NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label religious liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious liberty. Show all posts

01 March 2014

WONKBLOG ROUNDUP 28FEB14

WonkPM is your afternoon update of the latest posts on Wonkblog. WonkPM is a supplement to your morning Wonkbook newsletter. If you'd like to opt-out from receiving WonkPM, please click here.

Republicans joining populists in ending corporate welfare for banks

No one likes the idea of filthy rich banks getting a leg up from the government, not even Republicans. And a small but growing contingent within the party is aligning with populists to strip big banks of the benefits they receive from the implicit guarantee that the government will always come to their rescue. Rep. Dave […]

How companies wield off-the-record influence on Obama’s trade policy

As it negotiates U.S. trade policy, including the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the upcoming E.U.-U.S. trade deal, the Obama administration seeks closed-door council from its network of 28 trade advisory committees. These committees are made up of U.S. citizens and ostensibly exist to represent the public’s interests in these negotiations. But the advisory committees […]

Reforming the laws won’t be enough. Immigrants need financial help, too

Nobody quite knows what immigration reform will looks like, much less when it will happen, but one thing's for sure: Under a new law, immigrants would be asked to pay at least several hundred dollars in fees for the privilege of becoming U.S. citizens, not to mention all the back taxes they might owe. For […]

Why the Fed’s taper could still cause a market meltdown

Last summer, when speculation heated up over the Federal Reserve’s plans to begin to “taper” its bond purchases, markets went wild. Bond yields spiked and stocks fell. But things calmed down, and when the Fed ultimately did taper, it went off without a hitch. But a major new paper by a quartet of top economists now […]

Wonkbook: Puneet Kollipara is your next Wonkbooker

Welcome to Wonkbook, Wonkblog’s morning policy news primer by Evan Soltas. To subscribe by e-mail, click here. Send comments, criticism, or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. To read more by the Wonkblog team, click here. I've written approximately 360 Wonkbooks since I started in the summer of 2012, and this one is my last. Puneet […]

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau isn’t out of the woods yet

The two-and-a-half-year-old Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may finally have a confirmed director, but that doesn't mean Republicans are done throwing rocks at it. The House debated (UPDATE: And passed, 232-182) a package of bills this afternoon that would replace the bureau's single director with a five-person commission, prevent it from collecting consumer credit card information, […]
Welcome to Wonkbook, Wonkblog's morning policy news primer by Evan Soltas. Send comments, criticism, or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. To read more by the Wonkblog team, click here.
I've written approximately 360 Wonkbooks since I started in the summer of 2012, and this one is my last. Puneet Kollipara is the next Wonkbooker. He starts Monday.
I'm confident that Puneet will keep Wonkbook the best digest of the day's public policy news. He's a wonk, too -- he joins Wonkblog as a specialist in science and environmental policy, with previous experience writing for Chemical & Engineering News, Science News, and Inside EPA. You should follow him on Twitter, along with Wonkblog itself.
I'm heading off to join Ezra Klein as an economics writer on his new venture. I'm also continuing as an opinion contributor to Bloomberg View. And you can follow me on Twitter @esoltas.
I'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to work at The Washington Post and to all the people who helped me along the way. Particular thanks go to Michelle Williams and Amrita Jayakumar, Wonkbook's current and former producers; Karl Singer and Dylan Matthews, my predecessors; and Ezra Klein and David Cho, my supervisors.
They put enormous trust in me as a young writer, and I can only hope I've repaid them. Wonkbook has been one of the best experiences of my life, and one of those from which I've learned and grown the most.
And the greatest thanks, of course, go to Wonkbook's incredibly loyal and, well, wonky readership. It's been an honor.
Wonkbook's Number of the Day: 4.1 percent. That's how small the federal budget deficit was in 2013 as a percentage of gross domestic product. It's the smallest since 2008, when the recession caused the deficit to swell.
Wonkbook's Chart of the Day: Where the cuts happened.

Wonkbook's Top 5 Stories: (1) budget deficit falls to 4.1 percent of GDP; (2) monetary policy is also tightening; (3) gay rights, red states; (4) saving HealthCare.gov; and (5) the interconnections of energy.
1. Top story: The deficit is shrinking away
Federal budget deficit falls to smallest level since 2008. "Closing the books on a fiscal year in which the federal budget deficit fell more sharply than in any year since the end of World War II, the Treasury Department reported on Thursday that the deficit for 2013 dropped to $680 billion, from about $1.1 trillion the previous year. In nominal terms, that is the smallest deficit since 2008, and signals the end of a five-year stretch beginning with the onset of the recession when the country's fiscal gap came in at more than $1 trillion each year. As a share of the nation's economy, the budget deficit fell to about 4.1 percent, from a high of more than 10 percent during the depths of the Great Recession." Annie Lowrey in The New York Times.
The nation's budget wars have reduced the deficit by $3.3 trillion. "The endless rounds of deficit reduction in Washington in recent years have significantly improved the nation's budget outlook, reducing projected borrowing by $3.3 trillion through 2024, according to new estimates by Senate Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.)...As this chart from Murray shows, the discretionary budget, which funds the Pentagon and other agencies, will absorb nearly half of the cuts, or $1.6 trillion...A quarter of the impact comes from the higher taxes on the wealthy that were adopted during the fiscal cliff fight. And another 20 percent comes from not borrowing as much and not having to pay more than $700 billion in interest that otherwise would have accrued. Mandatory programs, which include Social Security and Medicare, were barely nicked, meanwhile, accounting for just 7 percent of overall savings." Lori Montgomery in The Washington Post.
@ryanlcooper: The 2010-2013 fevered obsession with the 2050 budget deficit from is going to look monstrous to future historians
Does the declining deficit mean Obama should embrace the GOP tax plan? "Should Obama take the fig leaf of a tax reform proposal offered by Camp -- regarded by all sides as reasonable, the most compromising proposal made by a Republican in some time -- and respond with a cool, if not warm, embrace? Should Obama say, "I can work with this," and then work with it -- suggest some modifications to ease Democratic concerns, find some money for domestic investments in jobs and infrastructure and research and development? Or should he blow it off? The funny thing is the Camp tax reform proposal is a bit of mirror image to Obama's own budget proposals -- compromise offers that try to reach the other side halfway. The Camp proposal is very much in the Obama mold." Zachary A. Goldfarb in The Washington Post.
Wall Street hates Dave Camp. "Private equity and investment firms in New York are telling key Republican players in D.C. that commitments for big-dollar fundraising have been "canceled for the foreseeable future," according to one GOP lobbyist with knowledge of the conversations...Big banks want to turn Republicans against the bank tax. The situation puts the party at risk of seeing a reliable source of campaign cash dry up right in the middle of a critical election year. The tax proposal itself is not even expected to get a vote in the House, since it's so unpopular among most Republicans. That Wall Street would react so ferociously to a dead-end bill is a reminder of how hard a powerful player is willing to fight to protect its interests in Washington." Jake Sherman, Anna Palmer and Lauren French in Politico.
CHAIT: Now this is a Republican tax reform plan. "The tax-reform proposal unveiled yesterday by Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, does something remarkable: It actually reforms the tax code. It doesn't use the pretense of reform to shift the tax burden off the rich, as Republican "tax reform" plans usually do, and it does not use hand-waving to gesture in the direction of reform without following through. Camp has actually plunged his hands into the guts of the tax code and pulled out item after item. It may be the most impressive and ambitious domestic policy proposal crafted by a major Republican in a generation." Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine.
PONNURU: Dave Camp's one huge tax problem. "It imposes a new tax on a few banks with a large number of assets. This tax is not completely unjustified: It's billed as a way of offsetting the advantage these firms get from being considered candidates for bailouts in the event they run into trouble. But is this the right way to fix that problem? Shouldn't we base the tax on liabilities rather than assets, if we're trying to tackle the too-big-to-fail problem?" Ramesh Ponnuru in Bloomberg.
Music recommendations interlude: The Beatles, "Hello, Goodbye," 1967.

