The Entire Civil Rights Struggle Just Slipped Mike Ditka’s Mind

For those of us outside of Chicago, Mike Ditka is remembered as the former coach of certain team known as “Da Bears.” Ditka jumped into NFL controversy today with a historically inaccurate observation that there was no oppression in the United States in the past century.

“All of a sudden, it’s become a big deal now, about oppression,” Ditka told Jim Gray on Westwood One’s pregame show, quoted by the Chicago Tribune. “There has been no oppression in the last 100 years that I know of. Now maybe I’m not watching it as carefully as other people.”

Ditka, who was born in 1939, should know better.

Growing up in the North, Ditka may not have witnessed much of the segregation that was present in Southern cities of the time, but integration was a major story of his lifetime. He would have been eight-years-old when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball in 1947. A year earlier, Kenny Washington had become the first black player in the NFL.

Ditka was in his 20s during the civil struggles of the 1960s. The Freedom Riders hopped aboard Greyhound buses in 1961 when Ditka was 22. Medgar Evers was murdered in 1963 when Ditka was 24.

In 1961, Mike Ditka was drafted by the Chicago Bears and played for the team until 1967, when he was traded to the Philadelphia Eagles. In 1966, shortly before he left the Windy City, Martin Luther King led the Chicago Campaign, a series of marches and demonstrations aimed at achieving fair housing practices.

During one march through Chicago’s West Side in July 1966, violence erupted as white counterprotesters attacked the marchers with bottles, bricks and rocks. King, who was struck by a rock, said, “I have seen many demonstrations in the south but I have never seen anything so hostile and so hateful as I’ve seen here today.”

Two years later, King was murdered in Memphis. The story generated headlines as far away as Philadelphia.

In 1969, Ditka went to the Dallas Cowboys. Although racial segregation has been outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ditka must have seen some vestiges of the racist attitudes that had been prevalent only a few years before. In Texas, integration of both blacks and Hispanics was still ongoing at the time.

The Chicago Tribune notes with some irony that the Chicago Bears, a team that Ditka coached as well as played for, was the subject of the movie, “Brian’s Song.” The 1971 film is the story of the first interracial teammates to room together on Bears road trips.

Oppression in 20th century America was all around Mike Ditka. He can probably remember many of these events if he tries. Civil rights history was happening all around him.

America is a great country, but not all of our past is great. Although tempting, we shouldn’t blot out the bad parts. We need to remember them so that we can learn from them. Studying America’s dark racial past also serves to show us how far we have come.

On Race And Growing Up Southern

The controversy over Confederate statues is something I have thought a lot about. Perhaps unlike many, my experience has allowed my position to change over the years.

I grew up in small town Georgia. I attended an elementary school that was predominantly black. I didn’t realize it at the time, but we were growing up in the shadow of the Jim Crow South. I was in elementary school in the 1970s, less than a decade after the full integration of Georgia public schools.  Lester Maddox (D-Ga.), the avowed segregationist governor, was not even a distant memory.

What’s more, my classmates and I were scarcely a decade and 20 miles away from the murder of Col. Lemuel Penn, a decorated hero of WWII who happened to be black. Penn was murdered by a trio of Ku Klux Klansmen for the crime of driving through Athens, Georgia in 1964. The murderers were acquitted by an all-white jury prompting the FBI to charge the men with civil rights violations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I can only remember two brushes with the Klan. As a high school student, a classmate showed me a Ku Klux Klan ring one day. It was like a class ring, but instead of the school name, it was engraved with the words “Ku Klux Klan.”

In the other instance, I was a college student working part-time at a local pharmacy when Klan members appeared on the town square one day. The Klansmen, dressed in white robes with no hoods, tried to hand out leaflets to anyone who would take them. Even at that point, they were such an anachronism that everyone in the store took turns driving by to gawk at them. No one seemed to be taking leaflets.

The world had changed a lot in a short time. My classmates and I scarcely thought about race. We got along fine as kids generally do. In my youth, we were aware of race, but pushed it to the background. I remember my parents telling me that I should treat everyone with respect, but that the races should not mix sexually.

