An Encouraging Supreme Court Decision

Last month the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that has significant meaning for churches and Christians as they seek to communicate their faith in Christ through preaching and personal conversations.

At first look the decision has nothing to do with churches or with Christians being able to communicate their sincerely held religious beliefs. As you go further and see the ramifications of this decision, it has important meaning for those who hold to biblical teaching.

The Supreme Court decision is Matal v. Tam. Matal is the patent administrator for the U. S. Patent Office. Tam is the founder of a rock group. How could this have anything to do with our being able to speak our beliefs? As I edited this post and considered how it sounds, I am sure some of you are thinking this has to be a joke, but it is not.

The rock group is an Asian group which calls themselves “The Slants,” a pejorative term for Asians. The group wants to register the name so that no one else can profit from it. They want that name in order to render it meaningless as a pejorative term.

Matal, the patent and trademarks administrator, turned down the name precisely because it is disparaging. The Patent and Trademark Office, based on the Lanham Act, has had a policy against scandalous, immoral, or disparaging speech.

The court ruled the Patent Office policy unconstitutional citing the constitutional right to freedom of speech, even speech that may be offensive to some individual or group. Therefore, the band gets to register its name.

But there is a larger significance. The court ruling means that it does not see this kind of speech as “hate speech.”

Why is this important to Christians? Because a movement is afoot to strip Christians of their ability to teach precisely what Jesus said: that there is one and only one way to be saved. This way is through Jesus alone. No other way exists.

A few weeks ago Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who sought the Democratic party’s nomination for president, threatened to deny confirmation for a Trump nominee because the nominee believes that new life and salvation (and thus heaven) comes only though Jesus. Sanders, who is planning to run again for president, believes such biblical views disqualify a person for office of any kind in the federal government.

At least for now, Matal v. Tam negates those views. We have much for which to be thankful. This is really good news.

You can see why whoever is nominated and confirmed to the court or any other court is vitally important for the freedom to exercise faith.

Let us pray for wise and courageous nominees who will follow the meaning and intent of the United States Constitution.

If you would like to receive all of my daily looks at life and Scripture, you can sign up in the box below or by going to waylonbailey.com.


 

Share this post

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email

6 Responses

  1. The Sanders comment was taken out of context. It was part of a larger discussion regarding whether or not Vaught would be tolerant to people of all faiths. However, if you watch Fox News (Trump’s State TV) or read Breitbart you would think that Sanders attacked Christianity. Then again that’s their strategy- create an us v. Them environment and make their viewers paranoid that their way of life is constantly under attack by “them.” Notice how these news outlets don’t cover anything negative about Trump or any conservative.

    1. I had to turn Fox off last night. I listened to it off and on yesterday but always it was about DT jr. meeting w a Russian. I hope you see my point. I don’t know what is on CNN because I never watch it. Politics is not my religion. The Bernie Sanders comments aside. The Constitution was literally interpreted by the Supreme Court. It’s a victory for all people of faith, not just Christians.

  2. Senator Sanders’ comments were not taken out of context. The diatribe about conservative news outlets is irrelevant to whether the Senator actually sought to impose a religious litmus test. The Atlantic magazine, hardly a conservative publication, published an article discussing the issue and very clearly called it a religious litmus test. But drawing conclusions solely from one’s opinion of a source and not the argument itself is an ad hominem logical fallacy. When reading the actual dialogue between Sanders and Vought, it’s difficult to see how anyone could view it as anything but a religious test for office considering the Senator’s only objection to the man was his theological beliefs.

  3. It is quite revealing that Bernie Sanders did not think about his own Jewish faith! It is intolerant also: Meaning that Jehovah God expects belief in Him by the Jew . And in the religion of Islam, the Muslim faith is intolerant: not believing in Allah casts people into hell! We as Christians must be ready to give an answer to why we believe/1st Peter 3:15 . And , yes, Jesus gave us the true plan of salvation in John 14, specifically John 14:6 – No one comes to the Father God except through Himself ! Thank you, Waylon, for opening up this discussion with the salvation of Jesus and his inerrant Word!

  4. Senator Sanders religious test was abhorrent to the constitution itself which prohibits any requirement of a religious test as a qualification for any office. I believe it is Art. 6 Section 3. Neither FoxNews nor Breitbart were around when those words were written.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *