Join the resistance composed of happy warriors.

Photo credit: Michael DeMarco on Unsplash.com

Last week, this column showed how government is grounded in eternal truths of right and wrong. It went on to outline various levels of evil that require different responses from good citizens. Space prevented any discussion of what those responses might be. 

Today we need to remedy that. Otherwise, anxious minds might jump to false conclusions. Unhinged actions only put society in danger. Worse, it leaves our most powerful weapons against evil unused.

When government goes awry, those who truly believe it to be an institution of God will turn to prayer as the first resort. “Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain” (Psalm 127:1 ESV). When impassable roadblocks threatened the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin moved that it begin with prayer.

Prayer against evil should be more than private and personal. Churches should make them public and corporate. Prayers must not be silenced just because someone objects that it is “political.” The Church must become fully competent to distinguish between mere differences of opinion and matters of good and evil.

While human opinion should not intrude into the corporate prayers, they must include divine judgments of good and evil. Congregations that neglect praying about these matters, are robbing their neighbors of a solemn duty. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause along with the Free Assembly Clause exist for this purpose.

Citizens that pray publicly against public evils will naturally talk about them. This is the second kind of resistance to tyrannical government. Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor wrote, “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Tyranny suppresses any speech that would name it or call out its evil. To speak is to resist. Naming evil drags it out of the shadows and into the daylight—which is a powerful disinfectant. One calm, rational voice will break through the timidity of others, and swell into a chorus. Only through such public discussion can communities coordinate an effective response.

This is why tyrants cannot tolerate open discussion of evil. It is also why the calm and rational naming of evil is among the most powerful kinds of resistance. The pen is, indeed, mightier than the sword. The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the second-most powerful weapon against tyranny.

Speech that is not backed up by action is hollow. That’s why the third defense against tyranny is action. But the cancel culture is a dangerous and costly place to act. Tyrants deliberately make action costly to suppress it. They jeopardize friendships, family relationships, and a good name. They threaten employment, reputation, and even government fines. 

Elie Wiesel

For all these reasons many good people go along to get along. They do things under pressure that they would not normally do. Sometimes they even do things against the best interest of those in their charge, contrary to conscience. They may excuse themselves that they are “only following orders,” but when innocent people are harmed, this excuse does not pass muster.

When supervisors, educators, pastors, doctors, or government officials do things against their better judgment to preserve themselves, they are participating in the evil. It may work for a while, but it only strengthens the evil and leads to ever more costly compromises.

Many good people feel like they have no choice. They feel like their duty to provide for the family prevents them from risking employment or future promotion. This objection is rooted in a misunderstanding. Contrary to popular opinion, God does not make it our duty to “bring home the bacon.” 

Rather, God requires that we faithfully and diligently serve our neighbor in our various jobs. He keeps for Himself the responsibility of feeding our families. He specifically forbids us to worry. “Do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:31-33).

This promise, and not the force of arms, fully equips us for the resistance. Teachers should teach the truth no matter what the union or some globalist might say. Government officials are elected to do the right thing—not to cower before illegitimate regulations. Doctors have a duty to “do no harm,” not to follow corporate protocols.

Each time you do your duty to others without fear of how tyrants might punish you, you are firing a bullet at the forces of evil. When entire communities, offices, industries, and officials do this simultaneously, the forces of evil are swept off the field. 

This is our first line of defense. God grant us many happy warriors.

The Magdeburg Confession is a document for our time

In 1550, the city of Magdeburg, Germany was under siege. It faced a crisis of government because the army encircling the city was not a foreign army, but a domestic one. 

The citizens of Magdeburg were subjects of the very Emperor whose armies encircled the city. He was there to enforce a law that they considered both ungodly and unjust. The city council faced an impossible decision. Should it obey the emperor, and allow the slaughter of innocent men under its protection? Or should it protect and defend Magdeburg’s citizens by taking up arms against its own emperor?

Either way, it seemed, would be a sin. The problem was both political and theological. The Magdeburgers were not so naïve as to think that Church and State could be separated. The very notion of obedience to lawful authority requires a belief that God Himself institutes legitimate governments. Without this foundation, there can be no notion of lawful and peaceful obedience. There is only the lex talionis—might makes right.

But if God puts rulers in place, then every ruler is “under God.” He is ultimately answerable to God Himself. This is not only true of the emperor, but it is also true of every lesser government official—from the head of a household to the mayor, to a faceless federal bureaucrat. 

In short, all the candidates on Tuesday’s ballot are running for a divine appointment. They seek an office that is ultimately answerable to God. And God requires that those whom He elects to execute the office justly.

When any office holder defies the principles of right and wrong—whether they are written into statute, or only imprinted on the human heart—he is acting illegitimately. Citizens need not be constitutional scholars to judge illegitimate government actions. Right and wrong exist prior to Constitution, U.S. Code, state statutes, or bureaucratic rules.

That is why so many citizens today are troubled. Unjust actions are taking place at every level of government. They see abuse of office in the unequal treatment of citizens under the law. They see the huge disparity between the Department of Justice’s treatment of J-6 prisoners and the same department’s treatment of 2020’s rioters. They see last Monday’s raid on Mar-a-Lago in contrast to James Comey’s refusal to prosecute the public crimes of Hillary Clinton.

These two examples are only the tip of the iceberg, but they are enough to make the point. Openly unjust governance defies the very God who set the government in place. This is the natural and logical consequence of denying the existence of God. Those who do not acknowledge God at the foundation of government, are left with nothing more than Nietzsche’s “will to power.” This can never end well.

But how should godly citizens and officeholders respond to openly unjust rulers? The pastors of Magdeburg addressed this question head-on in a document called “The Magdeburg Confession.” The city council did not have the authority that God gave the emperor, but it did have its own God-given authority. The Magdeburg Confession explained the duties that these “lesser magistrates” had towards God and towards the emperor. 

This document can also help us today. Injustice and tyrannical actions can goad people to overreact. That is both wrong and counterproductive. Not all tyranny is of the same type. Some can be borne without injury to the republic. Other types must be vigorously resisted. Thoughtful and godly citizens must know the difference. 

The first level of tyranny is when the office holder’s personal vices harm others. Here, we should urge the official to a better way of life but otherwise bear the injustice. Tyranny rises to a second level when an official unjustly uses government power against a citizen or a lower office holder. In that case, God does not compel a person to obey an unlawful order, but He does permit him to bear with the injustice so long as it does not compel him to participate in the evil.

When an unlawful command requires someone to sin, it has reached the third level of tyranny. At that level, a person is not only permitted, but required to disobey the unlawful order. “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29 ESV).

The fourth, and highest, level of tyranny moves from the persecution of certain persons to the persecution of the very rights and principles themselves. The Magdeburg Confession sees this as a persecution of God Himself, who is the author of all rights.

We would do well to dust off this centuries-old document and study it anew. As “one nation under God,” there is much that we can learn from it. Faithful and well-informed citizens will want neither to overreact nor to underreact in a time of crisis.

Defend the rights of the poor and needy

America is holding her collective breath and waiting. Will the highest court in the land judge righteously? Will the Supreme Court of the United States defend the rights of the neediest and most vulnerable people in the land?

For nearly five decades has America thus been waiting. Year after year, all eyes look to see if nine black-robed judges might utter the magic words that would protect the lives of all. Year after year another million children have been lost, their parents wounded, their families hollowed out.

But why are we waiting? Is not God’s command clear and immediate? “Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:9). The imperatives are personal and singular. Nothing in these words requires others to act. Much less do they require you to wait for permission to act.

Imagine a nation where citizens are legally forbidden to stop a public lynching. Consider a country where it is illegal to defend some ethnic or religious class. 

Would such laws be valid? Should we obey them? Would the situation be improved if such outrages were performed in a clinic dedicated to the purpose? Would the perpetrator be justified if the legal guardian first signed a form granting consent?

These are not imaginary scenarios. Looking back, we are not hampered by moral uncertainty. We judge evil harshly—and rightly so. Corrie ten Boom, Oskar Schindler and Harriet Tubman are uncontested heroes. The Nuremberg defense abjectly failed to lessen the villainy of Rudolf Hess and Herman Göring who were “only following orders.” The cold, steady eye of posterity inevitably sees through even the densest fog of the cultural wars.

With this 20/20 vision, we assure ourselves that we would have been on the right side of history had we lived in those days. But we blind ourselves to what our own posterity will judge us to be. 

And what is it, exactly, that we praise in Schindler, ten Boom, and Tubman? The word is “interposition.” They interposed themselves between innocent victims and government actors who hunted them down. They saw injustice in real time and acted to protect the innocent. 

Interposition is neither insurrection nor complicity in evil. It is the full and free use of your own resources and position to do always, and only, the right thing. Ten Boom lied to the Nazis. Tubman defied the Fugitive Slave Act. Schindler bought slaves from the Nazis in order to save them. 

In every case, interposition involves both wisdom and personal risk. It recognizes that government authority has limits. “Under God,” means that the most powerful ruler remains subject to “Nature’s God.” It also means that even the lowliest official has a divine mandate to resist evil from above. 

