TRIUMPH FOR NOW ON TEXAS PRAYER CASE

Outrageous ban on religious speech overturned in Texas. This is a clear demonstration why Obama must be defeated. We cannot afford to have more left wing idealogues on the Federal bench who might have ruled differently on this case.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/03/texas-senator-blasts-judges-decision-to-forbid-public-prayer-at-high-school/

Talk about it! email: rightmindedfellow@comcast.net





.

Anti-Christian Fascism -- What Else Can It Be?

The surest sign of Fascism is when the government prohibits the free expression of religious speech. Each year around graduation time, there are stories about rulings that prohibit invocations or prayers as part of a graduation celebration, most of which are purely ridiculous but now a new ruling from Texas clearly destroys the first amendment in response to a disgusting grievance mindset which deserves little or no accommodation.

Naturally, Barry Lynn supports the decision, when it comes to faux-religion, Lynn is in a class of his own sounding in practice much more like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher than a man of God.

Here’s one of this year’s outrages:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02/prayer-prohibited-at-graduation-ceremony/?test=latestnews

To defend the suppression of religious speech on constitutional grounds is ABSURD for the ruling is specifically forbidding the free speech and free expression of religion for the student speaker. To suggest allowing the discussion of religion in a graduation address violates the establishment clause is equally absurd since there is no legislative or executive branches of government attempting to mandate any particular religion on the population at large.

How thin skinned and emotionally fragile can this supposedly offended agnostic be that being exposed to a little bit of someone’s articulation of Christianity would cause “irreparable harm.” That notion is absolutely absurd. If one were subjected to some crass enforcement of Islamic Sharia, that would be understandable, but are we not capable of ignoring that which we don’t want to hear?

It’s not unreasonable to suggest that schools as mandated by the courts are more tolerant of pornography than they are any intelligent discussion of religion. It was clearly not the founders’ intent to silence the public expression of religion. It’s more reasonable to believe that they would encourage the open exchange of conflicting ideas creating a lively marketplace of ideas which is only possible if all are free to speak their believes as they think and express them.

Talk about being offensive, how should those of us who believe in a “creator” deal with a person like Barry Lynn who so emphatically attempts to brow beat us into accepting his radical ideology as if we’re some kind of mindless trolls for thinking anything else but his perverse secular humanism. For Lynn to slap around any kind of public expression of faith is an ideological and theological stance based on his warped assumptions imbued with way too much litigious nonsense.

If schools were to mandate daily prayer, teach classes designed to indoctrinate students into a particular theological point of view, or openly condemn religious choices of students and their families THAT would be unacceptable. Does it not appear that public school liberal curriculum is not forcing clearly secular humanist values on students and at lest implicitly promoting indifference if not true agnosticism or atheism on today’s students?

While the religious right has taken some unacceptable stances on attempting to mandate religious teaching in science classes on the origins of the universe and the theory of evolution and such cannot be tolerated, the left is going full speed ahead to destroy any possibility of accepting traditional Christianity in any context in the school house. That is just plain wrong.


Talk about it, write: rightmindedfellow@comcast.net

Judge Rules Anti-Gay Religious Beliefs No Excuse

Welcome to the 21st century. A Christian graduate student at Eastern Michigan University refused to counsel homosexuals on the grounds of her religion and belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. She sued the university claiming her first amendment rights on freedom of religion were being violated. Despite the support of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, US District Court Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed the lawsuit.


The college argued in favor of her expulsion that her conduct violated the American Association’s “Code of Ethics” and school policies. Conversely, David Frech, senior counsel for the ADF contended, “Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs. To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court, uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”

Judge Steeh clarified his ruling stating: ““Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values… In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

The claims of Ms. Ward’s freedom of speech being violated are bogus. She is free to state her conscious and practice her religion. However, when the requirements of a job or academic requirement necessitates as part of its fulfillment, performing specific tasks the organization is professionally expected to deliver, it is unacceptable for students or employees to pick and choose what parts of their assigned duties they will or will not perform particularly if the institution is a state agency or is involved in providing for the public health.

