Can Sin Be In Heaven?

I have often heard preachers say that one of the reasons you must accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior is that sin is not allowed to enter the kingdom of GOD. I’ve heard the example used multiple times of a paint can filled with absolutely white paint (the sinlessness of GOD’s presence in heaven) and a single drop of black paint (sin) being dropped into that white paint and making that absolutely white paint no longer white.

The problem is, that’s a false premise.

Pick your jaw up off the floor and follow me here and you’ll soon understand. Remember the story of Job (long “o”)? Check out what it says in Job 1:6-12:

“6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.”

So if Satan was there with GOD in heaven and they were talking, then doesn’t that mean that – since GOD’s abode is heaven – Satan with all of his sin and pride and hate was also in heaven? Is that not correct?

Let’s go further into Job and see that it wasn’t just the one time that Satan was present in heaven with GOD. In Job 2:1-7 we see that Satan returned to the presence of GOD and did more talking to Him:

“Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. 4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. 5 But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. 6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life."

So that’s twice that we know of that Satan was in the presence of GOD in heaven. So sin, which we have been taught cannot be in heaven, it says in the Bible was in heaven.

Let us not forget that it was also in heaven when Satan became puffed up (conceited) and decided to lead a rebellion against GOD and one-third of the angels in heaven followed Satan into banishment. Read about that in Jude verse 6 (only one chapter, thus it is verse 6) we see

“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

Their “first estate” was in heaven with GOD. Thus sin was in heaven during the rebellion. We also see: Luke 10:18:

“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”

2 Peter 2:4:

“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;”

Note that they sinned while in heaven and then were cast down. Sin was in heaven. Not only was sin in heaven, but it started there! (Pick your jaw up!)

Revelation 12:7-9:

“7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

The “dragon” here is Satan. So why do we so often hear preachers preach about heaven being “without sin”? Some say that the myth gets its origins from Habakkuk 1:13:

“Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?”

But if you look at the fact that we know that GOD and Satan have had conversations about Job face to face, in heaven, then we know that it’s not that GOD cannot look at evil. Some of the other translations say:

“Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You can not look on wickedness with favor.” – New American Standard Bible
“But you are pure and cannot stand the sight of evil.” – New Living Translation
“But you can't stand sin or wrong.” – Contemporary English Version

I think that the GOD I serve is holy, righteous and good, but He is also able to look at whatever He wants to look at, but He can also overlook (look at and put on “ignore”) sin. GOD is GOD and there is nothing He cannot do except sin. To say that He could not look upon sin is to say that when He was speaking to Satan about Job He was looking a different direction while talking to Satan. That’s rude and I don’t think GOD did that. I think that GOD keeps an eye on His enemies because if He doesn’t then Satan may try to get an upper hand. We already saw that Satan was cast out of heaven by GOD and His Archangel, Michael. So why would GOD not be able to look at something He created even though that something (someone) sinned? Doesn’t GOD look at you and I daily?

“GOD is watching over you” is something we hear all the time. Do you sin daily? Perhaps you told a little “white lie” perhaps to save someone’s feelings, or had a little gluttony to help you through a difficult time (as did I when my cat died two days ago: chocolate helped)? It says in Psalm 121:5

“The LORD himself watches over you! The LORD stands beside you as your protective shade.” – New Living Translation

So, the answer to that is, “Yes. GOD watches over us.” So, does he see our sin? Yes. He must see our sin. Is He strong enough to handle it? Absolutely. Does He overlook it? Not in a non-judgmental way, but in a way that he puts your sin on “ignore” and he watches you without registering your sin. Have you ever had a time when you’re talking to someone, looking into their eyes and you don’t really see them because your mind is so out of focus or preoccupied? GOD does that. He doesn’t see your sin when He sees you. He waits patiently for that moment when you finally give in and accept Jesus Christ (His Only Begotten Son) as your Lord and Savior. If he weren’t watching for you to come home, the story of the “Prodigal Son” returning home in Luke 15:11-32 would be a totally useless biblical lesson.

Let’s look at the question considering this information: Can sin be in heaven? Yes! Absolutely yes! (Again, pick your jaws up off the floor.) However, the reason it can be there is that GOD is absolutely strong enough to handle it and He can overlook it, tune it out, whatever, for as long as it takes to get the job done that He wants done. In other words, it can be there long enough to suit His purposes: longer than that cannot be.

In the discussion with Satan about Job and how wonderful a character Job was, GOD allowed Satan to come in and try to cast aspersions upon Job’s character after which Satan was given permission to take all that Job had: children (he did), cattle (he did), property (he did that, too). When that failed, GOD gave Satan a second chance to do Job some damage, but this time allowed Satan to harm Job, just that Satan had to “spare Job’s life”. GOD wasn’t only strong enough to look at Satan, but to negotiate what damage Satan wanted to do to one of GOD’s most trusted servants.

No, it’s not that sin cannot enter into heaven, it is that sin is not allowed to stay in heaven. When we stand before GOD and we carry our sin up there with us to face judgment those who are not covered with the blood of Christ will still be covered in their sin. Thus, sin enters heaven that way, does it not? However, when it enters any which way, sin is not allowed to linger. It must move on to a more “appropriate” place: hell. We see in Revelations 20 the story of the Great White Throne judgment and how it says that

“12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

So we know that for that time of judgment, a person's soul and spirit (together as one) are standing before GOD, who is still in heaven, and thus, their sin is in heaven. Their deeds were all written in the books and those whose names were not written in the book of life were “cast into the lake of fire”. (That’s not what we want to happen to people so that’s why we tell people about Jesus and get people’s names into the book of life: so that they don’t get “cast into the lake of fire”.) After all, if you’ve sinned enough to be “cast into the lake of fire” and you’re standing before GOD doesn’t that tell you that your sin was there, too?

We see that:

1) Sin has already been in heaven during the rebellion, during the conversation about Job (twice) and probably multiple other times
2) Sin is allowed in heaven and it apparently does not affect GOD
3) Sin in heaven includes our sin on the great white throne judgment day
4) GOD is strong enough to handle looking at sin (He is omnipotent, after all!)

So if sin is allowed in heaven and GOD can handle it, why are we taught that sin is not allowed into heaven at all? That’s confusing, isn’t it?

I think it’s because heaven has already had one rebellion and GOD doesn’t want another one on His hands. He knows that if He allowed sin to enter and stay in heaven that it would not be good for heaven, for Him, for those who are there already. Sin has a way of oozing and sliming its way into hearts, minds, bodies, egos, and making itself at home and polluting and corrupting everything and everyone it has half a chance of touching. If sin were not just allowed into heaven, but allowed to linger and allowed to take root bringing disobedience, rebellion, hatred, lust, etc., into heaven as did Satan while he was up there, heaven would no longer be heaven, would it?

“1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

“5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”

That’s the heaven we look forward to, those of us who have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior, according to Revelations 21: 1-7. Those who do not have Jesus as our Lord and Savior have Revelations 21:8 to look forward to:

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

If sin could stay in heaven, then the pollution that is sin (How far does a lie spread because people are willing to believe it, want to fit in, or whatever?) will destroy heaven. GOD will not – cannot – allow sin to stay in heaven because if He did sin would destroy it. GOD loves us too much to allow that. Sin not covered by the blood of Jesus Christ must be “cast into the lake of fire.” It is not just protecting those of us who have accepted Jesus Christ and will remain in heaven with Him, but it also allows GOD to keep His solemn, holy word. When GOD makes a promise, He keeps it. GOD promised those of us who accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior a “New Jerusalem” to live in:

“9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

“10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; 12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

“15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. 16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. 18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. 19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

“22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.”

That’s why GOD cannot allow the pollution of sin to stay in heaven. If someone without the covering of the Lamb were to stay it would destroy heaven, the New Jerusalem and all who were therein. Sin can enter heaven outside of the City, New Jerusalem, but it cannot stay. Is your sin covered by the blood of the Lamb and is your name in the Lamb’s book of life?

______________________________________________________________

© 2018 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

The Stupidity of the “Amish Bus Driver” Squirrel

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

U.S. Constitution's First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In a “discussion” with an atheist on Twitter on the question of whether a Christian pharmacist (in my discussion, the pharmacist shall be deemed a male for simplicity's sake) should be allowed to not fill a prescription for the “morning after pill” and the pharmacist maintain his job, I was confronted with the “Amish bus driver” redirect. The First Amendment (above) says via the "free exercise" clause, that the pharmacist should NOT be forced to break his religious beliefs and be forced to fill the prescription. The other person in the “discussion” believes otherwise: it’s all a matter of contractual obligation.

First, let's set the parameters that will help define this argument. Contracts are fine, but legal contracts do not require aiding in murder. That is what Christians believe abortion is: murder. Murder is illegal and immoral and most Christians do not support it in any way, shape or form. Remember: murder is different than the death penalty, which is a punishment upon conviction of a severe crime. Murder is also different than killing someone in self-defense or war. Murder is planning to kill another person for whatever reason and actually taking that person’s life. The “morning after pill” is just that. In this case, the person being murdered is an absolutely innocent being who hasn't even the possibility of having committed an offense to anyone yet; besides the "offense" of having been brought into existence by the actions of two other people. They are culpable; the baby pays the price. A contract between an employer and an employee and the expectations of the employer for the employee to fulfill the employer’s expectations do not trump right and wrong in the case of a human life. If contract equals "must obey", then what is the difference between a pharmacist's employment with a company that wants to provide that service and a contract killing, a la mafia hit man?

It’s not murder, the other side says. It’s a “can be child” that isn’t really a child yet because it doesn’t have “bioelectrical capabilities”. It’s not a "sentient being". It's not self-aware (to some on the left a child is not self-aware until after its third birthday: extra-utero!) thus it is "fair game". The child once growing and forming inside the mother's uterus is "expelled" by the mother's body after the "morning after pill". What once was life -- and if formed in a Petri dish could be used to implant into a woman via in vitro fertilization to make a confirmed, growing, wanted pregnancy: a baby -- is now dead and the price for two others' actions is paid by the most innocent being on earth.

Let’s set that “murder” truth and the First Amendment protection of that belief/practice aside for a while and let’s look at the redirect of the “Amish bus driver”. That question goes like this: If an Amish man applied for a job as a bus driver and was hired to drive the bus then he refused, on the grounds of religious beliefs, to drive the bus would he be able to refuse to do the job on those grounds and maintain the job?

Second, let’s make it clear: The “Amish bus driver” scenario portrays the Amish man as first applying for the job, which implies he is interested in doing the job. It also asserts that the company would be willing to hire a man (assuming the “Amish bus driver” had previously stood with his religious beliefs) with no prior driving experience, no regular driver’s license and no Class __ license to drive a bus. Ignoring the fact that the company would have to be run by complete morons, let’s go with the scenario. The Amish man applies for and gets the job. Then the scenario says that the “Amish bus driver scenario” asks if the "Amish bus driver" can be fired by the company because he can’t drive a bus without breaking his religious beliefs. The scenario asks if the First Amendment would protect the “Amish bus driver” and force the company to keep him on payroll (i.e., protect his “free exercise” regarding his religious beliefs) even though he’s not doing the job he was hired for?

Third, let us understand that anyone is able to go against their religious beliefs if they so choose. Neither the First Amendment – nor the Bible, to be frank – forces anyone to adhere to their alleged religious beliefs. I use the term “alleged” because anyone who CHOOSES to take a job that breaks with their religious beliefs is not necessarily wed to those beliefs; although in this scenario, the “Amish bus driver” is implied to have done so until that driver application moment. The Bible says that many backslide and they can come back to the Lord and, like the prodigal son returning home to his father, GOD will welcome us back. The First Amendment is mute on whether we’d be “welcomed back”, or whether we can CHOOSE to break with our alleged religious beliefs. An “Amish bus driver” choosing to break with his alleged religious beliefs and applying for such a job, is free (regardless of the First Amendment) to drive the bus if he so chooses (apparently in the scenario, without a license).

By the way, if the company was stupid enough to hire someone without a license, with no previous driving experience (of a motorized vehicle; horse and buggy driving does not count as such), with no Class __ license to drive a bus, why should they be able to fire the Amish man? They’re stupid enough to hire him, shouldn’t they face the consequences of their own stupidity? However, that’s a bit of an aside; let us focus on the real questions.