In early May, an anonymous actor leaked a draft opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson, written by Justice Samuel Alito. The leak triggered pro-abortion activists into obnoxious and illegal contortions designed to keep the draft from becoming the official opinion of the Court. Will the five signatories hold the line, or won’t they? We will soon find out.

But Alito’s draft is far more than just one possible opinion. It changed the game by exposing both Roe and Casey for what they are. They are not constitutional, statutory, judicially sound, or moral. Even if the assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh, or the illegal protests at Justice Barrett’s home, or the current blockade of the Supreme Court were to succeed in cowing the Court and suppressing this opinion, Alito’s words cannot become unsaid.

Roe and Casey have forever lost the fig leaf of judicial legitimacy. They were nothing but naked power grabs from the start. Through this leaked draft, the world has been given the rare opportunity to know the judgment of posterity in real time. What will our children and grandchildren say about us? Read Alito’s opinion and you know. 

Nevertheless, the draft stops short of justice. It declines to protect every human life as legitimate governments are duty-bound to do. Rather, it merely takes the federal judiciary out of the game. 

One illegitimate claim to power has been deflated. But justice will still require wisdom and courage on the part of every office holder. If SCOTUS’ ultimate opinion follows Alito’s draft, the battleline will shift from the judicial branch to the legislative—where it properly belongs. But the duty of interposition will not have changed in the slightest. 

The unborn will still need governors to protect them from federal injustice. State legislators will still need to craft laws that defend the innocent from congressional overreach. County commissions, city councils, fathers, mothers and grandparents can no longer wait for nine black-robed judges to do the right thing. Each one, every day, without exception must be both wise and bold to do always, and only, the right thing. “Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

In 2022, let’s keep our oaths.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on unsplash.

As Old Man 2021 finishes the race and a baby New Year comes out of the gate, let’s make some New Year’s resolutions that will count for generations. Rather than hollow promises to shed a few pounds, it is time that we make an oath to keep all previous oaths.

Like a resolution, an oath is a solemn declaration to fulfill a pledge. Unlike a resolution, oaths call on God as a witness. Oath makers recognize that even the highest human power—possessing overwhelming resources, sophisticated surveillance, and the most powerful weapons in the world—remains dwarfed by the almighty and all-seeing God who transcends all human judgment and power.

Sadly, oath keepers have been lately tarred and feathered in a guilt-by-association campaign aided by an incurious press. Ray Epps, president of the Arizona chapter of the “Oath Keepers” has been caught on numerous video clips encouraging thousands of people to enter restricted zones on January 6. His boss, Stewart Rhodes, is likewise implicated through intercepted communications.

Ray Epps inciting illegality on January 5, 2021

Despite this apparently illegal activity, neither of these men has been arrested or charged with crimes. Rather, the FBI has scandalously let their behavior skate even while treating association with their suspect organization as suspicious. While the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center has labelled the group “antigovernment,” the FBI is more cautious in its wording.

Most recently, an anonymous “whistleblower” has made unsubstantiated claims that over 200 Wyomingites including several high-profile conservatives were once involved with the organization. Whether the purported involvement was in recent history, or amounted to more than winding up on someone’s email list, it didn’t say. Regardless, such membership would be protected by the first amendment. There is no criminal activity here unless the “whistleblower” turns out to be a government employee.

Rather than smearing oath keepers, we should encourage them. We can begin by considering why people willingly take oaths in the first place. While cynics take oaths to lure people into their confidence, honest oath-makers take oaths because they want the transcendent God to help them keep their oaths. They do so to undertake public duties that require personal integrity.

Such public duties include marriage, parenthood, government (from the president to public school teachers), military and law-enforcement to name a few.  These people wield such power over others that there is a grave danger of abuse. Neither legislation, nor its enforcement can possibly ensure perfect integrity in public officials. Oaths require self-policing and humble submission to a power higher than law enforcement can reach.

Oath keepers recognize that duty will sometimes conflict with their personal desires for wealth, happiness, or even life. With sound mind and free will, they take oaths to bind themselves to self-sacrifice when the mind and will object to the call of duty.

Love leads couples to the altar. But the oaths taken there keep them together in rough times. Adventure and patriotism lead some to volunteer for military service, but the military oath binds them to act honorably when bullets are flying. Ambition may induce politicians to seek higher office, but their oath of office requires them to abandon ambition when it conflicts with the public trust.

We need more oath keepers, not fewer. Children need parents who keep marriage vows even when feelings flag. Townsfolk need peace officers who will protect and defend without abusing the awesome powers entrusted to them. A free republic requires elected officials who will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” even when nobody is watching (U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 8).

On December 28, the Fourth Day of Christmas, Christians throughout the world solemnly remember the slaughter of the Holy Innocents. According to St. Matthew, King Herod sent out his soldiers with orders to kill all the baby boys in the region of Bethlehem (Mt. 2:16). 

What kind of soldier would obey such an order? Were they, themselves, acting under threat of death? For the parents who helplessly watched sharp steel cut into tender flesh, the motivation of the soldiers offered no consolation. The manifest injustice screamed to heaven and to the One who sees all.

Having seen and considered the great evil that comes from officers bound to kings rather than to God, we have our officers breathe an oath to the heavens. They consciously call themselves to account before the judge of all.

Every mother and father, every teacher and board member, every councilman and congress member, has made a similar oath. Sadly, American jurisprudence has grown weak, fickle, and sometimes outrightly partisan in its failure to enforce these oaths. That should deepen the resolve of every oath maker to be an oath keeper.

Oaths don’t have an expiration date. They don’t have conditions attached. Thank God for every individual who lives up to an oath. And let us resolve to fulfill our own oaths to family, church, and country in 2022 and beyond.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on December 31, 2021; and in the Cowboy State Daily on January 5, 2022.

Encourage Wyoming’s “Lesser Magistrates” to stand firm.

Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

The genius of the United States Constitution is its separation of powers. This concept, in turn, derives from a centuries-old line of reasoning sometimes known as “the doctrine of the lesser magistrates,” later developed as “subsidiarity.” It is needed now, more than ever.

After October’s special session failed to pass legislation to protect Wyoming citizens from federal overreach, a November 10 Press Release from the governor announced a “three-pronged approach” to challenge “unconstitutional federal vaccine mandates.” Wyoming joined three separate lawsuits “against the Biden administration for imposing [] vaccine mandate[s]” on federal employees and contractors, on private businesses with more than 100 employees, and on all healthcare workers.

On December 7, 2021 a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against the federal employee mandate. Combined with numerous injunctions issued in November the “three-pronged approach” has temporarily halted all three mandates and has a good chance of becoming permanent. 

Most recently, Governor Gordon, and four other governors, sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense asserting their rights as Commander in Chief of the state’s National Guard. He wrote, “Under Title 32 duty status, the Wyoming National Guard is under my command and control." Thus, the vaccine mandates on Wyoming Guard members “are an overreach of the federal government’s authority.”

Beyond the immediate subject of vaccine mandates, these actions uphold the broader principle of the separation of powers. This, in turn, is built on the Bible. It is the practical outworking of the Bible’s teaching most concisely articulated in Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

These words teach Christians that governments should be respected as divine authorities. But that is not all. They also teach that all government officials—from school board members to presidents—wield authority from God. They are not mere functionaries of the king but have duties and responsibilities in their own right. 

Further, since all authority is from God, all authority is ultimately answerable to God. Kings that use their authority to do objective evil—like murder, theft and homewrecking—act illegitimately and outside their governing authority. 

When higher authorities usurp the power of other God-appointed authorities (i.e. “lesser magistrates,”) they are taking over what God has given to another. And when they do this in open defiance of justice, the “lesser magistrates” have a duty to protect their constituency from the unjust higher authority. 

Wyoming’s July 29th filing of an amicus brief with 23 other states to oppose the unjust and unconstitutional rulings of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey provides another example of this principle at work. 

Protecting Wyoming citizens from unlawful medical mandates and unjust hindrances in the protection of women and children is a welcome development. Both indicate that the governor’s office understands its duty to oppose federal authority when doing so is necessary for the protection of its citizens.

However, a new development, called Corporatism or Fascism, is harming Wyoming citizens in another way. Fascism, thus defined, is not a cartoonish word-weapon used meaninglessly to smear political opponents. It has a precise meaning. It is the collusion of government and business in the implementation of undemocratic policy. It deliberately breaks down the line between government and private enterprise and weaponizes corporations to enhance the power of the state. 

Here’s how it works. Governments threaten to enact rules that will hurt an industry’s bottom line. Then, they induce it to enact a policy that the government is constitutionally forbidden to enact. Businesses comply to receive favorable government treatment and, thus, become an arm of the state disguised as private enterprise. The circle is closed when the state fails to prosecute any laws that the business breaks in the process.

This alarming trend has seen financial institutions collude against the firearms industry as in “Operation Choke Point.” It has seen government collude with social media giants to encourage censorship. And it was used in the infamous “war on coal.”

Now, Wyoming is beginning to push back against such Fascism. After reports that the Biden administration is “pressuring U.S. banks and financial institutions to limit, encumber, or outright refuse financing for traditional energy production companies,” State Treasurer, Curt Meier, signed a letter from 15 energy-producing states. These states promised to yank $600 billion from financial institutions that kowtow to the administration’s pressure.

This is good news for Wyoming’s energy-producing families. Better still, it is a sign that Wyoming’s “lesser magistrates” are seeing the clear and present dangers of federal overreach combined with corporate collusion. It will take firm resolve and cooperation with other states to build walls of defense. But so doing will yield high dividends of peace and freedom.

Let us encourage all of Wyoming’s elected officials in this work. By grounding the constitutional separation of powers in the biblical foundation of Romans 13, we can provide both clarity and moral backbone to Wyoming’s government. Good government is not only judged by its practical results, but by its moral rectitude.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on December 17, 2021; and in the Cowboy State Daily on December 16, 2021.

Moral groundwork for the special session

Wyoming state capitol, Daylight Dome

Next week (October 25, 2021), Wyoming’s legislature will be gathering in Cheyenne for its second special session in as many years. While last year’s special session was called to distribute federal largess, this year’s session has been called to defend Wyoming’s citizens from federal power.

On September 9, 2021, President Biden announced that his administration would use the power of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the military, and other agencies to force 100 million Americans to receive the COVID shot. 

Now, 40 days later, there still is neither a constitutionally passed law, nor an executive order, nor even the merest clarification of this announcement. Nevertheless, by the sheer force of words, executive agencies, military commanders, and numberless corporations have scrambled to impose inconveniences and punishments designed to force Wyoming’s soldiers, citizens, and students to ingest a medicine that they would, otherwise, refuse.

In “The Essence of Conservatism,” Russel Kirk wrote, “Men and nations are governed by moral laws; and those laws have their origin in a wisdom that is more than human—in divine justice. At heart, political problems are moral and religious problems.” As our legislators gather to address the legalities, let us consider the heart of the problem.

A statement from nearly threescore health care academies, colleges, associations, and societies is an excellent place to start. Published about two weeks before Biden’s press conference, this “Joint Statement in Support of COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for All Workers in Health and Long-Term Care,” can be read as the moral groundwork for the administration’s approach.

It advocates “that all health care and long-term-care employers require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.” And it justifies this posture by asserting: “This is the logical fulfillment of the ethical commitment of all health care workers...” The word, “ethical” jumps off the page. 

Ethical behavior is that which conforms “to accepted standards of conduct.” In a day when practically every standard of conduct is being challenged and rejected, it is more than fascinating that the Joint Statement appeals to this notion. This is both refreshing and puzzling.

It is refreshing because dozens of medical organizations openly appeal to an unwritten—and yet, commonly accessible—standard of conduct. This hearkens back to a day when common sense was common. It offers hope that we may, again, be able to talk about ethics in polite society.

It is puzzling because the bulk of these organizations have, long ago, jettisoned the ethics of the “Hippocratic Oath.” So, it raises a question: What standard of conduct are they talking about?

Standards are objective. They do not exist in each person’s opinion. Rather, they are principles written into the very fabric of nature and universally discoverable by every human being. The Declaration of Independence calls them, “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Ethics are an inherently religious category. 

The second thing to notice about ethics is that they do not only make demands on a person because of how they might affect that person individually. Ethics are public, not private. When private actions affect the lives of others, ethical conduct demands adherence to objective standards. 

The third thing to notice about ethical behavior is that it centers on human health. Vaccine mandates limit themselves to temporal life and health. By contrast, traditional ethics takes a much longer—eternal—view. As Kirk observed, these are profoundly religious questions. 

Christians order their lives according to the Ten Commandments, not only because these are personal convictions, but because every divergence from them negatively impacts others as well. Christians recognize that an unhealthy spiritual life will infect others in the community. So, they seek spiritual cleansing not only for themselves, but also in service to others. 

For Christians, this spiritual cleansing is accomplished by gathering together in face-to-face fellowship with fellow believers, by listening to Jesus who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life,” and by taking into their bodies sacramental elements that St. Ignatius of Antioch called, “the Medicine of Immortality.” They understand these and other Christian activities, as treatment for the deadly disease of sin. They create and build systemic faith that gives a person immunity from eternal death. All of this, together, is done for personal health, for the health of the community, and for the world at large.

Parallels between spiritual health measures and physical health measures should be obvious. With so much at stake, it is a wonder that Christians do not use economic and bodily force to compel all people to receive these cures. But they have learned from bitter experience that religious mandates only bring misery. They never have the desired effect.

As Wyoming’s legislators gather to consider another religious mandate, let us pray God’s blessing on their deliberations. May He grant them both wisdom and humility. 

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, October 22, 2021.

Defend the conscience rights of those on the front lines.

Photo by Brady Rogers on Unsplash

Desmond Doss believed that it was against God’s law to kill another human being. He applied as a conscientious objector in World War II. Exempted from carrying a rifle, he was made an army medic, and became the first man in American History to receive the Medal of Honor without firing a shot. The movie, Hacksaw Ridge, tells his story.

