You’ve got to hand it to liberals. They can speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time and express shock when people notice. The most recent display of double talk comes from Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich who signed the latest “sexual orientation” provision into law. “This legislation sends a clear message that we will not allow our citizens to be discriminated against,” Blagojevich said in a statement. The homosexual community was jubilant. And what did the governor use to bolster the new law’s moral legitimacy? He told his mostly homosexual audience that “It’s what Jesus said when he gave his Sermon on the Mount: ‘Do unto others what you would have others do unto you.’” Did I miss something? Did the governor just quote the Bible in support of a state law?

If a governor had quoted the Bible to show how homosexuality should not be tolerated, what kind of reception from the press do you think he would get? How fast do you think the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be ready with a lawsuit declaring the law unconstitutional? How long do think it would take for the words “separation of church and state” to be uttered because the governor based the law’s legitimacy on the Bible? As long as the Bible can be used to support liberal causes, no one objects.

Not long ago, a District Attorney quoted the Bible in the sentencing phase of a trial where a man had been convicted of murdering a 70-year-old woman. H. Stanley Rebert told the jurors, “Karl Chambers has taken a life. As the Bible says, ‘And the murderer shall be put to death.’” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the convicted murderer’s death sentence ruling that the defendant deserved a resentencing hearing because the prosecutor wrongfully quoted the Bible in closing arguments. It’s not that the prosecutor was wrong in the way he quoted the Bible; he was wrong because he quoted the Bible. Judges and witnesses generally take an oath to tell the truth with their hand on an open Bible. The very concept of murder comes from the Bible. Given evolutionary assumptions, there is no such thing as murder. If I had been the defense attorney, I would have argued this way for my client:

Defense Attorney: Mr. Chambers, did you go to public school?

Chambers: Yes, sir.

Defense Attorney: Did you have a class in biology?

Chambers: Yes, sir.

Defense Attorney: Were you taught that man evolved over long periods of time and that the strongest organisms survived over the weaker ones?

Chambers: Yes, sir.

Defense Attorney: Did you learn that these were the natural and positive consequences of evolution?

Chambers: Yes, sir.

Defense Attorney: Were you taught the Bible in public school?

Chambers: No, sir! It was not permitted.

Defense Attorney (to the jury): Ladies and Gentlemen. You spent your tax dollars educating this young man. It’s been said that our students are not learning what they’ve been taught. Now we find out that when a person does master his lessons, we put him on trial. You are here today because some strong ancestor eliminated a weaker ancestor on the evolutionary tree. We are proud of our evolutionary heritage. Look how far we’ve come due to the elimination of so-called “weak links.” How can Mr. Chambers be faulted when he simply followed the evolutionary tradition he learned in school. In addition, you heard the prosecuting attorney in the first trial tell us, “As the Bible says, ‘And the murderer shall be put to death.’” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned Mr. Chambers’ death sentence because the prosecutor quoted from the Bible. The same Bible that says that a “murderer shall be put to death” also states that murder is wrong. If the Bible is inadmissible in the one case, specifying punishment, then it ought to be inadmissible in the other case, specifying what constitutes a crime.

The same Bible that includes the Sermon on the Mount also includes some very specific statements about sodomy, what some euphemistically call “sexual orientation” or “gay rights.” Both the Old and New Testaments consider sodomy to be a violation of God’s law. The history of law in the Christian West is the history of biblical law—everything from polygamy and incest to rape and homosexuality.

Will this new law be applied to churches when they hire and when preachers preach? State Sen. Carol Ronen (D-Chicago) is on record stating that the law should be applied to churches. Generally, churches have been exempt from these kinds of laws. But if a homosexual applies for a job that is “non-religious” in the eyes of the state (janitor, receptionist, organist, nursery worker, etc.), and he is denied the job because he is a self-professed homosexual, you can be sure that the homosexual community will push for the application of the law to cover churches. The same Bible the governor quoted in support of his “sexual orientation” law will be made null and void, but only for those using it oppose “public policy” issues.

Peter LaBarbera points out the Illinois law firm Ungaretti & Harris, which specializes in labor and employment issues, published an analysis of the measure, which says, “While many such municipal prohibitions on sexual orientation discrimination expressly exempt religious organizations from their coverage, the new amendment to Illinois’ Human Rights Act does not.” Churches beware.