews and Christians, would be in basic agreement
with the religious answers, albeit with variations in the details.

Secularists eschew objective values and ethics, [36] and look at the
future as extremely tenuous and limited to only this world. The ultimate
day of destruction and oblivion are rapidly approaching, and there is
nothing after that! Thus both homosexual and heterosexual secularists,
based on their secular worldview, can very easily fall into the trap of
supporting same-sex marriage. To do so, they intentionally ignore the
serious problems they are imposing on parents with a religious worldview
- parents trying to teach their children Judeo- Christian values.

Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant,
homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only
social justice to destroy any public acceptance of the religious
worldview, even by undemocratic means. The leaders of the secular
movement are strident atheists who cannot tolerate religious people; a
constant reminder of everything they reject. Instead of being religious
fundamentalists, they became secular fundamentalists. Through propaganda
and ridicule, these fundamentalists have also convinced a minority of
Americans, who believe in God, to fear religion more than secularism, in
complete disregard to the barbaric reality of the 20th century.

After the fall of Nazism and Communism, the secular fundamentalists
focused primarily on post-Christian Europe and American academia,
turning both into hotbeds of anti-religious bigotry and virulent anti-
Semitism. These self-proclaimed progressives espouse diversity, but are
in fact very close-minded and hostile to all political, cultural, and
especially religious opinions with which they disagree.

Over a century ago, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch anticipated modern
secular fundamentalism with prophetic precision. [37]

It is now no longer enough for the apostate to be able to live
undisturbed according to his convictions, as he calls them; to him there
is no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become
the only ones recognized as right and valid.

He sees in the Law an intellectual slavery from which it is the Godly
task of a second Moses to redeem his unfortunate brothers. In
Torah-loyalty, he sees superstition, backwardness, and at the same time
a calamity which is to blame for all the miseries of the past.

He sees in liberation from the yoke of the Law a goal so high and so
humanitarian that every means which seems capable of bringing about
progress toward this great goal must be employed.

He has reached the stage of waging fanatical campaigns of persecution
against those loyal to the Law.

Extremists on either side can be dangerous if initiation of force is not
limited by a strong Constitutional defense of individual rights and
religious freedom. [38] The secular side, however, offers the greatest
risk to society. It contains no internalized mechanism for an objective
moral code of human cooperation and must rely solely on the
collectivized, legalistic force of government for citizens to defend
themselves. It also contains no effective, common moral foundation for
raising children, especially in a vacuum without an existent moral
culture passed down from previous generations of religious tradition.

The Ultimate Victims

Who are the ultimate victims On a micro level, our children are the
victims, but on a macro level, our free society will be the victim. As
President John Adams said in 1798,

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made
for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other. [39]

George Washington expressed this same idea in his 1796 Farewell Address
to the Nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man
claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great
pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men
and citizens. [40]

In other words, our secular form of government was designed only for a
non-secular people.

150 years later, President Harry Truman confirmed that a moral and
religious people were still necessary for maintenance of our free
society. [41]

The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the
Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the
teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.

If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally
end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights
for anybody except the State.

Adams, Washington, the other Founders, and Presidents through George W.
Bush have understood that a limited Constitutional government of the
people, by the people, and for the people could work only if the society
is primarily self-policed, based on a common moral code that served as
an invisible net of social stability. In America this has always been
the Judeo-Christian values derived from the Bible, most recently
expressed in the phrase one nation under God.

Some argue that to officially state the United States is one nation
under God or to publicly recognize Judeo-Christian thought as the source
of our legal and political systems violates the rights of atheists and
non-monotheists. The very concept of rights in the United States
presupposes belief in the God of the Bible, not by every citizen, but at
least by the majority. Like homosexuals, atheists want to invent a right
to force their neighbors to lock their religious beliefs in the closet,
so no one except the religious ever feels uncomfortable.

To accept the assertion that public sanction of religion violates the
rights of atheists and non-monotheists, one must completely ignore the
Declaration of Independence, the history and writings of the Founders,
and our nations history until the last 50 years. If ignored, then this
discussion is not about the United States , but a completely new
country. How can the greatest nation in the history of the world allow
judges and special interest groups to completely redefine the nature and
character of this great country without ascertaining the will of the
majority through a democratic process [42]

Do we really believe that the Founders, who created this revolutionary
concept of rights and created the greatest Constitutional system as yet
devised by mankind, did not understand what they were doing. Contrary to
a historical myth perpetrated by the secularists, America at the time of
the founding included atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc., [43] and
the Founders knew that it was only this unique form of government, based
on individual rights from God, that would protect people of all beliefs.

