Religious Liberty is Still Under Attack

jack phillips - with his cakes, masterpiece cake shop (photo credit - matthew staver for the new york times)

(Photo Credit – Matthew Staver for The New York Times)

by Diane Rufino, January 11, 2019

GREAT NEWS !!

But first the bad news:  Religious liberty continues to be in jeopardy in Colorado, the home of Christian baker and cake artist, Jack Phillips, and his Masterpiece Cakeshop.

But here is the good news:  The judicial system has once again ruled in its favor. A federal district court in Denver has ruled that Christian cake artist and baker, Jack Phillips, can proceed in his lawsuit against the State of Colorado for its alleged continued harassment of him on account of his religious beliefs. The district court, in allowing the case to go forward, found there is evidence that there continues to be hostility against Phillips on account of his religious beliefs which is responsible for the unequal treatment against him.

You may remember that Phillips was censured by the state of Colorado (the Colorado Civil Rights Commission) for declining to create a cake for a same-sex couple back in 2012. The couple had asked for a 7-layer cake, representing the colors of the rainbow, with two men in tuxedos being married on top. Phillips declined the request, explaining that the message he would be sending through his design would offend his sincerely and deeply-held religious beliefs. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission claiming Phillips and the Masterpiece Cakeshop discriminated against them in violation of the state’s public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). The Commission agreed and ordered the cakeshop owner and his staff to undergo a rigorous re-education program (teaching “tolerance”), as well as to invoke certain serious restrictions on them [by requiring that he bake cakes for same-sex couples (ie, he cannot discriminate for any reason) and requiring that he and his staff record, subject to regular state audits, every customer who requests a custom cake and the reasons when a request is denied]. Phillips appealed but was denied, and then finally appealed the Commission’s decision to the Colorado appellate court. The court upheld the Commission’s finding and decision. Phillips chose to stop creating wedding cakes rather than cave to government coercion. He lost a significant portion of his income and could no longer support the staff he had working for him. He, with help from the pro-First Amendment legal team, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

In June 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case (Phillips v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission), ruling that Phillips was wrongfully prosecuted for declining to bake the cake. Rather than address the actual issue of “compelled speech” or religious liberty (see below), the decision rested on the obvious hostility towards religion that clearly motivated the Commission to take action and penalize the Christian baker. For example, in 2014, Commissioner Diann Rice makes the following comment just before denying Phillips’ request to temporarily suspend the commission’s re-education order:

“I would also like to reiterate what we said in…the last meeting [concerning Jack Phillips]. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust… I mean, we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use – to use their religion to hurt others.”

On June 26, 2017, the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Jack Phillip’s appeal, an attorney, Autumn Scardina, called Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested a birthday cake. During a discussion of the customer’s preferred specifications for the confection, Scardina revealed that she wanted the cake to have a pink interior and a blue exterior. Then she added that the colors were to celebrate her coming out as transgender on her birthday, some years earlier. At that point, Debi Phillips (Jack’s wife, and the co-owner of the cake shop) declined to create the cake because of the Phillips’ belief that gender is biological, and immutable.

Scardina later asked Phillips to design a cake with satanic themes and images—a request that Phillips also declined because of the message the cake would communicate. Scardina then filed a civil rights complaint against Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, charging discrimination on the basis of gender identity, a protected status under Colorado anti-discrimination law.

Less than a month after the Supreme Court ruled for Phillips in his first case (June 2018), the state of Colorado surprised him by finding probable cause to believe that he violated the CADA by declining to create the requested gender-transition cake. The Commission concluded that the statute includes transgender individuals in its prohibition against discrimination based on gender.

As with his decision not to create a cake celebrating gay pride and same-sex marriage, Phillips’ decision not to make the pink/blue cake which clearly was intended to express a message celebrating Scardina’s transgender status was based on his connection to (and what outsiders might view as his acceptance of) that message and not based on the identity of the customer.

In response to this renewed attack against him, Jack Phillips and his lawyers with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed their own suit, in the US district court in Denver, against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and specifically, Aubrey Elenis, the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division. It was Elenis who issued the finding that that there is “sufficient evidence” to support a claim of discrimination against Phillips. ADF argued that “the state of Colorado is violating Phillips’ First Amendment free exercise of religion rights by continuing to treat him differently than other cake artists and by acting with hostility toward him and his faith.”  District court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel issued a ruling on January 4, concluding that Phillips may proceed with a second lawsuit claiming the state of Colorado is again wrongly prosecuting him. Judge Daniel said there is evidence of unequal treatment against Phillips, given that the state of Colorado, through the Commission, allows other cake artists to decline requests to create cakes “that express messages they deem objectionable and would not express for anyone.” This “disparate treatment,” the court said, “reveals” the state officials’ ongoing “hostility towards Phillips, which is sufficient to establish they are pursuing the discrimination charges against Phillips in bad faith, motivated by Phillips’ religion….” The ruling further added that Phillips “has adequately alleged his speech is being chilled by the credible threat of prosecution.”

A commissioner set to decide the state’s new case against Phillips has publicly referred to him as a ‘hater’ on Twitter, which was just one of several clear indications of the commission’s ongoing bias against him, the bad faith motivating its continued harassment of him, and its outright hostility towards his beliefs.

ADF also argued that Colorado is infringing Phillips’s due process rights, and that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission’s adjudicative process is flawed because the same commissioners act as both accusers and adjudicators in the same case, an arrangement that the Supreme Court condemned in a 2016 decision. There is probably a 14th Amendment challenge as well, alleging arbitrary treatment under its Anti-Discrimination statute.

It is important to understand the issues at the center of this continued hostility towards Jack Phillips. It is not simply the case of one person claiming another violated his civil rights or aggieved him in some way. It is not simply the case of an employer being sued because he offer a job to someone else instead of the minority candidate. This situation is one where the state itself has taken a formal position that anti-discrimination rights and the rights of groups like the LGBT and transgender community are more important than the historic and founding right of religious freedom. Today it may be the state that is trying to take away our religious liberty right, but tomorrow, it may be 30 states, and then the federal government itself. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Phillips v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission stemmed from the baker’s refusal, on the basis of his faith, to design a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. The Colorado government then attempted to compel him to do so, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated Phillips with open hostility, even comparing his invocation of sincere religious beliefs to defense of the Holocaust. Additionally, they treated him differently from other cake artists who had declined to design custom cakes because of the images they would have conveyed.

The Supreme Court found that Jack Phillips did not act out of animus (hatred) when he politely declined to make the same-sex couple a cake celebrating gay pride and same-sex marriage [which was not allowed, by the way, in the state of Colorado at the time of the suit (2012); in fact, according to the state constitution, the only marriage recognized in the state was between a man and a woman]. He offered them any other cake he had in the shop and offered to bake them any cake they liked, but he just could not “create” an artistic cake to celebrate same-sex marriage.

Animus and blind intolerance form the crux that makes discrimination so offensive. But that is not what happened in the case of Phillips v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It was a case of a man, a Christian, believing the First Amendment protected him in his right to exercise his deeply-held religious beliefs (Free Exercise of Religion) and protected him from being coerced into expressing a viewpoint that goes directly against what he believes (Free Speech and the Right to be free from compelled Speech).

The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (or CADA) outlaws discrimination in the area of public services, goods, and accommodations – yet it makes several exceptions for certain groups of people who have particular sensitivities – such as Muslims (can refuse a customer if they feel it offends Allah or the Koran), atheists (obvious; they don’t have to be compelled to make anything with a cross or a bible verse, etc), and African-Americans (don’t have to accept business which they feel discriminates against them, or which represents white supremacy). We all know that discrimination, in many forms, continues to exist in the marketplace. Fashion designers who were outraged over Trump’s election refused to design for our stunning First Lady, Melania (wow, what a stupid decision there!)  Bruce Springsteen and other artists refused to perform concerts for those who hold political views they don’t agree with. Businesses choose states to move to or expand to that are favorable to their political views, and reject those that are unfavorable. The list goes on.

Indeed, over his years as a cake artist, Phillips has declined to create cakes with various messages that violate his faith, including messages that demean LGBT people, express racism, celebrate Halloween, promote marijuana use, and celebrate or support Satan. It was the refusal to create a custom cake for the same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, and the backlash created by the LGBT community, that prompted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (tasked with reviewing challenges under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act) to file a suit against him. As the ADA continues to explain: “Jack serves all customers…But Jack doesn’t create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in conflict with his deeply-held beliefs.”  He will tell you the same thing himself.

Apparently, tolerance is not a two-way street.

In addressing the issues presented in Jack Phillip’s case against the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission – Phillips v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018 decision), the Supreme Court focused primarily on his claim that CADA, and the Commission itself (ie, the state of Colorado) was forcing or compelling him to engage in speech that he disagreed with.  The creative process whereby Phillips designed a custom cake to represent and mark the particular occasion is a form “expression” or “expressive speech,” which is protected under the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech provision. Therefore, as his ADF lawyers argued, he cannot be compelled or forced to create a cake that delivers a message that the government demands him to deliver but that he personally opposes.

And the Supreme Court has upheld such a view. In its “compelled speech” rulings, the Supreme Court has protected the right not to be forced to say, do, or create anything expressing a message that one rejects. Its most famous cases are West Virginia v. Barnette (1943) and Wooley v. Maynard (1977). In the Barnette opinion, the Court barred a state from denying Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to attend public schools if they refused to salute the flag, and in the Maynard opinion, it prevented New Hampshire from denying people the right to drive if they refused to display on license plates the state’s libertarian-flavored motto “live free or die.” The justices of the Supreme Court addressed both cases during oral arguments and referenced them in the Court’s opinion as well.

The question, of course, was whether the liberal members of the Supreme Court would agree that cake design constitutes “expression.”  It turned out that all agreed that it does.

The main purpose of having a cake “created,” as opposed to buying a ready-made cake, isn’t to satisfy a sweet tooth or to top off the meal; the main purpose is aesthetic and expressive. That is why they are displayed in such a creative way or in a choreographed fashion at receptions or parties, and that is why they are often the center of a live program (such as the feeding of the cake by the bride and groom to one another), much like a prop in a play.  Luckily, the Court was able to distinguish between simple goods and services (not requiring expression) and services like those offered by Jack in creating a custom cake, which involve expression.

In that case, NC Family co-signed a “friend-of-the-court” brief to the U.S. Supreme Court and, in November 2017, led a North Carolina delegation of concerned citizens (including myself and several of my friends) to Washington, D.C. to show support for religious liberty and Phillips. In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Phillips’ favor.

While progressives (like those who sued Phillips in the 2017 case for not baking a gay marriage celebration theme for a same-sex couple, and now those currently suing him, transgenders) believe the First Amendment must remain silent when a person’s views make another feel uncomfortable or hurt their feelings or make them feel undignified, or when a person’s religious beliefs result in what may be viewed as discrimination against a group of persons, the reality is that the First Amendment has no “conditions” on it. And, as the plain language of the Amendment, as well as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, makes clear, there is no right for the federal government to impose any conditions on it.  Incorporation of the First Amendment on the States (thru the 14th Amendment, or even per the Bill of Rights included in the state constitution) prohibits the state legislature as well from making any law that abridges the right of free speech and the right to exercise one’s religious beliefs. The First Amendment is precisely needed when one’s ideas offend others or when it contradicts the orthodoxies of the reigning social and political majority. In those times, in particular, it protects more than one’s freedom to speak one’s mind; it also guards one’s freedom not to be forced, compelled, or coerced (including by law) to speak the mind of another.

Here is some sobering information:  Since 2014, approximately $9.9 million in grant funding has been collected for the sole purpose to oppose religious liberty and protections for religious freedom.  Welcome to the new America. The grants predominantly come from LGBT groups, backers of the LGBT movement, abortion supporters, and those calling for government-provided contraception coverage. These grantees, in general, hold the position that abortion rights and anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT individuals are equally important, or more important than religious freedom. Next time you hear the LGBT community demand tolerance, keep this in mind.

Again, welcome to the new America.

Friends, the fight continues.  Either we have the Right to Speak freely or we don’t.  Either we have the Right to Believe as we want and to Freely Exercise our Religion or we don’t. In other words, either we are free or we are not.

I will keep you updated as this new case develops.

 

- 000000 (7)

References:

NC Family Staff, “Jack Phillips Can Continue His Fight Against Government Harassment,” NC Family Policy Council bulletin, January 11, 2019.  Referenced at:  http://my.ncfamily.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=5170.0&dlv_id=9031

Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis, “Opinion: First Amendment Wedding Cake,” New York Times, December 4, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/first-amendment-wedding-cake.html

“Colorado Loses Bd to Dismiss Cake Artist’s Lawsuit,” Alliance Defending Freedom, January 7, 2019.  Referenced at:  https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/colorado-loses-bid-to-dismiss-cake-artist-s-lawsuit

“Christian Cake Baker’s Second Lawsuit Can Go Forward, Federal Judge Says,” Catholic News Agency, January 7, 2019.  Referenced at:  https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/christian-cake-bakers-second-lawsuit-can-go-forward-federal-judge-says-24315

“Revealed: Colorado Commission Compared Cake Artist to Nazi,” Alliance Defending Freedom, January 12, 2015.  Referenced at:  http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9479

Advertisements

Why the Issue of Confederate Memorials is of Significant Consequence

Mark Creech

by Reverend Mark Creech, Christian Action League, Aug. 24, 2018

Lately, a lot of emotion has been spent over Confederate monuments in the Tar Heel state.

Silent Sam, the statue on the campus of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, was gleefully pulled from its pedestal by a mob, August 20th. Former alumni, as well as citizens across the state, were outraged at the lawless act and the justifications given for it.

Two days later, August 23rd, the North Carolina Historical Commission rejected Governor Roy Cooper’s request to relocate three Confederate monuments on state Capitol grounds. The Commission opted instead to provide contextualization signage and raise funds for constructing and erecting African-American monuments.

Contextualization creates angst for many, while others rail against the Commission’s decision to leave the monuments standing. The situation remains a hotbed of passion on both sides.

I have written on this subject a number of times. I cannot say that everyone who is a part of the organization I represent, the Christian Action League, believes as I do on the topic. Nevertheless, I speak because I believe the matter is one of significant import to our state, country, and Western Civilization.

To understand history, it’s important that one hears all sides of the story. When memorials such as Confederate monuments are pulled down, it’s because only one narrative is being allowed.

Critics of Silent Sam said that the monument sends a message of racism and White Supremacy. They argue it was erected during a period in history when whites wanted to show that they still ruled the south.

Their proof? Julian Carr’s speech at the unveiling with its egregious and wrongheaded remarks about what the Confederate soldier meant to the Anglo Saxon race and how he, Carr, personally horsewhipped a black woman after insulting a Southern white lady. Also cited as evidence are the United Daughters of the Confederacy, who spearheaded and funded the monument. Some contend the UDC is a white supremacist organization, an accusation the UDC denies.

Critics of Silent Sam also argue the Confederate soldier was a traitor to his country and a defender of slavery. Memorials to Confederates glorify treason and the subjugation of the black race, they say.

I’m certain some sophisticate will charge that I’m just a backward preacher from the South with a misinformed and misguided allegiance to a terrible group of people. But I can’t agree the issue is that simple.

White Supremacy?

Thomas J. Crane, an attorney who represents individuals in employment actions and has appeared in both state and federal court, says the charges of racism against statues like Silent Sam and other Confederate memorials wouldn’t succeed in a court of law.

