What about this weather?

Introduction: Among other topics, one needing a comment or so is the weather conditions we are experiencing in the country generally and in our locality specifically.

The idea of expressing comments about the weather never crosses my mind that I don’t think of the statement so prevalent through the years that declares “Everyone is talking about the weather but no one is doing anything about it.”

In the strictest sense of the word, the weather conditions have been erratic during these past weeks. Accurate predictions or forecasts have stood the weather experts on their heads. There is no opinion here taking exceptions to the weather reports we see and read each day. I recognized the toughness of their task.

Before comments on what is happening here and now, let me use my thoughts to go back to my young days on the farm when I would hear neighboring farmers talk of the weather. The often spoken expression with hope was “It looks cloudy to the west (or whatever direction) and looks like we might get some rain.” Clear skies never solicited as many comments from those needing rain on their crops. The entertaining movie, “The Rainmaker,” starring Bert Lancaster and Katherine Hepburn, displayed the theme of a hopeless attitude of those in great need of rain.

The Old Farmer’s Almanac is remembered as “the gospel” on future happenings of weather conditions by my Granddaddy Foster. Popular in the 1800s and into the 1900s was the song “It Ain’t Going to Rain No More.” It has been reported that when conditions became really bad, people were it Snow” is an inaccuracy of the greatest degree as it relates to our responsibilities and needs. The words of this romantic song suggest the principals involved have no place to go and therefore they need to throw another log on the fire. The line is inaccurate because we do have places we need to go and duties to be discharged.

As a personal note, this old writer likes the cold weather and the situations imposed upon me. I say that while being very conscious of the duties of our medical personnel and facilities, and the fire departments and law enforcement. The call for their needs in life do not cease because of dire weather conditions. I am thankful for them all.

Also, may we all be reminded of the needs of the less-fortunate among our number? There are the hungry, the sick and the cold – many without the sufficient food, medicine or heat to keep comfortable. As we pray, we should also reach out a helping hand within our capabilities to “Do good unto all men.”

I do not write these words without thinking of the Cherokee Indians who were driven from their native land to make the long trip west on the “Trail of Tears.” The weather was not always ideal and those people were exposed to the elements and hardships as they endeavored to walk thousands of miles to a new home. Sickness and injuries certainly plagued those noble people. I ask, could you or I endure such a trip without the modern conveniences (automobiles, etc.) with which we are blessed?

Those Native Americans exposed to heat, cold, rain, snow, wind and storm, suffered conditions where “The weather outside was terrible.”

Religious liberty and freedom of conscience have taken a lot of hits in recent years. So it was refreshing to see them win big recently at the Supreme Court.

The justices declined to hear a legal challenge against a Mississippi law that protects citizens, small businesses, government employees, and charities from official discrimination by government if they believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The Mississippi law benefits people on both sides of the marriage debate. When a government can punish one group of citizens for dissenting from cultural orthodoxy, it can punish any group for any belief.

In declining to hear a case against Mississippi’s Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act ( HB 1523), the Supreme Court let stand the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in the face of challenges by the ACLU and Lambda Legal.

Now a year after HB 1523 was passed, Mississippians know they are free to live according to their religious beliefs about marriage without fear of losing their livelihoods.

It’s a victory in a battle that never should have happened in the first place. HB 1523 was a direct response to the threat of anti-religious discrimination after the Supreme Court redefined marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges.

In the two and a half years since Obergefell, activists, local and state governments, and federal authorities have treated the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman with contempt.

Billionaire LGBT activist Tim Gill pledged to “punish the wicked.” Delivering upon his threat, government authorities have denied citizens across the country the right to live in accordance with their beliefs about marriage.

Members of numerous professions, including entertainment, counseling, emergency services, technology, farming, and the military, have been demoted or terminated from their jobs because of their beliefs about marriage.

The government also has targeted religious non- profit organizations. Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia stopped contracting with faith-based adoption agencies because they would place children only with married moms and dads.

Legislators in Mississippi responded to this wave of anti-religious discrimination by passing HB 1523. The bill protects individual citizens, public servants, businesses, and religious institutions from being penalized by the government for belief in traditional marriage.

But the ACLU and Lambda Legal sued on behalf of clients who claimed to be harmed by the law. Last June, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs had no standing because they failed to demonstrate that the law would violate their rights in any way.

The Supreme Court was right to leave the lower court’s decision intact.

These protections shouldn’t be controversial. Justice Anthony Kennedy reiterated his call for tolerance of disagreement on marriage during oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case of a Colorado cake artist whose belief in traditional marriage drew intense ire from state officials.

Admonishing Colorado’s state solicitor general, he stated that “tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual.”

If federal, state, and local authorities would heed Kennedy’s call for tolerance and respect in Obergefell and Masterpiece, laws like HB 1523 would not be needed.

But as more and more Americans are forced to choose between their job and their conscience, both state legislatures and Congress should promptly protect citizens from the new wave of government discrimination.

State laws such as HB 1523 and federal legislation such as the First Amendment Defense Act would ensure that the government cannot put anyone out of work for their beliefs about marriage.

Furthermore, what’s at stake here extends far beyond the marriage debate. If the government can wield its power to silence opinions it disfavors, then everyone is at risk of being punished for holding the “wrong” opinions.

When Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, he observed: “Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness.” This admonition bears remembering in our modern debate over the redefinition of marriage.

The residents of Mississippi are fortunate that their legislators got it right with HB 1523. Now, Americans in all 50 states need courageous leaders to stand up for their rights, too.