THE CLASH OF RIGHTS...Where's the Balance? SIGN OF THE times JUNE 2019.

MY MANY THANKS TO BOTH NICHOLAS MILLER AND THIS  MAGAZINE. [John B]

  WHAT'S THE SOLUTION WHEN THE RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SEEM JO CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER????

     AS THE EXECUTIVE AND legislative BRANCHES OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT DESCEND INTO NEW DEPTHS OF PARTISAN CONFLICT AND GRIDLOCK ADVOCACY GROUPS ARE TURING EVER MORE FREQUENTLY TO THE COURTS TO RESOLVE ISSUES THAT REGULAR POLITICS CANNOT. [ or seems to be unwilling to do, for political reasons!]


NOTE(JB):   This is where the Special Interests, go JUDGE SHOPPING which in the end, produces the tyranny of the minorities! ANTIFA {anti- Fascist} are as Fascist as any of the past, it's THEIR WAY or nothing! Yet not one Democrat has said a word in opposition, to my knowledge. But then again, history {as it occurred} is filled with Democratic evils! They were in control of the Southern States,  from the top to the  bottom, and they wanted to keep the SLAVERY SYSTEM intact, and fired the first shot in the Civil War. After wards the created and supported the KKK, and when the nations rebelled against them, they made up the "JIM  CROW LAWS", yet somehow they managed to push the blame upon the Republicans,j and enjoyed the 100% support5 of our Black population! {Go Figure } but that's slowly changing, as people do learn the truth, in spite of all the "REVISED HISTORY BOOKS" Propagated by the Centers of Socialistic Learning, in Collages and Universities., whose annual costs have increased many times faster as the Government Support is steadily increased the
Student's support system. {WHY not? The TAX PAYERS are many and deep pockets in the Take from those that have, to those that need as Communistic thinking}  Just look at today's situation between segments of society, in gun rights, and religion and LGBT, civil rights on the other hand!  Whose rights are superior?  NEITHER SHOULD BE!!!! HOWEVER FEW LOVE TO HAVE EITHER SIDE'S VIEWS "SHOVED INTO OUR FACES", CONSTANTLY!  WHAT PEOPLE DO I N THEIR PRIVACY IS BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR DEITY! THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN AND FOR PUBLIC DISPLAYS. {We all pass water, and excrement, but MOST do so in private ,right?]

2 Thessalonians 3:10  For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Sorry, it does NOT say anything about being about not being physically UNABLE to work...No work= No eat!

But the courts, (JB are run by Human beings, and no human is perfect} thus are not immune from the same extreme and absolutist language and views that have come to characterize our politics.
     Competing social groups wrap their causes in lofty language of the Bill of Rights and insist on the absolute priority of their rights over all others. We ALL must choose, we are told, between gun rights or victims' rights,  [JB.. what about the gun owners' rights of self-protection, if you don't believe that this is valid, why not paint a sign in your front yard, "GUN_FREE ZONE"? Put your life where your mouth is! ]  or religious rights or sexual and gender rights, freedom of speech, or reputation's rights.
But such absolutists advocacy that "MY rights or group should always win, seriously overlooks the history of rights reflected in the text of the Bill of Rights., itself.
     History shows our Protestant heritage of rights to be a community affair, which means that no right is absolute.

NOTE(JB) : The ONLY absolutes are found in right and wrong, truth. They are found in the Word of God, the Holy Bible! Today most are ruled by SITUATIONAL ETHICS.

    So we find ourselves with a rather a collection of values that must be weighed, balanced, and carefully calibrated. The commitment to the overall system of rights is as important as the belief in any single right.

   1 Corinthians 10:31 " Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

    The above is the reason why "HATE-SPEECH" is also against man's law. My constitutional Law professor made this point by asking us what the "Freedom of Speech" meant in the First Amendment. I had not ever thought about the significance of that article but could see that it did more than simply protect freedom of speech. The article conveyed the idea of regulating set of principles surrounding the idea of free-speech. Protecting the "Freedom of Speech also incorporated long standing common law principles about limiting libel, slander, and reputation. That's the why hate-speech is against the law!