Fourth, the question is whether the “Amish bus driver” is protected by the First Amendment in order to force the company to keep him. A.K.A. do the Amish man’s religious beliefs trump his employer's need for the job to be done; the company’s need for someone to actually drive the bus the Amish man was hired to drive?

Let us look at the question in relation to the pharmacist, since the “Amish bus driver" was the redirect thrown out during that discussion. In the Amish man’s question, he may have deliberately taken the job to perpetrate a fraud: knowing that after applying (and being hired by idiots who apparently don’t care about qualifications) he would refuse to do the work and plead First Amendment. Apparently none of the bus driving would be done by the Amish man after pleading his First Amendment rights, therefore causing the company to hire someone else (hopefully, someone fully qualified with a Class __ license and previous experience), doubling the cost of the one position and saddling the company with a useless employee. That is not a First Amendment right, it is fraud. It is prosecutable and it is wrong.

The pharmacist, on the other hand, got into pharmacology, fulfilling all of the requirements of education, licensing (bonding?), studying the effects of the medicines he would be handing over the counter to his customers and learning what is good and bad about drugs and how drugs interact. In going into practice with a company (a drug store, grocery store, or whatever) the pharmacist fulfills his job requirements on a daily basis (sometimes for years) prior to the first time he is handed a legal prescription for the “morning after (A.K.A. murder) pill”. As a Christian, the pharmacist has a problem with this prescription. Not because it is a legal prescription, but because it tears at his soul. He believes the Bible is the Word of GOD and that it says that GOD creates the child and that the child is precious to GOD. He sees the act of filling that prescription as himself participating in the death/murder of that child. That is something he cannot do. He can’t help kill an innocent baby, so he refuses to fill the prescription.

The woman then has options: she can go elsewhere to get the prescription filled or she can come back when a different pharmacist is on duty and get her prescription filled that way. Her “rights” are not infringed upon; her prescription is filled, but at a different pharmacy or by a different person. It is NOT that a judgment is being passed by the pharmacist on the woman. It is that pharmacist’s heart is breaking at the thought of helping kill a child.

Assuming for the sake of the "Amish bus driver's" supposed discussion legitimacy and assumed employment contract (there's an awful lot of "assuming" going on in this "Amish bus driver" nonsense, isn't there?) the contract between employee and employer is now in question. Did the employee (pharmacist) break the contract of delivering on his job requirements? Let us frame the question in another analogy.

Fifth, Let us create a woman who applies for a job at a hotel in Nevada. She signs a contract to be the front desk clerk (or janitor, laundry person, breakfast cook) and realizes that the job contract is renewable every six months, and has a clause in it that states that she shall "perform other duties as assigned". She has signed this contract and is excited about being paid a good living wage for the job she has taken. Four months into her contract, during a very busy day, she is told by her boss (the company owner who also signed the contract) that she shall report to room 216 and do whatever the man there wants her to do. She realizes that the "whatever" is sex in any form and that she has signed a contract, in a state where prostitution is legal. Does that mean that -- because she was being told to do a legal act while in a contract -- she would have to go perform whatever sex act(s) the man in 216 wants? If not, the same is true of the pharmacist: legal prescription, legal pill; legal (and moral) refusal.

Invalid argument you say because the pharmacist's body and bodily safety are not being impacted by the contractual obligation to fill the prescription. Saying thus negates your argument: the woman can just quit, can she not? But, you say, the woman has a job and a contract and the employer cannot force her to perform sex acts. In Nevada sex for pay is legal, being a legal action and part of her contract via the undefined phrase "perform other duties as required" it could be considered part of the employment contract. Sex in any form (from pre-marital, homosexual, extra-marital, pedophilic sex to multiple partner, bestiality, or self-masturbatory sex) is good and right and even kids will participate in it because it's human nature. That's what we are told over and over again. Why can the employer not tell the woman to do something so natural, so right, so human and expect her to obey her employment contract?

