1

Pulpit Freedom participation exceeds 1,800 pastors, continues through Election Day

From Alliance Defending Freedom

More than 1,800 pastors in all 50 states plus Puerto Rico have participated so far in the Alliance Defending Freedom seventh annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday event, which began this year on Oct. 5. Of those participating, 1,517 preached sermons presenting biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates and signed a statement agreeing that the IRS should not control the content of a pastor’s sermon. An additional 242 pastors signed the statement only, bringing the total number of pastors in support of pulpit freedom to more than 3,800 since 2008. Pastors are allowed to register and participate through Election Day, Nov. 4, so the numbers continue to grow.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday gives pastors the opportunity to exercise their constitutionally protected freedom to engage in religious expression from the pulpit despite an Internal Revenue Service rule known as the Johnson Amendment, which activist groups often use to silence churches by threatening their tax-exempt status.

Full news release, quotes, and related media resources available HERE.




One Generation Away from Losing Our Freedom?

Why We Must Defend Religious Liberty

In Appleton, Wisconsin, Marge Christensen labors tirelessly to share the Gospel. In her eighties, Marge is active in her church and has been promoting biblical citizenship for more than twenty years. She and her husband are ambassadors for the Alliance Defending Freedom and have been working lately to encourage churches to promote marriage with greater boldness.

Recently, Marge shared with a colleague of mine that churches do not seem to sense the urgency of teaching on matters of marriage, family and especially religious liberty.

Folks, that’s a problem.

A friend of mine, you may have heard of him, Rick Santorum, shares Marge’s concerns. After a long and illustrious career in politics, Rick has taken over as chief executive of EchoLight Studios with the goal of bringing top-notch and redemptive media to a darkened culture.

EchoLight’s latest documentary film, “One Generation Away,” draws its inspiration from Ronald Reagan’s famous inaugural address as California’s 33rd governor. In it, Reagan warned: “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

Several of the cases examined in the movie are familiar to us. There’s the decades-long battle to remove the large cross from the Mt. Soledad Veteran’s Memorial in San Diego. And then there’s the coercive healthcare mandate that sought to force businesses like Hobby Lobby to violate Christian conscience and pay for abortion-inducing drugs.

But what makes “One Generation Away” so interesting and valuable is that it interviews leaders on both sides of the issue. Along with a great cast of stalwart defenders of religious freedom like Mike Huckabee and Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, you’ll hear from members of the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State—people who are leading the crusade to restrict religious expression in public life.

And as I myself say in the film (and yes, I was privileged to take a part in it), to preserve our freedom we have to know what our liberties are and what they aren’t. And we have to defend them—and that requires knowing our opponents’ arguments and intentions.

Part of the task will be reminding our fellow Christians that we believers have full rights of citizenship. Too many of us have bought into the idea that religion is purely a private matter. God forbid! As Vincent Munoz of Notre Dame said so well in the film, “Just as other citizens can bring their convictions into the public square, religious citizens can and should bring their convictions into the public square. Don’t you lose your rights because you’re religious!”

Folks, the lesson of “One Generation Away” is that vigilance in defending our freedoms is not a one-time task, but a sacred trust that we pass from generation to generation.

This is why I hope you will get your church to host a screening of “One Generation Away”—and please get your friends and neighbors to attend. Come to BreakPoint.org and click on this commentary. We’ll link you to the movie’s website so you can learn how your church can premiere the movie at no cost to you or your congregation.

Folks, we’ve got to do something. And this is something we can do. I hope you’ll do it.


This article was originally posted at the BreakPoint.org website.

 




The Magical Land of Progressitopia

There once was a land, a magical land, with a chicken in every pot. And in this land, which was called Progressitopia, there were two peoples. There were those who saw the world as it was, and there were those who saw the world as they oh-so-very-much wished it could be. The former were called the Trads, and the latter, the Progs. It was the Progs who held dominion over this great land, and so it was they who wrote, or re-wrote, her history.

Now, in this kingdom we must remember that Christianity, or “Christianism” as it would later be called (long since forbidden), along with similar such mythological and dogmatic phantasms, remained the foremost, if not the sole, thorn in the Progs’ collectivist butt. Any and all thought or practice that might, in any way, undermine full realization of, and strict adherence to, progressive thinking was, therefore, strictly verboten.

In fact, the Trads, the traditionalist remnant, had proven singularly responsible for the famines, Civil War II and Progressitopia’s endlessly spiraling state of affairs, both foreign and domestic – a state that, notwithstanding all predictions to the contrary, somehow became significantly and enigmatically worse subsequent to the onset of progressive governance.

There was, however, one exception to this rule: Islam. Shadowing the glorious dawn of progressive reign came, from o’er the sea, a mighty and fearsome caliphate. The Muslim faith spread like wildfire. Recruitment efforts were buoyed, and appreciably so, in that, while yet a loving and peaceful religion, any skeptic or “infidel” who failed to convert was either immediately raped and enslaved or summarily beheaded, stoned, shot or blown limb-from-limb.

Whereas Progressitopians, with their one-child-only abortion mandate, stopped reproducing altogether, adherents to the religion of peace rutted like rabbits. Every corner of the globe became thickly populated by devotees of the most praised Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him.

As global violence and jihad spiked, it seemed for a time that Progressitopia and the Islamic caliphate would be one another’s undoing.

And then something extraordinary happened.

The King of Progressitopia, a brave and handsome man most wise, with visor of gold and scepter of 3-iron in hand, bowed before the great caliph and presented a series of official mea culpas on behalf of his land. He prayed Allah’s forgiveness for incurring his wrath – just desserts for centuries of Progressitopian Imperialism.

And so these two seemingly incompatible kingdoms, with wholly polarized worldviews, agreed to forge an incongruous socio-political partnership – an “Islamo-Progressive Alliance.” The alliance was built upon the maxim: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The common enemy, of course, had formed its own unholy alliance: the “Zio-Christian Axis of Evil.”

And so it soon came to pass that independent Islamic settlements cropped-up throughout Progressitopia. The Michganistan Territory became, for all intents and purposes, Mecca to the Western Hemisphere.

Presently, the Islamo-Progressive Alliance found itself enjoying a comparatively peaceful seven-year truce. Apart from a weekly handful of suicide bombings, mass shootings and random beheadings, carried out chiefly against Progressitopia’s women and children, things were simply capital.