If the requirements of a job or program require certain specific behaviors, one applying to join cannot pick and choose what parts of the assignment he or she will or will not do. The job requirements should be clearly defined and upon accepting admittance or employment, the candidate must understand it is that person’s responsibility to execute those tasks the candidate is assigned.

State agencies serve all citizens regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. The same holds true for the public practice of medicine and psychology. There have been cases in the past, for instance, where pharmacists have refused to fill patients’ prescriptions such as birth control pills or Viagra because they claim doing so forces them to violate their religious beliefs. For such pharmacists to refuse to provide that which a doctor has determined proper treatment for a patient simply is not a domain where a pharmacist’s judgment or values may interfere unless obvious cases if for instance a prescribed drug would have negative interactions with another drug the patient is using.

The logic behind the law suit against the University of Michigan would be compatible with situations like a Muslim refusing to teach Christian or Jewish students because they are infidels. Or grocery store clerks refusing to ring up sales for meat products because their new age spirituality indicates they should be vegetarians. There have already been cases of Islamic grocery clerks refusing to handle bacon since pork is forbidden by Sharia law.

The message to folks who don’t like situations like that of Ms. Ward, the pharmacist who refuses to fill birth control prescriptions, or Muslim who refuses to handle pork products, if those things are part of their job or school training and they cannot bring themselves to put their feelings aside for the sake of professionalism, they should seek other employment.

The first amendment freedom of religion states “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free expression thereof…” is not carte blanche for one to use religious beliefs as grounds to not do what is required of them professionally. No one is forced to do a particular job. In one’s private and social life, one is free to do a lot of things that are not acceptable on the job. How many jobs would allow a person to wear a tank top and baggy shorts to the office?

Homosexuality might be the last frontier of civil rights and some issues are still being debated such as same-sex marriages when marriage sanctifies the special relationship between a man and woman as the foundation of the family and assurance of two parents being responsible partners in procreation. While that issue remains unresolved, it is clear what a person does in his private life is nobody’s business but his own. The sexual preferences and desires of two consenting adults is nobody’s business except for those of the participants.

While there are passages within the Bible which would appear to condemn homosexuality, for the whole history of Christianity, Christian societies have found it appropriate to define certain aspects of scripture as they see fit. Additionally, the Bible is the product of reporting events that happened over 2000 years ago when so much of human knowledge about the workings of the laws of chemistry, physic, and biology were not known. The Bible has historically been used as justification to subjugate women and support racism. Those notions are rejected today. Regardless of where one stands on homosexuality, how many Christians today would support the bigotry and intolerance of the Westboro Baptist Church?

In the real world, all people are faced with challenges reconciling their faith with day-to-day demands of the material world. If one’s understanding of his or her faith is not consistent with the requirements of a desired profession, it is that individual’s responsibility to find a vocation which can be practiced without threatening one’s faith. Since issues like Ms. Ward’s are not a problem for most people, maybe she needs to reevaluate her faith and perhaps look at her beliefs from a broader prism.

Connecticut School Board Removes "Lord" from Diploma as They Should Have

The school board of New Haven, Connecticut was correct to have the language "in the year of our Lord" removed from high school diplomas. The concept is explicitly Christian and official documents should be religiously neutral. This is not in the same spirit as banning posting the Ten Commandments, for instance, which can be examined in its universal not just spiritual context other other activities that reflect religious aspects to our culture which do not explicitly attempt to impose upon or interfere with the religious practice of others.

Naturally, there's the usual religiosity of some conservatives who attempt to establish that the United States is truly a Christian nation in the assertion that the founding fathers were devote Christians who leaned upon their Christian faith to establish our country's founding principles. That is a false representation of history as there was significant religious diversity from Catholic and Protestant points of view to those of Deists. The assertion that they were not men of faith and representing Deism as almost interchangeable with agnosticism is equally false as asserted by many secular humanists.

The bottom line is that the inclusion of "year of our Lord" serves no purpose other than to explicitly recognize Christianity, and that is not what a country devoted to religious freedom is about.

We will continue to discuss these issues as they come up. Over the long haul, surely we will weigh in more consistently against the forces who seem to think that "freedom from any public religious expression" is what our Constitution's first amendment intends.

Of course, private and religious oriented schools are free to use terms like "in the year of our Lord" as they see fit, and if students who attend those schools don't like the practice, maybe they should question why they enrolled in such a school in the first place. A Muslim student at Trinity College in San Antonio, Texas petitioned for the removal of this phrase. In this situation, one has to wonder what a practitioner of Islam is doing attending a Christian School in the first place.

National Day of Prayer: If You Don't Like It...

...just go about your business. Nobody is forcing ANYONE to covert to or profess belief in any relgion. The National Day of Prayer recognizes the roll faith has played in building our strength as a culture.
x
Let's be clear, those in the Freedom from Religion are free from religion. If they believe their "right" includes being totally insolated from other peoples' expression of belief, they've got another thing coming to them. People of faith, like it or not, have to put up with their constant whining and insults.
x
While this writer does not share Rev. Franklin Graham's doctine of faith, Graham deserves tremendous respect for putting his faith into action tending to the needy and left behind around the world even attempting to open doors to North Korea. His comments about Islam, though stated from the conviction of his religious beliefs, do resound with strong truths. Just as we just discussed with immigration, people have a sad tendency of talking with passionate conviction without ever bothering to read what's at stake. One cannot read The Koran without realizing that the Muslim religion is founded on some vicious and cruel notions and sanctions bigotry and sexism.
x
While we're not going to attempt to argue from a Christian pulpit, we will note The Bible talks of false prophets, and surely when one considers that concept vis-a-vis the writings in The Koran, that notion is driven home clearly. Mohammed should be seen as one of the villains of world history not in the light of Jesus, Buddha, or Moses.
x
Anything that makes today's "me" driven culture pause and help individuals understand there are wonderful powers far greater than the individual is a good thing.

God in the Cross Hairs on Both Sides of the Atlantic

Religion and the Law: God in the Crosshair

A Wisconsin Federal Judge, Barbara Crabb ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional arguing, “In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray.”

The problem is her ruling is off target. The government is not mandating that anyone do anything. No one is being forced to pray or being told how to pray. The National Day of Prayer simply recognizes the roll prayer and religion play in our society and salutes it. How many times do we keep repeating the exact words from the Constitution? Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Clearly, no one is being directed how to practice religion or being prohibited from exercising his or her religious beliefs, therefore there is no issue. We keep looking for the concept of the “wall” between church and state, but in the hundreds of times we’ve reviewed the Constitution, what is quoted above is all we’ve found. Of course, it’s gotten more complicated than that. Now the ACLU and other anti-religion hate groups are pursuing aggressively legal restraints which provide for “freedom from religion” attempting to ban all public expression of faith what so ever. It’s to where public employees dare not even have some kind of religious trinket on their desk at work, in fact such is against the rules at some work places.

The lunacy extends across the pond where in anticipation of a Papal visit, well known atheists, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two of the world’s best known hate mongers, citing precedent in how former Chilean dictator Augusto Pincochet was arrested in 1998 for his human rights violations, arguing that the Pope should be prosecuted for supposedly covering up sexual abuse within the Catholic church. Dawkins contends: “This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence.” While Hitchens argues, “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalized concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."

Surely, the British government will not allow itself to get trapped into pursuing such folly, but in today’s world, one can never be too sure.

The Question of Faith that Can't be Silenced

After being criticized severely for not attending the National Prayer Breakfast last year, President Barack Obama reversed himself this year and attended the 2010 gathering perhaps in part for losing so much support from mainstream independent Americans many of whom embrace traditional values. One comment from his address stands out:

“Surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith,"

Fair enough. Under normal circumstances, we’d concede him that point. However, when the person whose faith is in question is Barack Obama, there is one significant factor that will force us to forever question his faith, that being:

Reverend Jeremiah Wright

Need we say more?