Which begs the question: Should the pharmacist’s rights be trampled so that his customer should not have to go elsewhere or come back to the pharmacy at a different time? The woman may have been inconvenienced but that is all. She was not discriminated against based upon gender, age, race, creed, nationality, or religion. She was not discriminated against at all. In fact, the pharmacist probably prayed for her and his heart broke for her and her child. That is not discrimination, it is discernment and it is standing up for doing what the pharmacist believed was religiously right.

After all, if you do not think that murder is correct you don’t participate in a murder. If you believe that animal sacrifice is wrong you do not participate in animal sacrifice. If you believe the beliefs of Islam, Wicca, Judaism, Voodoo, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc., are wrong, do you participate in their practices? The pharmacist chose to not participate in a religious practice that he disagreed with: the practice of those who believe – “believe” being the keyword – that abortion is okay. The First Amendment rights of the pharmacist are protected, thus his job as well, because it is his right to not participate in something his religious beliefs label as wrong. No one can force someone to participate in a religious wrong according to the First Amendment. When it's belief v belief, yours do not trump his.

Sixth, if the company the pharmacist works for is allowed to FORCE him to fill the legal prescription for the “morning after pill”, what can they do next? Can they force him to fill the sleeping pill prescription of someone who is suicidal? Or can they force him to fill the prescription for an emetic for someone who is bulimic? Why would there be a difference, unless you wish to discriminate based on age? A child in utero is less valuable than a twenty-four year old? (Atheists worldwide answered “Yes!”) The child's murder is the most important thing and the pharmacist's rights and conscience carry no weight: the child must be killed.

Seventh, although the "Amish bus driver" is thrown under the bus in the argument quite often by the liberals, the pharmacist’s situation differs so drastically from the “Amish bus driver” scenario that it is ridiculous to even associate the two. Let us count the differences:

   1) The pharmacist is fully qualified; the “Amish bus driver” is not

   2) The pharmacist’s employer hired him as fully qualified; the bus company hired someone totally unqualified.

   3) The majority of the pharmacist’s job is being done on a daily basis; the “Amish bus driver” refused to even start doing his job (probably a good idea since he has no experience driving anything but a horse and buggy).

   4) The pharmacist’s boss has certain expectations of their employee, including the fulfilling of prescriptions; the bus driver’s employers apparently have very few expectations since they hired someone totally unqualified.

   5) The pharmacist’s experience tells him that this pill will lead to the death of a child; the “Amish bus driver’s” inexperience leads him to blackmail the company who was stupid enough to hire him, crying "First Amendment" to keep his job.

   6) The pharmacist’s religious beliefs tell him to not fill the prescription that will lead to the death of a child; the “Amish bus driver’s” inexperience leads him into taking over the entire company because his "First Amendment rights" were protected and because he was at least smarter than those who hired his inexperienced backside in the first place.

   7) The pharmacist did no injury, did not discriminate, did not harm the woman’s First Amendment rights, just inconvenienced her; the “Amish bus driver” did an illegal act to stupid people and wound up owning the company and vacationing in Brazil during Mardi Gras for the next ten years before selling the company back for a huge profit to those who hired him in the first place.

   8) The pharmacist, if fired, had his First Amendment rights trampled on because his religious beliefs -- and his practice of them -- were being over ruled and dismissed by the woman and his employer; the “Amish bus driver” had a change of heart, returned to his beliefs and to his simple life and used his bus company money to buy six horses and buggies and start an Amish Taxi Company, LLC, and lived in simple comfort the rest of his life (with some very explicit memories of Brazil).

Acknowledged: A little silly, but you get the point.

Eighth, this is where the discussion will inevitably turn to “What about single men who get Viagra so that they can have sex outside of marriage? Isn't it hypocrisy for the pharmacist to fill that prescription when it's against his beliefs for people to have extramarital sex? Should he do that?” To which I respond: Does the pharmacist get to ask if the man is married? No. That is not allowed. In order to get to that information, the pharmacist would have to ask some mighty personal questions: questions that are totally illegal. Therefore, the pharmacist has no idea if the man is married, unless he knows him on a personal level. Also taken into account is the fact that in having extramarital sex, while wrong, it is not murder in the pharmacist's eyes. It is the murder that prevents the pharmacist from filling the "morning after pill" prescription, not the immoral act that conceived the child.