I would be willing to bet that they have evolved past the intermarriage taboo now. I know I have. I care more about the content of the character of my children’s future spouses than skin color. I would prefer they have an honorable and decent mate who is black, Hispanic or Asian than what is referred to as “white trash” in the South.

My experience taught me that children have to learn hatred. They don’t come to it naturally. A proud moment for me as a father was when my own children failed to even comprehend race as a descriptive characteristic. “Why does anybody care about skin color?” they asked.

For years, I subscribed to the notion that race relations were nothing to be concerned about. No living blacks were slaves and no living whites were slave owners. If that was the case, what was there to argue about?

As I learned about civil rights history and talked to my black friends, my opinion slowly changed.

My family has been in Georgia since the early 1800s. In an undated photo, my ancestors are standing outside their cabin with a black man who is almost certainly their slave.

Several of my ancestors were Confederate soldiers. My great-grandfather was captured at the Battle of Spotsylvania and spent the rest of the war in a (damn)Yankee prison camp in Elmira, N.Y. Today, Elmira is forgotten by history, but it was a brutal place in 1864.

The mortality rate among the prisoners was 25 percent, rivalling the notorious Confederate prison camp at Andersonville, Ga. But Georgia was subject to a federal naval blockade that meant that even Confederate soldiers didn’t have enough to eat. Supplies were plentiful in New York, but overcrowding, disease, inadequate protection from the New York winter and lack of food still killed thousands of prisoners. Many of those who survived were emaciated and unrecognizable when they returned home.

If I feel bitter about the treatment of my grandfather and his brothers-in-arms, none of which I never met, how much more bitter do blacks feel about slavery and Jim Crow? I can scarcely imagine.

While there are no living slaves today, Jim Crow is a recent memory. Older blacks experienced it personally. Younger blacks have heard first-hand accounts of whites-only water fountains and lunch counters, of the Freedom Riders, of lynchings, of the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in which Klansmen killed four little girls, of the murders of Medgar Evers, Lemuel Penn, Martin Luther King and more.

While slavery and Jim Crow are distant history in my experience, they aren’t so far in the past for my black friends. Even black conservatives like Tim Scott (R-S.C.) have stories of prejudice and “driving while black” to tell. Racism is in retreat, Charlottesville notwithstanding, but it isn’t dead and never will be. Vestiges of racism will probably be around forever.

The world is full of longstanding ethnic problems. There is the black-white divide in America. We also have tension between Native Americans and European newcomers. In Texas, there are still hard feelings on both sides over the Alamo, Goliad, San Jacinto and the border clashes that occurred after Texas independence. In other countries, there are ethnic conflicts that have lasted for centuries between Jews and Arabs, Armenians and Turks, ethnic Russians and their subjugated countries, the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans…. The list goes on and on.

In most cases, people have dealt with these conflicts by dredging up old hurts and killing people because of it. Then the children of these victims take vengeance on the next generation of the other group in an endless cycle.

One way to avoid this vicious cycle is to put yourself in the other person’s shoes. Would most whites hold a grudge if their parents and grandparents had been treated as second-class citizens and had to fear for their lives if they acted as normal human beings, as Emmett Till did? You bet they would.

Would blacks and non-Southerners feel protective about Confederate memorials if their ancestors had fought and died under the Confederate banner?  Many Confederates who did not own slaves simply fought to protect their homes from the federal invaders. Sherman burned everything in his path on his march to the sea and Union soldiers committed numerous atrocities on Southerners. In 1864, for example, Union forces forcibly deported 400 civilian women from Roswell, Ga. to the North. Most of these women never returned home.

The point is that both sides have legitimate grievances. If we persist in fighting over the status of biggest victim and inflicting revenge on the other side, then the dispute will continue to fester and grow.

The ultimate answer is forgiveness. The Bible that most of us, black and white, purport to believe teaches that forgiveness heals the victim as well as the perpetrator. The Bible also teaches that race is unimportant, that we are all equal – and equally sinful – at the foot of the cross.

As to Confederate statues, I prefer to keep them, but I understand the point of view of those who oppose them. To me, the issue of statues is unimportant compared to other issues we face such as the national debt, Islamic terror, and the fundamental decay of American society. To me, the disposition of statues of should be a local issue decided by the people of the community, not outsiders with an axe to grind.

