Posts tagged 'Freedom of Religion'
As Christians Face Death Sentences, Nigerian Court Can and Should Overturn Its Dangerous Blasphemy Law
BY: PAUL COLEMAN | DECEMBER 23, 2022
Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/12/23/as-christians-face-death-sentences-nigerian-court-can-and-should-overturn-its-dangerous-blasphemy-law/
Nigeria has before it a crucial opportunity to step out as an international leader by abolishing once and for all its Sharia blasphemy law.
The United States Department of State has just issued its annual watchlist of the world's worst religious freedom offenders, and strikingly, Nigeria did not make the cut. The country is among the most dangerous in the world to be a Christian, and daily we hear news of abuses imperiling the human rights of all Nigerians. In breaking news: Since at least 2013, the Nigerian military has conducted systematic, wide-scale forced abortions on at least 10,000 women and girls, many of which were kidnapped and raped by Islamist militants.
Yet in spite of clear-cut evidence of mass human rights atrocities, the U.S. government remains silent, failing to designate Nigeria as a "country of particular concern." Between January 2021 and March 2022, more than 6,000 Christians were targeted and killed in Nigeria. In May of this year, Christian student Deborah Yakubu was stoned to death and her body burned in Sokoto State, Nigeria, after classmates deemed her WhatsApp messages blasphemous. Following this tragedy, Rhoda Ya'u Jatau, a Christian woman from the northeast, is now on trial for blasphemy for sharing a WhatsApp message condemning Deborah's brutal killing. And earlier this year, humanist Mubarak Bala was sentenced to 24 years in prison for social media posts critical of Islam.
What will it take to break the Biden administration's silence? Now, Nigeria is garnering international attention as a result of an upcoming case at its Supreme Court challenging a law criminalizing so-called "blasphemous" expression. You can be put to death under Nigerian law for this "crime." Musician Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, currently imprisoned and facing the death penalty for blasphemy charges, has petitioned the court to protect his fundamental human rights after being convicted under the Sharia Penal Code of Kano State.
In March 2020, Yahaya shared song lyrics via WhatsApp. This simple act would forever change his life. Accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad for what he shared, his house was burned to the ground by a mob, and he was arrested and charged with blasphemy. Without the support of a lawyer, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced by a local Sharia judge to death by hanging.
Innocent of any crime, Yahaya filed his notice of appeal in November at the Supreme Court, and this potential landmark case could abolish once and for all Northern Nigeria's Sharia blasphemy law.
Twenty years ago, the 12 states in Northern Nigeria introduced Sharia into their criminal law codes, despite the Nigerian Constitution's protections for religious freedom. These laws are only supposed to apply to Muslims, but leave little room for theological diversity among Muslims, and could potentially be applied to converts to Christianity or those who have left Islam. It is imperative that the Supreme Court bring justice to Yahaya, saving his life and offering much-needed legal clarity to end the horror of blasphemy laws for all in Nigeria.
International law, including the international treaties to which Nigeria is bound as a party, is unambiguous — the right to religious freedom is for everyone, and nobody should be punished, much less killed, for what they believe. Moreover, Nigeria's own constitution protects Yahaya's rights to free expression and religious freedom. Any person of faith or no faith at all can be penalized, and even killed, as a result of a blasphemy accusation. In a country of more than 200 million, split nearly evenly between Christians and Muslims, it is clear that all Nigerians stand to lose under the blasphemy regime.
Blasphemy laws are not unique to Nigeria. Approximately 40 percent of countries in the world have blasphemy laws in some form, and there are currently at least seven countries where a conviction for blasphemy can result in the death penalty. Nigeria has before it a crucial opportunity to step out as an international leader, serving as a model for the abolishment of these dangerous laws.
The world awaits justice for Yahaya. Last week, the U.K. prime minister's special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, Fiona Bruce, urged "the international human rights community to speak out on behalf of Sharif-Aminu and for Nigeria to repeal its blasphemy laws." As he fights for his life, let us remember that this is a fight for the human rights of all Nigerians, and stand with him in advocating for the rights of all people to express themselves without fear.
Paul Coleman is the author of Censored and serves as executive director of ADF International overseeing the global, alliance-building legal organization. ADF International is supporting the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Find him on Twitter @Paul_B_Coleman.
BLASPHEMY LAWS
82% of Americans say religious freedom is key to 'healthy American society': poll
Reported By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Wednesday, June 23, 2021
Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/82-see-religious-freedom-as-key-to-healthy-us-society-rasmussen.html/
Religious freedom supporters hold a rally to praise the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby, contraception coverage requirement case on June 30, 2014, in Chicago, Illinois. Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby, which operates a chain of arts-and-craft stores, challenged the provision and the high court ruled 5-4 that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. | Scott Olson/Getty Images
More than four-fifths of surveyed Americans believe that freedom of religion is an important aspect of a "healthy American society," according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports and Summit Ministries.
In findings announced Tuesday, the report found that 67% of respondents said freedom of religion is "very important to a healthy American society," while 15% said it was "somewhat important to a healthy American society."
Some 9% of respondents said they believe freedom of religion was either "not very important" or "not at all important" to a "healthy American society," while 9% said they were unsure.
Party affiliation only offered slight variance, as 86% of Republican respondents said freedom of religion is very important or somewhat important, while 83% of Independents and 79% of Democrats also responded that it was very or somewhat important.
The poll also found that 50% of Americans believe that churches and faith-based charities should not be required by law to hire people who oppose their religious beliefs, while 20% of Americans say they should be required, and 30% of Americans were not sure.
Summit President Jeff Myers said in a statement included in the announcement that he believed the findings showed "that the American people overwhelmingly support the continued protection of the Constitutional right of freedom of religion."
"Yet, leaders in Washington, D.C., are aggressively pushing forward on legislative measures such as the mislabeled Equality Act, which specifically strips away religious freedom protections," stated Myers.
"In an era of hyper-partisanship, freedom of religion retains broad, bi-partisan support among Democrats, Republicans and Independents."
The poll drew from a sample of 1,000 likely voters in the United States, being conducted June 16-17 and with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in which they conclude that a Christian foster agency could not be forced to place kids in same-sex households.
Known as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the high court ruled city officials were wrong to quit working with Catholic Social Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for refusing on religious grounds to place children with same-sex couples.
"Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court.
"The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment."
healthy American society
Masterpiece Cakeshop wins again – Colorado drops prosecution for refusal to bake 'gender-transition cake'
Posted by William A. Jacobson | Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 7:00pm
URL of the original posting site: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/03/masterpiece-cakeshop-wins-again-colorado-drops-prosecution-for-refusal-to-bake-gender-transition-cake/
Jack Phillips dropped his federal lawsuit after the State backed off: "Today is a win for freedom. I'm very grateful and looking forward to serving my customers as I always have: with love and respect"
The second attempt by the State of Colorado to punish Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop has come to an end, once again, with a victory for the baker.
Round 1 was the baker's refusal to create a custom cake for a same-sex marriage, on the ground that it violated the baker's Christian faith to create a message celebrating same-sex marriage.
The baker also refused to create Halloween cakes and other cakes whose messages he viewed as religiously unacceptable. He didn't refuse to sell to LGBT people, he just didn't want to have to create the message. He won the case in the Supreme Court, mostly on procedural grounds with the court not reaching the larger constitutional issues of freedom of religion and freedom of speech (to avoid compelled speech).