But then, trouble in paradise – economic turmoil. Toward the middle of the new millennium’s third decade, Progressitopia’s national debt ballooned to over 60 trillion. For many years, Trad economists and “debt alarmists” had warned that Progressitopia’s skyrocketing debt and deficits were unsustainable. These anti-progressive thinkers openly questioned the progressive strategy of taxing and spending one’s way to prosperity.

They felt, irrationally so, that such approach represented, as one provocative naysayer phrased it, “an epically stupid and patently impossible self-contradiction. No more can one spend his way out of debt than can he cheat his way out of adultery.”

Another fundamentalist cynic offered a less hurtful, yet no less sensationalist analogy: “When a bridge’s infrastructure becomes unsustainable,” he alleged, “it will ultimately collapse if its integrity is compromised to the degree that it can no longer support some burgeoning mass. So too it goes, apparently, as relates integrity to politicians, governments and national debt.”

Right-wing propaganda aside, Progressitopia’s economy did, nonetheless, unexpectedly collapse for reasons ultimately deemed inconclusive.

Now, as heretofore told, and as go the history books, Christianism had, from time immemorial, been the very bane of free-thinking humanity’s existence. This hateful mythology had been largely to blame, in concert with its sister-faith, Judaism, and its insufferable cousin, conservatism, an equally curious mental disorder, for all of the world’s wars, slavery, racism, sexism, disease, capitalism, global warming and, most onerously perhaps, gluten sensitivity.

Moreover, both Christianism and conservatism were ultimately determined to have been the catalyst for the systemic phobia outbreak that inexplicably began around the turn of the century. First there was homophobia, an irrational, chronic and debilitating fear of the square-hole-round-peg people, or, as this flamboyant troupe, so enamored with acronymic wordplay, preferred to be called: the “SHRP community.” Since SHRPs displayed impeccable fashion sense and a flair for the fabulous, Neanderthalic Trads were, most naturally, terrified by them.

Then came Islamophobia, the irrational fear of having one’s head lopped off, followed by transphobia, the fear of naked men in ladies’ locker rooms, polyphobia, the fear of communal rompathons, as well as an all-inclusive litany of other phobias relating to myriad sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions.

Next, there emerged the great progressiphobia pandemic of ’27. This involved an equally absurd, though no less universal, fear of progressive thought, practice or people. This, for a time, threatened to halt Progressitopia’s progressing progress altogether.

Finally, there occurred a worldwide outbreak of phobia-phobia. This was, of course, a condition delineated by the once again irrational denial that any of the aforementioned phobias had “any basis in reality whatsoever,” but, rather, were “simply ham-fisted pejoratives intended to marginalize one’s political opposition.”

But, alas, we must for now part ways. My gluten-free frittata grows cold.




Gordon College Will Lose Accreditation over Behavioral Standards

From Stand to Reason

Gordon College has been given 18 months to recant. If they do not change the standards for sexual behavior in their “life and conduct statement” (which prohibit “sexual relations outside of marriage” and “homosexual practice”), they will lose their accreditation*:

The higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges met last week and “considered whether Gordon College’s traditional inclusion of ‘homosexual practice’ as a forbidden activity” runs afoul of the commission’s standards for accreditation, according to a joint statement from NEASC and Gordon College.

The commission asked Gordon College to submit a report next September. The report should describe the process by which the college has approached its review of the policy “to ensure that the College’s policies and procedures are non-discriminatory,” the statement said….

In its joint statement, NEASC and Gordon College called the review process a “period of discernment” that will take place over the next 12 to 18 months…. [The president of NEASC’s higher education commission] said the long time frame that Gordon College has been allowed for the review is appropriate considering that Gordon College’s policy is “deeply embedded in the culture of the college” and such things “don’t change overnight.”

How reasonable of the commission to give Gordon College 18 months to come to terms with overturning the thousands-of-years-old Christian view of acceptable sexual behavior.

This 18-month reprieve is nothing but theater, of course. Gordon College will not convince the commission their standards are “non-discriminatory.” Gordon College will explain the difference between behavior and identity, between a person with same-sex attractions who agrees with the biblical standards and one who doesn’t, and the difference between banning a person because of his sexual orientation and banning particular behaviors among all students that go against the biblical view. And then the commission will reject it.

How do I know this? Because this is what happened earlier this year when Gordon College publicly argued for the “right of faith-based institutions to set and adhere to standards which derive from our shared framework of faith.” That controversy ended with the termination of their city contract to maintain Salem’s historical Old Town Hall and their student teachers being removed from public schools. Here’s what the college said then:

In our statement of faith and conduct we affirm God’s creation of marriage, first described in Genesis, as the intended lifelong one-flesh union of one man and one woman. Along with this positive affirmation of marriage as a male-female union, there are clear prohibitions in the Scriptures against sexual relations between persons of the same sex.

It is important to note that the Gordon statement of faith and conduct does not reference same-sex orientation—that is, the state of being a person who experiences same-sex attraction—but rather, specifically, homosexual acts. The Gordon community is expected to refrain from any sexual intercourse—heterosexual or homosexual; premarital or extramarital—outside of the marriage covenant. There is currently much debate among Christians about the nature and causes of homosexuality, and about a faithful Christian response to same-sex attractions, but we acknowledge that we are all sinners in need of grace, all called to redeemed humanity in Christ.

We recognize that students at Gordon who identify as LGBTQ or experience same-sex attraction have often felt marginalized and alone, and recognize the pressing need for a safe campus environment for all students.

That wasn’t enough then, and it certainly won’t be enough now. But it should be.

Setting standards for sexual behavior is not the same as discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation—it’s not discrimination against single people because of their heterosexual orientation, and it’s not discrimination against gay people because of their homosexual orientation.

Consider this: I can think of three names off the top of my head right now of people who have same-sex attractions (and are open about it) who support the boundaries Christianity sets around sexuality and write for esteemed and popular conservative evangelical Christian ministries and/or whose books I recommend: Nick RoenSam Allberry, and Wesley Hill. No one is interested in kicking them out of anything because of their same-sex attractions, because that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they subscribe to and live by the biblical view of sexuality, not their sexual orientation. There is a relevant distinction between the two.

Therefore, just as having a sexual behavior standard for people with opposite-sex attractions is not an act of discrimination against heterosexual people, so having the same standard for people with same-sex attractions is not an act of discrimination against homosexual people. But the commission won’t see this because our culture is no longer capable of making a distinction between “sexual identity” and behavior.

Richard John Neuhaus’s thoughts on how “Identity Is Trumps” in our society give some insight into why behavioral standards will be tolerated less and less. He explains that when behavior is identity, “what we will do is what we must do”:

Here disagreement is an intolerable personal affront. It is construed as a denial of others, of their experience of who they are. It is a blasphemous assault on that most high god, “My Identity.” …

[T]heir demand is only for “acceptance,” leaving no doubt that acceptance means assent to what they know (as nobody else can know!) is essential to being true to their authentic selves. Not to assent is not to disagree; it is to deny their humanity….

Whatever the issue, the new orthodoxy will not give an inch, demanding acceptance and inclusiveness, which means rejection and exclusion of whatever or whomever questions their identity, meaning their right to believe, speak, and act as they will, for what they will do is what they must do if they are to be who they most truly are.

If Stand to Reason still has tax-exempt status in five years, I will be very, very surprised.

___________________

*From the U.S. Department of Education: “Accreditation is the recognition that an institution maintains standards requisite for its graduates to gain admission to other reputable institutions of higher learning or to achieve credentials for professional practice. The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality.”




VIDEO: Eric Metaxas on the Church and Religious Freedom

Best-selling author Eric Metaxas says the Christian Church in America must boldly defend the religious freedom that allows it to proclaim the Gospel.

Mr. Metaxas spoke with IFI before giving the keynote speech at our annual Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet.  Please watch the video report below:

Mr. Metaxas gave a powerful keynote message at the Illinois Family Institute annual banquet. His message included a timely warning, an exhortation, some encouragement and a strong focus on the Gospel.  Copies of his address will be available on DVD in the near future.  Stay tuned!

You can read more about this year’s IFI banquet in this article from our friends at IllinoisReview.com.


Please consider supporting our work of Illinois Family Institute.

donationbutton




First Amendment, “LGBT Dogma,” and Employment in America

In this cultural moment in which half of Americans work in large corporations and the Internet disseminates information in the blink of a blinkered eye, and in light of the absolutist demands of homosexual activists for either ideological conformity or silence, what are the employment and First Amendment implications for theologically orthodox Christians?

The First Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to speak freely. This right was guaranteed in order to protect political speech without which Americans effectively lose their right to govern themselves.

Americans on both sides of the political aisle correctly assert that the right to speak freely does not guarantee the right to be free of consequences—which sounds reasonable enough.

It sounds reasonable until one notices how it’s working out in the sullied hands of homosexual activists and their ideological accomplices. The possibility that public speech on a controversial topic may result in unpleasant consequences is transmogrifying into the possibility that those who  express conservative views of homosexuality, “gender,” and marriage will have difficulty finding a job in America. “Progressives” are demanding submission to their subjective moral and political assumptions about homoeroticism and gender confusion or risk the loss of employment.

Large corporations infected by homosexual activism

Mozilla founder and CEO Brendan Eich lost his job following the revelation that he donated a pittance to the effort to protect true marriage in California. The amount of money is irrelevant. Even if he had donated $10 million to the campaign to stop the perversion of real marriage into faux-marriage, he should have been able to keep his job.

I can’t remember conservative groups pursuing a strategy that seeks to “influence” political opinion on controversial topics by targeting citizens’ employment. Did conservative groups ever demand the firing of someone who in his free time or with his own money expressed support for the redefinition of marriage?

Did defenders of life argue that CEO’s of large corporations who donate to “pro-choice”/anti-life causes be fired? And let’s remember that donating to such causes means advocating the right of one human to murder another human being.

Homosexuality-affirming activists believe that opposing the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages warrants firing because they presume such opposition is motivated by hatred. Protectors of life believe that preborn babies have an inherent right to live that is not lost simply because they are not fully developed, or because they suffer from physical abnormalities, or because they’re not wanted by their mothers. Conservatives believe that those who support legalized abortion are supporting murder, and yet they don’t demand that supporters of abortion be fired from their jobs. Perhaps in the twisted world of homo-activism, presumed hatred is worse than actual murder.

About half of Americans are employed by large corporations. According to an article in the Washington Post, “Over the past two decades….companies with more than 500 workers employed about 45 percent of the workforce yet contributed 65 percent of the jobs created since 1990.”

The New York Times writes this:

[I]f you define “small” as fewer than 500 people (as the federal government does, basically), you still find that half the work force is employed by large businesses. It’s even more stunning when it comes to payrolls: 57 percent of total compensation is paid out by companies of 500 or more employees, with most of that coming from the largest, those with at least 10,000 employees. And new research by the Treasury Department finds that small businesses—defined as those with income between $10,000 and $10 million, or about 99 percent of all businesses—account for just 17 percent of business income, and only 23 percent of them pay any wages at all.

Now that large corporations like Target, Apple, Nike, Facebook, eBay, Alcoa, Intel, and Morgan Stanley are taking formal, public positions in support of redefining marriage and are treating homoerotic desire (and gender confusion) as equivalent to behaviorally neutral conditions like race in their anti-discrimination policy, how long will it be before employment practices will take into account public statements in support of true marriage (or restroom usage policies that recognize biological differences)? These companies are not merely creating ad campaigns geared toward the purchasing practices of homosexuals; they’re filing amicus briefs in courts to influence judicial decisions.

Will corporate policies on sexual deviance affect First Amendment rights?

In the near future if an employee of Target or Apple (or a public high school) were to sign a petition or donate to a political campaign or organization that supports the view that marriage is a sexually complementary union, will her job be jeopardized? If she writes a letter to her local press expressing her view that marriage is inherently sexually complementary (or that public restrooms should correspond to objective biological sex), will she risk her employment? If someone forwards her letter to the busy beavers at Change.org who then start a petition urging Target to purge their organization of such a wicked letter-writer who surely must be motivated by animus that will make all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and gender-fluid patrons of Target  feel “unsafe,” will she be fired? (If “LGBT” people must be spared from ever feeling unsafe—by which they really mean uncomfortable—how do speech protections even work? And shouldn’t orthodox Christians whose biblical beliefs are central to their identity be similarly protected from hearing ideas that make them feel uncomfortable unsafe?)

Interracial marriage ≠ same-sex pseudo-marriage

The Left argues that businesses have no more obligation to hire or retain an employee who publicly opposes the legalization of same-sex “marriage” than they do to hire or retain an employee who opposes interracial marriage. There are two problems with this argument:

First, those who opposed interracial marriage did not argue that such unions were not marriages. They argued that such marriages were not proper. And their opposition to interracial marriage was motivated by false ideas about racial superiority and by actual hatred. While it is appropriate to make moral distinctions among volitional behaviors (e.g., homoerotic activity vs. heterosexual activity), it is inappropriate to posit some people as ontologically superior to others or to hate people.

Supporters of true marriage are making a wholly different argument—one which has nothing to do with hatred. They’re making the argument that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual difference. They’re arguing that a union of two people of the same sex is in reality not a marriage—even if the law permits it. They’re arguing that the law can no more make a non-marital same-sex union into a marriage than it can make a wholly human African American into 3/5 a person.

Most “progressives” argue that marriage is essentially and immutably binary. Conservatives argue that sexual difference is as central to marriage as the number of partners. In fact, conservatives argue that the twoness of marriage makes sense only because there are two sexes. While arguing that marriage is inherently binary,  most “progressives” fail to offer any justification for the immutable, essential magical number two.

Since the central (and most enduring, cross-cultural) constituent feature of marriage is sexual complementarity, prohibitions of interracial marriage were wrong because they prevented actual marriages from being legally recognized. Anti-miscegenation laws arbitrarily prevented the societal good of uniting men and women in true marriages.

Laws that prevent the unions of two people of the same-sex from being recognized as marriages affirm the true belief that marriage has a nature that humans don’t create but, rather, recognize and regulate. Laws that prevent two people of the same-sex from “marrying” recognize that sexual differentiation is even more integral to marriage than is blood kinship or numbers of partners. Homoerotic unions exist; they’re simply not marital unions.

The second problem with the comparison of opposition to same-sex faux-marriage to opposition to interracial marriage is that its analogical foundation is flawed. Homosexuality per se bears no points of correspondence with race (or skin color) per se.

Race per se has no subjective constitutive features (e.g., feelings), no behavioral implications, and no relevance to the public purpose of marriage that justifies government involvement. In contrast, homosexuality per se is constituted by subjective feelings and behaviors which are legitimate objects of moral assessment and which are relevant to the only purpose that justifies government involvement in marriage: children.

Though not all marriages result in children, all children have parents. Children have an inherent desire to be connected with their biological parents, and they have needs that are best fulfilled by being raised whenever possible by their biological mothers and fathers. If humans did not procreate sexually (in other words, if all the erotic activities of humans were inherently sterile), there would exist no such thing as civil marriage. If humans procreated asexually, the idea of civil marriage would no more have developed than the absurd idea of government recognition of bff’s.

Counter-insurgency needed

Post-modernism, the sexual revolution, and a television-dominated culture created the wormy subsoil into which two other cultural phenomena have taken root and grown into a felicitous political environment for homo-activism. With large corporations dominating employment in America and the Internet disseminating information, disinformation, and demagoguery with lightning speed, homosexual activists are able to advance their doctrinaire and dogmatic ideology while undermining both religious liberty and speech rights. This is a stealth insurgent assault on the First Amendment, and it’s being opposed by a feeble, emasculated counter-insurgency effort.


 

IFI is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of people just like you.

Please consider donating $10 or $20 to support our work in the public square.

Click HERE to make a tax-deductible donation.

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at
(708) 781-9328.

 




Tolerance: A Tough Business

This week the owners of Liberty Ridge Farm near Albany, New York, which is rented out for birthday parties and about a dozen weddings each year, have been levied a $10,00 fine and ordered to pay two women $1,500 a piece for not allowing the lesbian couple to have their 2012 wedding ceremony on the property (see earlier story). And similar trouble is brewing in Pennsylvania, where The Cake Pros bakery in Schuylkill Haven and W. W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg likewise declined to be part of same-gender weddings.

Randall Wenger, chief counsel for the Pennsylvania Family Institute, tells OneNewsNow that the owners are Christians who recognize that the Bible expressly condemns homosexual conduct.

“True tolerance should mean that we’re free to live according to our beliefs without being fined or forced out of business,” he submits.

Wenger further points out that “tons” of other businesses in Pennsylvania, where “same-sex marriage” is legal, are willing to accommodate same-gender pairs.

“It’s not as if somebody can’t go out and buy a wedding dress or get a cake baked,” the attorney states. “The issue is whether those who have a conscience against doing so need to be forced to do it to be made an example of, because somehow it’s wrong for us to think differently, believe differently or act differently.”

He goes on to argue that “in America, we should have the freedom to do that.”

Pennsylvania is considering a law that would criminalize actions such as those taken by the two business owners.


This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.




Imposing Beliefs, One Institution at a Time

For an organization that frequently goads government into advancing an atheistic viewpoint on everyone within reach, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) talks a good game about how wrong it is for some people to “impose their beliefs on others.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June in favor of Hobby Lobby and another Christian-owned company that refused to comply with Obamacare’s abortifacient mandate has sent the leftwing legal group into ongoing apoplexy:

“While religious freedom gives us all the right to make personal decisions about how to practice religion,” the ACLU states, “it doesn’t give institutions or individuals the right to impose their beliefs on others.”

Really? Doesn’t requiring the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Products to cut their conscience to fit the ACLU’s atheism constitute a situation where the ACLU itself is trying to use the law to “impose their beliefs on others?”

According to the ACLU’s reading of the First Amendment, it’s okay to have “freedom of worship,” which means keeping religious stuff strictly in your head or behind church doors. But God help you if you try to live it out in the real world, where the ACLU prowls for “victims.”

On the bright side, the ACLU is doing us all a favor by keeping track of its many religious freedom challenges to the oppressive Obamacare contraceptive mandate across the nation.

“To date, 101 cases have been filed challenging the rule as an infringement on religious liberty,” the ACLU states on its website. “Eighty-nine of these cases are currently pending: 41 cases brought by nonprofit organizations, 45 cases brought by for-profit companies, and 3 cases brought by both nonprofit and for-profit plaintiffs.”

The devil’s law firm and other atheistic groups are also actively attacking religious freedom by contending that religiously-affiliated schools cannot require employees to live by religious standards.

In 2012, in the Hosanna-Tabor case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the government cannot interfere with religious groups’ faith-based employment qualifications. But the lawsuits keep coming.

In 2013, San Diego Christian College dismissed an employee, Teri James, who had become pregnant out of wedlock. She retained feminist camera hog attorney Gloria Allred and sued the university, even though Ms. James had signed a covenant as a condition of employment agreeing not to engage in certain behaviors, including premarital sex. But what’s a promise or a contract worth?