Top opinion
BIDEN: We need TPP. "High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bde80c72-9fb0-11e3-b6c7-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2uaXXQ6Be The question is whether the US will take a leadership role in shaping a new course that reflects American values - or whether we will stand on the sidelines as a new order unfolds." Joe Biden in The Financial Times.
KRUGMAN: No big deal. "It's far from clear that the T.P.P. is a good idea. It's even less clear that it's something on which President Obama should be spending political capital. I am in general a free trader, but I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away. The first thing you need to know about trade deals in general is that they aren't what they used to be...Why? Basically, old-fashioned trade deals are a victim of their own success: there just isn't much more protectionism to eliminate." Paul Krugman in The New York Times.
FOURNIER: The religious-liberty excuse. "The Bible is both a holy book and a book of loopholes, open to broad interpretation and, at one time, the source of racist inspiration. My takeaway: In this great and diverse country, we are capable of protecting people's right to express their faith and worship freely without tramping others' rights to live freely." Ron Fournier in National Journal.
SUDERMAN: Obamacare's failed state exchanges. "The federal government spent more on broken state-run exchanges than it did on its own troubled system. Of the 14 states, plus the District of Columbia, that established their own health insurance coverage under Obamacare, seven remain dysfunctional, disabled, or severely underperforming. Development of those exchanges was funded heavily by the federal government through a series of grants that totaled more than $1.2 billion--almost double the $677 million cost of development for the federal exchange." Peter Suderman in Reason.
PORTER: Why college supply matters. "Most discussion about our dismal educational attainment implicitly assumes that if the demand for higher education materializes, public and nonprofit colleges and universities will step up to meet it. Recent research has shown, however, that this is not generally the case. There is pretty good evidence that shortfalls in the supply of higher education slots have constrained college completion. John Bound of the University of Michigan and Sarah Turner at the University of Virginia tracked college education through the second half of the 20th century. They found that when states had a large college-age population, public spending per student declined and graduation rates suffered." Eduardo Porter in The New York Times.
BROOKS: Ease and ardor. "Michel de Montaigne and Samuel Johnson are two of the greatest essayists who ever lived. They tackled similar problems and were fascinated by some of the same perplexities, but they represent different personality types and recommended two different ways to live." David Brooks in The New York Times.
Cliches interlude: Time will tell whether you turn a blind eye to this little-noticed link, but at the end of the day, who cares?
2. Monetary policy is also tightening
Yellen says the Fed is sticking to its tightening plans for now, despite a wintertime slowdown. "Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen said bad weather might explain the patch of soft economic data making headlines during the past few weeks, but she isn't quite sure. The Fed's uncertainty on the matter likely puts its policy plans on cruise control for now, meaning continued reductions in monthly bond purchases unless the weak data persist and change the officials' view about the economic outlook." Jon Hilsenrath and Pedro Nicolaci Da Costa in The Wall Street Journal.
Here's the most important thing Janet Yellen said today. "Mr. Chairman, let me add as an aside that since my appearance before the House committee, a number of data releases have pointed to softer spending than many analysts had expected. Part of that softness may reflect adverse weather conditions, but at this point, it's difficult to discern exactly how much. In the weeks and months ahead, my colleagues and I will be attentive to signals that indicate whether the recovery is progressing in line with our earlier expectations" Ylan Q. Mui in The Washington Post.
Orders for durable goods rose in January. "The Commerce Department said durable goods orders excluding transportation rose 1.1 percent, the largest increase since May, after falling 1.9 percent in December...Still, the data on Thursday was not enough to alter views that economic growth hit a soft patch early in the first quarter, with important measures like shipments declining last month." Reuters.
Jobless claims rise more than expected. "The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week, the latest indication of volatility in the nation's job market. Initial claims for jobless benefits, a measure of changes in employment nationwide, rose by 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000 in the week ended Feb. 22 from the previous week's downwardly revised figure of 334,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had predicted claims would come in at 335,000. Jobless claims can be volatile. The four-week moving average of claims, considered more reliable because it smooths out week-to-week gyrations, held steady last week at 338,250." Ben Leubsdorf and Josh Mitchell in The Wall Street Journal.
Fisher: Faster taper, please. "The economy has "enough money to create jobs," he said. In the case of a "more rapidly accelerating economy, I might be in favor of a further reduction," in bond buys he said...Speaking at the conference sponsored by Germany's central bank, Mr. Fisher warned that a prolonged period of accommodative monetary policy could create risks to financial stability, in part by steering money to risky assets." Todd Buell and Christopher Lawton in The Wall Street Journal.
The Fed's curse of unanimity. "Neil Fligstein, a sociology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, argues in a recent paper that the broader problem was cultural. The Fed increasingly is dominated by one kind of official: academic economists who lack private-sector experience. "They all start out analyzing everything in more or less the same way," he said...[I]t remains a striking fact that Fed officials were not just wrong about economic conditions, but wrong in roughly the same way." Binyamin Appelbaum in The New York Times.
Bernanke set to relive his worst day ever. "Former Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke is slated on Thursday to provide a long-awaited deposition in a landmark class-action lawsuit over the government's bailout of insurance giant AIG. His sworn testimony comes after a long legal battle in which the government sought to shield Bernanke from providing a statement. Last summer, U.S. Federal Claims Court Judge Thomas Wheeler ruled that Bernanke's "personal involvement" in AIG's $85 billion bailout makes him a key witness. But an appeals court acknowledged that deposing Bernanke while he was in office could cause "significant" disruption." Ylan Q. Mui in The Washington Post.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau isn't out of the woods yet. "[T]he CFPB is probably safe -- at least until the midterm elections. But the continued onslaught is evidence that it hasn't made as many friends as it might've hoped, even after delivering $3 billion to consumers in settlements over fraudulent practices by financial institutions, and helping thousands who called in to complain about mortgages, student loans, auto loans, payday lenders, and debt collectors. The bureau's leaders tried really, really hard to win over the community banks and credit unions, but their trade associations still spoke out in favor of the legislation that would render it essentially powerless, protesting that the CFPB's new requirements are still too onerous for smaller institutions to deal with." Lydia DePillis in The Washington Post.
Fed set to ignore Bitcoin. "Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen on Thursday distanced the central bank from oversight of bitcoin and other virtual currencies, the latest sign that emerging forms of digital payment continue to operate in a sort of regulatory black hole. "The Federal Reserve simply does not have authority to supervise or regulate bitcoin in any way," Ms. Yellen said at a Senate Banking Committee hearing Thursday. "This is a payment innovation that is taking place entirely outside the banking industry."" Ryan Tracy and Scott Patterson in The Wall Street Journal.
The incredible stock-picking ability of SEC employees. "[I]n the report titled "The Stock Picking Skills of SEC Employees," researchers found that SEC employees' stock purchases look like your average person's. But when these employees sell their stocks, they appear to systematically beat the market by making sales within weeks of costly enforcement actions by the agency. "These results suggest that SEC employees potentially trade profitably under the new rules, and that at least some of their profits potentially stem from trading ahead of costly SEC sanctions and on privileged non-public information," write Shivaram Rajgopal, a professor of accounting at Emory University, and Roger M. White, a doctoral student in accounting at Georgia State University. "In short, it appears that SEC employees continue to take advantage of non-public information to trade profitably in stocks under their regulatory purview."" Jia Lynn Yang in The Washington Post.
Interesting interlude: The dark psychology of being a talented comedian.

