How will this election impact your religious freedom right here in
America? The simple truth is that our next President and the Supreme
Court Justices that he will appoint could radically change the way you
practice your religion. Consider these examples:
You will not be able to teach all that the Bible says in your church.
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary in Louisville, KY, has written an article entitled
"Criminalizing Christianity: Sweden’s Hate Speech Law." He explains
what has already happened in Sweden:
Ake Green, pastor of a Pentecostal congregation in Kalmar,
Sweden, was sentenced to one month in prison on a charge of inciting
hatred against homosexuals. Pastor Green was prosecuted for his
sermon in a January hearing, where he was found guilty of "hate
speech against homosexuals" for a sermon preached in 2003.
According to press reports, Pastor Green condemned homosexuality
as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society."
His comments were delivered as part of a sermon, drawn from biblical
texts, dealing with the sin of homosexuality. In Sweden, biblical
preaching is now a crime….
The Swedish church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning reported that
the prosecutor in this case, Kjell Yngvesson, justified the arrest
and prosecution of Pastor Green on these grounds: "One may have
whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts
against homosexuals. Collecting Bible citations on this topic as he
does makes this hate speech."
This is one of the most shocking and revealing statements uttered
by any legal official in recent times. This prosecutor has the
audacity to argue that one may hold to "whatever religion one
wishes," so long as one does not preach from the Bible and address
the issue of homosexuality from a biblical perspective. The simple
practice of reading biblical texts teaching the sinfulness of
homosexuality is now against the law in Sweden.
But this is not confined to Sweden. Mohler continues with a warning
for America and the rest of the world:
The recent expansion of hate crimes laws in Canada, intended to
outlaw all criticism of homosexuality, is convincing proof that
these trends are not limited to Europe. The logic of
restrictions on free speech is clear. The issue of homosexuality has
also become a test case for American civil liberties. Where
homosexual behavior was once characterized as sodomy and thus
criminalized, some now openly call for the criminalizing of all
"hate speech" addressed to homosexuals. Earlier this year, the
U.S. Senate passed a hate crimes provision attached to a defense
appropriation bill. Sponsored by senators Ted Kennedy [D-MA] and
Gordon Smith [R-OR], the law would have levied fines against anyone
found to have committed a crime that is "motivated by prejudice
based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, or disability of the victim." The
provision passed the Senate, but died in the conference process with
the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, the fact that the bill
passed in the Senate sends the nation an urgent warning, and the
logical jump from "hate crimes" legislation to codes against "hate
speech" is small indeed.2
If this law is passed, which it will be in a very short time if
Christians do not act, even witnessing for our Lord Jesus Christ will
be a crime in America, as it is already in several countries around
Christians cannot pray or hold Bible studies in certain places in
This is the next step in a growing trend in America. A little
history might be in order. School prayer was effectively banned on
June 17, 1963, in the Murray vs. Curlett case. The Supreme Court
rendered this opinion:
Once again we are called upon to consider the scope of the
provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof…." These companion cases present the issues in the
context of state action requiring that schools begin each day with
readings from the Bible. While raising the basic questions under
slightly different factual situations, the cases permit of joint
treatment. In light of the history of the First Amendment and of our
cases interpreting and applying its requirements, we hold that the
practices at issue and the laws requiring them are unconstitutional
under the Establishment Clause, as applied to the States through the
In June, 2000, the Supreme Court banned even student-led prayer
before sports events:
"We recognize the important role that public worship plays in
many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public
prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions’
significance," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
"But such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere,
must comport with the First Amendment," he added….
"Even if we regard every high school student’s decision to attend
a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless
persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper
effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of
religious worship," he wrote.4
The Government and the Courts decide when children in the womb can be
killed—the most dangerous place in America is your mother’s womb!
We live in a time when our government is permitting the killing of
innocent babies in the womb. In January 1973, The Supreme Court passed
the "Row vs. Wade" decision, which reads in part:
…the State does have an important and legitimate interest in
preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, … and
that it has still another important and legitimate interest in
protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are
separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman
approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in
the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of
present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first
trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, …
that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may
be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from
and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to
the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the
preservation and protection of maternal health. …
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy
prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in
consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without
regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the
patient’s pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is
reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of
interference by the State.
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in
potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so
because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful
life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal
life after viability thus has both logical and biological
justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life
after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during
that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or
health of the mother….
A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that
excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of
the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without
recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.5
However, we have elsewhere argued extensively that both science and
the Bible agree human life begins at the moment of conception.6
Therefore, at any point during the pregnancy, terminating that
pregnancy ends a human life.
Tragically, Judie Brown, who at the time of this interview was
President of the American Life League, told us about some papers found
following the death of Justice William O. Douglass which relate to the
Supreme Court decision in Row vs. Wade:
There is also a memo that Justice Blackmun sent to Justice
Douglass in which he pointed out that his aim, through Row vs. Wade,
was going to be to legalize abortion, no matter what steps he had to
take. He wanted to minimize the damage to the judicial process,
however, in such a way that he would come up with the most logical
argument that the Justices could possibly use. But they had
to legalize abortion. And so they knew, when they took the case, Row
vs. Wade, and Doe vs. Bolton, that they were, in fact, going to
legalize abortion. The only question that was in their minds was how
to do it. This is why the Justices chose, in 1972, when they heard
the arguments, to eliminate all medical discussion from the hearing.