He is not the only one. Thomas Bennett served as an army medic in Vietnam. Killed in action, he became the second conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor. That same year (1969) Joseph LaPointe Jr. also posthumously became the third such hero.

These three held doctrinal positions that are not representative of all Christians. But, when recognizing the right of conscientious objectors, civilized societies do not evaluate the rightness or wrongness of the belief. Rather, they uphold the right of every man to be guided by his own conscience and not another’s. 

Desmond Doss

Logic alone teaches that we, who have minds persuadable by words, must be so governed. Coercion to harm others knowingly violates human nature. This principle is also taught in the Christian Scriptures. St. Paul makes clear that, even if an activity is permissible in the eyes of God, no one should be made to participate in action that he believes to be sin. You can read his reasoning in 1 Corinthians 8:4-13.

As Doss, Bennett, LaPointe and thousands of other examples show, those who follow the dictates of their own conscience are superior citizens and braver soldiers than those who violate their own principles. This is why generals should resign their commissions rather than execute orders that violate their sense of justice. It is why just societies accommodate conscientious objectors. It is why healthcare workers must never be forced to fill prescriptions, perform procedures, or participate in treatments that they believe to be harmful to the patient. And it is why patients should never be forced to submit to a procedure without informed consent.

The principle behind conscientious-objector status has also produced laws like the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City policy that protect taxpayers from supporting the abortion industry. One of the most important conscience laws is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed almost unanimously in 1993. It requires that any American who has a sincerely held religious belief be protected from government coercion. 

If a citizen has religious qualms about following any governmental law, policy, or regulation, RFRA gives him his day in court. There the government—not the citizen—has the burden of proof. 

According to the Department of Justice, it must prove, first, that the policy at issue addresses a “compelling government interest.” If it can demonstrate this, it must further show that the policy accomplishes this interest in the way that is least burdensome to those whose conscience is violated. This usually involves some sort of accommodation for those who have religious objections to the “one-size-fits-all” policy of the government.

All these strong conscience protections are currently under assault. Last week the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3755. This bill, together with H.R. 5, passed by the House in February, would force doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other entities to participate in harmful medical procedures without recourse to the courts. Specific language strips RFRA protections from anyone who might object to the destruction of healthy babies, the amputation of healthy organs and the prescribing of harmful drugs.

Also last week, whistleblowers leaked a memo from the Department of Defense that instructs chaplains to participate in the persecution of anyone who might seek a religious exemption from military “vaccine mandates.” This violates the First Amendment in two ways. 

Lloyd Austin, Sec. Def.

First, this memo violates the free-exercise clause by requiring the applicant to be grilled by a chaplain and a doctor with theological and medical argumentation. If a soldier even mentions some non-religious consideration in the process of explaining his sincerely held religious belief, the chaplain is required to document the slip and use it against him. Similarly, if a soldier ever once sinned against any sincerely held religious belief, the sincerity of all of his beliefs are to be treated as suspect. These false moral equivalencies make the theological orientation of the interrogator more important than the conscience of the soldier.

Second, the memo violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause by threatening chaplains with discipline and dishonorable discharge if they help conscientious objectors navigate this draconian process. Thus, they are required to be the preachers of a particular version of religion established by the government. Chaplains who follow the dictates of the memo are no longer ministers of the Word of God, but only of the word of the DOD.

These cascading attacks on religious freedom are, of course, harmful for conscientious soldiers, chaplains, and medical professionals. But it is not only they who are harmed by such policies. All of American society is weakened by these attacks. Conscientious service, whether in the military, medicine or in society is a force multiplier. It turns the eyes of soldiers and citizens to see their service as service to God Himself. The mundane becomes divine. And ordinary people become extraordinary heroes.

That is why we should welcome and encourage those who are standing up against the onslaught of attacks on conscience provisions. All Wyomingites should applaud the board of the Campbell County Health that publicly vowed to stand against the “gross federal overreach” of vaccine mandates that the U.S. Department of Labor is threatening against its 1,100 employees. Other hospitals should do the same.

Wyomingites should flood Senators Lummis and Barrasso with calls, letters and emails thanking them for standing against H.R. 5 and H.R. 3755, now under consideration in the U.S. Senate. Ask them, not only to vote against these draconian bills, but also to use whatever influence they have with fellow senators to oppose any bill that would undermine long-standing conscience protections.