3. Gay rights force their way into red states
Kentucky must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, federal judge says. "A federal judge signed an order Thursday directing state officials to immediately recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II issued a final order throwing out part of the state's ban on gay marriages. It makes his Feb. 12 ruling official. The order doesn't affect a related lawsuit seeking to force the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The order came just hours after Kentucky's attorney general asked for a 90-day delay to decide whether to appeal the earlier ruling. Heyburn's final order did not mention the request for a stay." The Washington Post.
D.C. insurance must cover treatment for transgender residents, mayor says. "Health insurance providers in the District of Columbia must cover treatment for those given a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, including gender-reassignment surgeries, Mayor Vincent C. Gray said Thursday. Building on the District of Columbia's existing anti-discrimination measures, the announcement reiterates that gender dysphoria -- a diagnosis for psychological discomfort with one's sex, formerly known as gender identity disorder -- is a recognized medical condition. As such, treatment deemed necessary by medical professionals must be covered by insurers, including Medicaid...The mayor's office was careful to note that this was not a change but rather a clarification of a policy that went into effect last March, prohibiting medical discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression." Emmarie Huetteman in The New York Times.
After veto in Arizona, conservatives vow to fight for religious liberties. "Conservative activists said Thursday that they will continue to press for additional legal protections for private businesses that deny service to gay men and lesbians, saying that a defeat in Arizona this week is only a minor setback and that religious-liberty legislation is the best way to stave off a rapid shift in favor of gay rights...Many conservatives said they will continue working to convince voters and judges that opponents of same-sex marriage and abortion are motivated by faith rather than bigotry." Juliet Eilperin in The Washington Post.
Why Republicans themselves shot it down. "The decision by members of the Republican establishment to join gay activists in opposing the bill reflected the alarm the Arizona battle stirred among party leaders, who worried about identifying their party with polarizing social issues at a time when Republicans see the prospect of big gains in Congressional elections on economic issues. No less important, the bill produced almost unanimous opposition among one critical Republican constituency -- business owners -- who feared it would entangle the state in lawsuits and prompt a damaging boycott." Adam Nagourney in The New York Times.
Names interlude: What your name says about your politics.
4. How HealthCare.gov was saved
Key healthcare longread: How an unlikely group of high-tech wizards revived Obama's troubled HealthCare.gov website. Steven Brill in Time Magazine.
Surgeon general nominee one step closer. "President Obama's nominee for surgeon general is one step closer to confirmation after the Senate health committee approved him for the job on Thursday. The Senate will likely confirm Dr. Vivek Murthy in the coming weeks despite a move by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to block the nomination over concerns about Murthy's stance on guns." Elise Viebeck in The Hill.
Food labels to get first makeover in 20 years with new emphasis on calories, sugar. "The new label, which could take a year or more to appear on store shelves, includes more than half a dozen significant changes -- such as more prominent calorie counts and more realistic serving sizes -- that advocates see as key in fighting the country's obesity epidemic. Years of research show that tracking calories may be more important than tracking fat consumption when it comes to your health...The Grocery Manufacturers Association and other industry groups have said they are committed to working with the administration to help Americans make better diet choices. As the new labels were being developed, however, they expressed strong objections to some of the FDA's ideas, especially the addition of a line for "added sugars."" Ariana Eunjung Cha and Krissah Thompson in The Washington Post.
Interview: Burkey Belser, who designed the original nutrition facts label, on the new proposals. Ariana Eunjung Cha in The Washington Post.
Insurers become Obamacare foot soldiers. "Insurance companies are serving as foot soldiers for ObamaCare with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign intended to push customers into the insurance exchanges. Though the companies are reluctant to publicize their role in the unpopular law, health insurers are expected to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in 2014 alone on television, radio and online ads aimed at boosting enrollment." Elise Viebeck in The Hill.
We all feel like this interlude: Husky gets a head massager.
5. Why energy policy is complex
U.S. moves towards Atlantic oil exploration. "The Interior Department opened the door on Thursday to the first searches in decades for oil and gas off the Atlantic coast, recommending that undersea seismic surveys proceed, though with a host of safeguards to shield marine life from much of their impact. The recommendation is likely to be adopted after a period of public comment and over objections by environmental activists who say it will be ruinous for the climate and sea life alike." Michael Wines in The New York Times.
Bakken crude, rolling through Albany. "With little fanfare, this sleepy port has been quietly transformed into a major hub for oil shipments by trains from North Dakota and a key supplier to refiners on the East Coast. Hidden in plain sight, Albany's oil boom has taken local officials and residents by surprise...About 75 percent of Bakken oil production travels by rail and as much as 400,000 barrels a day heads to the East Coast, said Trisha Curtis, an analyst at the Energy Policy Research Foundation. Albany gets 20 to 25 percent of the Bakken's rail exports, according to various analyst estimates." Jad Mouawad in The New York Times.
Senators take another crack at energy bill. "A bipartisan Senate duo on Thursday renewed the fight for passage of an energy efficiency bill. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Thursday reintroduced an energy efficiency bill that stalled in September after debates about the Affordable Care Act and the Keystone XL pipeline sidetracked the legislation. This time around, backers are optimistic the bill will pass. Sponsors include Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Kelly Ayotte (R- N.H.), and Chris Coons (D-Del.). The revamped legislation includes an extra 10 amendments, ranging from efficiency retrofits on low-income housing to a program that promotes energy efficiency in leased commercial buildings. All of the additions are meant to help the bill garner enough support to pass the Senate." Laura Barron-Lopez in The Hill.
Art interlude: Banksy and "The Simpsons."
Wonkblog Roundup
How Obama is trying to lift up young men of color. A Q&A with Joshua Dubois. Zachary A. Goldfarb.
Burkey Belser, who designed the original nutrition facts label, on the new proposals. Ariana Eunjung Cha.
The incredible stock-picking ability of SEC employees. Jia Lynn Yang.
Bernanke set to relive his worst day ever. Ylan Q. Mui.
Here's the most important thing Janet Yellen said today. Ylan Q. Mui.
We have an answer: The nation's budget wars have reduced the deficit by $3.3 trillion. Lori Montgomery.
Does the declining deficit mean Obama should embrace the GOP tax plan? Zachary A. Goldfarb.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau isn't out of the woods yet. Lydia DePillis.
Et Cetera
Five years on, rudderless Tea Party searches for meaning. John Stanton in BuzzFeed.
Yahoo webcam images from millions of users intercepted by GCHQ. Spencer Ackerman and James Ball in The Guardian.
Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail us.
Wonkbook is produced with help from Michelle Williams.

Now.....want to provoke hysteria.....tell a Tea Bagger or a Red Stater that the Arizona Hate-The-Gay Bill also legalizes Sharia law.


HERE is a refresher for those "martyrs", those propagandist decrying the "war on Christianity" in the US, just a little quiz to verify if your religious liberty is being threatened by our government and / or their leftist agents. From Daily Kos and HuffPost.....

Rev. Emily C. Heath
Clergy, United Church of Christ
Posted: 09/05/2012 11:33am

 

The Long, Sordid History Of Discrimination Against Christians in America


Steven D
Many of you of you may have heard that Christians have had their freedom trampled upon - again - because AZ Governor Brewer vetoed a bill that would have legalized the ability to discriminate a Christian's god-given right to refuse to do business with icky homosexuals anyone on the basis of their religious convictions.  The first amendment of the Constitution allegedly protects the religious freedom of all Americans.  Just read the religious freedom clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
Despite the language that clearly protects the rights of every person of faith to practice their religion without interference from the government, Christians have been marginalized and attacked for their beliefs for centuries in America.  You may find this hard to believe, but it's all perfectly true.  Consider, for example, the first god-given right that was taken away from Christians in America: The Right to Persecute Witches
Before the constitution was written, Christians freely exercised their religious beliefs regarding the necessity to kill demonic witches.  Consider  perhaps the most famous example of the freedom to exercise one's religion in American History: the Salem Witch Trials.
From June through September of 1692, nineteen men and women, all having been convicted of witchcraft, were carted to Gallows Hill, a barren slope near Salem Village, for hanging. Another man of over eighty years was pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to submit to a trial on witchcraft charges. Hundreds of others faced accusations of witchcraft. Dozens languished in jail for months without trials.
Those were literally the good old days.  Sadly, after the Constitution was ratified, the record of Christians freely exercising their right to eradicate witches from our great nation essentially ended.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Just try to find a state where Christians are permitted to lawfully try and execute the many witches in our midst.  You can't!  Witches are even a protected class according to the US courts!  What better example exists of the current atmosphere of persecution and discrimination against the Christian religion by the Government?  Witches can cast their spells and curses and true believers in the Risen Christ can do nothing to protect themselves from these witches evil influences on our nation.
Imagine yourself as a good Christian man (or woman) today, who, by happenstance or the many demonic influences that run rampant in our society, has the misfortune to run across a witch (or any number of other, similar devil worshiping practitioners of the dark arts).  Can you take out your trusty Bushmaster XM-15 or other firearm and shoot them dead right there on the spot?  Of course you can't, at least not if you claim you shot them in the exercise of your religious faith.  Sure, you could lie and claim you acted out of a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm and thus shooting that witch was a justified act of self-defense, but honestly, should a God-fearing, Jesus-walking believer have to lie merely to pursue the dictates of his or her faith by sending said witch straight to Hell?  Yet that is precisely the position in which today's Christians find themselves.
However, taking away the right of Christians to rid the world of witches was only the beginning of numerous instances where the Government denied the rights of Jesus' followers to put their faith into practice. Follow me below the orange stylized pentagram (* shudders involuntarily *) for the rest of the story.
The Right to Own Slaves
Now I know what some of you are going to say, that slavery is immoral, cruel and savage, and that no one - ever - should be allowed to buy and sell human beings as if they were cattle.  In response all I can say is that it's in the damn (forgive me Lord) Holy Bible!  It's God's own word that some of us are intended to be slaves and others to be slave owners, and when you mess with God's plan for mankind, you set yourself up for a world of cow manure.  It's pretty clear that slave owners back in the day were just practicing their faith as they saw it.  You want proof?  Here's your proof right at ya from Josiah Priest (a Godly name if there ever was one), from his book "Bible Defence of Slavery" published in 1853!
[S]ee Genesis ix, 24—27, as follows: "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him: and he said, cursed be Canaan (Ham); a servant of SERVANTS shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan (Ham) shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan (Ham) shall be his servant." ...[Bishop] Newton maintains ... that the curse of Noah upon Ham, had a general and an interminable application to the whole [negro] race, in placing them under a peculiar liability of being enslaved by the races of the two other brothers.
The curse, therefore, against Ham and [the negro] race was not sent out on the account of that one sin only. But as the deed was heinous, and withal was in unison with his whole life, character and constitutional make, prior to that deed, the curse, which had slumbered long, was let loose upon him and his posterity, as a general thing, placing them under the ban of slavery, on account of his and their foreseen characters. [...]
The appointment of this race of men to servitude and slavery was a judicial act of God, or, in other words, was a divine judgment. [...]
... The great and everywhere pervading fact of their degraded condition, both now and in all time, more or less, is the very climax-witness that, in the above conclusion, we are not mistaken—namely, that the negro race, as a people, are judicially given over to a state or peculiar liability of being enslaved by the other races.
Hey, you don't mess with divine judgment, if that's what you believe.  Now I am well aware of all the prominent so-called 'anti-slavery' Christians of the time who vehemently argued that slavery was against God's will, but they were free to exercise their right not to own slaves based on their religious beliefs.  Christians who believed that slavery was divinely ordered by God, on the other hand, had their right to own slaves ripped from the cold dead hands in the terrible War of Northern Aggression.  Why were the abolitionists' religious beliefs tolerated, while the faith of so many good Christian slave owners disregarded and their property rights stolen by the same Federal Government that tolerated the beliefs of Muslims, Jews and "Liberal Christians" (which we all know are not true Christians - but I digress).  Hypocrisy, thy name is Abraham Lincoln!
Of course, after the end of that terrible war, other Christians have fought many losing battles in defense of their right of religious freedom.  For example:
The Right to Take More Than One Wife
The Mormons (okay, I know they're heretics, but in this one instance let's accept that they are at least semi-Christians) were coerced into accepting monogamy before the State of Utah was permitted to join the Union.