When the pharmacist reads the prescription for the “morning after pill” the pharmacist’s education tells the pharmacist (without questioning the woman) that the pill’s exclusive job, reason to be prescribed and to exist, is to kill a child. That is not an invasion of privacy, for none is needed when the pharmacist’s education tells the pharmacist what is going to happen. No questioning happens. No intrusion of any sort is done by the pharmacist. All that is needed is for the prescription to be read and understood. The “morning after pill” does certain things and killing the child is the main thing. That’s where the religious beliefs of the pharmacist kick in.

Ninth, this is America. Anyone may CHOOSE to break with their beliefs, thus the “Amish bus driver” question is a redirect: someone yelling, “Squirrel!” Remember: that “Amish bus driver” scenario can be turned around. Let us consider an atheist who applies for a job at a Catholic Church. He is hired and – as part of the job – is required to participate in church services, prayers, baptisms, communions, etc. If he were hired, and refused to do those particular parts of the job that required him to participate in the “religious portion” of the job, should he be fired? After all, if it’s fair for the “Amish bus driver” to be fired, it’s fair for the atheist too, yes?

Tenth, since the question is whether a pharmacist not filling a prescription for the “morning after pill” is something that would mean the pharmacist should lose his job let us consider more possibilities. Here are several situations in which a pharmacist does not fill a prescription. For which of these should the pharmacist be punished via losing his job, or via job loss and legal prosecution?

   1) The pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription that he knows is on a particular doctor’s prescription pad, but it is not the doctor’s writing. Since it is a prescription, should the doctor be forced to fill that prescription?

   2) A pregnant woman goes to the pharmacist in question with a prescription that is from a doctor, written properly, legally to fill, but will harm a baby the woman wishes to keep. Should the pharmacist be forced to fill the legal prescription?

   3) The pharmacist is handed a prescription for medical marijuana, which the pharmacist believes there is no medical reason to prescribe marijuana and believes that the marijuana will do more harm than good, possibly leading to harder illicit drugs? Should the pharmacist be forced to fill the legal prescription? See: Is Pot Good for Lungs..."

   4) The pharmacist receives a legal prescription for Xanax from the same patient who came in twice earlier in the week with legal prescriptions for Xanax from two other doctors, all three with refills. Should the pharmacist be forced to fill the prescription?

   5) The pharmacist receives a legal prescription from a patient who shows signs of serious depression and the prescription is something that could be used to commit suicide. The pharmacist is very concerned that the patient will use the prescription to kill himself. Should the pharmacist be forced to fill the legal prescription?

In which of those five scenarios should the pharmacist lose his job? If only one is a job-loss refusal, then why not the other four? He still refuses “to do his job”, so why not fire him for all five – or in the case of the “morning after pill”, all six – instances? If you say that only the “morning after pill” instance and the medical marijuana are instances worthy of firing, why? Why are the others not worthy of firing since in all instances the doctor is NOT “doing his job”?

Finally, considering the other possibilities helps bring the argument into focus. The pharmacist's right to not violate his religious beliefs are not trumped by a contract. If contract equals "all powerful ruler of conscience and decider for other people of right and wrong", then where does that authority end? What is the breaking point where the contract becomes a secondary consideration? When does the right guaranteed in the First Amendment to "the free exercise thereof" stand between a contract employee and an employer and start protecting the employee? If it does not start with the individual's heart and conscience and their stand against obeying the order, then it does not exist at all. The pharmacist would have to live with the guilt that accompanies the contractual agreement that would trump his "free exercise thereof". Where does the pharmacist's right to his own conscience end? Is it at his employer's orders? If it never exists except on the basis of gender (the female hotel employee), then who is discriminating (mirror, mirror)? If, on the other hand, the right to the "free exercise thereof" is protected, guaranteed and enforced for all, across the board, who will be harmed? The customer can get the prescription filled elsewhere or by someone else and her religious beliefs do not trump his.

