USA UAS USA

Justice Kennedy on Religious Freedom

Tom Jefferson, 2016

Jefferson in 2016

“ What Will Matter to Evangelicals in 2016 Echoing Jefferson on religious liberty will have more appeal than proving youknow all the hymns. In recent years candidates have assumed that they can win over evangelicals by learning Christian slogans, by masking political rallies as prayer meetings, and by basically producing a long-form new birth certificate to prove they’ve been born again. This sort of identity politics is a luxury of a past era when evangelicals were part of a silent majority in the U.S., with our First Amendment freedoms assumed and guaranteed. That is not the present situation. Yet the same Baptists and other evangelicals who wouldn't have let Jefferson near their baptismal pools were willing to check his name for president of the United States because he was willing to stand up for religious freedom. That’s why the most important test of 2016 may be the Thomas Jefferson Primary —the race to see which candidates offer a clear, coherent vision of religious liberty when the very idea is contested in American politics. In the past several elections, religious liberty has hardly been mentioned. There was chatter about the sermons of the pastors of candidates Barack Obama and Sarah Palin in 2008, and about whether evangelicals would vote for a Mormon in 2012—they did, without much trouble. But candidates didn't have to answer how they would protect the legacy of religious freedom, fought so hard for by Jefferson and his Baptist allies. Yes, the Supreme Court handed religious-liberty advocates a victory in the Hobby Lobby case—ruling in 2014 that certain private companies can be exempt from aspects of the Affordable Care Act for religions reasons. But who would have predicted a few years ago that a decision about whether the government could force employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs would rest on one swing vote on the court? Even more troubling was the 2012 Hosanna-Tabor decision. Again, religious freedom won the day in a ruling maintaining a church’s right to hire ministers apart from government interference. But that court victory was against a White House arguing a point that no previous administration ever would have pursued. In 2016, it doesn’t matter whether a candidate knows the words to hymns. What will matter to evangelicals is how the candidate, if elected president, will articulate and defend religious-liberty rights. This is about more than whether the candidate will repeat clichés about appointing Supreme Court justices who will “interpret the law, not make the law.” We want to know how this potential president will rein in an administrative apparatus that has plunged the country into ongoing culture wars over, for instance, compelling virgin nuns to pay for birth control. [Full] I'm not an evangelical, but have no problem with evangelicals being evangelical.  I do think  Russell Moore makes valid points about what we are all hoping to see addressed in the coming election.  I probably would have a quibble about Moore's depiction of Thomas Jefferson's views on religion, and how they have been misappropriated by the religious left  who use his "freedom of religion" letter quite improperly. ”

“Religious Freedom Restoration Act" Amok

a major award

“ TRUTH ALA CARTE Hostility to Tradition In the nineties, the Clinton Administration formed a bipartisan coalition to pass the federal “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” or “RFRA.” Nineteen states followed suit. The legislation came in response to a Supreme Court decision that had seen an American Indian suffer legally for having used a drug during a well established American Indian religious ceremony. Religious freedom is enshrined in the first amendment to the American constitution. The American left, increasingly hostile to any values, has made a decision to impose their lack of values on America. Dissent was patriotic when George Bush was President. Now that the left feels completely in control all dissent must be stamped out ruthlessly. RFRA’s framework was common sense. “Under RFRA the government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless it can demonstrate that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and it is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest.” See Perez v. Paragon Contractors (2014, Dist. Ct. Utah). The standard was hailed as fair and appropriate by Democrats and by Republicans. Nineteen states followed the federal government. From Connecticut to Florida to Arizona, states found a bipartisan consensus that the sincerely held faith based beliefs of individuals deserved encroachment from the federal government. This bipartisan consensus has rapidly collapsed in the United States. It began with Hobby Lobby. The company is a closely held corporation run by a family. The family intended to run its business based on its Christian values. The employees are paid more than employees at competitors. The store hours are not as long so employees can go home to their families. The store closes on Sundays to honor the Sabbath and give employees a day off. But Hobby Lobby also designs its healthcare plans to reflect its values. It covers birth control for female employees, but its health care plan would not cover the costs of drugs classified as abortifacients, or drugs that induce an abortion. It would not cover the cost of abortions. The Obama Administration ordered the company to do so and then, as a compromise, ordered the company to give money to other organizations that would then provide the abortifacients. Hobby Lobby sued and won in the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that under RFRA, the Obama Administration had already shown through various exemptions and alternatives that it had not used the least restrictive means to accomplish its goals. Where RFRA once had bipartisan support, it is now opposed by the left. Compounding the problem is the march for gay marriage. In multiple states around the country, gay activists have tried to force Christian bakers, florists, photographers, wedding planners, and others to provide goods and services against their religious convictions to gay weddings. In states without RFRA, the Christians who have refused have been dragged before courts and punished. Some will be driven from business. Liberals were happy with religious conviction when it allowed drug use.  [continue] “Our acceptance of lies becomes a cultural cancer that eventually shrouds and reorders reality until moral garbage becomes as invisible to us as water is to a fish.” ― Stephanie Ericsson ”