...Church president Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on Sept 25, 1890, “I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the president of the Church…where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church.”  On that date, just four months after the fateful decision of the Supreme Court, President Woodruff issued the “Official Declaration” which proclaimed the end of polygamy among the Mormons:
    Inasamuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
    In the October 6 session of the general conference of the church, the congregation “unanimously sustained” this declaration as “authoritative and binding.”  Polygamy no longer had official sanction.
Losing the right to enjoy the sexual favors take more than one wife might not have been as bad as losing all of one's slaves, but it was still a persecution of people of faith and a denial to practice that faith as they saw fit.  And, if that meant denying 60 year-old patriarchs from marrying thirteen year old girls, well so be it.
A Brief List of Other Examples of Christian Persecution
Well, I could go one forever (and I would if I had the time and energy), but a brief list of other rights the federal and state governments have taken from the faithful should be sufficient to make my point.
Health Care
Christians no longer can pray to God to heal their children, but instead face imprisonment for practicing their beliefs regarding spiritual health care.
Defense of Christianity from Baby Killers
The right to execute abortionists and bomb abortion clinics has also been denied the most devout followers of Jesus Christ. Whatever happened to "Onward Christian Soldiers?"  Apparently they are all deemed terrorists now instead of freedom fighters.
The Gay Agenda to Stick It to Christians
And of course, the latest blow, Gov. Brewer's veto of a bill that would have protected the right of any individual to practice his or her religion by discriminating against teh Gay.  One can only hope that our Lord will be merciful, and not punish the State of Arizona with a plague of toads or possibly an ever worsening drought for failing to allow his people to follow his dictates and not force themselves to become servants to Sodomites.
Why All the Hate For Christ's Most Devoted Followers?
One must ask oneself, where did our great nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles (mostly Christian, no offense to the Jews), go so disastrously off track when it came to protecting the rights of Christians?  Well, the answer to that question, as to most issues that plague us, was an activist Supreme Court. Specifically the Supreme Court of 1878, which decided the case of Reynolds v. United States when it interpreted the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment as narrowly as possible.  Naturally the case involved a Christian (okay, a Mormon, but as previously noted we'll stretch the definition of Christianity in cases like these).  The case involved a man charged with violating the law against polygamy.  he argued protection under the first amendment. Of course, the Court found a way to screw him over.  Here is the core of their decision:

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress, the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.
Let me remind you that this same Supreme Court held heathen Indians members of the Native American Church could be discriminated against when they smoked peyote as part of their "religion." Then our liberal Congress turned right around and changed the law to permit them to smoke peyote as often as they wished as part of their religious rituals.
So, taking psychedelic drugs if you're part of some cult (or a resident of Colorado and the Socialist State of Washington) is okay, but obeying the commands of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and his Father, get spit upon.  I mean, what is more subversive of good order than gays flamboyantly prancing around and holding orgies in front of the kids spending their tourist dollars at desert resorts and spas while young people get high (legally in Colorado and Washington)?  No wonder our country is in such a mess.
All I can add to this, is God* help us.
* By which I mean the true God of the Bible as revealed by scripture, prophecy, and broadcast to millions every day by outstanding evangelical preachers like Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and others too numerous to mention.

A Short Quiz: How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions 5SEP12




It seems like this election season "religious liberty" is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.

I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it "How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions." Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

In closing, no matter what soundbites you hear this election year, remember this: Religious liberty is never secured by a campaign of religious superiority. The only way to ensure your own religious liberty remains strong is by advocating for the religious liberty of all, including those with whom you may passionately disagree. Because they deserve the same rights as you. Nothing more. Nothing less.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/27/1280813/-The-Long-Sordid-History-Of-Discrimination-Against-Christians-in-America?detail=email

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html

28 February 2014

A Short Quiz: How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions & The Long, Sordid History Of Discrimination Against Christians in America 5SEP12&27FEB14

HERE is a refresher for those "martyrs", those propagandist decrying the "war on Christianity" in the US, just a little quiz to verify if your religious liberty is being threatened by our government and / or their leftist agents. From HuffPost.....
Rev. Emily C. Heath
Clergy, United Church of Christ
Posted: 09/05/2012 11:33am




It seems like this election season "religious liberty" is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.