Who was more right and who was more wrong is less important than that we now live together as Americans. That’s why it distresses me when my conservative friends take the bait so easily and quickly find themselves in the moral equivalence game between leftists and neo-Nazis who claim to be working toward the president’s agenda.

Solutions to many of the world’s problems would be possible if more people would attempt to understand the point of view of the opposing side. Before making up your mind on an issue, walk a mile in their shoes.

NEW: Federal Court Extends Civil Rights Protections To Gays

In an unprecedented ruling, the full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees from discrimination. Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the text of the Civil Rights Act and the law has never been interpreted to include sexual orientation.

The Associated Press notes that the 8-3 ruling is unusual for several reasons. The court is considered to be somewhat conservative even though it is in Chicago. Five of the eight judges were appointed by Republican presidents who typically value a literal interpretation of the law as opposed to Democrats who tend to stray from the written text.

The case centers on Kimberly Hively, a former teacher at Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana. Hively says that after an administrator saw her kissing her girlfriend in 2009, the school refused to promote her, harassed her and eventually fired her four years later.

The case hinged on the meaning of the word “sex” in the Civil Rights Act, which bans workplace discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex. Hively’s lawyer argued that discrimination due to sexual orientation is illegal under the law’s prohibition of sexual discrimination. This interpretation is based on the Supreme Court ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) which held that gender stereotyping was a banned form of sex discrimination. Congress has repeatedly failed to add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes under the law.

Judge Diane Wood, a Clinton appointee, said in the majority opinion, “Any discomfort, disapproval, or job decision based on the fact that the complainant — woman or man — dresses differently, speaks differently, or dates or marries a same-sex partner, is a reaction purely and simply based on sex. That means that it falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination ….”

“I don’t see why firing a lesbian because she is in the subset of women who are lesbian should be thought any less a form of sex discrimination than firing a woman because she’s a woman,” wrote Judge Richard Posner in his opinion that concurred with the majority ruling. Posner was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

“Who will be hurt if gays and lesbians have a little more job protection?” Judge Posner reportedly asked during arguments on the case per New York Magazine. “So, what’s the big deal?” he continued when the attorney did not give an answer, “Are we bound by what people thought in 1964?”

“(Lawmakers in the 1960s) shouldn’t be blamed for that failure of foresight,” Posner wrote in his opinion. “We understand the words of Title VII differently not because we’re smarter than the statute’s framers and ratifiers but because we live in a different era, a different culture.”

“We are not authorized to infuse the text with a new or unconventional meaning or to update it to respond to changed social, economic, or political conditions,” Judge Diane Sykes, who was considered by President Trump for the Supreme Court, wrote in her dissent. “It’s understandable that the court is impatient to protect lesbians and gay men from workplace discrimination without waiting for Congress to act. Legislative change is arduous and can be slow to come. But we’re not authorized to amend Title VII by interpretation.”

Ivy Tech said in a statement that its policies already prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and denies that it discriminated against Lively at all. The factual question of whether discrimination occurred was separate from whether the discrimination was illegal under the Civil Rights Act.

The 7th Circuit ruling contradicts a ruling by a three-judge panel in Atlanta three weeks ago. Because of the controversial interpretation of the law and the fact that different courts are issuing opposite rulings, the case is likely to come before the Supreme Court.

On Forgiveness, Reconciliation and King’s Legacy

“I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear” – Dr. Martin Luther King

Those who have followed my writing career for a while know that forgiveness is a huge part of my worldview and giant theme in my own life. I first learned about the concept of forgiveness when I converted to Christianity at the age of 14. Before then I had no real understanding of what it meant to forgive someone.

Learning that sin is not an act but a condition, and that Jesus’ sole purpose was to rescue us from that condition through the very act of forgiveness changed my life. In Christian circles it is cliche by now, but “forgive as you were first forgiven” is one of the most transformative commandments of the New Testament.

I grew up in rural Canada in the 1980s, where I faced a painful amount of bigotry and racism. I had a father who left me to fend for myself, a step-parent who deeply resented my very existence and a growing, burning, deep anger that I hid well from others but nonetheless consumed my very spirit. I have no doubt that had Christ not rescued me I would be in jail or dead today. I feel quite strongly about that.