“Women out there should not have to worry about losing their income and independence just because they are carrying a child,” Ms. James said in a statement.

Independence? She means that the school has a duty to support her in the manner in which she is accustomed even if she breaks their rules. The ACLU summed up the situation this way:

“There are cases … of religious schools firing employees who are unmarried and pregnant, for example, in the name of religion.”

Well, yes. A Christian school should have the right to employ people who abide by Christian values, such as keeping sex within marriage. What’s the point of having an expressly Christian organization if the people within it openly defy its values?

Would the ACLU be comfortable hiring someone who opposes abortion on demand or same-sex “marriage?” How about an anti-porn advocate?

In Missouri, the American Humanist Association is threatening to sue because one recruit was made uncomfortable when he spotted some donated Gideon Bibles on a shelf at a National Guard intake center in St. Louis. Maybe the recruit would benefit from a stint in a country not yet influenced by Christianity’s unique respect for individual rights.

The ACLU is the point of the spear, legally speaking, of a larger Leftist campaign to fundamentally transform America into a place where fornication of any kind under the sun trumps all other human rights. It’s the only freedom we’ll have left after they establish government-enforced diversity re-education to stamp out anything resembling traditional religious values.

Achieving diversity used to mean ending discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or other immutable characteristics. Now it means dividing people into groups based on grievances and then constantly inflaming those sore points. Google the “war on women” for more details.

For good measure, anyone resisting this onslaught is said to be “obsessed” with it, as if the activists demanding a wholesale moral meltdown are, by contrast, only casually involved.

In his classic, The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis’s professorial devil instructs his demon nephew that in order to make it easier to steal souls, “All extremes except extreme devotion to [God] are to be encouraged. Not always, of course, but at this period.

“Some ages are lukewarm and complacent, and then it is our business to soothe them yet faster asleep. Other ages, of which the present is one, are unbalanced and prone to faction, and it is our business to inflame them.”

For decades, the ACLU has been reading the devil’s mail and acting accordingly.

They’ve learned only too well how to “impose their beliefs on others.”


This article was originally posted at the TownHall.com website.




New York Farmers Fined $13,000 for Declining to Hold Same Sex “Marriage”

The war against business owners who do not wish to violate their deeply held beliefs continues.  Judeo-Christian values will not be tolerated by the Left as they relentlessly push for the acceptance same-sex “marriage.”

The operators of a popular agro-tourism farm in Schaghticoke, New York have been fined $13,000 by the state of New York for their refusal almost two years ago on religious grounds to host a same-sex wedding ceremony.

The New York Human Rights Commission concluded that Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who operate Liberty Ridge Farm, violated the rights of Jennifer McCarthy and Melissa Erwin who had the right to their “marriage” under New York’s 2011 passage of same sex “marriage.”

Cynthia Gifford in 2012 had told the couple she would have a problem allowing their wedding ceremony on the farm due to her Roman Catholic religious beliefs. The couple later found a different farm to hold their ceremony.

The fine, levied by Human Rights Commission Judge Migdalia Pares and approved by Commissioner Helen Diane Foster, included a $10,000 penalty to the farm and awarded $1,500 to each of the women for the “mental anguish” involved in their being rebuffed.

The Giffords must also institute anti-discrimination re-education classes and procedures for their staff.

“All New Yorkers are entitled to their own religious beliefs, but businesses cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation any more than they can based on race or national origin,” said NYCLU Staff Attorney Mariko Hirose, the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer in the case.

The attorney for the Giffords, Jim Trainor, said they were considering an appeal. He noted that the Giffords has hosted LGBT events at Liberty Ridge but they had a problem with the religious part of a planned wedding event. “They just felt the religious ceremony violated their beliefs,” he said.

Trainor contends that the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision set a precedent that allows businesses to make decisions with their religious beliefs in mind. In the Hobby Lobby case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government must have a compelling interest for their activities in order violate a citizen’s beliefs. It was decided Federal government did not have such an interest to force Hobby Lobby to provide certain types of contraceptives for female employees in its health benefit package.

Does the government have a compelling interest in forcing accept their own redefined version of marriage on private citizens?

Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation writes:

The Giffords were not engaging in any insidious discrimination—they were acting on their belief about the nature of marriage. They do not object to gay or lesbian customers attending the fall festivals, or going berry picking, or doing any of the other activities that the farm facilitates. The Giffords’ only objection is being forced to abide by the government’s views on sexuality and host a same-sex wedding. The Human Rights Commission has now declared this historic belief about marriage to be “discrimination.”

In an age where religion beliefs are confined to the mind and cannot be practiced in the workforce, it is either comply with the dictates of the government or lose the farm.


 Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet
With Eric Metaxas on Sept. 19th!

RegisterTodayButton




I’m Wanted for ‘Hate Crimes’ in Canada

It seems I have some liberal knickers in a knot north of the border.

The left is anything if not predictable. It tickles me to no end when, by way of their utterly unhinged reaction to one of my columns, secular-”progressives” end up proving true the very point I was trying to make.

Last month I wrote an opinion piece headlined, “The coming Christian revolt.” It was featured in multiple publications, including the print edition of the Newfoundland Herald, a weekly news and entertainment magazine circulated throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.

Among other things, I noted this objective reality in the piece – a reality demonstrated with crystal clarity by liberals’ (to include the Canadian government’s) contemptible response to the column itself: “To fully advance the causes of radical feminism, abortion-on-demand, unfettered sexual license, ‘gay marriage’ and the like, the pagan left must do away with religious free exercise altogether [not to mention free speech].

“Under the guise of ‘anti-discrimination,’ Christians today face discrimination at unprecedented levels. …

“Christians,” I continued, “true Christians – regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands – will not, indeed cannot, participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful.

“It is not done from hate. It is not done from bigotry. It is done neither from a position of superiority nor a desire to ‘impose our beliefs’ upon others.

“It is done from both obedience to Christ and compassion for our fellow fallen who yet wallow in folly. …

“In the ongoing culture war, it seems there are no rules of engagement. The secular left will accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. That is to say, the pagans demand that we Christians abandon the biblical worldview altogether, and adopt their own.

“This will never happen.”

You could’ve timed their response to a stopwatch. Want to see a collectivist conniption? Drop an unvarnished truth bomb in the middle of Canada, most of Europe or blue-state USA and sit back for the mouth-frothing. It’s quite a show. The bright light of salty truth both blinds and burns those given over to reprobation.