I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it "How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions." Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

In closing, no matter what soundbites you hear this election year, remember this: Religious liberty is never secured by a campaign of religious superiority. The only way to ensure your own religious liberty remains strong is by advocating for the religious liberty of all, including those with whom you may passionately disagree. Because they deserve the same rights as you. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:25 PM EST

The Long, Sordid History Of Discrimination Against Christians in America

Many of you of you may have heard that Christians have had their freedom trampled upon - again - because AZ Governor Brewer vetoed a bill that would have legalized the ability to discriminate a Christian's god-given right to refuse to do business with icky homosexuals anyone on the basis of their religious convictions.  The first amendment of the Constitution allegedly protects the religious freedom of all Americans.  Just read the religious freedom clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
Despite the language that clearly protects the rights of every person of faith to practice their religion without interference from the government, Christians have been marginalized and attacked for their beliefs for centuries in America.  You may find this hard to believe, but it's all perfectly true.  Consider, for example, the first god-given right that was taken away from Christians in America: The Right to Persecute Witches
Before the constitution was written, Christians freely exercised their religious beliefs regarding the necessity to kill demonic witches.  Consider  perhaps the most famous example of the freedom to exercise one's religion in American History: the Salem Witch Trials.
From June through September of 1692, nineteen men and women, all having been convicted of witchcraft, were carted to Gallows Hill, a barren slope near Salem Village, for hanging. Another man of over eighty years was pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to submit to a trial on witchcraft charges. Hundreds of others faced accusations of witchcraft. Dozens languished in jail for months without trials.
Those were literally the good old days.  Sadly, after the Constitution was ratified, the record of Christians freely exercising their right to eradicate witches from our great nation essentially ended.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Just try to find a state where Christians are permitted to lawfully try and execute the many witches in our midst.  You can't!  Witches are even a protected class according to the US courts!  What better example exists of the current atmosphere of persecution and discrimination against the Christian religion by the Government?  Witches can cast their spells and curses and true believers in the Risen Christ can do nothing to protect themselves from these witches evil influences on our nation.
Imagine yourself as a good Christian man (or woman) today, who, by happenstance or the many demonic influences that run rampant in our society, has the misfortune to run across a witch (or any number of other, similar devil worshiping practitioners of the dark arts).  Can you take out your trusty Bushmaster XM-15 or other firearm and shoot them dead right there on the spot?  Of course you can't, at least not if you claim you shot them in the exercise of your religious faith.  Sure, you could lie and claim you acted out of a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm and thus shooting that witch was a justified act of self-defense, but honestly, should a God-fearing, Jesus-walking believer have to lie merely to pursue the dictates of his or her faith by sending said witch straight to Hell?  Yet that is precisely the position in which today's Christians find themselves.
However, taking away the right of Christians to rid the world of witches was only the beginning of numerous instances where the Government denied the rights of Jesus' followers to put their faith into practice. Follow me below the orange stylized pentagram (* shudders involuntarily *) for the rest of the story.
The Right to Own Slaves
Now I know what some of you are going to say, that slavery is immoral, cruel and savage, and that no one - ever - should be allowed to buy and sell human beings as if they were cattle.  In response all I can say is that it's in the damn (forgive me Lord) Holy Bible!  It's God's own word that some of us are intended to be slaves and others to be slave owners, and when you mess with God's plan for mankind, you set yourself up for a world of cow manure.  It's pretty clear that slave owners back in the day were just practicing their faith as they saw it.  You want proof?  Here's your proof right at ya from Josiah Priest (a Godly name if there ever was one), from his book "Bible Defence of Slavery" published in 1853!
[S]ee Genesis ix, 24—27, as follows: "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him: and he said, cursed be Canaan (Ham); a servant of SERVANTS shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan (Ham) shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan (Ham) shall be his servant." ...[Bishop] Newton maintains ... that the curse of Noah upon Ham, had a general and an interminable application to the whole [negro] race, in placing them under a peculiar liability of being enslaved by the races of the two other brothers.
The curse, therefore, against Ham and [the negro] race was not sent out on the account of that one sin only. But as the deed was heinous, and withal was in unison with his whole life, character and constitutional make, prior to that deed, the curse, which had slumbered long, was let loose upon him and his posterity, as a general thing, placing them under the ban of slavery, on account of his and their foreseen characters. [...]
The appointment of this race of men to servitude and slavery was a judicial act of God, or, in other words, was a divine judgment. [...]
... The great and everywhere pervading fact of their degraded condition, both now and in all time, more or less, is the very climax-witness that, in the above conclusion, we are not mistaken—namely, that the negro race, as a people, are judicially given over to a state or peculiar liability of being enslaved by the other races.
Hey, you don't mess with divine judgment, if that's what you believe.  Now I am well aware of all the prominent so-called 'anti-slavery' Christians of the time who vehemently argued that slavery was against God's will, but they were free to exercise their right not to own slaves based on their religious beliefs.  Christians who believed that slavery was divinely ordered by God, on the other hand, had their right to own slaves ripped from the cold dead hands in the terrible War of Northern Aggression.  Why were the abolitionists' religious beliefs tolerated, while the faith of so many good Christian slave owners disregarded and their property rights stolen by the same Federal Government that tolerated the beliefs of Muslims, Jews and "Liberal Christians" (which we all know are not true Christians - but I digress).  Hypocrisy, thy name is Abraham Lincoln!
Of course, after the end of that terrible war, other Christians have fought many losing battles in defense of their right of religious freedom.  For example:
The Right to Take More Than One Wife
The Mormons (okay, I know they're heretics, but in this one instance let's accept that they are at least semi-Christians) were coerced into accepting monogamy before the State of Utah was permitted to join the Union.

