Paul Ryan fires House chaplain, reportedly for being way too Christian & House chaplain forced out by Ryan 26APR18

THE main question I have is where is the outrage, the accusations against the drumpf/trump-pence administration and the republican party of waging war on Christianity, especially from the "religious" right wing? paul ryan's hypocritical action in firing House Chaplain Patrick Conroy is a perfect example of a Christian being persecuted for living his faith. And yet, silence from the "religious" supporters of drumpf/trump-pence and the republican party. From DailyKos and The Hill.....
Paul Ryan fires House chaplain, reportedly for being way too Christian

Thursday April 26, 2018 · 2:59 PM EDT

"Devout" Catholic Speaker Paul Ryan has apparently fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy, whose resignation explicitly says Ryan forced him out.

"As you have requested, I hereby offer my resignation as the 60th Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives." the April 15 letter to Ryan, obtained by The Hill, states. […]

The thinking among Democrats is that Ryan pushed Conroy out "because Republicans thought he was aligned with Democrats," according to a senior Democratic aide familiar with the discussion.

Conroy has served as chaplain since 2011, where he has been what he's supposed to be. A Christian. Like in the prayer he gave back in November on the first day of the mark-up of the tax scam bill and gently nudged members to think about the meek.

"May all Members be mindful that the institutions and structures of our great Nation guarantee the opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success, while others continue to struggle," Conroy said at the time. "May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans."

So apparently Conroy was too aligned with Democrats. Maybe because Jesus would be aligned with the Democrats. That's how much of a sociopath Paul Ryan is.

House chaplain forced out by Ryan

BY MELANIE ZANONA AND MIKE LILLIS - 04/26/18 02:16 PM EDT

House Chaplain Patrick Conroy’s sudden resignation has sparked a furor on Capitol Hill, with sources in both parties saying he was pushed out by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

Conroy’s own resignation announcement stated that it was done at Ryan’s request.

“As you have requested, I hereby offer my resignation as the 60th Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives,” the April 15 letter to Ryan, obtained by The Hill, states.

Through his office, Conroy, who has served as chaplain since 2011, declined to comment on Thursday. His resignation is effective May 24.

Four different sources — two from each party — say Conroy was told that he must retire or that he would be dismissed.

The message from Ryan was delivered by his chief of staff, Jonathan Burks.

The issue has riled House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who broached the episode during the Democrats’ whip meeting in the Capitol Thursday morning. 

A bipartisan group of lawmakers are planning to send a letter to Ryan requesting additional information regarding Conroy’s dismissal; the group is currently circulating the letter among colleagues to collect more signatures.

The thinking among Democrats is that Ryan pushed Conroy out “because Republicans thought he was aligned with Democrats,” according to a senior Democratic aide familiar with the discussion.

House chaplains, who offer an opening prayer each day the House is in session, are supposed to be nonpartisan.

It’s unclear exactly what if any political dispute, however, led to the chaplain’s dismissal.

A Democratic lawmaker said that the Speaker took issue with a prayer on the House floor that could have been perceived as being critical of the GOP tax-cut bill.

On Nov. 6 — the first day of the markup on the GOP's tax bill — Conroy in a prayer urged lawmakers to ensure the legislation did not exacerbate the nation's gaping class disparities.

"May all Members be mindful that the institutions and structures of our great Nation guarantee the opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success, while others continue to struggle," Conroy said at the time. "May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans."

 

A senior GOP aide said Conroy’s exit “was not because of any particular prayer."

 

Ryan’s and Pelosi’s offices agree that Pelosi was told in advance that the chaplain was leaving.

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Ryan, said it was Ryan’s decision, but declined to offer a reason for the move. She added that Pelosi and her office “were fully read in and did not object.”

"The speaker told Leader Pelosi that he would not move forward with the decision if she objected and she chose not to," Strong said. 
In a separate statement to media outlets late Thursday, Strong said, "The speaker consulted with the minority leader, but the decision was his. He remains grateful for Father Conroy’s service."

