By James Wilson
On our Monday conference calls with the
California Governors Prayer Team we always ask the Lord to cause our elected
and appointed leaders to fall in love with the limitations placed on them in
law and constitution. Clearly we have
not prayed enough. The lawlessness of
government itself becomes more brazen and more frequent with every passing
month. It may even be that we need to
pray for ordinary citizens to fall in love with the limitations placed on our
freedom. By that I mean citizens need to
re-discover the price of freedom – which is not just vigilance, but action to
maintain and reclaim it.
In
local matters a candidate for office in Escondido, California, placed a
campaign sign in his own yard and was ordered by officials to remove it. He claimed his right to free speech was
violated but liberal and conservative leaders alike told him he must obey the
rules of the city even if they were unconstitutional. In the meantime the music group Live Nation
planned a concert in Los Angeles and – after they arranged the venue – were
told by city officials they could hold their concert only if it were deemed a
“good fit” for the neighborhood in which they would hold it. Since when are Americans required to pass a
culture test administered by bureaucrats before we can play music? And where does it say in law or constitution
we should obey rules that violate that constitution? Is it not the responsibility of lawmakers to
make their laws consistent with the constitution and the responsibility of
citizens to defy laws that are not?
The
2010 Citizens United decision of the US Supreme Court held that arbitrary
limits on campaign contributions by corporations begged the question that
corporations are governed and funded by US citizens covered by the First
Amendment. In the follow-up McCutcheon
case – decided this year – the court said restricting citizens to $2600.00 in
total campaign contributions – per the McCain-Feingold Act – is an
unconstitutional restriction of free speech.
Yet that same court was perfectly comfortable saying a citizen may
contribute a maximum $2600.00 each to
as many candidates as they like. Can
only dissenting Justice Thomas see this is still an unconstitutional
restriction of free speech?
Now Californians are denied our right to a
referendum on unjust laws – a right enshrined in the California Constitution. The legislature passed AB 1266 in late 2013 –
the so-called Bathroom Bill – to mandate boys using girls’ restroom and shower
facilities and vice versa. Outraged
parents and citizens mounted an effort to place this issue on the November
ballot, something we have a right to do in California, and vote it down if they
could. When the petition drive began
Secretary of State Debra Bowen falsely claimed the law was in effect during the
drive – state law states clearly that it is not. She refused to accept signatures from at
least two counties until ordered by a judge to do so. She then asserted the petitions were 130,000
valid signatures short. When Pacific
Justice Institute attempted to do an independent count – as is their right
under state law – Bowen refused to turn the petitions over because – as she put
it – there were privacy concerns for the signers of the petitions.
The
Institute sued in state court and the judge ignored the law to find in favor of
the secretary of state. Left unanswered
is the question of how a person signing a political petition – the very essence
of public speech – retains a right to privacy, especially when the people
wishing to review the signatures are the very people the signers are attempting
to help. But a more important question
is answered by implication. Citizens do
have a responsibility – an obligation – to assert our right to live under law
rather than under the whims of powerful men and women. When government consistently denies us that
right we have an obligation to rise up – non-violently – and deny
government. We need to deny government
in such a creative way that our political NO becomes a cosmic YES. AB 1266 is a case in point.
When this gross invasion of students’ right
to bathe and use the toilet unmolested and un-oogled takes effect parents
should – on a wholesale basis – keep their kids at home until the law is
overturned. Schools depend on your child
being in school every day; funding is determined based on average daily
attendance – ADA – and thousands of kids staying home hurts budgets. Hopefully it hurts budgets enough that school
boards, administrators, and teachers unions will join the clamor for this law’s
repeal. But it is not a creative YES to
merely keep the kids at home.
We
homeschooled our children for three years, as do thousands of families in
California; it is perfectly legal to do so and nowhere near as time consuming
as many seem to think. Homeschooled
children tend to do better on achievement tests than their public and private
school counterparts; they cut through college entrance exams like butter. They have been demonstrated to experience no
loss in terms of socialization. Any
parents who want to consider this option can google the Home School Legal
Defense Association. However, parents
should beware of one thing: Even when
the schools bow to the pressure and stop using our children as social science
lab animals those parents who began to home school during this period may find
they and their kids like it so much they won’t be going back.
Jesus
says He came to set the captives free.
But He never said freedom was free.
He told the man in Mark 2 to rise and walk, not be lifted up and floated
away, after healing him of his paralysis.
He says the Kingdom of Heaven is taken by force in Matthew 11 – not the
force of violence but of the rising assumption of responsibility. That is falling in love with our limitations
as citizens.
James A. Wilson is the author of Living
As Ambassadors of Relationships and The
Holy Spirit and the End Times – available at local bookstores or by
e-mailing him at
praynorthstate@charter.net
No comments:
Post a Comment