    This balancing of rights and values was seen even more explicitly in the religion clauses. The First Amendment did not just protect the "Free Exercise of Religion", but also forbade laws "Respecting an establishment of religion". The two clauses meant that neither could be interpreted in an absolute fashion: rather they must be weighed in some kind of tension and balance.

NOTE(JB) : In a true Christian world, No one would demand that their personal will be done, but rather ask, "Would you be willing to do God's will?  But that's not how the facts are today, its all "IN YOUR FACE" CONFRONTATIONAL ISM  Or better put, each side says, "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY"! C. U. I N COURT!  That's Satan's deceptions! 
Personally, all these life-styles, are private, and should remain in the home, and should remain between those who so choose, and their Creator-God! When mankind judges, he, or she, is "Spitting into the wind hoping to stay DRY"
  Y O U need facts???   IF...IF all the world accepted and practiced the gay lifestyle, in ONE GENERATION, the human race would become extinct!

     Matthew 7:3  "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

    Luke 6:37  " Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:"

SHAKE  and BAKE.

     Thus, the Masterpiece Cake-shop case, which pitted the Colorado Christian's rights of conscience and expression against the non-discriminating rights of a gay couple, involved a careful balancing of rights and fundamental values. Some religious liberty experts fear that the Supreme Court was too nuanced in its decision in the Christian Baker's case. Though Jack Phillips, the Christian baker, won the case, he did so because a lower state tribunal judges had make remarks that appeared biased against Christians.
      Some argue that the Masterpiece Bake Shop decision only protects religious convictions from overt abuse and ridicule and  that if the lower court politely denied the rights of the baker instead of ridiculing his beliefs, he would not have had a case.This narrow reading of the decision seems hard to justify. But it has caused activists in the LGBT community to immediately turn around and sue the same Christian baker...again... Justice Brett Kavanaugh has tilted the court, probably quite decisively, in the conservative direction.  He replaced Justice Kennedy, who was a moderate, voted regularly, and often would vote with the liberal wing as often as he voted with the conservative wing. and he had become a zealous advocate of LGBT rights.
 NOTE (JB) :     But does not this point out the very serious question: "Whose rights are superior"?  Can one right supersede another, if yes then which side gets the courts "blessings"? What WILL be the cost to the public at large?  What will this do to the rapists rights? The bank robbers rights?  Well, you say, all these are against the law, but then so was Sodomy, at one time, right? Where do we as a society draw the line, when we chose to operate outside of the The Ten Commandments of God?
Please know the first FOUR Laws from God, are for our relationships with Him, the remaining 6 are for our relationships with each other--------  note.....

     Matthew 5:28  "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

The above is the "Spirit" of the law which says...
     Deuteronomy 5:18  ".Neither shalt thou commit adultery."

WHOSE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

   But, again, religious freedom advocates need to remember that here, too, there is danger in absolutism. Rights to sexual freedom and identity can become oppressive if given no meaningful limits, but claims to "Religious Freedoms" can also be used as a tool to entrench or impose the beliefs of a religious majority.
     Though religious liberty is the first and foundational freedom in that it reveals the transcendence nature of all our rights, it cannot be absolute.Murder, adultery, or theft cannot be justified or defended in the name of  exercising one's religious liberty.Similarly, a religion that claims the right to impose itself on others through the use of public funds, resources, or policies can become as oppressive as the secular ideologies it seeks to appose..