TAG, Greg Porter

Finally, while the Department of Defense can only be reined in by the federal government, the Wyoming National Guard remains in the complete control of its Commander and Chief, Governor Gordon. Contacting him and Adjutant General, Greg Porter, can encourage them shield Wyoming’s soldiers and chaplains against many blatant violations of federal law. Together, we can defend the Republic that Doss, Bennett and LaPointe defended with the resolve and ferocity that earned them the Medal of Honor.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, October 1, 2021; and the Cowboy State Daily, October 6, 2021.

American Thinker: What do you do in the middle of a hijacking?

On the 20th anniversary of 9-11, Kylee Zempel over at The Federalist published a poignant reflection titled "Would you have stormed the cockpit?"  Through the lens of that question, she examined the character necessary for the passengers of Flight 93 to take on terrorists armed with box-cutters and bombs.  She further asked what sort of culture instills that character.  It was a powerful piece.  But it left unexplored the imminent reality that every American is already facing the same situation today.

The passengers of United Flight 93 were ordinary citizens who realized that their airplane had been hijacked. But that was only the first shock of the day.  Until that day, hijackers made demands and promised safety if the demands were met.  The proper response was: Stay calm and wait for the professional hostage negotiators to arrive.  But that morning, everything changed.

Read the full article here:  https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/09/what_do_you_do_in_the_middle_of_a_hijacking.html

We are all Todd Beamers, now

Boeing 757 (like Flight 93) leaving Newark
Photo credit: Bing Hui Yau on unsplash

In the afterglow of last week’s reflections on 9-11, Todd Beamer and the resistance fighters aboard United Flight 93 have been much on my mind.

These ordinary citizens realized that their airplane had been hijacked. But that was only the first shock. Until that day, hijackers made demands and promised safety if the demands were met. The proper response was: Stay calm and wait for the professional hostage negotiators to arrive. But that morning, everything changed. 

Through cellular communication, the passengers of Flight 93 learned that three other hijacking situations had not ended by landing the plane and commencing hostage negotiations. Instead, one by one, planes slammed into targets making the carnage ten times worse. This was the second shock. We have had decades of hindsight to process this. But the passengers of Flight 93 were forced to grasp their new reality on the fly.

Beamer and company had to process the new threat in real time. Imagine the hushed conversation among the passengers as they took in the situation and came to the horrific realization that the civilian airplane they had boarded was now a militarized weapon. It had become a 90-ton missile, loaded and bearing enough fuel to immolate its target—hurtling towards an unknown number of innocents at 500 miles per hour.

Todd Beamer

None of these people had official standing. They were neither flight officers nor crew. They were not law enforcement officers or counter-terrorism experts. They had no training for the situation. And they didn’t have the luxury of time to ponder their predicament over days. The only authority they had was the truth of the moment and their own humanity. And they had minutes to act.

But Beamer understood. The awesome power that enabled 90 tons of materials and fuel peacefully and safely to convey passengers had been hijacked into the employ of evil. He understood that the evil exceeded the death of those aboard. Rather, they themselves had become a weapon against untold innocents on the ground. Control of the plane was not just about self-preservation. It was about the preservation of hundreds ignorant of the approaching threat.

In that moment, the option of inactivity was taken off the table. Beamer heard the call of a thousand voices saying, “We don’t even know that you exist, but you are the only one in a position to avert our destruction.” It was a responsibility he could not shirk. 

Beamer’s wife, Lisa, confirms his realization in her book, Let’s Roll!: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage. There she related an interview with Lisa Jefferson, the last person with whom he spoke. Discussing his plan to rush the cockpit, she asked, “Are you sure that’s what you want to do?” He answered, “It’s what I have to do.” There is no choice left in these words. Duty is an unremitting obligation.

The passengers of Flight 93

Last week, Kylee Zempel published a thoughtful piece in the Federalist asking, “Would you have stormed the cockpit?” It’s a fair question. But I think our question is more immediate than that. Beamer’s choice 20 years ago is a microcosm of our situation today.

Institutions, like airplanes, have been built to be powerful for the accomplishment of much good. But that power can be hijacked for evil purposes. When control of these institutions is taken from the people that they were built to serve, the havoc that they can wreak on civilization is proportional to their power for good. This is more than a danger to its members. Like Flight 93, they have become hijacked airplanes aimed at the destruction of innocents who don’t even know the institution exists.

The long march through America’s institutions has weaponized many. The cockpits of corporations, professional associations and unions, charities, political parties, and government bureaucracies have been invaded by people intent on destroying our world. Those who have poured out their talents and treasure to make them strong, are suddenly astonished to find themselves aboard a missile aimed at the heart of America.

For too long we have reacted to this situation like the hijacked hostages of old: Staying calm and waiting for others to act. But by now, you should notice the results of this strategy. Many institutions have exploded over their target. The rescuers never arrived. Think of the Boy Scouts, professional sports leagues, and American corporations making billions on the backs of foreign slaves. Consider the havoc wrought on the Afghani people and ask yourself who is positioned to end it. 

