Is 'God's will' really irrelevant to Congress?

The recent debate in the House of Representatives on the Equality Act evolved, at one point, into members exchanging views over measures in the legislation contrary to Christian teachings. These measures included killing babies during abortion, forcing Americans to fund abortions, mandating equal treatment for those uncomfortable in their birth gender crossing over to the opposite sex, etc.

Concerned about the gender issue and noting that God makes males and females unique, Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., said, “When men or women claim to be able to choose their own sexual identity, they are making a statement that God did not know what he was doing when he created them. … We are seeing the consequences of rejecting God here in our country today.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., rebuked Steube’s concern, proclaiming, “What any religious tradition describes as God’s will is of no concern of this Congress.”

That response was interesting for a couple of reasons.

Democrats correctly argue, based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Constitution bans government from establishing a religion, which is why we have no official state religion in the U.S. Similarly, Congress cannot prevent establishment of a religion – which is why U.S. Naval Academy midshipmen were ultimately allowed to hold Satanic services – a right initially denied them. Nor can favoritism be demonstrated by not taxing some religions while taxing others.

But in this light, Democrats did something three years ago smacking of religious favoritism. They undertook an initiative to support a religious tradition that involved overriding an 1837 House rule. In order for a Democrat, who had won a congressional seat in 2018, to practice a religious tradition while serving in Congress, an amendment was passed allowing Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., to wear a head covering on the House floor in accordance with her Islamic faith.

The above is particularly interesting now in view of Democrats’ efforts to promote the Equality Act. By amending the hat-wearing rule for Omar, Democrats dismissed concerns for equality by the many Muslim women who believe wearing a headscarf is a patriarchal practice marking their submission to men seeking to control their sexuality. This is supported by the fact that wearing a headscarf is not mandated anywhere in the Quran but, rather, is a mandate imposed upon women by male Islamic religious leaders. Thus, with their rule change, Democrats embraced such submission, undermining the effort of Muslim women hoping to break free of the Islamic “inequality act” yoke burdening them. It was a rule change Nadler fully supported.

Adding insult to injury, while the wearing of a headscarf gives Omar the appearance of a pious, observant Muslim practicing an Islamic religious tradition, in actuality she is no more a practicing Muslim than the pope. Muslim wives are to be subservient and loyal to their husbands. Omar has failed to so honor her husbands. She dishonors her religion by running a matrimonial marathon in which she marries and divorces husbands at will. During this marathon, she has been accused of adultery – considered a major crime in Islam punishable under Shariah by stoning. If Omar strives to beat Elizabeth Taylor’s lifetime total of eight husbands, she is almost halfway there.

Turning to Nadler’s disdain for considering Christian teachings when considering a law’s constitutionality, a writing by one of our Founding Fathers suggests such a belief is misplaced.

John Adams – judge, signer of the Declaration of Independence and of the Bill of Rights, second president of the U.S. – wrote the following:

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

“Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.

“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.

“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. … What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!

“I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.”

The son of this Founding Father and our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, wrote that the Christian influence on our government cannot be denied:

“In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior.”

In 2011, a Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Mark David Hall, wrote “Did American Have a Christian Founding?” He answered the question both ways – “Of Course Not” and “Absolutely” – using the Founders’ views before reaching his own conclusion.

An abstract of his article explains:

“… After showing that Christian ideas were one of the important intellectual influences on the Founders, he discusses three major areas of agreement with respect to religious liberty and church – state relations at the time of the Founding: Religious liberty is a right and must be protected; the national government should not create an established church, and states should have them only if they encourage and assist Christianity; and religion belongs in the public square. In short, while America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths. More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions.”

Evidenced by his snide remark, Nadler seeks to eliminate any influences of Christian teachings and God’s will in writing the laws of the land. It is a topic God will want to discuss with him personally at a later time when He has Nadler’s full attention. But it cannot be denied that what our Founding Fathers did, not only in winning our independence but in establishing our republic, was so closely tied to their Christian beliefs that what we do today should still be tied to them.

Nadler was married in 1976. Being Jewish, he undoubtedly did not have a Christian marriage ceremony. But, at some point in a Christian ceremony, the declaration is made, “What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” It is a declaration of God’s authority over man – something even Jews acknowledge. Sadly, what God helped man to create in the form of the greatest nation the world has yet known, Nadler seeks to put asunder by giving greater priority to playing party politics than promoting Christian values.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts