Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 40

The Law Doesn���t Say You Must Quit Your Job

A common response to the Kim Davis situation (see yesterday���s post) is to say, ���If you can���t do your job, you need to quit.��� Perhaps that���s the way it should be in some cases, but it���s important to know that���s not what the law demands, apparently not even for public officials.

Eugene Volokh explains ���the American legal rule as it actually is, and as it has been for over 40 years (since the religious accommodation provisions were enacted in the 1972 amendments to Title VII)��� in ���When Does Your Religion Legally Excuse You from Doing Part of Your Job?���

Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won���t create an ���undue hardship,��� meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers ��� for instance by switching the employee���s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties ��� then the employer must accommodate them���.

Thus, for instance, in all the cases I mentioned in the numbered list above, the religious objectors got an accommodation, whether in court or as a result of the employer���s settling a lawsuit brought by the EEOC. Likewise, the EEOC is currently litigating a case in which it claims that a trucking company must accommodate a Muslim employee���s religious objections to transporting alcohol, and the court has indeed concluded that the employer had a duty to accommodate such objections���.

Volokh says Kentucky���s RFRA allows for religious exemptions for elected officials:

Title VII expressly excludes elected officials. But Kentucky, like about 20 other states, has a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) statute that requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws, unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. The federal government also has a RFRA, which may apply to federal court orders issued to state elected officials���. Nothing in them exempts accommodation claims by elected officials���.

The terms of these RFRAs actually seem to offer greater protection for claimants ��� to deny an exemption, the government must show not just ���undue hardship��� but unavoidable material harm to a ���compelling government interest.���

He then applies the law to Kim Davis as a public official, saying he thinks ���she���d have a good case��� under state law:

[I]t���s very likely that (1) the Kentucky RFRA, by its terms, would apply to religious exemption claims brought by elected officials, and (2) it would provide at least the protections offered to ordinary employees by the Title VII religious accommodation regime, and possibly more���.

[B]esides her losing claim in the federal lawsuit, it seems to me that Davis has a much stronger claim under state law for a much more limited exemption. Davis���s objection, it appears���is not to issuing same-sex marriage licenses as such. Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses with her name on them, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage���.

Now this would be a cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide. It���s true that state law requires the County Clerk���s name on the marriage license and the marriage certificate. But the point of RFRAs, such as the Kentucky RFRA, is precisely to provide religious objectors with exemptions even from such generally applicable laws, so long as the exemptions don���t necessarily and materially undermine a compelling government interest.

Please read the rest of ���When Does Your Religion Legally Excuse You from Doing Part of Your Job?��� The existence of RFRAs doesn���t mean one must always litigate rather than quit (that decision requires wisdom and prudence), but it corrects a knee-jerk reaction I see happening out there that assumes one must always quit. That���s not how America works. The way we���ve worked this out in the past is by using the least restrictive means to achieve the government���s compelling interest (see here and here). If a reasonable accommodation is possible, it should be, and often is, given.

Ratio Christi Symposium and Student Retreat in October

Ratio Christi, an apologetics ministry to college students, is holding a symposium (for Ratio Christi staff, ministry leaders, and anyone wanting to learn about apologetics and/or get involved in apologetics ministry) and student retreat in Charlotte, NC on October 17-18, after the SES National Apologetics Conference.

For the adults: 

There will be sessions focused specifically on campus ministry and other sessions on various apologetics topics and implementation of apologetics into church and ministry settings.

For the students:

The core of the retreat is your "concentration," a specialized program of study designed to allow for in-depth learning, promote friendships with similarly interested peers, and give you the chance to connect with distinguished faculty throughout the weekend.

Their theme this year is ���Endure: Confident Hope in a Troubled World���:

This year we will be concentrating on Christ's call to each of us to be faithful in the midst of hostilities and, even, persecution should it come. Around the world Christians are suffering for the sake of Christ. We need to stand in solidarity with these brothers and sisters who have not counted their troubles equal to the worth of following Jesus. Furthermore, we should be encouraged by the hope we ultimately have through the Gospel to stand up for Christ in our own lives. The cost of following Him in the university and culture is real, yet our reasonable hope helps us to not only endure, but also to thrive in a dark world.

If you can���t do the whole weekend, there���s a free benefit banquet you can attend on the evening of the 17th (you���ll need to RSVP). You can find more details about the symposium and retreat here. It���s worth considering���especially if you���re already planning to attend the SES Conference.

The Line between Rule of Law and Civil Disobedience

Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage, stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether, was ordered by a federal judge to resume her duty, refused to comply, and now is in jail for contempt of court. (Take a moment to read Joe Carter���s explainer on this story to catch up.)

I���m still working through what I think about this situation. It���s difficult because there are so many issues involved and goods to weigh, and I���m still trying to separate my feelings about the unfairness of singling out Kim Davis (as opposed to other officials who refuse to do their job) from the question of what Kim Davis should do. To help you think through this, there���s a symposium discussing these issues over at Breakpoint:

[B]ecause Davis is a government employee, it's a complicated situation with many angles. Christians are divided on Davis' actions, and the response by authorities. At issue are questions about the nature of religious liberty, the duty of Christians in government, and what godly civil disobedience looks like.

Here are a few excerpts from the symposium:

From Andrew Walker (this one most closely mirrors where I stand as of now):

The Supreme Court is where ultimate blame rests involving Kim Davis. Court rulings that are truly rooted in justice should seamlessly integrate into a state���s laws. Rulings should not circumvent the democratic process, pre-empt state action, and leave civil society in a state of fractious tumult. Unfortunately, that's what Obergefell did, and now we're seeing its disastrous effects in state jurisdictions such as Kentucky. That, and needless escalation in terms of incarceration, coupled with government inaction has brought us to the situation we���re in.

We must recognize the crucial difference between the religious liberty claims of private citizens and government officials. While government employees don���t lose their constitutional protection simply because they work for the government, an individual whose office requires them to uphold or execute the law is a separate matter than the private citizen whose conscience is infringed upon as a result of the law. It means the balancing test is different when it comes to government officials because of their roles as agents of the state. Government officials have a responsibility to carry out the law. When an official can no longer execute the laws in question due to an assault on conscience, and after all accommodating measures have been exhausted, he or she could work for change as a private citizen, engaging the democratic process in hopes of changing the questionable law.

From Shane Morris:

[W]e do and should discriminate when it comes to right and wrong, and natural law, which supersede the power of government, contrary to what Judge David Bunning says. This is the very concept that inspired the American Revolution, and a Civil Rights activist generations later from a Birmingham jail cell: There is a Law above the law. And any manmade law in contradiction to it is ���no law at all.���

A Christian woman is in jail for upholding the definition of marriage set in place at creation against one just invented by Anthony Kennedy. I don't feel comfortable telling her she's wrong, or that she should just do her job. She's standing on the side of reality, of natural law, and God, against a depraved fantasy.

From Michael Brown:

[W]hat cannot be debated is that the national outrage against Kim Davis has nothing to do with her refusing to obey the law and everything to do with her Christian beliefs. Had she found herself on the opposite end of the conflict and had she stood for ���gay rights,��� refusing to obey a law that she felt discriminated against them, she would be praised from coast to coast.

I encourage you to read everyone���s full comments over at Breakpoint. At the end of the post, there are links to several articles from different viewpoints that I���ve also found helpful, and there are plenty more out there. Ryan Anderson recommends a way forward where beliefs are accommodated and licenses are still obtained. Rod Dreher comes down hard on Davis and warns her actions will bring about serious consequences for religious liberty. Douglas Wilson takes the opposite position, saying Davis should not back down.

This is not a simple issue. Rule of law is what makes a good society possible, and the value we place on it should be great���it should never be compromised as part of a regular strategy for getting what we want. (I suspect the fact that we don���t believe the other side feels this way is fueling a lot of the support for Davis���s actions.) But there is also a time and place for civil disobedience, grounded in a Law higher than man���s, against an unjust law. Determining where the line should be drawn between them is not a simple task, and it deserves careful thought.

A Secular Argument for Intrinsic Human Value

I���m skeptical of the possibility of convincing people who don���t believe in God that human beings have intrinsic value (see ���Atheism and Universal Human Rights��� for more on why I���m skeptical). But Wesley J. Smith keeps insisting it���s possible, and I can���t help but hope he���s right when he says things like this:

Happily, human exceptionalism does not require belief in a transcendent God, or indeed, spiritual allusions of any kind if we understand that what matters morally is not the capacities of the individual���which, after all, are transitory���but our intrinsic natures as human beings���which are innate.

If we can convince people our value comes not from the abilities we���re expressing at a particular moment in time but from the kind of being we are���and that���s a big ���if��� that Smith doesn���t make a case for in his following argument, though you can read an argument for it here���then a case for universal intrinsic human value can be made.

From Wesley J. Smith���s ���More than ���In God���s Image������:

[A]s recent headlines about Planned Parenthood and the push for assisted suicide demonstrate, now is the time to defend intrinsic human value���.

A belief in human exceptionalism���does not depend on religious faith. Whether we were created by God, came into being through blind evolution, or were intelligently designed, the importance of human existence can and should be supported by the rational examination of the differences between us and all other known life forms.

After all, what other species in known history has had the wondrous capacities of human beings? What other species has been able to (at least partially) control nature instead of being controlled by it? What other species builds civilizations, records history, creates art, makes music, thinks abstractly, communicates in language, envisions and fabricates machinery, improves life through science and engineering, or explores the deeper truths found in philosophy and religion? What other species has true freedom? Not one���.

Perhaps the most important distinction between the fauna and us is our moral agency. The sow that permits the runt of her litter to starve is not a negligent parent, but a human mother doing the same would be branded a monster. The feline that plays with a fallen baby bird before consuming it is not being sadistic; she is acting like a cat! But any human who tortures an animal is rightly seen as pathological. 

Read the rest of his article here.

Are All Sins Equal to God?

It is very common among Christians to hear that all sins are equal. But is that really true? Are all sins equal to God?

The answer is, yes and no! If we are comparing one sin to another, then the Bible makes it clear that not all sins are considered equal by God. This is actually made clear from Jesus��� own teaching. First, Jesus testifies that there are greater sins (and, by extension, lesser sins). Standing before Pontius Pilate, Jesus says, ���You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin��� (John 19:11). Not only does God regard some sins as greater and some lesser, but Jesus tells us that there is a greatest sin. Jesus states, ���whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come��� (Matt. 12:32b).

It follows that if there are degrees of sins, then there must be ���weightier matters of the law��� (Matt. 23:23). In fact, we are explicitly told that there is a ���great and first commandment��� (Matt. 22:38). So it seems that all sins are not same to a Holy God; some are a greater offense to Him. 

However, in another sense, all sin is equal. All sin is the same in the sense that any one sin will separate you from God (James 2:10). Maybe a better way to put it is that any sin has the same consequence of separating us from God. The wages of sin, any sin, is death (Rom. 6:23). It only takes one. That is bad news for every person that has ever drawn breath. The good news is that Jesus died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2).

Links Mentioned on the 9/02/15 and 9/04/15 Shows

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Guest: J. Warner Wallace ��� God's Crime Scene (0:00)

J. Warner Wallace's website




God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe by J. Warner Wallace




Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospel by J. Warner Wallace




J. Warner Wallace on Dateline




CrossExamined Instructor Academy




What Counts as Evidence? by Amy Hall (quoting J. Warner Wallace on circumstantial evidence)




Cumulative Evidence and the Case for God's Existence by J. Warner Wallace




Apologetics Mission Trips to Berkeley 




Applying Homicide Investigation Techniques to the Case for God's Existence (Video) by J. Warner Wallace




Is There a Way to Avoid a Universe with a Beginning? by J. Warner Wallace




Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl




Can Naturalists Explain Where Life Originated? by J. Warner Wallace




Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith

��� Announcements:

Upcoming events with STR speakers




reTHINK Student Apologetics Conferences ��� Orange County on September 25���26, Dallas on October 23���24




STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6-13, 2016

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

My Goal in Every Conversation with Mormons

Last week some Mormon missionaries showed up at my door. I was unavailable at that moment, so we set up an appointment for them to come back next week. I���m looking forward to the conversation, but I don���t anticipate much impact���in that single conversation. After years of dialoguing with Mormons, I���ve learned to take it slow. Indeed, ex-Mormons will tell you that a patient approach is the best one. 

Think about the Mormons you know. Most of them probably grew up in the LDS Church. Their parents are Mormons. Their family members are Mormons. Most of their close friends are Mormon. The LDS church plays a preeminent role in their life, touching every area. With this in mind, is it realistic to expect Mormons to abandon their faith after one or two conversations? Probably not. That���s an unrealistic goal. 