There were no pieces of evidence allowed in that courtroom with
regard to the humanity of the child in the womb.7
Since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973 we
have permitted 44,670,812 babies to be killed in the womb via
You cannot display or teach the Ten Commandments in schools—or any
On October 4, 2004, the Associated Press reported the final
step in Alabama Judge Roy Moore’s fight over the Ten Commandments
monument. They said,
The three-year legal battle over ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy
Moore and his Ten Commandments monument ended quietly Monday when
the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Moore’s final appeal.
The high court made no comment in declining Moore’s request to
reverse his expulsion last year by a state judicial ethics panel for
refusing a federal judge’s order to remove the 5,300-pound monument
from the Alabama courthouse.
Moore said in a statement that it was hypocritical for the
"liberal Supreme Court" to turn down his appeal even though the
justices begin each session with the phrase, "God save the United
States and this honorable court."
"Obviously, when they open their courts this way the majority of
the court doesn’t really mean it," said Moore, whose appeal to keep
the monument in the courthouse was rejected by the court last year.8
And of course, we can no longer post the Ten Commandments in our
schools. We can’t teach these moral principles to our students. It’s
no wonder children kill each other in school when they are never
taught "Thou shalt not kill".
Homosexual unions, formerly a crime in America, will now be given the
same legal status as marriage. Students will be taught that
homosexuality is a natural and acceptable alternative lifestyle.
Our courts are opening the door to legalizing homosexual marriage.
It has already happened in Canada, Sweden, Belgium, France, and the
Why should American Christians be concerned about this issue? I
asked Glenn Stanton, Senior Analyst for Marriage and Family at Focus
on the Family, "How does someone’s gay marriage threaten your family?
Here’s what he said:
Every time I debate this issue publicly, my opponent asks me that
question. "How will my gay marriage, my gay relationship, hurt your
family?" And my answer to that is real simple: If we were just
talking about you and your partner, then no real harm. But what we
are talking about is you asking all of us to dramatically and
radically change our own definition of marriage so that husband and
wife, mother and father do not matter. And that’s where it harms my
family: your same-sex family, whether lesbian or gay, will teach my
little boy and my little girl that they, as gendered beings, male or
female, do not matter for the family, and that their mother and
father do not matter for the family. And I will never allow anybody
to teach my children that lesson.9
Your church’s tax-exempt status will be revoked if you teach and
preach biblical Christianity.
Do you realize that your church could very well be pressured to
perform same-sex weddings or lose some or all of its privileges? When
courts find same-sex marriage to be a constitutional and fundamental
human right, the American Civil Liberties Union can and will
convincingly argue that the government is underwriting discrimination
by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor
natural marriage. Glenn Stanton describes the scenario:
It’s important to understand what Bill C-250 is in Canada. It
wasn’t too long ago that Canada passed same-sex marriage, and then
just a couple of months after that they passed Bill C-250, which
criminalized hate speech against homosexuals. It says that if you
say something that could be deemed mean or hateful against
homosexuals, you could spend up to two years in prison. Two years in
prison! Not for physically harming anybody or slandering anybody,
but simply saying something that is unfashionable against
And we could deal with the same thing here. It’s really quite
simple how that would happen, and you laid it out very nicely. If
same-sex marriage is seen as a fundamental human right, then there
are going to be activist couples who go to your church and say,
"Pastor, will you marry us?" And you’re going to say, "No, I’m
sorry, we don’t believe in same-sex marriage. You’ll have to go
They’re going to go straight down to the local ACLU office and
they’re going to say, "Doesn’t Church XYZ on the corner have
tax-exempt status from the federal government?"
"Well, yes, they do."
"Well, they denied us our fundamental human rights!"
The ACLU is going to be on you so fast! And the churches are
going to be threatened with losing their tax-exempt status because
they do not endorse and do not perform same-sex marriages. It’s
going to happen. And it’s already happening around the world.10
By who you choose to be President, you are also picking the next three
or four Supreme Court justices.
We have shown you how the nine justices on the Supreme Court made
decisions such as banning prayer in schools, legalizing abortion, and
even, recently, overturning a Texas law that criminalized sodomy.11
During the next four years, experts say the new President will appoint
at least three, possibly four, new judges to the Supreme Court.
What other freedoms will Americans lose if three or four more
liberal judges are appointed? Do we want more decisions such as the
ones we’ve seen?
Christians in America have a chance to decide, to a certain extent,
how the country, and the Supreme Court will go.
How? Christians need to stand up, to actively confront the
culture with truth and to take our stand through voting.
1 Albert Mohler,
"Criminalizing Christianity: Sweden’s Hate Speech Law,"
2 Ibid., emphasis added.
emphasis added. Doesn’t it seem odd that the Supreme Court would
decide prayer should be banned on the basis that the free exercise
of religion should not be prohibited?
4 Raju Chebium, "Supreme Court
bars student-led prayer at high school football games," http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer.01/
6 See, for example John
Ankerberg, John Weldon, When Does Life Begin? (Brentwood, TN:
Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, 1989).
7 The John Ankerberg Show,
"Interview With Former Abortionists," program transcript, p. 17.
8 Kyle Wingfield, "Supreme
Court won’t hear Alabama Ten Commandments case,"
9 The John Ankerberg Show,
"The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage," program transcript, pp. 33-34.
10 Ibid., p. 5