In a most intriguing article titled, “Confederate Monuments and Racism,” Crane writes:

     “I represent victims of discrimination. Like historians, I am in the business of accusing persons or entities of discrimination. But, if I tried to accuse a person or statue of racist bias based solely on speeches by third parties, I would likely be sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous lawsuit…There are several alternative explanations for why these statues were erected.

      The challenge regarding the Confederate monuments is there is always a legitimate alternative explanation. The United Daughters of the Confederacy was founded expressly to commemorate the deceased Confederate veteran. The Confederate States of America was not the United States of America. That means there was no government effort to mark the passing of these hundreds of thousands of veterans. If the UDC or some organization like the UDC did not raise the funds for these monuments, it would not be done…

      Certainly in most communities, the Daughters were part of the white power structure. But, being part of the dominant white society does not mean those Daughters necessarily sought to support Jim Crow laws when they erected those monuments.”

Crane is right. There are many other valid reasons for Confederate monuments, which received broad support in the day of their placing.

History shows Confederate veterans were dying at the time and family members wanted to memorialize their fathers, brothers, and husbands before their passing. Others felt that their loved ones who suffered, sacrificed, and died in that great conflict deserved better recognition and more prominence than what they received in a cemetery for the Confederate dead. Reconstruction had also ended, and there was more money available for building and raising these memorials. Moreover, such monuments were seen as reunification symbols, where the Confederate heritage was brought into the larger American context, acknowledged, respected, and tolerated.

One might ask, if the sole purpose of these monuments was to lionize White Supremacy and slavery, why wasn’t this stated on the monuments? No such pattern exists.

In the case of Silent Sam, the plaque on the memorial simply read: “To the sons of the University who entered the war of 1861-65 in answer to the call of their country and whose lives taught the lesson of their great commander that duty is the sublimest word in the English language.”

Confederates Soldiers Were Traitors?

In my estimation, there is no basis for the indictment that Confederate soldiers were traitors. It’s true the war started when Southerners fired on Fort Sumter in South Carolina, but who provoked the conflict is still in dispute by historians.

Lincoln sent a ship to re-provision Fort Sumter, which was a federal fort in Charleston. South Carolina had already seceded from the Union, along with six other states. Certainly, if secession had any meaning, the state couldn’t permit a foreign power to maintain a military fort on its own soil. When negotiations broke down between President Lincoln’s administration and President Jefferson Davis’ administration for the transfer of the fort to South Carolina, Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, which resulted in Union forces surrendering.

Although there were no casualties, Lincoln sent 75,000 troops into the “rebel” states, which resulted in four additional Southern states, including North Carolina, seceding from the Union.

The Southern states also seceded from the Union based on the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The right for states to legally secede was widely accepted. Even Alexis de Tocqueville, the French political thinker and historian, who visited America to study its system of government, said the Union “was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so.”

Again, traitors? How can Confederate soldiers be traitors when the states in which they resided had seceded from the Union, as was their Constitutional right, and formed a new country of which they were citizens?

Confederates Soldiers Fought for Slavery?

Neither is it right to contend that Confederate soldiers were all about defending slavery. This is not to say the conflict was never about slavery. Instead, its to argue that the reason they fought was more nuanced.

Thomas E. Woods, an American historian, who is both a Harvard and Columbia University graduate, correctly argues in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, that “slavery was far from the only issue on Southerner’s minds, particularly since the great majority of Southerners did not even own slaves. For their part, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, two of the South’s best-known Generals, described slavery as ‘a moral and political evil.’ Lee had even been an opponent of secession, but fought on the side of Virginia rather than stand by as the federal government engaged upon the mad project of waging war against his state. Recall that Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina seceded only after Lincoln had called up 75,000 volunteers to invade the South and prevent its secession. These four states, therefore, certainly did not secede over slavery, but rather over Lincoln’s decision to use military force to suppress Southern independence.”