Because of our love for LDS friends and family members, our final vision for their lives is that they come to know the true Jesus. But that���s not the goal of every individual conversation. 

Recently, a friend shared that some Mormon missionaries had come knocking and she invited them into her home for conversation. After a second follow-up visit, she decided to cut things off. ���Look, you guys aren���t going to change your views and I���m not going to change mine. So it���s pointless to continue meeting.��� After just two conversations, what did she expect? Is it reasonable to think these young men would abandon not only their Mormon views, but their entire Mormon community as a result of two conversations? 

If the goal of every conversation is conversion, you���ll find yourself frustrated and ready to move on. So don���t try to ���close the deal��� in every conversation. Instead, here���s a more realistic goal: put a stone in their shoe. What���s your reaction when you get a stone in your shoe? It bothers you. You can���t stop thinking about it until you take the shoe off and deal with the annoyance. The ultimate goal is to see our LDS friends come to Christ, but the goal of any individual conversation is to put a stone in their shoe. Give them one good thing to think about. And this approach isn't just for Mormons, rather it's a good general strategy with any unbeliever you talk with.

Understand that this approach takes time. Ask yourself if you���re willing to be patient. It may take years walking with your LDS or skeptical friends before you see them come to Christ. For some ex-Mormons, it takes Christians leaving stone after stone, year after year, before they���re ready to walk away from Mormonism. Hopefully, your perseverance means you���ll still be around, ready to walk them into God���s Kingdom when the time comes. 

Reaching a Morally Insensitive Culture

Brett shares how to be a good example to a culture that is not sensitive to Christian morality. 

August Newsletters: Arguments, Evidence, and Evil

Alan���s, Brett���s, and Tim���s August newsletters are now posted on the website:

Can You Argue Someone into the Kingdom? by Alan Shlemon: ���Sometimes when a person discovers I teach apologetics, they say, 'You can���t argue someone into the Kingdom.' As a professional apologist who makes arguments and teaches others how to argue���I wholeheartedly agree. That���s right, you can���t argue someone into the Kingdom. Guess what? You can���t love someone into the Kingdom either. You can���t serve enough, preach enough, or pray enough to get someone into the Kingdom. That���s because whether or not someone trusts Christ is not dependent upon us. It���s up to God. The Holy Spirit is the One who draws people to Himself. God is the author and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2).��� (Read more.)


When the Problem of Evil Gets Personal by Brett Kunkle: ���April was suffering emotionally from the loss of her mother. Her death had damaged April���s trust in the Lord. The last six months had been filled with grief, questioning, and now April was slipping into bitterness. The problem of evil was no longer a philosophical puzzle, but an intensely personal trial. April was in agony. What does one do in that situation? How should we answer?��� (Read more.)


Belief in God, Evidence, and the Human Heart by Tim Barnett: ���The famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say to God if he found himself standing before Him after his death. Russell replied, ���I probably would ask, ���Sir, why did you not give me better evidence?������ For Russell, it all came down to the evidence. The implication here is that given enough evidence, Russell would have believed. But is it really that simple? Does belief in God merely depend on evidence?��� (Read more.) 

You can subscribe to their newsletters here.

Links Mentioned on the 8/28/15 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Can God Sin? (0:00)

Questions:

��� Announcements:

Upcoming events with STR speakers
Greg is teaching on the Trinity at Living Oaks Church ��� Saturday and Sunday services this week (August 29-30)
reTHINK Student Apologetics Conferences ��� Orange County on September 25���26, Dallas on October 23���24
STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6-13, 2016

1. How do you respond to an atheist who says he just believes in one less God? (0:07)

Transcript of debate between Greg Koukl and Michael Shermer
Atheism: More than Just a Non-Belief by Amy Hall (quoting Tom Gilson)
One Less God (Video) by Greg Koukl
Atheists' Non-Belief (Video) by Greg Koukl
Just One Less God? (Video) by Brett Kunkle

2. Why do you use straw men arguments against the young earth view? (0:27)

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl
Defenders ��� William Lane Craig's podcast of his Sunday school class
Have Grace for Fellow Christians on the Age of the Earth by Amy Hall

3. Does the Bible Condemn Polygamy? (0:41)

What Would Polygamy Do to Society? by Amy Hall (see the end for comments on the Bible and polygamy)

4. There's no free will, only genetics. (0:50)

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.