Ronald Reagan on His Knees

We need more of our politicians to have his perspective!

Advertisements

Traditional Marriage weakened by SCOTUS ruling

English: Rally for Prop 8 in Fresno, Californi...

English: Rally for Prop 8 in Fresno, California Español: Manifestación por Prop 8 en Fresno, California (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m disappointed that the Supreme Court partially ruled against traditional marriage in their decision today. Thankfully they didn’t make a wholesale ruling in favor of so-called same-sex marriage. They still allowed for states to define marriage for themselves.

As far as California’s Prop 8 is concerned, the Court dismissed the appeal. This seems somewhat ambiguous. Prop 8 was a majority vote for an amendment to the California state constitution in favor of traditional marriage between only one man and one woman. A federal judge declared the amendment unconstitutional. The governor refused to appeal this ruling essentially thumbing their noses at the majority popular vote. Conservative groups appealed the federal lower court ruling to the Supreme Court. This appeal was dismissed.

The basis for appealing the dismissal was lack of precedent. Apparently SCOTUS hasn’t before entertained appeals of state laws that were not being defended by the state itself.

So on one hand, SCOTUS has affirmed states to determine a definition of marriage as the state sees fit. On the other hand, the Court didn’t slap down a lower federal court for dictating to California what sort of definition of marriage would be considered constitutional… Ambivalence? I would say somewhat biased toward the redefinition of marriage side.

Hopefully this decision will galvanize further action to strengthen traditional marriage. One way to do this is to sign the Manhattan Declaration.

 

Tipping Points

Pulpit Freedom Sunday


58 years ago in 1954 Lyndon Johnson added an amendment to an appropriations bill which made it illegal for nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations to speak out in political matters. This was a major intrusion on our First Amendment freedoms of religion and of speech. Since then the IRS has become the censorship board of the government. They have never actually taken any violation of this regulation to court. They have always dropped cases after essentially intimidating the churches involved. Pulpit freedom Sunday is an attempt to call their bluff: to challenge this unconstitutional law and open up freedom for our nation’s pastors once again.

Please check out the information about Pulpit Freedom Sunday on October 7, 2012. Ask your pastor to consider participating.

Pelosi Wants to Talk Religion at Church

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the Hous...

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at the US Capitol. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about the ObamaCare mandate for free sterilization services for any women of childbearing age from menarche to menopause. This includes young teens girls just starting their period. She cut off the reporter and said, “You know what, I told you before let’s go to church and talk about our religion… Right here we’re talking about public policy as it affects women…” You can read a detailed account of the exchange here. It sounds as though Pelosi believes that any point of view that is informed by religious convictions are not welcome in the public sphere. Do you believe that is what our founders intended by the first amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Our freedom of religion has become quite hollow if we cannot bring up issues for debate about which we have some concerns. In this case real concerns about young teens getting sterilized were simply being voiced by a person of faith, not argued for on the basis of religion. To read a discussion on this issue check out John Stonestreet’s Breakpoint post.

Freedom of Religion

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in t...

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in the world. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What does freedom of religion mean? Is freedom of religion a nebulous concept that must conform to the dictates of the government? Is it squishy? Can it be pushed to whatever size box the government allows for it? Obamacare includes a  mandate to provide abortifacient drugs. Many of us have problems with this from a moral point of view founded on our religion.  But we are private citizens. The HHS exemption only covers churches and some religious institutions. So has the president and his party decided that the freedom of religion of the private citizen is not important? What does our freedom of religion really mean?

 

 

It seems to me that if we can be forced to purchase medicine to initiate the murder of innocent unborn children, we have crossed a line of freedom of religion. If the intention of our founders was to consider sexual freedom on a par with religious freedom, wouldn’t we find it the first amendment? or somewhere in the Constitution? But we don’t find it because it isn’t there. The founders placed freedom of religion in a prominent location. But they didn’t raise the issue of sexual freedom. Do you suppose they didn’t have sex back then? Of course not. First of all, our founders knew that the area of sexual relations is governed by the Bible and trusted this area to the self-government of the people and the common law which is founded on the Bible. Second, sexual freedom leads to social chaos. Many of the social ills that we have in our country today can be directly linked to “sexual freedom”: 50 million Americans dead, epidemic STDs, single-parent families, poverty, crime, prison expansion, the growing welfare state.

 

 

What do you think? What should freedom of religion mean? On what do you base that meaning?

 

 

ObamaCare vs. Freedom of Religion

English: The Department of Health and Human Se...

Image via Wikipedia

Our religious freedoms are under attack. Our first amendment right to freedom of religion is being undermined by ObamaCare. The Health and Human Services department will now require large organizations to supply their employees health insurance that provides contraception and abortifacient (morning after) drugs. At first the Catholic church was told that it would have one year to figure out how to implement this policy. In other words our Catholic brothers have one year to get comfortable with the idea of violating their consciences. Catholic leadership spoke up and explained that this was not an adequate solution. Next religious organizations were told that they would not have to pay for that part of insurance. Instead the government would pay for that part. This is a complete breakdown of our First Amendment rights. The Obama administration is trying to micromanage religious groups and rob people, particularly large groups of people, of their religious convictions. For more details on this fight click here.

This is another opportunity for us to break the Spiral of Silence and let our voices be heard. There are two ways we can help with this process and stand on the side of the righteous in this situation. First, join with me to ManhattanDeclaration.org and sign the petition against the implementation of this policy. Second, sign the Manhattan Declaration yourself to send a message to those in the government who are working to take away our freedoms. Third, contact your legislator and urge them to stand against this assault on freedom of conscience and religion.

“We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.” — excerpt from the Manhattan Declaration.