CBC News, the “largest news broadcaster in Canada,” reported on both my column and the ensuing response: “Members of a Newfoundland and Labrador Pride group were so outraged about a two-page anti-gay [read: Christian] letter to the editor published by an entertainment magazine in the province, they filed a human rights complaint.”

Several other “gay rights” organizations have since picked up their pitchforks and joined the mob. The Canadian government was likewise quick to react. Remzi Cej of Canada’s “Human Rights Commission” (something between a Star Chamber and a kangaroo court, but without that level of credibility) said, “he’s disappointed that the Herald has cited ‘free speech’ as justification for publishing the opposing view” (because, of course, to the leftist, free speech is only “free” when it’s speech with which they agree).

CBC News continued: “In its Aug. 3-9 issue, The Newfoundland Herald published ‘The Coming Christian Revolt’ in its Letters to the Editor section.”

“The letter is a blog post from author and right-wing American blogger Matt Barber, who published the piece on his own website, barbwire.com, last month.

“In the letter, Barber took direct aim at a number of topics, including abortion and gay marriage.

“Western Pride NL member Kyle Curlew, who initiated filing the complaint, said his ‘jaw dropped’ when he first saw the two-page letter.

“‘I couldn’t even believe that it was published in the Herald. It was a rallying call for people to stand against LGBT rights. Essentially, hate propaganda,’ Curlew told CBC.

“Curlew said after reading the letter, he decided to take the matter to police.

“‘We filed a human rights complaint under C-46, Section 19, which is “propaganda and the incitement of hate towards an identifiable group.” So we are hoping to press charges.’”

The Telegram, another mainstream Canadian publication, further reported that both my column and the fact that the Newfoundland Herald published it each constitute “a hate crime under the Criminal Code of Canada.” (Ahh … don’t you love the smell of tyranny in the morning? Come and get me, you homofascist Canucks.)

While there are exceptions to the rule, generalizations typically become generalizations because they generally hold true. Saving perhaps orthodox Muslims, today’s secular-”progressives” are among the most closed-minded and self-deluded people on the planet.

Generally speaking.

Indeed, the self-styled champions of “tolerance” and “diversity” prove, over and again, to be the most intolerant and monolithic among us. Their version of “intolerance” (i.e., any philosophical position that runs afoul of the rigid dictates of “political correctness”) simply will not be tolerated.

The left is a walking paradox. It is irony personified. While liberals’ complete lack of self-awareness, self-righteous snobbery, aloof emotionalism and obtuse circular reasoning make them an easy target for ridicule, these things quickly move from curious to dangerous when they control the reins of government.

Back in April, my good friend and pro-family advocate Peter LaBarbera and his Canadian Christian host Bill Whatcott were arrested in Regina, Saskatchewan, for preaching the Gospel on a university campus. When they began calmly and peacefully sharing about biblical sexual morality and the abortion holocaust, police were called and LaBarbera spent two days in jail. He now faces potential prison time when he returns in October for his trial. (Stop the “tolerance!” It hurts! Canada, what have you let happen to your once free nation?)

As for the Newfoundland Herald’s publication of my column, Managing Editor Pam Pardy-Ghent told CBC News, “We have received so much feedback on this letter, more than we have ever received before on any matter or topic. This is obviously something, and rightfully so, that has infuriated a number of people, and has inspired them to reach out to us.

“We will be responding to this issue –and running many of the responses we have received – in the ne xt, and in future editions of The Newfoundland Herald. While free speech is very important to us, being responsive and responsible to the people of this province is as well.”

Ms. Pardy-Ghent, free speech may well be important to you, but it’s now verboten in Canada (and is fast becoming that way here in the U.S.). Though we may or may not agree on the issues, I nonetheless admire and respect your courage, apparent appreciation for open discourse and clear disdain for censorship. You’re welcome to publish this column as well.

Better get your affairs in order first.




Why Liberals Should Support the Hobby Lobby Decision

Written by Joe Carter

When the Supreme Court ruled on the Hobby Lobby case, the near universal reaction by liberals was that it was a travesty of epic proportion. But as self-professed liberal law professor Brett McDonnell argues, the left should embrace the Hobby Lobby decision since it supports liberal values:

The first question was: Can for-profit corporations invoke religious liberty rights under RFRA? The court answered yes. HBO’s John Oliver nicely expressed the automatic liberal riposte, parodying the idea that corporations are people. It is very funny stuff.

It is not, however, especially thoughtful stuff. The court does not argue that corporations are just like real people. Rather, it argues that people often exercise faith collectively, in organizations. Allowing those organizations to assert religious-liberty rights protects the liberty of the persons acting within them. The obvious example is churches, usually legally organized as nonprofit corporations.

The real issue is not whether corporations of any type can ever claim protection under RFRA — sometimes they can. The issue is whether for-profit corporations can ever have enough of a religious purpose to claim that protection.

To me, as a professor of corporate law, liberal denial of this point sounds very odd. In my world, activists and liberal professors (like me) are constantly asserting that corporations can and should care about more than just shareholder profit. We sing the praises of corporate social responsibility.

Well, Hobby Lobby is a socially responsible corporation, judged by the deep religious beliefs of its owners. The court decisively rejects the notion that the sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for its shareholders. This fits perfectly with the expansive view of corporate purpose that liberal proponents of social responsibility usually advocate — except, apparently, when talking about this case.

McDonnell is right, of course. Support for religious liberty should transcend partisan political lines. And it used to be an issue that was championed by liberals. The fact that religious liberty is now despised and denigrated reveals a sudden, perhaps irrevocable shift in the nature of progressivism in America.


This article was originally posted at the Acton Institute PowerBlog.




Colorado Cake Company Appeals Decision Forcing Them to Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings

Written by Michael Gryboski

A Colorado baker who was found guilty of discrimination for not baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is appealing the decision.

Jake Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop hopes to win at the appellate level after being told that he must serve gay couples wedding cakes and take a diversity course.

Phillips is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed the appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals last Wednesday.

ADF lead counsel Nicolle Martin, who is involved in the appeal, said in a statement that Phillips did not unlawfully discriminate against anyone, but rather refused to endorse something he morally disagreed with.

“This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates,” said Martin.

“Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins wanted Phillips to make a cake for their wedding reception.

Phillips explained to the couple that he could make them other baked items but, because of his Christian beliefs, he will not make them a cake for their reception.