...Church president Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on Sept 25, 1890, “I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the president of the Church…where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church.”  On that date, just four months after the fateful decision of the Supreme Court, President Woodruff issued the “Official Declaration” which proclaimed the end of polygamy among the Mormons:
    Inasamuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
    In the October 6 session of the general conference of the church, the congregation “unanimously sustained” this declaration as “authoritative and binding.”  Polygamy no longer had official sanction.
Losing the right to enjoy the sexual favors take more than one wife might not have been as bad as losing all of one's slaves, but it was still a persecution of people of faith and a denial to practice that faith as they saw fit.  And, if that meant denying 60 year-old patriarchs from marrying thirteen year old girls, well so be it.
A Brief List of Other Examples of Christian Persecution
Well, I could go one forever (and I would if I had the time and energy), but a brief list of other rights the federal and state governments have taken from the faithful should be sufficient to make my point.
Health Care
Christians no longer can pray to God to heal their children, but instead face imprisonment for practicing their beliefs regarding spiritual health care.
Defense of Christianity from Baby Killers
The right to execute abortionists and bomb abortion clinics has also been denied the most devout followers of Jesus Christ. Whatever happened to "Onward Christian Soldiers?"  Apparently they are all deemed terrorists now instead of freedom fighters.
The Gay Agenda to Stick It to Christians
And of course, the latest blow, Gov. Brewer's veto of a bill that would have protected the right of any individual to practice his or her religion by discriminating against teh Gay.  One can only hope that our Lord will be merciful, and not punish the State of Arizona with a plague of toads or possibly an ever worsening drought for failing to allow his people to follow his dictates and not force themselves to become servants to Sodomites.
Why All the Hate For Christ's Most Devoted Followers?
One must ask oneself, where did our great nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles (mostly Christian, no offense to the Jews), go so disastrously off track when it came to protecting the rights of Christians?  Well, the answer to that question, as to most issues that plague us, was an activist Supreme Court. Specifically the Supreme Court of 1878, which decided the case of Reynolds v. United States when it interpreted the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment as narrowly as possible.  Naturally the case involved a Christian (okay, a Mormon, but as previously noted we'll stretch the definition of Christianity in cases like these).  The case involved a man charged with violating the law against polygamy.  he argued protection under the first amendment. Of course, the Court found a way to screw him over.  Here is the core of their decision:

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress, the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.
Let me remind you that this same Supreme Court held heathen Indians members of the Native American Church could be discriminated against when they smoked peyote as part of their "religion." Then our liberal Congress turned right around and changed the law to permit them to smoke peyote as often as they wished as part of their religious rituals.
So, taking psychedelic drugs if you're part of some cult (or a resident of Colorado and the Socialist State of Washington) is okay, but obeying the commands of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and his Father, get spit upon.  I mean, what is more subversive of good order than gays flamboyantly prancing around and holding orgies in front of the kids spending their tourist dollars at desert resorts and spas while young people get high (legally in Colorado and Washington)?  No wonder our country is in such a mess.
All I can add to this, is God* help us.
* By which I mean the true God of the Bible as revealed by scripture, prophecy, and broadcast to millions every day by outstanding evangelical preachers like Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and others too numerous to mention.
# # #

26 January 2013

Religious Liberty Double Standards Indicated In New Poll 24JAN13

I bet God would be happy if so many of those claiming to be religious and concerned about the state of religious freedom in the United States actually practiced their faith in their everyday lives.      There would be no reason to be concerned about "repression" of Judeo-Christian values if the believers actually followed the 10 Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ rather than following leaders (or being one) who preach the gospel of greed, intolerance, uncompassion and who start and /or forward e mails warning of another "attack" on  Christianity based on lies, deceptions and misrepresentations. Those guilty of waging war on Christianity in America are most often those who can't seem to live up to the Christian standards they want legislated on the rest of us. From HuffPost.....


Religious Liberty
WASHINGTON (RNS) Half of Americans worry that religious freedom in the U.S. is at risk, and many say activist groups -- particularly gays and lesbians -- are trying to remove "traditional Christian values" from the public square.
The findings of a poll published Wednesday (Jan. 23), reveal a "double standard" among a significant portion of evangelicals on the question of religious liberty, said David Kinnaman, president of Barna Group, a California think tank that studies American religion and culture.
While these Christians are particularly concerned that religious freedoms are being eroded in this country, "they also want Judeo-Christians to dominate the culture," said Kinnamon.
"They cannot have it both ways," he said. "This does not mean putting Judeo-Christian values aside, but it will require a renegotiation of those values in the public square as America increasingly becomes a multi-faith nation."
Religious freedom has become an increasingly important political issue within the last year, as Republican candidates hammered President Obama for a contraception mandate that many conservatives feel tramples on the religious freedom of employers who must cover birth control in their health plans.
The poll of 1,008 adults showed that 29 percent of respondents were "very" concerned that religious liberties are under threat, and 22 percent "somewhat" concerned. Evangelicals were the religious group most likely to be concerned, at 71 percent.
Asked for their opinion as to why religious freedom is threatened, 97 percent of evangelicals agreed that "some groups have actively tried to move society away from traditional Christian values."
And 72 percent of evangelicals also agreed that gays and lesbians were the group "most active in trying to remove Christian values from the country." That compares to 31 percent of all adults who held this belief.
The results are somewhat at odds with a March 2012 poll sponsored by Religion News Service and the Public Religion Research Institute, which found that a majority of Americans -- 56 percent -- did not feel that religious freedom was under attack in this nation.

But results between the two polls align in that the PRRI survey concluded that white evangelical Protestants were the most worried about religious liberty. It found them to be the only religious group in which a majority (61 percent) considered it under threat.
The Barna poll, conducted in November 2012, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.