The love of Christ was the catalyst for real change in my life, but forgiveness was the principle that propelled me toward real joy and prosperity. After years of living with racism and all its consequences, one would think I’ve come to master the idea of forgiveness. But years later as a grown woman with a husband and kids I still struggle with my own sense of entitlement and the need to see what I perceive to be justice.

There were the church “friends” who took advantage of us and our home. There were the new neighbors in California who didn’t want our kids to play together because we were black. There are the 1,001 tiny infractions of my long-suffering husband in my 18 year marriage, the disobedient kids, the judgmental PTA mom, the criticism of family…the list goes on and on and I know I am not alone.

Forgiveness isn’t a gift, it is a skill and like any other skill it takes practice. Lots and lots of practice.

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. day and we’re all well aware of his legacy. My family – like every other black family in America – has directly benefited from his efforts. King was complicated, like any hero. He was no saint, but I’ve always admired his adherence to scripture in what is one of the most tragic times for black Americans in the history of our country.

King was a force to be reckoned with, but had an intimate understanding of the Gospel. His most powerful weapon was peace, and its prized companion was forgiveness. He understood that when we did eventually earn the restoration of our constitutional, God-given rights we would need to forge a new path forward. Holding on to the anger and bitterness of our struggles would not benefit us, nor would it move our enemies. Forgiveness would be our path to prosperity.

I say it often – forgiveness isn’t forgetfulness…it is choosing not to treat someone the way they deserve to be treated. This is exactly what Christ did for us. He did nothing wrong, and bore the consequences anyway.

When I look at the “race conversation” in America today I see a lot of anger, but not much in the way of forgiveness. Too many of us are talking about what we are owed and not what we owe others…what we owe God. How would this country change if all of us stopped leading with, “I’m willing forgive…but YOU FIRST” and started leading with, “I forgive.”

I’m always accused of suggesting that we simply stop holding others to task for their transgressions. I am not. I am saying that healing is difficult and most people do not have the fortitude for it. We are a country of the walking wounded because we are unable to let go of what we think we are entitled to in the name of “justice”. Most of us cannot even fathom of making the decision to not treat others the way they deserve to be treated. If we do that, how can we expect to ever be compensated for our pain and suffering?

The answer to that, of course is that we may never see that full compensation. Frankly, that is perfectly fine with me. As a student of the human condition I know that the human soul will never be fully satisfied because sin has created a bottomless pit in the heart of man. The only bridge across is the Cross.

This never-ending race conversation is “progress” wrapped in blame, bitterness and unforgiveness. Please don’t make the grave mistake of assuming you know “which side” I’m talking about. I speak of us all, with utter sincerity. We will never move forward if we bear hate as our burden, no matter how justified we believe that hate to be.

You may think God is pleased when you hate the hateful, but that is a terribly weak understanding of His unmatched love. Pity is no substitute for hate either. It is only more condescension. Jesus broke bread with the most hated people of his day. He did not cry about “not tolerating the intolerant” or say, “I will sit down them but first they have to [insert demand here]!” It isn’t hard to walk with people you like. It is nearly impossible to do with people you hate.

And yet, we are commanded to do exactly that because that is what transforms the world around and the world inside us. As we look forward as black Americans and white Americans and the entire, glorious spectrum of Americans from all walks of life, let us look back to these words of the complex but courageous Dr. King.

“I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear”

Let us be the first to serve instead of scold, listen instead of lecture, help instead of hate.

There can be no greater legacy for the man himself or our blessed country.

What’s The Real Legacy of MLK?

MLK’s legacy today rests with conservatives, not liberals.

Sitting in a cell in the Birmingham city jail nearly 53 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King penned one of the most famous essays of the civil rights movement.  It was in the form of a letter written to a group of clergymen who expressed their distaste for the kind of “direct action” in which King engaged.

King knew he was going to jail. It wasn’t a surprise. He brought what he needed with him, and planned his letter carefully. He also spent much time in prayer.