Round 2 was when the State went after him because he refused to create a cake celebrating a transgender transition. We covered the lawsuit in Colorado goes after Masterpiece Cakeshop again – this time over "gender transition" cake:
On June 26, 2017, the very same day the Supreme Court agreed to take the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, Attorney Autumn Scardina called the cake shop to request a "gender transition" cake. The cake shop declined, so on July 20, 2017, Scardina filed a complaint, with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission….
It appears that Colorado waited for the Supreme Court ruling in the wedding cake case, because it was not until June 28, 2018, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission issued a finding of probable cause…
The Introduction to the [Bakeshop's federal lawsuit] Complaint (pdf.) … argues that the cake shop was targeted by the claimant/lawyer and Colorado….
The Complaint focuses on the message that was demanded of the cake shop:
184. After the lawyerdisclosed the design and message of the desired cake, Masterpiece Cakeshop politely declined the request because Phillips cannot in good conscience express the messages that the cake would have communicated (i.e., that sex can be changed, that sex can be chosen, and that sex is determined by perceptions or feelings) or celebrate the event that the cake would have commemorated (i.e., the announcement of a change from one sex to the other based on perceptions and feelings).
185. Phillips would not create a custom cake that expresses those messages for any customer, no matter the customer's protected characteristics.
186. Masterpiece Cakeshop did not decline this request because of the customer's transgender status or other protected characteristic. Rather, it declined the request because of the messages that the cake would have expressed.
187. When Masterpiece Cakeshop told the lawyer that it could not create the requested cake, the lawyer asked the shop's representative to repeat that statement so that someone listening over the speaker phone could hear it.
188. Masterpiece Cakeshop offered to create a different custom cake for the lawyer or to sell the lawyer any of the pre-made items available for purchase in the shop.
199. The Division acknowledged Masterpiece Cakeshop's position that it declined to create that custom cake because Phillips did not want to express through his cake art "the idea that a person's sex is anything other than an immutable God-given biological reality." Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc., Charge No. CP2018011310, at 3 (Colo. Civil Rights Div. June 28, 2018) (Ex. A).
200. But the Division ignored Masterpiece Cakeshop's message-based reason for declining to create the cake; instead, the Division concluded that Masterpiece Cakeshop declined to create the cake "based on [the lawyer's] transgender status." Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc., Charge No. CP2018011310, at 4 (Colo. Civil Rights Div. June 28, 2018) (Ex. A).
212. As a general matter, if a discrimination complaint is filed against a Colorado cake artist for declining to create a custom cake expressing a message he or she opposes, Colorado defers to the cake-shop owner's message-based objection and, consistent with what state law requires, does not "presume" that the owner discriminated against the customer based on his or her protected status. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-305(3).
213. But if a discrimination complaint is filed against Phillips for declining to create a custom cake expressing a message that conflicts with his faith, Colorado rejects his message-based objection and presumes that he discriminated against the customer based on his or her protected status
The case then worked its way through the federal court.
Significantly, a preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled for March 14-15, 2019. That hearing date may have put pressure on the State, because the State dropped the administrative case against the Cakeshop, and the Cakeshop agreed to drop the federal lawsuit.
The Stipulation of Dismissal (pdf.) in the federal lawsuit provided:
The Parties, through their respective Counsel, hereby submit the following Joint Stipulated Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii):
On March 5, 2019, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission unanimously entered an order dismissing with prejudice the administrative proceeding Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Case No. CR 2018-0012, Charge No. CP2018011310. In light of that action by the Commission, Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss this case. This dismissal resolves the issues between the Parties to this litigation as set forth in Plaintiffs' First Amended Verified Complaint. Doc. 51. In light of this joint stipulated dismissal, which is with prejudice as to all claims arising out of or relating to Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Parties respectfully request that the Court vacate all remaining deadlines, including the preliminary injunction hearing presently set for March 14-15, 2019, and close this case. Each Party will bear its, her, or his own costs and attorney fees.
The Court today accepted the parties stipulation, and entered an Order of Dismissal (pdf.):
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Stipulated Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) ii) (ECF No. 142), filed on March 5, 2019. After a careful review of the stipulation and the file, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), it is
ORDERED that all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs and expenses, including any attorneys' fees. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in Support (ECF No. 04), Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 94] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b)(1) (ECF No. 107), and Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Restrict Public Access to the Reply in Support of Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Exhibits (ECF No. 132) are DENIED AS MOOT. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction hearing set for March 14-15, 2019 and all other deadlines are VACATED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
So Round 2 is over. Masterpiece Cakeshop prevailed.
The Colorado Attorney General releases this statement:
The Colorado Attorney General's office today announced that the State and Masterpiece Cakeshop have mutually agreed to end their ongoing state and federal court litigation.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission will voluntarily dismiss the state administrative action against Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips, and Mr. Phillips will voluntarily dismiss his federal court case against the State. Each side will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. This agreement does not affect the ability of Autumn Scardina, the complainant in the state administrative case, to pursue a claim on her own.
"After careful consideration of the facts, both sides agreed it was not in anyone's best interest to move forward with these cases. The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them. Equal justice for all will continue to be a core value that we will uphold as we enforce our state's and nation's civil rights laws," said Weiser, whose office represents the Commission and the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division.
The Commission's vote to dismiss the state administrative case was unanimous.
Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the Cakeshop, posted:
BIG WIN for Jack! Colorado Ends Crusade against Cake Artist
Six years, one U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and a second lawsuit later, the state of Colorado has finally stopped its hostility toward cake artist Jack Phillips and his faith.
Today, the state officially agreed to dismiss its case against Jack.
This is a big win for Jack – and for religious freedom! Praise God! It has been a long, difficult journey for Jack. He has endured not only multiple drawn-out legal processes, but also hate mail, nasty phone calls, and even death threats. Yet through it all, God has proven faithful. And now, we hope that Jack can finally move on….
The state's decision to dismiss its most recent prosecution of Jack is HUGE! And it's certainly been a long time coming.
But we shouldn't let this victory lead us to complacency.
Jack has been targeted multiple times by customers seeking to harass him, including people requesting cakes celebrating Satan. And it wouldn't surprise us if Jack is harassed again because of his faith.
The targeting of the Cakeshop has cost it business, but not yet put it out of business:
"Today is a win for freedom. I'm very grateful and looking forward to serving my customers as I always have: with love and respect," Phillips told Fox News, adding that he never imagined this chapter of his life — which has cost him over 40 percent of his business — when he opened up his cake shop years ago.
Let's see if Colorado starts Round 3. You know it wants to.
More Poiltically INCORRECT Cartoons
American Embassy move to Jerusalem
bitcoin bubble
Judge Rules Ban on "Treating" or Counseling against Homosexuality Does NOT Apply to Clergy
Authored By Michael Ware February 21, 2017
URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/judge-rules-ban-treating-counseling-homosexuality-not-apply-clergy/
religious freedom cardinal dolan
Like many other Christian values, the idea that Homosexual desire and action is sin is going out of vogue. Many in the field of Psychology and Psychiatry have switched their positions. Though just twenty years ago, the standard practice was to treat homosexual behavior as a mental defect, now it is not even legal to treat in some states.
One of those states is Illinois.
A bill was signed into law in 2015 that prohibited the counselor from treating under aged people suffering from this defect. And this caused several pastors concern. These pastors sued wanting to ensure that they would not be prosecuted for doing their jobs.
A judge has finally all but guaranteed that they would not.
Christian News reports
A federal judge appointed to the bench by then-President Bill Clinton has ruled that an Illinois law banning mental health providers from providing help for homosexual youth to overcome temptation does not apply to pastors.
On Thursday, Judge Ronald Guzman dismissed the case, stating that the pastors' "fears of prosecution are too remote to support standing." He ruled that the work of clergy—although it involves counseling youth struggling with attraction to the same sex—cannot be considered a "trade or commerce."
This should protect all clergy in the state who wish to help those suffering from this sin. They will be able to help those in their churches who want to be freed from these enslaving desires.
The ruling is a step forward in the area of freedom of expression and religion. It allows the clergy to deal with the issue as they believe it to be. If they are simply to do nothing while a child is still in development, then it is as if he has to operate in the worldview of the humanist until the child is grown.
Sin, like anything else, is habit forming. If allowed, unchecked to continue in the sinful patterns of our youth, the habit is much harder to break.
This will allow the pastor do the work of ministry.
Bill of Rights' Most Important Liberty: Religion
Written by Bethany Blankley
URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/bill-of-rights-most-important-liberty-religion
The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, listed non-negotiable constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in specific order, unchanged since 1791. James Madison, its chief architect, listed freedom of religion first; then speech, press, assembly, petition, right to keep and bear arms, and freedom from forced quartering of military members in one's home.
Freedom from civil government overreach and interference was essential to establishing sustainable civil order and a just rule of law; the first ten amendments — only 468 words — were added to protect what the founders considered "preexisting rights" from federal government "encroachment."
Freedom of religion was un-mistakenly listed as the first freedom of the Bill of Rights. And the term "religion" was well understood from its original context derived from the State of Virginia's Bill of Rights. In Article 1, Section 16, Virginia's Bill of Rights defines "religion" as "the duty which we owe to our Creator… the manner of discharging… [of which] can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence."
(Many significant words and phrases used to write the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution were selected from preexisting documents and individual state constitutions' declaration of rights, which provided more detailed definitions.)
Virginia's Bill of Rights legally defined "religion" as a means to secure freedom from government coercion, which enabled a foundational protection for other freedoms. The Bill of Rights, by defining religion, allows people to believe and act by "reason or conviction" without fear of being coerced to violate their "dictates of conscience." In this way, religion is jurisdictional– the Bill of Rights ensures that the government cannot force a citizen to violate his/her conscience.
James Madison articulated in Memorial and Remonstrance:
"The Religion … of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as they may indicate. This right in its nature is an unalienable right. It is unalienable; because the opinions of men … cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. … This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society."
Madison believed that citizens were first "subject[s] of the Great Governor of the Universe," who must first make his/her "allegiance to the Universal Sovereign" before they could consider being a "member of Civil Society."
He considered religion first and foremost "immune" from any and all civil authorities. The wording used for the First Amendment's two religion clauses were specifically straightforward: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …" All matters of religion were exempted from civil authority.
Madison asserted:
"In matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance."
As a legal and jurisdictional matter, Madison asserted that all men are first subject to God as an immutable fact based on the Christian worldview (Mark 12:17, Psalm 24:1). It was imperative to specify that no government could ever have authority over one's relationship with God. Understanding that even governmental authority itself originates from God (Romans 13:1) — moral standards could not be mutually exclusive from rule of law.
Furthermore, freedom of conscience, under the jurisdiction of freedom of religion, established the next four freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. They include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These four freedoms granted constitutional security for "residual sovereignty" of the people, not the government. The Bill of Rights ensured freedom of religion as the foundation for all other liberties. No other amendments were possible if freedom of religion had not first been guaranteed as an unalienable right.
Bethany Blankley; http://BethanyBlankley.com
Bethany Blankley is a political analyst for Fox News Radio and has appeared on television and radio programs nationwide. She writes about political, cultural, and religious issues in America. She worked on Capitol Hill for four U.S. Senators and one U.S. Congressman, for a former New York governor, and for several non-profits. She earned her masters degree in theology from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland and her bachelors degree in politics from the University of Maryland. Follow her @bethanyblankley & BethanyBlankley.com.
Four Freedoms
residual sovereignty
right to peaceably assemble
Third Amendment
unalienable rights
What founders want to teach Obama this July 4
Posted By Chuck Norris On 06/28/2015
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/what-founders-want-to-teach-obama-this-july-4
I commend President Obama for giving the eulogy at the funeral of Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was gunned down along with eight other precious souls during a Bible study at their Charleston Church. Obama said some honorable and moving words about the fallen. He also spoke at length about amazing grace – and even sang about it.
But then he stirred what I call the nebulous and confusing religious pot by stating: "If we can find that grace, anything is possible. If we contacted that grace – can tap that grace, everything can change."
"If we can find"? "If we contacted … can tap"? "If"?
The president is right that "anything is possible" and "everything can change" with God's amazing grace. But he ought not to have spoken with such ambiguity, doubt and conditionality as "if" finding grace were wishing upon a star or discovering a needle in a haystack.
America's founders – as well as most presidents throughout history – were unequivocally certain about the role of faith in our republic. They were without hesitation or doubt when they spoke about the bedrock of religion in society and human hearts. Our founders knew without it, they were sunk as well as our nation.
On the eve of another Independence Day, I think it's critical that we reconsider exactly how our founders expected religion to breathe life into our nation and play out in society. If we don't, we run the risk of crippling our country and shredding it at its seams. Indeed, we've already traveled too far down the road of religious degradation by omitting God from classrooms to historic monuments. We have also bastardized our founders' first tenet of religion (First Amendment) and totally abandoned their understanding and call for its primary purpose in our republic. Let me explain.
Our founders' first tenet of religion is captured in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You know the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In short, religious liberty will reign in our new nation. Congress shall protect individuals from forced sectarianism unlike it was done in England, and choice and freedom are to be protected and secured from the tyranny of government.
Well, that isn't our First Amendment today, or at least how most secular progressives interpret it. They explain and use it solely as a buffer from keeping religious opinion or discussion – in any way, shape or form – out of every governmental or public arena. But that is the polar opposite of the First Amendment's very purpose, which was to protect and preserve religious practice and liberty in any place, including in the halls of government.
As I wrote in my New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism," though Jefferson is generally hailed as the chief of church-state separation, proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from these facts: He endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salaries of the church's priests, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.
Some might be completely surprised to discover that just two days after Jefferson wrote his famous letter citing the "wall of separation between Church & State," he attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol. The very seat of our nation's government was used for sacred purposes. The Library of Congress' website notes, "It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church."
President John Adams spoke about how central God was to be in our republic, when he said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
And to what religion was Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote, "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. … And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united."
Our Founders believed religion (specifically Christianity) would serve as the basis for morality and decency. They warned us specifically that, to abandon that foundation for our ethics, would leave society in civil unrest—just as we see today in run amuck classrooms and homes across the nation and people treating one another with such malevolence.
George Washington also warned future Americans of this very problem in his presidential farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Well, the present leaders of our nation (including the Supreme Court) have turned a deaf ear to Washington's warning and taken him up on his challenge to try to maintain "morality … without religion."
America is now like it was in the time of the Judges in the Old Testament: "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). That's how it is today – with God being abandoned, so is our moral basis, and everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes. We've lost our moral compass, and that includes our president.
As a result, the president is as lost as the most wayward and rebellious youth. Instead of conveying any form of positive Washington conviction about the role of religion, President Obama casts conditional clauses ("If") and doubt. He might have sounded like a preacher this past week in Charleston, but the truth is he is a charlatan chameleon when it comes to religion and specifically Christianity. Indeed he's been known to mock it as he did in 2006 when he gave the following secular progressive diatribe against it.
As my friend and editor of WND, Joseph Farah, noted in 2012, Obama's speech was given before an audience led by socialist Jim Wallis at the Call for Renewal conference. It starts getting interesting around the 26-minute mark, when Obama first made the point publicly that "whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation."
Obama went on, "Even if we had only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama asks rhetorically. "Would it be James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK – and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application. So before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles now. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles."
Regarding Obama's words, I conclude not with my comments but those of John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and president of the College of New Jersey (1768-94; now Princeton University), who said, "He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country."
(Next week, I'll expand on my thoughts here in my Independence Day weekend column, "In God we still must trust." In the meantime, I highly encourage your reading of my New York Times bestseller, "Black Belt Patriotism," where you will find loads more about what our founders actually thought, practiced, and wanted for our country)
'Most persecuted religious group' is …
Posted By Bob Unruh On 05/25/2015
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/most-persecuted-religious-group-in-world-is/
Americans are well familiar, from events and court rulings over recent years, with the diatribes against Christians and Christianity – they are told they legally can't refuse to promote "gay marriage," for example. Also, Christian holiday events are forced to be "winter festivals," Christian symbols are banned from many displays and any statement of biblical belief, such as support for biblical marriage, becomes the latest "phobia," almost certainly "violating" someone's rights. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court now is considering whether to make that very belief a federal offense.
But now an international conference speaker has warned that Christians "are the most persecuted religious group on a global level, even in countries where they constitute a majority."
A report from the European Center for Law and Justice documents comments and submissions from several experts at the recent conference held by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on "enhancing efforts to prevent and combat intolerance and discrimination against Christians, focusing on hate crimes, exclusion, marginalization and denial of rights" in Vienna.
The ECLJ report by Andreea Popescu explained the conference was assembled by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and heard submissions from governments, international organizations and representatives.
Among the speakers was Monseigneur Janusz Urbanczyk, a representative of the Holy See.
"He noted that 'the lives of many people are being affected only because of their Christian faith, which actually can be found at the roots of the culture of tolerance and equality,'" the report said.
"He indicated that Christians and Christian communities are the most persecuted religious group on a global level, even in countries where they constitute a majority," the report continued, "Offending, insulting and attacking Christians became almost legitimate and if Christians protest against these offenses, they are again accused of being opponents of free expression or of manifestation of rights of others."
The report continued, "He expressed concerns about the limitation of the freedom of religion of Christians as 'a sharp dividing line … between religious belief and religious practice, so that Christians are frequently reminded in public discourse or even in the courts, that they can believe whatever they like in private, and worship as they wish in their own churches, but they simply cannot act on those [beliefs] in public."
WND reported less than a month earlier that that very strategy has appeared throughout the administration of President Barack Obama. For example, early in Obama's tenure in the White House, Catholic Online and other media outlets reported what appeared to be a deliberate attack on the Constitution's "freedom of religion" protections. The report noted a crucial change in Obama's language between his June 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, where he spoke of a Muslim America and its "freedom of religion," to the November 2009 memorial for the Fort Hood soldiers gunned down by a radical Muslim, where he termed it "freedom of worship." From that point on, "freedom of worship" has become the term of choice, the report said.
Recently, the Daily Signal reported, the federal government has been using the term "freedom of worship" instead of the constitutional "freedom of religion" when it tests immigrants who wish to become citizens on their knowledge of the Constitution.
Congress even started paying attention. Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., charged during a hearing that included Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson that the government is "misrepresenting" the First Amendment, the Daily Signal reported.
"We in the United States actually have freedom of religion, not freedom of worship," Lankford said.
See his comments:
"The questionnaire civics test has in it one of these things, 'What are two rights of everyone living in the United States, and it listed out six different things: freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms. I'd love to see 'freedom of worship' switched to 'freedom of religion.'"
Sarah Torre of the Heritage Foundation said the difference is significant. In practice across America, the "freedom to worship" seldom has been challenged or even questioned. But "freedom of religion" is under direct fire.
See WND's Big List of Christian Coercion about this very topic.
Just ask the New York landowners who were fined by the state for following their Christian faith regarding their sponsorship of same-sex ceremonies, or the Oregon bakery owners fined $135,000 for the same thing, or the Colorado baker who is fighting for his economic future against state officials suggesting that he go out of business because his faith forbids support same-sex marriage.
Paul Marshall, Lela Gilbert and Nina Shea have collaborated to create "Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians," which confirms that groups like Pew Research, Newsweek and The Economist also identify Christians as "the world's most widely persecuted religious group."
Then there was the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, established in 1869 to provide a place for Christian meetings and assemblies, which still operating as one of the more popular destinations for such events on the East Coast. It houses one of the world's 20 largest pipe organs, and there are both traditional and contemporary worship programs all summer long that have featured speakers such as Billy Graham, Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller, Billy Sunday, D. James Kennedy and Charles Stanley.But the location no longer is used for weddings, because a lesbian duo was denied permission to use it, and a state discrimination complaint was filed.
The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is facing demands from the city of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, to perform same-sex "weddings" in violation of the owners' Christian faith.
In Washington state, a state judge said the home, assets and savings of Arlene's Flowers owner Barronelle Stutzman, 70, could be targeted in court by two homosexuals for whom she declined to provide "wedding" services.
Early in Obama's administration, Catholic Online noted that Ashley Samelson of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty explained that to "anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship." … "It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves – yet 'freedom of worship' would protect none of these acts of faith." Catholic Online said: "Let's be clear … language matters when it comes to defining freedoms and limits. A shift from freedom of religion to freedom of worship moves the dialog from the world stage into the physical confines of a church, temple, synagogue or mosque. … It … could exclude our right to raise our children in our faith, the right to religious education, literature or media, the right to raise funds or organize charitable activities and the right to express religious beliefs in the normal discourse of life."
From the Vatican
The Vatican, the report said, described it this way: "Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society."
The Alliance Defending Freedom has cited the Obama administration's use, since Cairo, of "freedom of worship" to undermine "freedom of religion," as one of the "direct attacks on religious freedom" by Obama.
The list points out that Obama appointed radical-homosexual activist Chai Feldblum to a federal office, and Feldblum is on record stating: "We should … not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender. … Protecting one group's identity may, at times, require that we burden others' belief liberty … it is essential that we not privilege moral beliefs that are religiously based over other sincerely held, core, moral beliefs."
The list also reveals the Obama administration "designated 'religious public service' as the only public service that will not be counted as payment toward student loans."
And it specifically cited the shift from "freedom of religion" to "freedom of worship," which "could limit religious freedoms outside the four walls of the church."
Jonathan Imbody wrote in 2013 at the Washington Times that the administration's shift in language was major.
"Worship at its core is essentially a private and personal process, a communion between God and an individual. No government could restrict such worship, any more than it could monitor and censor every citizen's thoughts and prayers. Even forbidding individuals to worship together in public, which coercive communist governments like China's have done, cannot actually prevent individuals from worshiping God in private. So a law that merely protected the freedom to worship would hardly be worth heralding in a presidential proclamation.'
"The free exercise of religion under the American Constitution, by contrast, includes the freedom to openly express, follow and live out our faith – not just in private but also in the public square – without government coercion, censorship or any other form of restriction.'
"The concept of religious liberty held by the Constitution's framers included not merely the freedom to worship, but also the free exercise of conscience – carrying out one's moral beliefs with conviction and action."
In Europe, the situation for Christians has deteriorated to the point that there has been established in France an "Observatory for Christianophobia."
The ECLJ report said Massimo Introvigne, director of Italy's Cesnur organization, explained how intolerance leads to discrimination, and that leads to hate crimes. It said the conference heard reports from "manifestations of intolerance and violence" involving Christian sacred sites, such as places of worship, shrines, cemeteries, monuments" and more.
Gudrun Kugler, of the Observatory on Intolerance against Christians in Europe, submitted recommendations to address five areas of concern.
Those includes:
freedom of conscience rights in the medical and employment field;
freedom of expression rights on ethical issues;
freedom of assembly and association rights, including public funding, as demonstrators were not protected against counter-demonstrators and public funding was refused on the basis of incompatibility of the Christian ethics with the public institution ethics;
parents' rights, regarding compulsory sex education in public schools and prohibition of homeschooling; and
private autonomy, including church autonomy and antidiscrimination legislation.
Among those suggestions: "To respect and tolerate Christianity, Christians and Christian positions in private and in public" and "Not to tolerate hate incidents against Christians, just as hate incidents against anyone else are not tolerated."
She also recommended employers accommodate Christian beliefs and "opinion leaders" should "be aware of their responsibility in shaping a tolerant public discourse." To do that, they should "refrain from negative stereotyping of Christianity."
The ECLJ reported, "Father Vsevolod Chaplin, chairman of the Department for Church-Society Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, stated that Christians should enjoy the same rights to practice their faith and to participate in the public life of the society as any other person."
freedom of worship
Teacher Tells Girl Bible Quotes Banned From School
Posted on May 22, 2015 by Tad Cronn
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/05/teacher-tells-girl-bible-quotes-banned-from-school/#m1cApwh7AxMBGYF5.99
Freedom of expression. It's not a difficult concept. Basically, every human being has the right to speak his mind without fear of government punishment or penalty. Accepted, reasonable restrictions on speech are generally very loose, like no yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium and no speech that is genuinely disruptive like standing up and reciting the Communist Manifesto while the teacher is trying to conduct class.
Yet somehow, school officials across this land often seem to forget that the right to freedom of speech, particularly religious speech, does not end at the classroom door. The latest example comes from Somerset Academy near Las Vegas, Nevada, where sixth-grader Mackenzie Fraiser was given an "All About Me" report assignment that was supposed to include an inspirational quote. When Mackenzie wanted to use John 3:16, however, her teacher said that biblical quotations and quotes from the Book of Mormon were forbidden by the school.
The incident might not have even come to light except that some months later, the same teacher made an assignment about self-esteem, and Mackenzie's parents suggested using a Bible quote, reasoning that the reason Mackenzie has strong self-esteem is that she is made in God's image. At that point, the sixth-grader spilled the beans about her teacher's prohibition of things scriptural.
Mackenzie's father, Tim Fraizer, the pastor of Grace Point Church, fired off an email to his girl's teacher, certain that there must have been a miscommunication. The reply he received, however, was an email from an assistant principal, Jenyan Martinez, confirming that Mackenzie recalled the incident correctly and that the teacher was, in fact, enforcing school policy. In her response, Martinez suggested that the reason for banning the biblical quote from the original assignment was because, as an oral report, the assignment would give Mackenzie a, quote-unquote, captive audience for her religious beliefs.
Liberty Institute attorney Jeremy Dys told The Blaze, "When students go to school they do not lose their First Amendment rights. It chilled her speech and, as such, what the school is teaching these kids right now is that it is wrong to reference their faith at school. If they don't apologize for this mistake … then the lesson that these students will take away is that it is wrong to reference their faith in school."
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that the academy said in a statement that it values students' rights and the incident was under review.
The Mackenzies are asking for the school to apologize and allow their daughter to submit her original assignment with the quote for a grade, which seems very reasonable. Had the situation been inverted, and an atheist student found herself banned by a Christian academy from using, say, a Richard Dawkins quote, the fireworks would be seen far and wide.
So why is it considered acceptable by so many government officials to impose on Christians' rights while asserting a position of de facto atheism? The right to freedom of speech should preclude any policy of selective "diversity."
Jeremy Dys
Liberty Institute
Mackenzie Fraiser
sixth-grader
Somerset Academy
United States Constititution
The ACLU's Hypocritical Defense of Laws That Violate Religious Liberty
Posted by Carson Holloway / March 30, 2015
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/30/the-aclus-hypocritical-defense-of-laws-that-violate-religious-liberty/
The campus of Catholic University of America, which could be affected by the D.C. laws. (Photo: Chris Maddaloni/Roll Call Photos/Newscom)
<!– A window looks to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception from the Trinity Center health club –>
Commentary By Carson Holloway;
Carson Holloway is currently a visiting fellow in American political thought in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation.
One of the great ironies of our politics is that the American Civil Liberties Union is now actually hostile to traditional American civil liberties.
This is the conclusion one must draw from a letter the organization has sent to the House of Representatives, seeking to defend two District of Columbia laws that, under the guise of enforcing non-discrimination, undermine the First Amendment rights of private organizations. Essentially, the ACLU seeks to defend regulations that require religious universities to provide their facilities for the use of student LGBT advocacy groups and that forbid religious organizations from firing employees whose personal conduct violates the morality to which the organizations are dedicated.
As I explain at greater length at Public Discourse, the ACLU's zeal for "non-discrimination" here directly infringes on not just one but two fundamental constitutional freedoms—freedoms that the ACLU was originally founded to protect.
Under the First Amendment, Americans enjoy the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has long held that this freedom includes as well a freedom of association. Since individuals have a right to free speech, they also have a right to band together and form organizations that exist to promote their views. This is precisely the constitutional freedom that is being exercised by organizations that are constituted to promote a particular moral and religious worldview, and that in pursuit of that aim must choose to employ and support only those who will assist them in this undertaking.
This principle should be precious to any freedom-loving American, regardless of partisanship or ideology. Without it, no Americans of any point of view could reliably cooperate in order to promote their shared ideas. Discarding this principle would permit the government to frustrate their efforts by making them employ or otherwise cooperate with people bent on undermining rather than advancing the organization's cause. Since individuals usually are not powerful enough to make themselves heard without joining in associations with others, freedom of association is necessary to any effective form of freedom of speech.