NOTE(JB) : Whenever, and, wherever, Church and state became one, PERSECUTIONS SOON FOLLOWED!  Look at ISIS today and, the Roman Church of yesteryears, "The Dark Ages"
     A hint that the court may be moving towards this other extreme was revealed in a very recent matter of a death row inmate Domineque Ray. Ray was a Muslim believer, and he requested that he be allowed to have an Imam, a Muslim clergyman, at his side during his final moments. Prison regulation, however, only permitted prison employees to be in the death chamber, and only chaplains on staff were Christian. So Christian inmates could have a Christian chaplain at their side at an execution, but other faiths were out of luck.
   Ray challenged this up to the Supreme Court, but all five conservative judges on this court sided against Ray, ruling that the First Amendment did not provide him equal access to a chaplain of his religion.
    Interestingly, the four liberal judges sided with Ray, arguing that the Constitution required religious groups to be treated equally. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that "The clearest command of the Establishment Clause" is that "one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another", but,, "the State's policy does just that." So the conservatives who often have the most to say about religious liberty, at times don't appear to extend that same freedom to Non-Christian Religions.
    The conservative justices also seem less aware of the importance of the Establishment Clause to maintaining religious freedom. In  the First Amendment, our Protestant Founders sought to balance the right to religious freedom with the right to be free from religious impositions be state authorities. Religious people cannot, in the name of religious freedom, impose their religious beliefs through the mechanisms of the state.

A COMMUNITY OF RIGHTS.

    This same pattern of balancing of values ca n be seen throughout the Bill of Rights, as the rights of individual privacy, give way to public security concerns in the face of particularized search warrants: life, liberty, and property are protected from arbitrary or lawless intrusions, and rights of victims and the accused are balanced through procedural protections.
    This Protestant idea of the community of rights is brought to its height in the Ninth Amendment. Here it is acknowledged that the community of rights extends beyond those listed in the Constitution--- that the rights listed in the Constitution should not be used or " construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

NOTE(JB) : In other words, to quote an old saying, "Your rights stops your fist 1/4 of an inch from my nose! This all rights are equal, and no one's rights are superior to an other's! IF..IF I am a baker, and a same sex couple wants me to bake them a cake commemorating their union, they should ask, if that's OK with me, IF..IF its not, then ask me If I know a baker that is willing. All, concerned part in a good mood! But I guess that's the why we in the U.S of A. have more lawyers that rest of the world, combined! They ALL want to make a living, right?

    Matthew 22:35  "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,"

   It reminds originalists and living constitutionalists alike that we are meant to interpret the3 rights, both internal and external, in which it itself was formed Further, it reveals that these rights are not the product or gift of the Government but reside in the people. The Declaration of Independence reveals that these rights did not originate with the people; they originated with God Himself.

DELICATE BALANCE.

    This all means that the wrong position on a host of constitutional rights questions may not be primarily HOW one comes down of an issue, but rather the MANNER in which the position is held. The wrong position in all cases involving a clash of fundamental rights is the one that says these are  easy cases for the Supreme Court. Those who admit the difficulty of the balancing of the values involved have it right, however they many come out on the merits of these cases.
     Freedom of religion, expression, and movements are among our most venerable and deeply rooted liberties; yet nondiscrimination, personal safety, and national security are also profound values that are core and central to our society. Whenever these rights clash, a fair resolution will involve careful, nuanced, difficult evaluations of values and balancing of interests.
     To say that a decision that involves such competing values is easy means ignoring years of history and experiences during which our national community has learned to appreciate also important values. It's easy to remember the individual rights that we personally value the most. But it's also easy to forget the community of rights, of which they are a part--- a community of give and take that makes our society a civil and fair place to life, for all people, of all faiths, and values.
    This is the society that our dissenting Protestant founders envisioned and that has become a blessing and safeguard for people of all faiths and no-faiths alike. We do well to seek tp preserve it from extremes of either the secular left or the Zealous right.

Nicolas Miller, IJ,PhD, is a professor of history at Andrews University, Berrien Springs , Michigan , who specializes in religious liberty and constitutional law.

The state of Colorado withdrew its legal action against Masterpiece Cakeshop before the case reached the Supreme Court, probably recognizing that, given the Court's conservative majority, their chance of winning was slim.

Thanking Y O U, for your time.  Questions?  Comments?  John at bazenj@gmail.com

WANT/NEED more? Visit your local Seventh-day Adventist Church any SABBATH/Saturday at 9-10 AM.YOUR Father-God, has set aside a place for Y O U, no other can fill!

Other sites: AFTV.org    BLBN.org    Amazingdiscoveries.org   itiswritten.com    servantsite@wordpress.com

Blessings to all
cc/jkb.