Like Todd Beamer, once you see the pattern you can no longer escape the truth. You can assess the institutions you inhabit—maybe the school system, or your place of employment, or your church. You can take responsibility, develop a plan and rise from your seat. You may be the only one positioned to protect the innocent. If so, only one option remains. “Let’s Roll.”

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, September 17, 2021.

Just laws should protect everyone from medical mandates

Photo by Prasesh Shiwakoti (Lomash) on Unsplash

We regularly hear people with medical credentials claim that abortion is “health care.” Not only is this obviously untrue for the unborn, it has not been demonstrated for the mother either. Never has a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated any physical, emotional, mental or spiritual health improvement attributable to elective abortion.

Nevertheless, abortion advocates make this unsubstantiated claim to advanced policies that entice women to procure abortions, use tax-payer dollars to subsidize them, and coerce doctors, nurses and pharmacists to participate in them. This is bad medicine. But it happens.

Similarly, we now hear claims that mastectomies, hysterectomies, puberty blockers and unnatural hormones are “health care” for minor children suffering gender dysphoria. Again, although there are no RCTs that prove the benefits of these “treatments,” politicians are stripping away the rights of parents to object to them. The Biden HHS Department, in anticipation of the so-called “Equality Act,” already is coercing physicians and psychologists to perform these procedures against their best medical judgment.

Medical conscience rights exist to protect people from abuses like these. Nobody should be forced to perform or to undergo a medical treatment that he or she believes to be harmful. This is especially true when medicine has been politicized. But it is just as true when there is simply an honest difference of opinion. 

In America, a million medical interventions are prescribed every day. And yet, not one of these is begun until the patient, facility, and physician all agree that it is the best option for the given situation. If a physician or hospital disagrees, the patient is referred elsewhere. If the patient disagrees, he or she withholds consent and declines the drug, injection, or procedure.

It is unlawful and unethical to coerce anyone into giving that consent. Every patient has the right to be fully informed of the benefits and the risks of a recommended procedure. Every patient has the right to be free of pressure from outside parties. Every patient has the right to be free of enticements that could weight a medical decision.

Now however, in a bizarre turn of events, we are hearing calls for one medical procedure to be denied such protection. Make no mistake, “vaccine mandates,” and “vaccine passports” are calling for unlawful coercion to be applied to people who know their own bodies, have studied the medical options, and have freely decided the best health care for their situation. 

Coercion comes in many forms. The most egregious form of medical coercion is when guns, incarceration and fines are used to coerce medical procedures. The Chinese Communist Party is currently doing this to the Uyghur people under the banner of “health care.” They force women into abortions and sterilization against their will and the will of their husbands.

Coercion also happens when people are threatened with loss of job, access to goods and services, and denial of visits to loved ones. Medical workers, military personnel, and others are facing such extortion as we speak. This is illegal. But it is happening, nonetheless. Until these cases are justly overthrown in court, people are being intimidated into compliance. 

Even forcing patients to choose between two medical procedures, like a jab in the arm or a swab up the nose, is a form of unethical coercion. Nor should we fail to mention monetary enticements. Currently the University of Wyoming is offering students a chance to “win” thousands of dollars—but only if they submit to a COVID-19 vaccine. Likewise, faculty and staff of the Cheyenne school system are being paid $500 to get the same shot. What elected official authorized our tax dollars to be used in this unethical way?

There is at least one elected official who is fighting to keep medical coercion away from Wyoming citizens. Rep. Sue Wilson (R-Cheyenne) is the prime sponsor of a bill that would prevent Wyoming’s “health care facilities, governmental entities, and providers of essential services,” schools, and places of employment from mandating immunizations against the willing consent of Wyoming citizens.

Kudos to Wyoming’s Joint Labor and Health Committee that recently voted 13-1 to sponsor it. This reasonably written bill upholds existing laws and medical ethics while accommodating those who needlessly worry. CDC Director, Rochelle Walensky, has stipulated that the vaccine does not prevent a person either from catching the virus, or from infecting others. There is no reason to think that the unvaccinated are more dangerous than the vaccinated. 

Rep. Sue Wilson

Nevertheless, for those who are not convinced by the CDC, the bill allows schools, health care facilities and places of employment to impose “reasonable accommodations” on those who choose not to get vaccinated. As long as these “reasonable accommodations” do not coerce other medical procedures, this clause will preserve the bedrock principle of bodily integrity: no one should be coerced to receive or to provide a medical intervention that he or she believes to be harmful.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on September 3, 2021.