The "Amish bus driver" tail chaser is so irrelevant to this discussion that it requires an immediate dismissal of its usefulness to this issue. Anyone who is lame enough to throw that into the mix is just that: lame. Yelling "Squirrel!" is not a valid argument.

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Biblically Speaking, Women CAN Be President!

During the John “Reach Across the Aisle” McCain/Sarah Palin candidacy I heard many reasons why people would not vote for the ticket, but mainly would not vote for her. Some didn’t like the fact that she was so sure of herself (lame excuse). Some didn’t like the fact that she was so Conservative (lame). Some didn’t like the fact that she was “inexperienced” (want “inexperienced” look at who is president now). But of all the lame excuses I heard – on election night, no less – was when my friend told me that he – or some men he knew – could not make themselves vote for McCain/Palin because of the Bible.

Excuse me?

The Bible, they said. The Bible!

What was explained to me, utterly to my surprise and disgust, was that men could not vote for Sarah Palin because women should not “have authority over men”. That was their argument. That was their defense. That was the part of the Bible they threw out there for me to pounce upon. I say “pounce upon” advisedly. All they did was to throw me a ball to knock out of the park.

In I Timothy, Chapter 2: “9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

“10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

“12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

“13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

“14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression.

“15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

In my Bible, “The Holy Bible” KJV, Reference Edition by Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1989 Thomas Nelson, Inc., the above passage appears on page 993 in the second column and is headed, “Women in Public Worship”. I want you to pay attention to that heading.

The book is written by Paul to Timothy and it covers everything from the conduct of a minister to the correct way to do prayer in a public worship. It talks about how we should not “give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith”. It talks about qualifications for Bishops, Deacons and how to treat your elders, what a false teacher is, how to treat widows and it talks about how to behave yourself in the House of GOD. Oh, yes. It also has the above statements about women.

Now, I ask you to recall the subject header over the section starting with verse nine: “Women in Public Worship”. I ask that you keep that in mind; “public worship”. For it is in Judges 4, we see that GOD ordained a woman to be a Judge over all the people. See Judges 4:3-5:

4:3 “And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.

4:4 “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

4:5 “And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in mount Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. [my bolding]”

Deborah was a judge! She made decisions for the people based upon the Word of GOD. She had no restrictions on her about whether she was supposed to have “authority” over men. Why? There were no restrictions because she was not making her judgments in the temple, but rather, in the gates. She took GOD’s word outside of the temple where the priests were, and she decided what was what. We are allowed to do that, even in the Old Testament, and yet nowadays some people – men and women – believe that women should not be in any position of authority over any man. I beg to differ.

Deborah’s judgments were apparently fair and even-handed because she was a judge of the people until they were carried away into slavery in Midian.

Let us also not forget that she was a prophetess, and as such, used by GOD to tell Israel what was going to happen. She was consulted by regular people as well as by the king, Barak, and even went into battle with him because he was afraid of his enemy.

Sound to you as if GOD thought women should not have any authority over men? Was she not the one who decided issues that men brought to her as well as women? It does say she judged “Israel” and Israel is made up of more than just women.

Look at Proverbs 31:10-31: “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.” That’s how it starts. In this segment, it says that woman “seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands” (13), so we know she is involved in making their clothes and the buying of the supplies for such things. She cooks (15), she buys land with what she makes and plants vineyards (16), she is strong (17), she knows the worth of her merchandise so that she doesn’t get ripped off by unscrupulous people and she works through the night (18). A virtuous woman also gives to the poor and needy (20), has made sure that her household is clothed in warmth during the winter (21), she wears nice clothes (22) and all of this allows her husband to sit among the elders and relax (23). She participates in other business deals (24), is honorable (25), and wise and kind (26), is not idle (27), her children and husband call her blessed (28), she fears the Lord (30), and her works shall “praise her in the gates” (31).

In the Old Testament it’s okay for a woman to be a judge and prophetess, and it’s apparently expected that “virtuous” women be involved in all kinds of business. This sounds to me as if a woman is considered the equal to a man outside of the temple.

