Chuck Colson recently wrote Playing the Hate Card, in which he made a quick reference to a point often made here:

Foremost on my list [of things to be thankful for] was the freedom we as Americans still enjoy to practice our religion. This includes the right to promote laws and leaders who uphold our values. (emphasis added)

Again, Christians are not obligated to allow those whose values are in opposition to their own to prevail simply because Christians have a religious foundation.  Even in a secular society, every citizen acts from their own moral foundation in their attempts to influence the social morality by promoting their own beliefs in the governance of society.  The fact that one person’s foundation may be “religious” and another’s “religious” in another form does not negate the value of the position itself.

Colson was speaking in reference to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s recent decision to include Christian groups in its list of ‘hate groups.’  He quotes the Washington Times accurately saying the SPLC is targeting those groups because they are a threat to an agenda.  He also notes this is a trend at work against religious (generally, Christian) beliefs.

As an example, he highlights the recent federal court decision by Judge Vaughn Walker in the California “Proposition 8” case.  Walker made the following finding of fact:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (p101, emphasis added)

Thus, a federal court of law found “religious beliefs…harm,” which puts the government in a position to ‘protect’ its citizens from such beliefs.

Colson notes the goal of religious critics is to “shut down debate” in opposition to a postmodern agenda by describing such beliefs with a simple word:

Hate.

Think its working?