Pelosi’s office disputed that the Democrat did not object.
“Leader Pelosi was given advance notice by Speaker Ryan," said a Pelosi spokesman, but she “also made it clear to Speaker Ryan that she disagreed with this decision.”

A second Democratic aide said Conroy’s ouster was “largely driven by a speech on the tax bill that the Speaker didn't like.” But the source also offered a second reason.

“Some of the more conservative evangelical Republicans didn't like that the Father had invited a Muslim person to give the opening prayer,” the source said.

When Pelosi, who is Catholic, informed members of her whip team on Thursday morning that Conroy was pushed out against his will, it “shocked” the members, according to one lawmaker.

Catholic members on both sides of the aisle were furious to learn that Conroy’s retirement was not voluntary, according to multiple sources, including one Republican lawmaker and one Democratic member.

Ryan, who is also Catholic, has appointed Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), an Air Force Reserve chaplain, as well as Reps. Mark Walker (R-N.C.) and Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), both former pastors, to lead the search effort to find a replacement.

Conroy’s arrival on Capitol Hill was also marked with some controversy. The Jesuit priest was nominated by former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in May 2011, but Pelosi urged additional vetting of the pick after learning that Conroy was then working for a Catholic religious order — the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus — that had agreed just months earlier to pay $166 million to victims of sexual abuse going back decades.

There was no evidence that Conroy was involved in the scandal, nor did Pelosi suggest that was the case. After further questioning, she endorsed his nomination.

– Juliegrace Brufke and Scott Wong contributed to this report, which was updated at 8:23 p.m. 

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

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

by 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.

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

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

# # #

Rand Paul: U.S. is funding a ‘war against Christianity’ & Rand Paul: America funding foreign ‘war against Christianity’ 13&14JUN13

THERE is truth to Sen rand paul's R KY statements on the war against Christianity. Christians do suffer restrictions, oppression, discrimination and violence against them in the Middle East (including Israel), on the Arabian Peninsula, the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia. Sen Paul's statement that this war on Christians is being funded by the American taxpayer is also correct. As long as we remain a warstate, the military-industrial complex, along with corporate America (somewhat one and the same) will dictate our foreign policy that doesn't take into consideration the human rights of the citizens of our "allies" but is focused on protecting and increasing the profit margins of said conspirators. Americans tolerate this because of self imposed  ignorance and greed, we don't want anything or anyone to threaten our lifestyle, one that depends on access to the natural resources in the very nations that restrict, oppress, discriminate against and commit violence against Christians daily. 
Sen paul's comments concerning the war on Christianity and arming our "allies" are also true to an extent. He is correct is stating we should not be spending American tax dollars providing military aid to these nations while they continue to violate the religious and all human rights of their Christian citizens. Not including Israel in this group of nations, when they should be, shows that his concern about the fate of Christians in other nations is disingenuous, and he is playing the Christian Zionist card, kow-towing to the Israeli lobby in the U.S.,  for his own political gain. 

By Georgetown/ On Faith, Published: June 14, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Charles Dharapak, Associated Press

QUOTE OF THE DAY |

“It’s clear that American taxpayer dollars are being used in a war against Christianity. [...] These countries [like Egypt and Syria] are not our allies, and no amount of money is going to make them so. It makes no sense. Should we be sending F-16s and tanks to Egypt when (President Mohammed) Morsi says Jews are descendants of apes and pigs? [...] Even if all the atrocities against Christians were not being committed, we wouldn’t have the money to be sending to these countries. We’re borrowing money from China to send it to Pakistan.”

-Rand Paul speaking this week at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to the Majority conference. 

Read more on religion, culture and politics at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/06/14/rand-paul-america-funding-foreign-war-against-christianity/ 

Rand Paul: U.S. is funding a ‘war against Christianity’

By Aaron Blake, Updated: June 13, 2013

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday continued his outreach to Christian conservatives, telling a gathering of them that the United States is effectively funding wars on Christianity by sending money to nations like Egypt and Syria.

“It’s clear that American taxpayer dollars are being used in a war against Christianity,” Paul said at a luncheon hosted by the Faith and Freedom Coalition to kick off the three-day Faith and Freedom Conference.