There is, however, an additional problem. The organizations whose liberties the ACLU seeks to curtail are religious organizations, which means that their freedom to operate is protected not only by the First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech and freedom of association, but also by its explicit protection for the "free exercise" of "religion."
It is impossible for individuals to freely exercise their religion without permitting them to join into associations for that purpose. And such associations are rendered effectively useless if they must employ and otherwise work with people hostile to their purposes.
Again, these freedoms should be defended by all Americans. The ACLU is organized with a view to the defense of certain principles. In its mission it has often been aided by liberal religious organizations.
Neither the ACLU nor its allies could carry on their political and legal activism if the law could require them to employ people opposed to their purposes. To the extent that the ACLU wants this freedom for itself, it should respect it in others as well. This is the American way.
Christians/Jews Criticized For Millennia: Time For Muslims To Buck UP!!
http://clashdaily.com/2014/06/christians-jews-endured-criticism-millennia-time-muslims-buck/#i5wCOkLL2UjQxSZQ.99
Written by Audrey Russo on June 18, 2014
"You grow up the day you have your first real laugh — at yourself." ~ Ethel Barrymore
Christians understand freedom. It is one of the benefits of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures that were the foundation of our great Republic. Christians/Jews allow others to live in freedom to choose how to worship, if they choose to worship. They have been criticized, mocked, demeaned and their beliefs blasphemed for millennia. It has NEVER been necessary for the government to infringe upon and crush those who criticize an ideology…until Islam.
The Islamic world is stuck on "machismo" yet when it comes to their feelings, they appear to be SO super- sensitive that they must control the entire non-Muslim world from giving them a boo-boo on their itty-bitty hearts. And they are attempting this by intense pressure at the United Nations (via the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) for laws that just so HAPPEN to comply with Islamic Sharia Law. Blasphemy Laws (controlling speech) command ALL peoples submit to Islamic Law, whether believer or unbeliever (kafir, infidel).
Leaders of the two most populous Muslim countries (Indonesia and Pakistan) have argued vigorously that insults against Muhammed, Islam's prophet, incite violence and are not legitimate free speech. This coming from the "arbiters" of free speech…Muslim States are the greatest draconian, dictatorial regimes on earth, next to their twin: Communist countries. Even the dubious leader of the Free World, Barack Obama, joined the chorus of hate against free speech at the UN in Sept. 2012, when he stunningly said, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
And tragically, Leftists worldwide are happily aiding them on their freedom-crushing course.
A little info for Leftist-poisoned minds: We do not have a right NOT to be offended in this country. Freedom of speech is an inestimable gift that must be respected to be appreciated. And it is a mature matter that should be handled by adults who don't whine and cry like infants the moment someone steps on their rhetorical toes. Respecting free speech is allowing others to have their voice…whether we agree with them, or not. This concept is foreign to an ideology created by a control-freak named Muhammed, who used the tactics now made an art by the Left: Fool them by their feelings (because if they can get you to bypass your brain, they win).
Bulletin to the followers of Islam: It's now the 21st century…and Islam must step into it…or slither back into its ominous orifice in the earth. It's time to buck-up…grow a thick skin on those feeble feelings and enjoy the freedom that Judeo-Christian precepts have established. A whole new world lives outside the iron-fisted burqa of Islam's ideology…
It's time to grow up…and enjoy your first real laugh…at yourself!
Image: Courtesy of: http://peacemoonbeam.typepad.com/bighairynews/2011/04/florida-retard-burns-paper-muslim-retards-kill-people.html
Be Very Careful How You Read the Following.
Church condemns planned satanic mass at Harvard
http://www.wcvb.com/news/church-condemns-planned-satanic-mass-at-harvard/25928594#ixzz31Wx1ElIu
Event part of series exploring different cultures, religious traditions
Published 6:41 AM EDT May 12, 2014
"Please read the entire article first, and then let's discuss this at the end." JB
Controversial Black Mass planned at Harvard
Transcript of television news report:
RIGHT NOW WITH THE THE PLAN. THIS SATANIC MASS IS NOT WITHOUT CONTROVERSY. TONIGHT THE ARCHDIOCESE WILL BE HOLDING A PROCESSION AS WELL AS AN HOUR OF PRAYER AS A COUNTERMEASURE. ORGANIZERS OF THE SATANIC MASS SAY IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE A RESULT BUT FOR PEOPLE TO EXPLORE OTHER FORMS OF WORSHIP. THE BLACK MASS RE-ENACTMENT IS SPONSORED BY A CULTURAL STUDIES CLUB. IT INCLUDES SATANIC RITUALS AND MOCKS A TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC MASS. CATHOLICS ARE TAKING OFFENSE AS WHAT THEY SEE AS RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. IF SOMEONE WERE GOING TO DO A K.K. RE-ENACTMENT OR A MIN STREL SHOW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AT HARVARD, WHAT WOULD BE THE REACTION OF THE HARVARD COMMUNITY? I WOULD HOPE THE REACTION WOULD BE OUTRAGE. IN A STATEMENT THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON CONDEMNS THE RE-ENACTMENT SAYING IT PLACES PARTICIPANTS DANGEROUSLY TO DESTRUCTIVE WORKS OF EVIL. THE ARCHDIOCESE WILL COUNTER THE BLACK MASS WITH AN HOUR OF PRAYER. THE CLUB IS DEFENDING THE MASS SAYING THE PERFORMANCE IS DESIGNED TO BE EDUCATIONAL. IT'S PRECEDED BY A LECTURE THAT PROVIDES THE HISTORY, CONTEXT AND/OR GIN OF THE BLACK MASS. SOME STUDENTS SAY THEY'RE OPEN TO IT. I THINK EDUCATION SHOULD BE ABOUT TRYING OUT ALL THE DIFFERENT IDEAS AND TALK ABOUT ALL THE ISSUES AS LONG AS IT'S DONE IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER THERE'S TO PROBLEM. A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CLUB SAY THEY DO NOT INTEND TO INSULT THE CHURCH DURING THE MASS TONIGHT.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. —The student organizers of a planned satanic mass at Harvard University say their intent is purely educational, but the Roman Catholic church says participants are putting themselves "dangerously close to destructive works of evil."
The mass scheduled for Monday is organized by the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club and is part of a series of events exploring different cultures and religious traditions.
The student club said in a statement that "the performance is part of a larger effort to explore the religious facets that continue to influence contemporary culture."
"Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes, but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices," the statement said.
The Harvard Extension School said it supports "the rights of our students and faculty to speak and assemble freely," and noted that the group also plans Shinto, Shaker and Buddhist events.
The Boston Archdiocese, however, says the mass mocks the Catholic Mass.
"For the good of the Catholic faithful and all people, the church provides clear teaching concerning satanic worship," the archdiocese said. "This activity separates people from God and the human community, it is contrary to charity and goodness, and it places participants dangerously close to destructive works of evil."
The Rev. Michael Drea, senior chaplain at the Harvard Catholic Center, said the academic freedom argument is a smoke screen.
"The black mass is a contradiction to the Catholic faith and is rooted in hatred and bigotry," he told the Boston Herald. "The university shouldn't tolerate something like this under the guise of academic integrity."
"My first reaction was outrage. Then I was given this thought by the Holy Spirit of God. Any attempt to silence, or censor their First Amendment Right of Free Speech will ADD to the persecution of the Evangelical Church by the extreme Leftist/Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Democrats/Liberals. Silencing them gives the Left ammunition to silence us.'
"I'd rather fight to my own death their right to do this, so that my rights as a Evangelical, Pentecostal Christian can continue a little longer. It is okay to disagree, and even hate what someone else is saying, doing or believing, and still fight for their right to do so.'
"Silencing them silences us.'
"What do you think?" JB
Evangelical Christians
Pentecostal Chrisitans
silencing free speech
Today's Political Cartoon
"To Bake, Or Not To Bake"
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/02/bake-bake/#pAOmlVWFi5X6zujr.99
Forced to go against religious convictions
Religious Convictions
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/no-separation-of-church-and-state/#ooDRLFXqp8vdYsqh.99
No separation of church and state
Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow examines roots of rallying cry 'radically changing America'
Published: 1 day ago
Ben Kinchlow
Ben Kinchlow is a minister, broadcaster, author and businessman. His latest book is "Black Yellowdogs." He was the long-time co-host of CBN's "The 700 Club" television program and host of the international edition of the show, seen in more than 80 countries. He is the founder of Americans for Israel and the African American Political Awareness Coalition, and the author of several books.
An organization that had been feeding the poor and helping the homeless for more than 30 years was told by a state agriculture department official that they would not be allowed to receive USDA food unless they removed portraits of Christ, the Ten Commandments, a banner that read "Jesus is Lord" and stopped giving Bibles to the needy.
In 2011, two men were arrested and charged with misdemeanor offenses for reading the Bible outside a DMV location.
The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and have closed their business after they simply declined to make a cake for a gay wedding because it conflicted with their Christian beliefs. They learned that's now illegal.
A student was told by his professor to write the name "Jesus Christ" on a piece of paper and stomp on it. The student refused, and in retaliation a formal disciplinary action was started against him.
A public schoolteacher was forbidden to leave a Bible sitting on his desk "where students might see it."
A 10-year-old girl who brought her Bible to school to read on the bus was told by the school principal to "leave your Bible at home."
A fourth grader was told she could not draw crosses in her art project.
A 17-year-old was caught passing a note to a friend between classes. An assistant principal saw and demanded the note (an invitation for the friend to attend an off-campus meeting of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes). The "guilty" student was threatened by said principal with suspension from school for "possession of Christian materials."
I could go on, but you get the picture.
Lest we forget, let us look back at the origin of what has become the rallying cry of a relatively small minority that is radically changing America.
In 1962, a parent, Steven Engel, alleged that a neutral, nonsectarian 22-word prayer violated his child's First Amendment rights. His attorneys argued this (completely voluntary) prayer constituted "an establishment of religion." Long story short, the Supreme Court ruled for him in the 1962 Engel vs. Vitale case and God was officially removed from schools, and now He is being banished from every inch of the public square.
Of course, since we all know exactly what the Constitution says, let me ask a question: Where are the following two statements found?
1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
2) "In order to ensure citizens freedom of conscience, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship is recognized for all citizens."
When asked this question, many people who saw the phrase in statement 2 which reads, "the church is separated from the state," concluded this is the famous "separation of church and state" principle they have heard about ad nauseum. Facts of the matter are,
statement 1 is, indeed, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Statement 2, "the church is separated from the state" is also from the constitution – the constitution of the now defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, a political system specifically founded on atheistic principles.
After an objective look at what is happening in many of our courts and schools today, one might be forced to conclude the U.S. Supreme Court and other institutions are basing their decisions on the constitutional principles of the old USSR.
Let me reiterate – nowhere in the U.S. Constitution can you find the phrase "separation of church and state." It simply is not there. Instead, a careful and unbiased reading clearly reveals the founders' intent –
not two separate clauses but one simple statement: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (emphasis added).
The moment you tell me I cannot have free, voluntary acknowledgement of God, under the "establishment clause" (so called), you immediately violate my right to do so under the "free exercise" clause.
In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law passed by a state legislature that allowed privately funded posters of the Ten Commandments to be hung in classrooms to "acquaint students with the moral pillars of the legal code of their culture" (not promote religion).
The Supreme Court struck down the law, and the real irony is, guess what is inscribed on the east side of the building where they read their decision: Moses holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm.
Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow's best-selling book "Black Yellowdogs" breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!
Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.
Liberal causes
Dormant Christians Living Alongside Mindless Cowards
http://clashdaily.com/2013/11/dormant-christians-living-alomgside-mindless-cowards/#8ZpE1hrR9AXVFc8P.99
By Neisha Potter
Clash Daily Guest Contributor
Did you hear about the craze in Bordentown, New Jersey and their preposterous decision to remove Christmas carols from their school Christmas play? Great, let's watch our children sing Lady Gaga and Katy Perry at the school Christmas play this year because THAT would be appropriate! There comes a point where we have to stand our ground as a nation, moreover, as believers in Jesus Christ. Society will devise an array of excuses not to give Him praise.
So what Christmas is not the exact birth date of our Lord; the simple fact that Christmas is a national holiday which recognizes that Jesus was born is monumental. Removing the celebration of Christmas does not change the historical fact that he existed and was born to the Virgin Mary any more than disowning the celebration of Easter because it is not the exact day of his resurrection; my concern rest in the removal of acknowledgement, not the event.
Singing Christmas songs does not dictate your eternal state any more than celebrating Christmas, but let's remove Christ from society even more by rescinding the national recognition of that fact that He came. We removed prayer and bibles from schools, so why not eradicate the celebration of his birth, forbid Christmas carols, ban Christmas lights in the streets and jump on the ban wagon of Happy Holidays because Merry Christmas is offensive. We are evolving into a nation where there is no place for Christ, and if the mention of his name is offensive, we will ban that too.
Take a good look at other countries where people are martyrs for their faith because the government has banned their freedom to worship the one true God! We are a weak nation, conforming to other religions and beliefs instead of standing up for our own. We should be steadfast in our faith; therefore, we will not be altering our faith to accommodate yours. It is not oppression folks; it is called remaining faithful and steadfast to the One who died to save, Jesus Christ.
Do you honestly believe Iraq would alter their beliefs in order to accommodate a Christian simply because being Muslim offends you? Of course not! They will stick you in a ten foot hole and set you on fire because they do not like the ring tone on your phone. The United States of American is multicultural and people should not be treated differently due to diversity, but we should not have to conform as Christians to accommodate nonbelievers and other faiths.
Society calls this equal rights, diversity, tolerance and freedom, but I think society is mindless cowards. What kind of risks do we face as a society without Jesus Christ as our foundation? Oh' wait, did you just mention China?
Christians are losing their privilege every day; without caution we will be the persecuted church. "Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering" (Hebrews 13:3). It is our responsibility to stand against those who are trying to tyrannize our faith. Society is concerned with oppression, but what about the coercion over the Christian population? Over the last fifty years we have removed bibles, prayer and biblical teachings from education.