In answering his critics deploration of his visit to Birmingham, and their description of him as an outside agitator, King wrote:

…I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Hardly an hour would pass that Dr. King would not make reference or direct appeal to his Savior and King, Jesus.  I challenge anyone to find a reference to Dr. King’s body of writing and speaking in which he was not engaged in proclaiming the Gospel.  Dr. King’s frame of reference for social justice in race relations was single-eyed:  through the lens of Biblical morality, and only through that lens.

Seeing the state of racial division and relations today, King would be much more critical of those who take advantage of African-American life choices and culture for their own gain, than some in the Senate like Cory Booker have been about Jeff Sessions nomination as attorney general. He would be proud that America elected an African-American president, but saddened that the progress of the last 40 years has been denied in order to advance other progressive goals he never shared.

He would not grant his legacy to today’s Democrats. He would, however, almost surely grant it to those fighting the battle to protect the unborn, and those who stand for religious freedom, and with Israel. In other words, MLK’s legacy today rests with conservatives, not liberals.

Most of today’s crop of social justice fighters, even those like John Lewis who in his day identified with MLK, have become simply political race-baiters. They don’t place the focus on God which King knew was necessary to heal racial division.

It is easy to apply one litmus test for anyone claiming a contemporary mandate of MLK’s legacy. Simply look at their view on Israel and the Jews.

MLK didn’t subscribe to today’s “linked causes” somehow making Israel into a racist nation, because King more identified with Jews, as God’s chosen people. King advocated religious freedom, something today’s Democrats hold in contempt.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

As a minister of the Gospel, MLK would oppose the redefinition of Biblical marriage.  King believed in strong family, strong faith, and a strong God.  He was hardly a statist, in fact, King was an anti-statist.  He believed that the state’s possession of too much power empowers those who wish to subvert freedom while squelching the aspirations of the oppressed.

King would be appalled at the suppression of religious freedom, the virtual lynch mobs and blacklists, being employed today by the LGBT agenda’s leaders and their followers. But the biggest legacy of MLK today is the scourge (especially targeted toward African-Americans) of abortion.

Were King writing today, it would probably be from a jail cell because there are laws that suspend free speech near an abortion clinic.  There are clergy who avoid the issue in order to preserve, or build, their own influence. But the main reason that Dr. King would take up the cause of stopping abortion is that the unborn are the ultimate oppressed citizens with no voice.

Take the sentence “If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s anti religious laws” and remove the word “Communist”.  That’s today’s America.

Dr. King’s social justice remained anchored in his faith, and inseparable from his belief in Christian values.  Nothing is more dear to the Christian faith than the preservation of life.  The legal slaughter of the unborn is the one issue which is indisputable as the true heir to King’s spirit.

I know that Dr. King, in 1966, received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award, and accepted it with a speech.  Nowhere in this speech did he advocate abortion, but he did advocate family planning, and the elimination of black poverty as a means of reducing the number of neglected children.

Two points emerge here. The first is that in 1966, Planned Parenthood wasn’t completely about abortion as it is today. Abortion was illegal then. Yes, they were fighting for its legalization, but nowhere near the “anytime, any reason” butchery of today. But the underlying eugenics was always there.

Second, King didn’t personally deliver the speech. His wife did. It’s unfortunate that the country’s largest abortion mill claims possession of Dr. King’s blessing because of a 1966 speech. Here’s one passage from the speech.

The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it.

He also wrote in the same speech,

For these reasons we are natural allies of those who seek to inject any form of planning in our society that enriches life and guarantees the right to exist in freedom and dignity. [emphasis mine]

I don’t think King had unrestricted, universal abortion in mind when he wrote that (I’m sure he didn’t have same-sex marriage in mind either).

Were he alive today, Dr. King would condemn the very same organization which awarded him an “honor” in 1966.  He would be writing from a jail cell, maybe in Massachusetts, or another state where civil rights are violated for pro-life supporters.

This leads to a rather inconvenient conclusion for liberals.

As we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday today, we should recognize that today, he would be much more aligned with Dr. Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell, and other conservatives than Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his congregant Barack Obama, or Rep. John Lewis.

DR Radio

DR Radio: Religion is Good for Society… We Think.

In this edition of Dead Reckoning Radio, we look at a new report from the Civil Rights Commission that thinks Christians fighting for religious liberty are bigots and then we look at a study that shows how religion has been good for the U.S. economy. Hadley also schools us on the options out there for maternity leave in the new Expand Your Horizons segment.