As historian David Barton explains, the Founders were all religious
Christians, but they did not oppose pluralism, as long as the beliefs of
other religions did not threaten the stability of civil society. [44] In
fact, the Founders believed that pluralism survived only within the
concept of religious liberty espoused by American Christianity, [45]
uniquely different from European Christianity and based on what we now
term the Judeo-Christian Ethic. [46]

The opposite is not necessarily true. As Rabbi Hirsch taught us about
the secular fundamentalist, there will be no well-being and no peace as
long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as
right and valid. He cannot tolerate a religious worldview outside the
confines of the church or synagogue. Sadly, the history of 20th century
Europe and the secular liberalism of 21st century American academia
confirm both his prediction and the understanding of the Founders that
pluralism of belief will not survive in a secular society.

People yearn for predictability in their lives and communities, and this
invisible net provides that predictability in their everyday lives. If
predictability is lost to chaos, they often turn to dictators or other
forms of totalitarian government to restore predictability.

Without a moral public culture shared by the majority of citizens to
provide the invisible net of social stability, government could not be
limited and would have to encroach into every citizens life and freedom.
Instead of a free society of cooperation between individuals, more and
more human interaction would have to be decided by the legal system and
bureaucrats. Morality would be replaced by legality, which helps explain
why the judicial system is taking control of our government and our
lives. Without a commonly accepted morality, there is no basis for human
cooperation, other than force. Freedom would rapidly morph into tyranny.

As Rabbi Lapin has explained: [47]

One unintended side effect of the secular fundamentalism sweeping
America is how it erodes the rules that hold together the invisible net
of social stability. By encouraging unfettered personal license, secular
fundamentalism helps collapse civilized norms. Then, when people dress
with deliberately provocative vulgarity and they express themselves
loudly and obscenely in public, hardworking, family-minded citizens are
left with a growing feeling of unease. When young people no longer see
their maturation leading naturally toward marriage and when marriage
itself becomes threatened by cultural ridicule and purported
alternatives, parents feel unmoored. When public institutions depict
religion as only for the emotionally needy and the intelligence impaired
many Americans feel resentment and alienation.

This is obviously not to suggest that the hobby of shattering
traditional rules that seems to delight so many journalists, academics,
and intellectuals is going to endow America with a future dictatorial
tyrant. It can eventually, however, infect ordinary Americans with
docility about further Federal control beyond that necessary to protect
us from our enemies. In a desperate attempt to recover some sense of
normality and predictability in our lives, we might be tempted to
embrace expanded government influence over how we live, earn, and
worship. We would yearn for the predictability and normality that used
to be supplied by those traditional rules that many Jewish and Christian
Americans of faith remember increasingly nostalgically. Biblically-based
faith helps to maintain freedom by holding together the invisible
framework of social stability.

The Founders understood this lesson well, but we have strayed from that
lesson.

Our free society, as the Founders dreamed it and we once knew it, will
be lost forever unless Americans make a political stand to preserve this
endangered invisible framework of social stability. That stand must
begin with protecting children from the Trojan horse of secular
fundamentalism expressed in such formerly unthinkable legalisms as same-
sex marriage.

The secular fundamentalists leading this assault on Judeo-Christian
values understand very well that the children are their point of attack.
If you doubt that children are the intended victims, read the words of
an openly homosexual woman who was formerly an insider in the leadership
of the feminist and radical gay rights movements, until she realized
these movements were no longer based on the ideal of civil-rights, but
on socialism, the foundational model of the Far Left. [48] These are a
few of her comments about their efforts to end anti-gay bias in K-12
schools. [49]

For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in their
sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit comfortably into our
society They must work to sexualize every part of society and, as every
good marketer knows, that effort must begin with children.

The efforts of gay establishment organizations, if the future is really
their concern, should be focused on persuading the horde of bacchanalian
boys to change their lifestyle. Instead, they are demanding that we
accept their degeneracy, and the destruction of our future in the
process. We dare not judge them. We dare not question their actions. And
we are to hand the nations children over to them.

This is why a free society such as the United States , where the vast
majority of the people believe in Judeo-Christian values, can tolerate
unrestricted private sexual activity between consenting adults, but
cannot allow public sanction and endorsement of homosexuality as a
cultural norm.

Will God Continue to Bless America

Until the past few years, almost all Americans, and especially
Presidents and candidates for President, firmly believed that America
had earned God’s blessings. Now, secularists and even some Presidential
candidates question this bedrock belief of religious Americans. The
naysayers may unwittingly prove to be correct if they are successful in
imposing their secular agenda on the majority of Americans.

From the religious point of view, same-sex marriage and its public
sanction of homosexuality will desecrate Gods name. On a much larger
scale it will also risk the loss of His blessings on the United States,
so eloquently requested by President George Washington in his first
Inaugural address (1789):

It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my
fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the
Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose
providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction
may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the
United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential
purposes.

Samuel Silver is Chairman of Toward Tradition (www.towardtradition.org),
a national movement of Jewish and Christian cooperation, fighting
anti-religious bigotry and secular fundamentalism.

END