With the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

The division determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop had discriminated against them. According to the ACLU, the division’s findings led the state attorney general’s office to file a formal complaint against the company via the state courts.

“The undisputed facts show that (Phillips) discriminated against complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” wrote Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer in his decision in December 2013.

As a result of the ruling, Phillips has stopped taking orders for wedding cakes for both straight and gay couples. He has also been compelled to produce a log of past gay couples he may have refused to make a cake for.

Amanda Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project who is working on the case, told CP that she was confident the appeals court will rule against Phillips.

“The Colorado Civil Rights Division and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission have already determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop’s refusal to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples violates this law, and that the baker’s religious beliefs do not give him license to discriminate,” said Goad.

“We are confident that the Court of Appeals will reach the same conclusion. Religious liberty does not mean that if people of faith object to a law, their personal beliefs trump other societal values like equal opportunity for all.”


This article was originally posted at the ChristianPost.com.




The Coming Christian Revolt

From behind a smoking sniper rifle high atop his ivory tower peers the secular-”progressive.” He surveys his many victims, strewn across the American landscape below and mockingly sneers, “War on Christianity? What war on Christianity?”

He then resumes shooting, all the while insisting that those uncooperative Christians who scatter for cover behind the word of God and the U.S. Constitution somehow suffer from a “persecution complex” (the baker, the photographer, the florist, the innkeeper, the Christian school administrator, etc.).

Though there are many, it is plain for all to see that abortion and “sexual liberation” remain the two principal theaters in the ongoing culture war battlefront.

To fully advance the causes of radical feminism, abortion-on-demand, unfettered sexual license, “gay marriage” and the like, the pagan left must do away with religious free exercise altogether. Under the guise of “anti-discrimination,” Christians today face discrimination at unprecedented levels.

Let’s see if we can make this abundantly clear. Christians, true Christians – regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands – will not, indeed cannot, participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful.

This is both our constitutionally affirmed human right and our Christian duty.

It is not done from hate. It is not done from bigotry. It is done neither from a position of superiority nor a desire to “impose our beliefs” upon others.

It is done from both obedience to Christ and compassion for our fellow fallen who yet wallow in folly.

Central to Christianity, and clearly delineated throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is the unambiguous and timeless proposition that any sexual practice outside the bonds of true man-woman marriage constitutes sexual immorality and results in separation from God. This, of course, includes sexual acting out between members of the same sex, whether or not such acting out is tied to the novel notion of so-called “same-sex marriage.”

Likewise central to Christianity is the relatively easy-to-understand concept that a Christ follower must neither take the life of a pre-born child nor aid and abet, in any way, the taking of such life.

It is not so much that Christians wish, willy-nilly, to call abortion, homosexual behavior, fornication, adultery, bestiality, incest or any other disordered sexual proclivity “sinful.” It is, rather, that we must. For the true Christian, God’s objective truths will always trump man’s subjective desires.

Newton’s Third Law states: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

For every law, regulation, activist court ruling or presidential edict that demands Christians violate their sincerely held religious beliefs and adopt a postmodern, moral relativist way of life, there increases, in exact proportion, the likelihood of widespread civil disobedience – disobedience of the sort we haven’t seen since the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and ’60s.

Indeed, if, in the spirit of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., we, his fellow Christian travelers, must again face the water hoses, then face them we shall.

As the recent Hobby Lobby decision reaffirmed, the government cannot legislate away religious free exercise. Where your desire, intense though it may be, for me to employ you despite your antagonistic values system, pay for your abortion, or host, photograph or otherwise bake a rainbow cake for your faux “wedding,” comes into conflict with my absolute right to religious liberty, the result is a forgone conclusion.

I win, you lose.

We have seen and will continue to see an exponential increase in Christian business owners refusing to violate God’s commands by complying with unconstitutional, immoral and unjust government dictates.

For 2,000 years, whenever such conflicts have arisen, Christians have placed the laws of God above the laws of man.

What makes you think we’re about to change now?

As many in the early church refused to bow a knee to Caesar in worship, so, too, will many modern Christians refuse, under any circumstances, to obey any law that presumes to make sin obligatory.

If the ancient church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, was able to face the lions in hopeful anticipation of joining Jesus, then we, too, under the same Spirit, will face anything today’s pagan left can threaten.

In the ongoing culture war, it seems there are no rules of engagement. The secular left will accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. That is to say, the pagans demand that we Christians abandon the biblical worldview altogether, and adopt their own.

This will never happen.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously declared, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

In 2012, after the Obama administration unilaterally issued its now gutted HHS contraception/abortion mandate, Catholic priests from across the nation, to their great credit, read from the pulpit a letter that contained the following declaration: “We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law.”

As our secularist government increasingly imposes similar laws, so, too, increases the certitude of civil disobedience.

While there are those who will give way out of fear, weakness or a desire to conform to the world, there are many others who will not. Christians must peacefully come together, lock arms and redouble our resistance to evil.

Even when that evil is adorned with the presidential seal and signature.




Sexual Freedom First and Foremost

Click HERE to listen to this BreakPoint segment.

How is it that a company that treats its workers with dignity and pays them well has become liberalism’s “public enemy number 1”?

In a recent op-ed piece, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat noted that, for a generation, “liberals have bemoaned the disappearance of the socially conscious corporation, the boardroom devoted to the common good.”

According to this narrative, “C.E.O.s [once] recognized that they shared interests with workers and customers . . .  [and] wages and working hours reflected more than just a zeal for profits.”

As the use of the past tense makes clear, this is no longer the case. But there are exceptions. Last year, Demos, a left-of center policy website, hailed one company “‘for thumbing its nose at the conventional wisdom that success in the retail industry’ requires paying “‘bargain-basement wages.’”

Regular BreakPoint listeners can guess the name of the company: Hobby Lobby. But the same Hobby Lobby that pays its workers a decent wage is nonetheless, in Douthat’s words, “liberalism’s public enemy No. 1.”

This enmity is only part of a larger irony. Douthat points to what he calls “an interesting situation in our politics: The political left is expending a remarkable amount of energy trying to fine, vilify and bring to heel organizations—charities, hospitals, schools and mission-infused businesses—whose commitments they might under other circumstances extol.”

Never mind that these organizations serve the people whose plight liberalism ostensibly exists to remedy, what matters to much of contemporary American liberalism is that they are the “wrong” side of the Sexual Revolution.