As usual, you can read the full show notes and listen to the audio over on our site —> http://deadreckoning.tv/dr-radio-religion-is-good-for-society-we-think/

An Upside Down World

In December of 1865, the several American states ratified the thirteenth amendment constitutionally ending involuntary servitude in the United States. In the twenty-first century, Americans are coming full circle. In a number of states, a black man can again be forced by the government to work involuntarily for a white man.

Not since the nation eliminated Jim Crow laws during the civil rights era have we seen such a bizarre conundrum. But if the black man is a Christian and the white man is gay, a court can forcibly order the black man to serve the white man or drive the black man from business. A number of states have been working to pass laws to prevent this weird conundrum, but in an irony that knows no bounds, gay-rights activists are comparing these religious freedom laws to Jim Crow.

The issue boils down to one question — should a Christian who believes a wedding can only be between a man and a woman be forced to provide goods and services to a gay wedding? Despite the histrionics of some, no one suggests that anyone be allowed to simply deny service to any class of people, be they black or white or gay or straight. The issue only arises in the context of gay weddings.

Gay rights activists have lately claimed that Jesus would bake the cake for the gay wedding, so Christian bakers should. Jesus, of course, affirmed in the Gospel of Matthew that marriage is between one man and one woman. He also told the various sinners he encountered to “sin no more.” So it becomes highly dubious that Christ would bake a cake for a gay wedding, and he most certainly would not preside over the service.

Therein lies the problem. One side is arguing that Christ would not do this so they should not have to do this. The other side is arguing that not only would Christ do this, but the government should be able to force Christians to do it. Gone are the days of turning the other cheek and going to another baker.

In one real world case, a florist had a long time relationship with a gay couple. She had sold them flowers on multiple occasions. She knew they were gay. She gladly served them. When they asked her to provide flowers for their gay wedding, she declined because of her faith. She assumed they were friends. They sued her business for discrimination.

She did not take the position that she should be allowed to deny gays any good or service. She only objected to participating in a gay wedding. Committed Christians believe in a doctrine of vocation. They believe that their work is a form of ministry. Through their work they can share the gospel and glorify God. Because committed Christians believe marriage is a relationship created and ordained by God Himself to be between a man and woman, they believe they cannot provide goods and services to a marital union that would run counter to that which God ordains. Christian merchants do not see themselves as passive participants in a transaction, but active in a ministry. Their work cannot be separated from their faith.

The government saw it otherwise and forced the florist to perform the work or be punished.

Similar situations have come up in Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico, and other states with florists, photographers, bakers, and others. None of them denied all goods and services to gay. They just declined to provide them for a gay wedding because of their faith.

A number of states have sought to ensure Christians cannot be compelled by the state to violate their consciences. The laws are being badly mischaracterized as anti-gay. Christians are being compared to Bull Connor for trying to honor their God. The state is picking sides in matters of conscience. Instead of living and letting others live, tolerance has become a one way street. Those who seek to dissent or opt out are made to care whether they want to or not.

(c) 2014 Creators Syndicate

The post An Upside Down World appeared first on RedState.

Bush Administration Political Appointees Overrule Career Lawyers in DOJ Civil Rights Division

Democrats are in an uproar over new revelations that the Bush Administration’s political appointees in the Department of Justice overruled career lawyers in the Civil Rights Division who were in civil litigation against a group of white conservative activists engaged in voter intimidation tactics on Election Day.

More troubling, the Department of Justice had obtained a default judgment against the defendants and the political appointees ordered the career lawyers to go no further, despite having judgment in hand.

Democrat John Lewis (D-GA) is demanding an investigation saying not since civil rights activists were attacked by dogs in the sixties has the government so cavalierly disregarded the basic civil rights of its citizens.

Except that’s not the story at all.

Consequently, there is no outrage by Democrats.

The voter intimidation happened by Black Panthers who supported Barack Obama.

It was Barack Obama’s political appointees who shut down career lawyers going after the Black Panthers for voter intimidation.

And the mainstream media yawns.

Thankful, the Washington Times is on the story.