Paul said the U.S. war in Iraq led Christians to flee a secular country that had otherwise been “a relatively safe place for Christians,” and that Christians are now being hunted in nearby nations.

“These countries are not our allies, and no amount of money is going to make them so,” Paul said. “It makes no sense. Should we be sending F-16s and tanks to Egypt when (President Mohammed) Morsi says Jews are descendants of apes and pigs?”

(Morsi has contended that his 2010 comment suggesting Jews are the sons of apes and pigs was misunderstood.)

Paul then said that, even apart from the war on Christianity, the investments aren’t wise.

“Even if all the atrocities against Christians were not being committed, we wouldn’t have the money to be sending to these countries,” he said. “We’re borrowing money from China to send it to Pakistan.”

© The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/13/rand-paul-u-s-is-funding-a-war-against-christianity/

Liberty Counsel Continues to Promote the Latest Fabricated Case of Christian Persecution 10MAI13

CHRISTIANS do nothing to promote Christianity by promoting false accusations about persecution of Christians. This is a perfect example, and I have to ask again, I wonder what Jesus thinks about Christians who feel they have use deception, manipulation and flat out lies to promote the faith? 

SUBMITTED BY Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 5/10/2013 10:07 am

As we have pointed out many times before, once a mythical incident of supposed Christian victimization gets embraced by the Religious Right, it takes on a life of its own as no amount of evidence pointing out that the incident never happened will stop if from being spread.

And that principle was demonstrated today on Liberty Counsel's "Faith and Freedom" radio broadcast where hosts Matt Barber and Shawn Akers juxtaposed the news of Jason Collins' coming out against the story of Derrick Hayes, a high school runner who was supposedly disqualified from an event for thanking God after finishing a race.

While someone like Collins is hailed as a hero, Akers said, someone like Hayes is "almost criminalized":

http://youtu.be/KjG2TG6AVvw

Of course, as we pointed out earlier this week, the entire saga of Hayes' supposed victimization was false, as even Hayes himself admits: 

Based on the UIL’s investigation, the student athlete raised his hand and gestured forward at the conclusion of the 4x100-meter relay. The meet official approached the student-athlete in an effort to warn him of a possible disqualification should that behavior continue. In the opinion of the official, the student reacted disrespectfully. Based on his reaction, the student-athlete was subsequently disqualified. Any decision to disqualify a student-athlete at any track meet must be upheld by the head meet referee. The meet official and the meet referee conferred, and the disqualification was upheld on-site. At no point during the discussions surrounding the disqualification at the meet was the issue of religious expression raised by any parties.

The UIL’s investigation also revealed that all coaches involved were notified prior to the regional meet that any gestures in violation of the National Federation of State High School Associations track and field rule against unsporting behavior would be grounds for disqualification. Coaches were instructed to discuss this with their student-athletes prior to all races.

To assist the UIL in its investigation, the student-athlete’s parents submitted a letter stating that their son’s religious freedoms were not violated. “In looking back at the conclusion of the 4x100 race, we realize that Derrick could have handled the win in a different manner,” KC and Stacey Hayes said in the letter. “It was not our intention to force the issue that our son’s religious freedom was violated. Nor do we feel that way now. After discussing this with our son, we have come to the conclusion that his religious rights were not violated.”

The student-athlete who was disqualified also submitted a letter during the investigation stating: “Although I am very thankful for all God has given me and blessed me with, on Saturday, April 27, 2013 at the Regional Track Meet in Kingsville, TX, my actions upon winning the 4x100 relay were strictly the thrill of victory. With this being said, I do not feel my religious rights or freedoms were violated.”

Even though Hayes admits that he was not disqualified for thanking God, Liberty Counsel continues to spread the myth, thus demonstrating yet again they aren't going to stop promoting a good tale of victimhood just because it happens to be demonstrably false.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/liberty-counsel-continues-promote-latest-fabricated-case-christian-persecution

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.....

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/religious-liberty-double-standards_n_2537969.html