Additionally, Civil War historian James McPherson’s incredible research, consulted a sizeable number of Union and Southern soldiers’ letters and diaries on the way they viewed the war. The results clearly determined that they were concerned about saving the Union, the right of Secession, Constitutionalism, the Founding Fathers, but not slavery.

In other words, Southern politicians might have had slavery on their minds. However, the issue wasn’t a primary concern for Confederate soldiers on the battlefield. They weren’t putting their lives on the line each day, their bodies being torn and broken by cannonballs, bullets, and bayonets, just so they could enslave, whip, or lynch black people. The notion is preposterous.

Instead, they fought primarily for reasons of patriotism. They fought because they believed their homeland had been invaded. They fought for fear of the federal government enslaving them, and preventing their own self-determination. They fought for their independence. They fought for the commercial freedom of the South. They fought because they had lost family members through acts of brutality by the enemy. They fought because an occupying force was often denying their rights. They fought because they didn’t believe they deserved the scourge of their wives eating rats, their children starving, and their property reduced to ashes.

Whether they believed in slavery or not, whether their government was right about it or not, the South was their home, and they would give their lives in defense of it.

Oversimplification and Overreach —

Certainly, these affairs were the larger part of the equation. Therefore, making Confederate monuments primarily about White Supremacy, treason, and slavery is gross oversimplification and overreach.

In the same article referenced earlier, Crane contends that “alleged prejudice must be based on more than mere speculation and tenuous inferences.” The case must be proven, and the preponderance of the evidence must reasonably conclude racist intent. The evidence doesn’t show this to be the reason for erecting Confederate monuments. Even racial motivations do not necessarily constitute a racial purpose.

With these assertions in mind, I will conclude with these thoughts.

True Tolerance Essential —

America is a place of many cultures, many political opinions, and many values. True tolerance, which respects individuals without necessarily approving of everything they believe or espouse, is essential.

As a white man, I may not be able to fully connect with a monument like the National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Alabama, which is dedicated, in part, to the way people of color are often burdened with presumptions of guilt and police violence. Nevertheless, I can reverence and appreciate my fellow Americans. This same deference should go the other way.

To take down memorials placed in honor of deceased people who forewent their health and happiness, forfeited their honor and substance for the ones they loved in a time of war, is to say such people and the ones for whom they spent their affections don’t count. It’s to say their ancestors are evil and beyond the recognition of any noticeable or worthy virtues.

Orwellian Ends —

Moreover, pulling down said monuments, more often than not, produces Orwellian ends. If the monuments are taken down, there remains only a one-sided account. There is no way to ponder them and the full significance of their meaning, as well as the lessons they can teach.

Taking down monuments and memorials is a revolutionary tactic of history. Burn the books. Destroy the landmarks. Topple the statues. Flatten the memorials.

In a quote from George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, we read, “One could not learn history from architecture any more than one could learn it from books. Statues, inscriptions, memorial stones, the names of streets, anything that might throw light on the past had been systematically altered.”

Here’s another: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered, and the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped, nothing exist except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

Isn’t this what we are witnessing? – an intentional and imposed ignorance.

It’s an appropriate question to ask where this will end. What else besides Confederate monuments is next to be removed or hidden away in some rather obscure place? Will it be statues of Washington and Jefferson? What about the U.S. Flag? Could it be the Christian Cross on steeples and buildings? Might it be any reminders of America’s heritage or Western Civilization that causes offense, makes people feel unwelcome, or hurts their feelings?

It isn’t spurious to question whether the goal or the outcome will be to lose ourselves in the mass mind and the mass will.

While there was cheering at the fall of Silent Sam at UNC, the lawless action of the mob which perpetrated the crime signals a time of future mourning. A time when intolerance is supreme, lack of knowledge predominant, and uniformity enforced.

Yes, this matter is of considerable import to our state, nation, and Western Civilization.

 

Reference:

Reverend Mark Creech, “Why the Issue of Confederate Memorials is of Significant Consequence,” Christian Action League, Aug. 24, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://christianactionleague.org/news/why-the-issue-of-confederate-memorials-is-of-significant-consequence/