The key word, for a Christian friend and colleague of mine, is “contemporary.” He has no trouble describing himself as “liberal” when it comes to economic and racial issues, but he laments what he calls the “great betrayal.” That’s when liberalism stopped caring about the poor and working classes and became, instead, concerned with safeguarding “lifestyles” and sexual freedom.

Obviously, there are liberals who are concerned about all of these issues, but to paraphrase our Lord, where your energies are directed, there will your heart be also.

And the reaction to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision and the companies who challenged it make it clear what the “political left” is most concerned about.

The concern is so overwhelming that they are, as Douthat rightly points out, willing to throw the poor and vulnerable under the bus. If Justice Ginsburg’s dissent had been the majority opinion, the most likely result would have been, as Douthat wrote, “fewer religiously motivated business owners—and more chain stores that happily cover [abortifacients] but pay significantly lower wages.”

Likewise, if you “pressure religious hospitals to perform abortions or sex-reassignment surgery (or some eugenic breakthrough down the road), and you’ll eventually get fewer religious hospitals—and probably less charity care and a more zealous focus on the bottom line.”

Of course, the principal victims of this effort to bring religious groups to heel aren’t the religious groups themselves and certainly not the ones attempting to impose ideological conformity. It’s the people served by these groups.

This should be obvious. The fact that it isn’t is testimony to the hold of the Sexual Revolution and its definition of freedom over the contemporary liberal imagination. It didn’t used to be that way, and it shouldn’t be that way.

But it is. Which is how Hobby Lobby, a company that proves “doing good for workers can also mean doing good for business,” winds up on a “most wanted” poster.


 

Eric Metaxas at the IFI Annual Banquet
Sept. 19th in Rolling Meadows!  
Click HERE for details.




Left Moves to Outlaw Christianity

The mask is off. All pretense has been dropped, and the anti-Christian left’s boundless depth of hatred for individual liberty, our First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is now on full display.

I wrote last week about the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby opinion, a rather tepid acknowledgement of every American’s non-negotiable right to religious free exercise (yes, that includes Christian business owners). I observed, among other things, that “the secularist left’s utter meltdown over having but a small measure of control over others wrested away is highly instructive.”

The meltdown continues. This week brings two new developments: 1) Democrats in Congress have readied a legislative “Hobby Lobby fix” that stands exactly zero chance of passing and would be struck down as unconstitutional even if it did, and 2) The ACLU, AFL-CIO, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal and a hodgepodge of other left-wing extremist groups have withdrawn support for the ironically tagged “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” the crown jewel of homofascism, because the bill’s paper-thin “religious exemption” does not adequately outlaw the practice of Christianity.

The Hobby Lobby ‘fix’

Addressing the high court’s Hobby Lobby decision last Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fumed, “We have so much to do this month, but the one thing we’re going to do during this work period – sooner rather than later – is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men.”

To which Justice Clarence Thomas replied, “Say what, honky?”

“This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous,” continued Reid, “and we’re going to do something about it.”

Well, “do something about it” they shall try. TalkingPointsMemo.com reported on legislation Democrats introduced Thursday that would do away with religious liberty protections altogether:

“The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Mark Udall, D-Colo. According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception [and abortion pills], to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don’t permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.

“The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they’re provided under the law [there is none] is sufficient to respect their religious liberties.”

This reactionary response to the Hobby Lobby ruling is, of course, little more than an election year fundraising scheme for the Democratic National Committee.

Withdrawn support for ENDA

The Washington Post reports, “Several major gay rights groups withdrew support Tuesday for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would bolster gay and transgender rights in the workplace, saying they fear that broad religious exemptions included in the current bill might compel private companies to begin citing objections similar to those that prevailed in a U.S. Supreme Court case last week. …

“But the groups said they can no longer back ENDA as currently written in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last week to strike down a key part of President Obama’s health-care law. The court ruled that family-owned businesses do not have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the owners’ religious beliefs,” concluded the Post.

Gary Glenn is a candidate for the Michigan State House. He’s also president of AFA Michigan. Glenn has been a national leader in defense of religious liberty for well upon two decades. In an email, Glenn wrote, “The extremely limited religious exemptions typically included in discriminatory homosexual and cross-dressing ‘rights’ laws have always been mere window-dressing with no real protection or effect, as witnessed by the ongoing persecution and discrimination under such laws against Christian business owners and community organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, and even the United Way.

“But now that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision threatens to give real teeth to such exemptions, the AFL-CIO’s in-house homosexual activist group has announced it will no longer support discriminatory ‘sexual orientation’ legislation that includes even limited exemptions for religious institutions.

“If this zero tolerance stance spreads to larger groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force [it now has], this could become the sticking point which hamstrings future attempts to pass federal, state, and local homosexual ‘rights’ legislation. These supposed religious exemptions, which the AFL-CIO’s homosexual lobby at least now says it will no longer support, have been a key propaganda point in blunting the opposition of churches and citizens concerned about the obvious threat such laws pose to religious freedom.”

According to its leftist proponents, ENDA would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment intolerance. In truth, however, this legislation effectively would codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.

Though in its current form ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption that might – and I mean might – partially protect some churches and religious organizations (until they’re sued by “gay” activists), this so-called exemption would leave most others, such as Bible bookstores and many Christian schools and para-church organizations, entirely unprotected. It would additionally crush individual business owners’ guaranteed First Amendment rights.

Any “religious exemption” is meaningless. Last year Harry Reid promised homosexual pressure groups that Democrats would remove all protections for Christians and other people of faith on the flipside – after ENDA passed. The homosexual news site Washington Blade reported that homosexual activist Derek Washington of “GetEqual” confirmed Reid’s promise. In a conference call with homosexual activists, Washington admitted that Reid vowed, as goes any religious exemption, “the main thing to do was get the vote taken care of, and then deal with it later. As oftentimes happens, you don’t get something perfect the first time around, you go back and fix it later, so that was basically his take on it.”

According to the Blade, “That account was corroborated by Faiz Shakir, a Reid spokesperson, who said the Democratic leader understands the concerns, but wants to get the bill passed first, then go back and address the exemptions.”

They’ve stopped pretending, folks. This is about criminalizing Christianity. The Hobby Lobby decision has merely made secular liberals forget themselves momentarily. It’s blown back the propagandist curtain to expose their truly sinister aims. Hobby Lobby hasn’t put the “culture war” to rest. It’s taken a gavel to the “progressive” hornets’ nest.

Break out the popcorn and Jujubes. It’s about to get interesting.