Women are a big part of the Bible (Eve, Hannah, Ruth, Esther, Rachel, Mary, Mary Magdalene and others), and are given major parts to play, not just in the roles of mother and wife, but also in the protection of and saving of the people of GOD, the Nation of Israel. If women were considered second rate citizens by GOD, why would He use them for so much of His work? Why even bother allowing them to be mentioned in the Bible? Why would Jesus Christ’s female followers have been mentioned so frequently and used so much in His ministry? Females were the first to see Him after His resurrection and they told the male members of the group of followers: even the eleven main male disciples that were left (remember Judas Iscariot hanged himself).

In the New Testament, women are treated as equals outside of the temple. Women are prophetesses (see note 1) and they are used by GOD to set forth His will. In the case of Anna, in Luke 2:36-38, she is mentioned as being in the temple and “departed not from the temple, but served GOD with fastings and prayers night and day.” She is mentioned as being in the temple serving GOD, but it does not say that she was anyone with authority over anyone else. She is said to have recognized Christ when she saw him and of witnessing of Him thereafter (38). It never states that Anna had any kind of authority over anyone within the temple. She fasted and prayed.

Now back to that heading: “Women in Public Worship”.

When Paul writes in I Timothy of the role of women in the church, he writes (2:12), “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Notice that word, “usurp”. In the Easton Bible Dictionary definition of “usurp” we have the definition: “1. (v. t.) To seize, and hold by force, or without right; as, to usurp a throne; to usurp power; to usurp the right of a patron is to oust or dispossess him.” Paul is writing that women in the church should not be teaching nor usurping – seizing – authority over men. Women should not teach men nor boss them around in the church!

Paul was not saying that women outside the church cannot have authority (witness Deborah, the prophetesses and the “virtuous woman” defined in Proverbs 31). He was saying that inside the church – as GOD set up in the family – the men should be the head and not the tail (31:13-14). Women are allowed to be a big part of the church. Women are allowed to teach inside the church, just not teach men. Women are used by GOD all the time and throughout history. Paul was just saying that inside a church they are to be modestly arrayed (I think it helps prevent others from coveting and being jealous, cutting back on cattiness), they are to do good works (playing the piano, singing in choir, helping clean the church, etc.), should learn from men instead of teaching men (they can teach children and other women, just not men), and that’s all. Women should not be bossy female dogs in church. That’s what Paul was saying.

As to a female president? According to the Bible – witness Deborah and others – women are on equal footing throughout the Bible as political leaders, in business, in ability, strength, wisdom, integrity, courage (Esther), kindness (Ruth), favor (Mary, mother of Christ), and all other ways. For men to not vote for Sarah Palin because of her gender is not just wrong, it’s wrong in GOD’s eyes, too! Sarah Palin was not asking you to allow her to teach you your religion, to be your pastor, she was asking you if you would trust her to govern – as did Deborah – the country fairly, justly and wisely, with strength and courage, with discernment and with guidance from GOD as the prophetesses of the Bible demonstrated women can have. That’s what Sarah Palin was asking. She was not asking to be your intercessor with GOD, she was asking simply if you would trust the next four years of the leadership of this country – not your souls – to her care.

The same is being asked of you by Michele Bachman. Do not allow one very small section in the Bible – seven verses only – that speak of what a woman’s place is (according to the heading and Paul’s own words) in public worship prevent you from voting for someone in whose hands the country would be better off. Sarah Palin and John McCain (although I am no fan of McCain) would have been better than obamination, yes? Those men and women who would not vote for the ticket because of Sarah Palin’s gender distorted the teachings of the Holy Bible in order to justify their vote for someone else – and their helping obamination get into office.

Public worship is not public office. Public office rules the land; public worship has to do with GOD’s house and the two are not to be compared nor are they to be used as excuses for twisting GOD’s word. Do not be deceived this election. If Michele Bachman is the best person, she’s the best person, period. If she won’t be teaching in your church and usurping – seizing power from – men, then don’t worry about her gender! Vote for her – or if Sarah Palin gets back into the race, Sarah – based upon your views of her politics, her steadfastness, her integrity, her plans for the future of the country. This is truly the one place where “separation of Church and State” is correct!



(1.) For “prophetess” see also Miriam in Exodus 15:20-21; Huldah in II Kings 22:14, Isaiah 8:3; Anna in Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8-9.