Baby Killers and Consequences

Liberal Culture

“ The Elimination of Christianity in the West Brings Disrespect for Life Warner Todd Huston  Abortion activists are taking the next, logical step in their justification of abortion by agreeing that, yes, abortion kills a human baby, but… “so what?” It is just the next logical step in abortion apologia that results from the end of the Christian philosophical influence in society. But we don’t see that end affecting just abortion. We see it throughout society. Whether leftists like the idea or not, the United States of America was conceived as a Christian nation. Not a Catholic one, not a Muslim one, not a Jewish one and not a secular one, but a Christian nation built solidly on the Christian ethos. Every state initially formed with a particular flavor of Protestantism as a state sanctioned religion and our entire culture was fueled by the twin influences of Christian philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment. It is certainly true that our form of government is essentially secular in that it is not guided or controlled by any particular religion, but the ethics underlying those governments where heavily informed by Christian ethics. The left, though, has been angling to destroy the underlying Christian ethos since the turn of the last century as academia and the left became imbued with communist and socialist propaganda. The efforts to destroy the bedrock principles upon which the nation was built began under the destroyer of our education system, John Dewey, who, along with famed “History” professor Charles Beard, worked to tear down America’s founding principles and replace them with socialist-inspired anti-American ideals. (And they succeeded, by the way.) [Continued] A regular theme of mine.  It is, or ought be, a no brainer that nations which share a common language and religion are more stable.  In our case it was English and Christianity.  Din't matter if you were agnostic, atheist or just going along to get along; everyone gained by the common dialectic and guardrails by osmosis.  Agent provocateurs like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, to name just one,  who argued "tyranny of the majority" have won.  So now it's tyranny of the minority.  How's that working?  ”

Obama's Gestapo

Police State          TEXT “ (The White House petition has gone missing) That is a snippet from yesterday's church bulletin.  I made note of it because it is, to my knowledge, the first time a parish priest has come this close to condemning anything this filthy Obama government (silence of the West) have perped.  Now this ... IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Churches First Amendment: Government's assault on religious liberty has hit a new low as the IRS (used by Obama as a personal  Gestapo) settles with atheists by promising to monitor sermons for mentions of the right to life and traditional marriage. A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches' violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting political issues, legislation and candidates from the pulpit. The FFRF has temporarily withdrawn its suit in return for the IRS's agreement to monitor sermons and homilies for proscribed speech that the foundation believes includes things like condemnation of gay marriage and criticism of ObamaCare for its contraceptive mandate. The irony of this agreement is that it's being enforced by the same Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS that was once headed by Lois "Fifth Amendment" Lerner and that openly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups. Among the questions that the IRS asked of those targeted groups was the content of their prayers. Those who objected to the monitoring of what is said and done in mosques for signs of terrorist activity have no problem with this one, though monitoring what's said in houses of worship is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Can you say "chilling effect"? Congress can make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So it's not clear where the IRS gets off doing just that by spying on religious leaders lest they comment on issues and activities by government that are contrary to or impose on their religious consciences. Our country was founded by people fleeing this kind of government-monitored and mandated theology last practiced in the Soviet Union. The FFRF cites as its authority the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which states that tax-exempt groups cannot endorse candidates. A 2009 court ruling determined that the IRS must staff someone to monitor church politicking. The FFRF claims that the IRS has not adhered to the ruling and that the settlement amounts to enforcing both the Johnson Amendment and the court ruling. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: ”

Divine Mercy Chaplet

Catharsis "each according to the dictates of his own conscience"   This is very much a niche market post; a story that JMcD sent me.  EWTN has replaced RFD-TV as my escape television channel.  When I have trouble sleeping I'll often turn it on.  What I did not know is that Mother Angelica founded EWTN in Birmingham in 1981 as the world’s first Catholic cable outlet, and hosted several of its programs.  If you need help saying the rosary, or want to watch Bishop Sheen, this is the spot.  Ahem.   How about them Bears! (October 8, 2010) As seen Recently I went back to this haunt for the same reason ... looking for some comfort.   Throughout  my 2-3 years of  absence,  I would occasionally be  haunted by this "chant," by what looked like a family*.  I forgot the tune, but the faces stuck in my mind.  After rummaging through EWTN's archives, I found it - HERE (skip the opening three minutes). Look at the faces.  They remind me of a living Norman Rockwell painting (rollover).  I watch it daily Yes, it is a religious "chantling," of sorts, but then so too was George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord," (Hindu), and I fancied that. * It is the Vinny Flynn family.  I fancy the one in red (he said avuncularly)

Rev. Frog has done drowned

ribbit        “ Feds Forced Churches to Get Baptism Permits   The National Park Service began enforcing a policy recently that required churches to obtain special use permits in order to baptize in public waters. As part of the same permit process, the NPS also mandated that churches give the Park Service 48 hours advance notice of pending baptisms. [Take the plunge] Many weak-kneed communists reason as follows: 'Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution.' This train of thought is radically false. Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically. Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature. But it is profitable to the predatory class to maintain the ignorance of the people and to maintain the people's childish belief in miracles (the key to the riddle really lies in the exploiters' pockets), and this is why religious prejudices are so tenacious, and why they confuse the minds even of persons who are in other respects able. (N.I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky: The ABC of Communism continued) In short, you cannot worship the state and God at once. American Democrats have been tipping  their hand on this for 30 years now.  It's apparently showdown time  as we speak. ”

When Everyone Was a Hero

Click Here For the Whole Deal