We are not allowed to speak of Christ in the workplace, Christian and Christmas music is forbidden in many places, we are persecuted for disagreeing with same-sex marriage, debates linger about removing One Nation under God from the Pledge of Allegiance (this is removed in some schools already), ongoing debates about removing In God We Trust from US Currency and placing your right-hand on the bible in a court of law is no longer required when placed under oath and now the removal of Christmas carols from our schools, so tell me again that we are not losing Christian rights and privilege.
Keep on living a dormant Christian life and the recognition of Christ will be so far removed from society that we will cease to have the right to worship him in the comfort of our own home. We should celebrate the birth, death and resurrection of our Lord daily, yet if an opportunity arises where we can recognize his existence on a national level, then we should fight for it – be a part of it and cease the devils attempts of having power over the people of this nation by removing the recognition and celebration of the Holy One. Christianity should remain ineradicable to our societal foundation.
Ephesians 6:12 (NIV), "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
Matthew 7:24-27 "Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, and streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
Neisha Potter is a married mom of three. Potter graduated from Dallas Baptist University with a BAS in Christian Ministry and Psychology.
www.neishamarie.com
Image by Rod Anderson, from christianpost.com
Grade School Children
Military Chaplain's Assistant Threatened By Superior Over Her Expression Of Christian Beliefs
by Frank Camp // http://lastresistance.com/2981/military-chaplains-assistant-threatened-by-superior-over-her-expression-of-christian-beliefs/#teBAs9yd0hhtWjQk.99
As society progresses, we lose small pieces of what made us human. We replace these little pieces with dangerous facsimiles of what originally filled us. Above all else, we lose our sense of moral integrity. What comes with a loss of moral integrity is an animus toward others who still hold values which many have left behind. We reach a certain point—which I fear we are quickly approaching—when that animus evolves into hostility, and that hostility into tyranny. Once we have reached tyranny, we cannot go back; we are trapped behind a glass wall, only able to see in our minds what once was possible, and who we once were. We are no longer humans, but animals, fighting for territory and scraps of food.
As we have progressed, we have lost tolerance. The Left will tell you that they are the most tolerant people the world has ever seen. That is, of course, a lie. The Left is only tolerant of those with whom they agree—which isn't tolerance at all.
According to Town Hall, a Army Chaplain's Assistant is being targeted for her religious beliefs. After watching a documentary in which a Pastor was condoning homosexuality, telling his gay parishioners to embrace who they are, the Chaplain's Assistant posted a response on her personal Facebook page. This is the response in full:
"A lot ticked off, now to all my gay friends you know I care about you so don't think otherwise. I'm watching this documentary and this gay guy went to a church and the Pastor was telling him that he needs to embrace his way and know that it is not a sin. Ok umm wow, dude it is. I'm sick of people making Gods word what it's not. Yes God loves you as a person but He hates the sin. Tired of hearing about Pastors being ok with homosexuality."
In response, her Commander told her to remove the post, or face demotion, and a salary decrease. Her Commander said that she was creating "a hostile and antagonistic environment in the unit."
The Assistant says that she will not remove the post, and that she will not be intimidated into hiding her beliefs. "I haven't taken it down, and I won't take it down…
I've never gotten in trouble for anything. And there's nothing hostile or antagonistic in the post…Where does it stop? If they are going to silence me on Facebook, where will it stop?"
Todd Hudnall, her Colorado Pastor, came to the defense of the Assistant, saying:
"I read what she posted and there was absolutely no trace of animus, disrespect or hostility. Instead, she expressed love for her gay friends but insisted that biblical values should not be compromised. Her issue wasn't with anyone who is gay but with pastors who refuse to acknowledge scriptural teaching about homosexual behavior…I was struck by the fact that the military was denying her right to privately exercise her freedom of expression and freedom of religion."
Where is the tolerance on the part of the Military? I can guarantee that if someone of a faith besides Christianity posted something similar to what the Assistant posted, the response would not be the same. That, right there, is intolerance.
Tolerance–in a sense–means dealing with the world around you; it means seeing people for who they are, not what they are. Tolerance means that although you may not agree with someone, you respect them as a human being, and treat them as you would want to be treated. The Military cannot violate freedom of speech. The Assistant has every right to express her beliefs in a way that doesn't create an uncomfortable environment for her peers. She did that. She respectfully addressed her biblical understanding on her private Facebook page.
Finally, what the Chaplain's Assistant said is correct. If the Military silences her on Facebook, where and when will they act next? If they can reach their arms into the personal lives of soldiers–specifically and deliberately targeting religious beliefs–what is stopping them from going further? The answer is nothing. Nothing is stopping them. Animus will turn into hostility, and hostility into tyranny.
I don't care if you agree with the Chaplain's Assistant or not. I don't care if you think her beliefs are wrong. If you care about our country, if you care about the future of our liberties, you will stand with her. With this case, a small, fragile piece of our collective freedom is teetering on the edge of a cliff. If it is allowed to fall, it will shatter into a million tiny pieces which we will never be able to put back together. It will be just one more piece of humanity lost, pushing us further toward tyranny.
Military, Political, Spiritual
Military Chaplans
Religion censorship
tollerance
Militant Atheist Demand A Christian Military Chaplian Be Punished For Doing His Job
By Clash Daily / / http://clashdaily.com/2013/07/militant-atheist-demand-military-chaplian-be-punished-for-doing-his-job/
Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes is a Christian chaplain currently serving in the U.S. Air Force. He is stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska. As an ordained clergyman whose duties are to provide religious instruction and spiritual counseling, he has a page on the base's website called "Chaplain's Corner."
Reyes recently wrote an essay entitled, "No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II." This common saying is attributed to a Catholic priest in World War II, made famous when President Dwight D. Eisenhower said during a 1954 speech: "I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they learned a great truth that there are no atheists in the foxholes."
As reported by Fox News's Todd Starnes, when Reyes referenced this famous line in his essay, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) contacted the base commander, Col. Brian Duffy, demanding he take action on Reyes's "anti-secular diatribe."
MRFF's letter says that by Reyes's "use of the bigoted, religious supremacist phrase, 'no atheists in foxholes,' he defiles the dignity of service members." They accuse him of violating military regulations.
My legal research on this issue uncovered no regulation prohibiting Reyes' speech, which looks like expression protected by the free speech and religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment. Military leaders did not respond to Fox's inquiries asking the Air Force to identify any such rules.
Nonetheless, only five hours after MRFF's complaint, the essay was removed from the website. Duffy has profusely apologized to MRFF for not stopping this religious leader from sharing religious thoughts.
But this response—which again appears to be a violation of Reyes's First Amendment rights—is insufficient for MRFF. They said, "Faith based hate, is hate all the same," and, "Lt. Col. Reyes must be appropriately punished." (Emphasis added).
So MRFF is saying that the coercive power of government must be used to punish a military officer, who is also an ordained Christian minister, for making ordinary religious references consistent with his faith.
Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council—one of the leaders of a new religious liberty coalition for the military—responded, "A chaplain has been censored for expressing his beliefs about the role of faith in the lives of service members… Why do we have chaplains if they aren't allowed to fulfill that purpose?"
MRFF is activist Mikey Weinstein's organization. He called observant Christians "fundamentalist monsters" seeking to impose a "reign of theocratic terror," and he described sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military as an act of "spiritual rape" that makes believers "enemies of the Constitution" who are committing an act of "sedition and treason" against this nation.
Political, Spiritual