A case with incredible implications for the religious freedoms of Americans came to the Supreme Court recently. In Town of Greece v. Galloway the high court heard oral arguments as to whether or not a town council has the constitutional right to open with public prayer. This case has been ongoing for many years and finally made it to the Supreme Court on November 6th.
The last time the Supreme Court heard a public prayer case was in 1983 when it ruled in favor of public prayer in the Nebraska legislature in Marsh v. Chambers. The question now is whether or not the court will stay consistent in recognizing the constitutional right for any public assembly or body to open with prayer.
Alliance Defending Freedom president Allan Sears, along with colleague Joe Infranco, has written a historically accurate article citing the Founder’s frequent use of prayer at everything from the Constitutional Convention to holiday proclamations. They write: Continue reading
For the time being ENDA appears dead. Even though it passed in the Senate it had no chance of making it through the House where Speaker Boehner opposed it as well as most Republicans; and a few vulnerable Democrats hoping to keep their job in 2014.
In case you don’t know what ENDA is, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act seeks to make it illegal for an employer to hire or fire a person based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
On the surface this might sound like a good idea. After all, no one should be denied a job simply because he is gay. But the problem with ENDA is that it has a back door that would lead to forcing religious organizations and Christian business owners to violate their religious convictions. Here’s how:
The only exemptions from ENDA apply to churches. This means religious organizations and faith based businesses would not be exempt. This creates a problem in that those organizations that operate under a Gospel-centric mission would be forced to hire people whose life style directly opposes their mission. The practical example is a Christian school being forced to hire a homosexual, or a Christian organization like Family Research Council or Samaritan’s Purse being forced to hire a transgender person. Continue reading
Remember way back when Ryan T. Anderson said ENDA would threaten the religious freedoms of Christian business owners and people of faith? Well, he said it:
“While it is unclear which religious organizations would be exempted from ENDA, it is clear that the bill would not exempt those who wish to run their businesses and other organizations in keeping with their moral or religious values. Additionally, ENDA’s religious liberty protections extend only to businesses directly run by a church or religious organizations. As a result, other religious business owners would be exposed to significant liabilities. Consider, for instance, a Christian bookstore not formally incorporated as a religious organization. Such a store could be accused of creating a hostile work environment by selling and promoting books stating that marriage unites one man with one woman. Clearly, ENDA would create enormous legal risks for businesses that allowed their employees to express traditional religious teachings on sexuality. Anti-discrimination law ought not to silence religious believers.”
I’ve made this statement countless times and will continue to repeat it: If the government redefines marriage for homosexuals it will have to continue redefining marriage for other groups or be guilty of the same discrimination it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of.
Come to terms with the reality of its truth. The government cannot simply redefine marriage one time for homosexuals and then say, “There, now everyone’s happy.” Polygamists and polyamory advocates will be the first to stand up and say, “No, we’re not happy at all.” They will then begin an even greater push – because they are already pushing to some degree – for their relationships to be legally recognized.
On what ground would the government then have to deny them the right to “marry” and gain legal status? The moral ground? Please, they will have surrendered that ground along with the traditional definition of marriage. Besides, what would possibly be the basis for the government’s “moral ground”? If the definition of marriage is not inherently and morally tied to the traditional one man one woman definition, what possible moral objection could be raised against other “alternative lifestyles,” and “loving couples who just want to get married”?
None. Continue reading
A recent headline sent shock waves across the nation a couple weeks ago when people read: “Pedophilia Officially Classified as Sexual Orientation by American Psychiatric Association”?
The headlines grabbed attention and caused a buzz across the blogosphere and social media. Many of the sites carrying the article later updated their posts after the source citing the change to the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) could not verify their research. Whoops.
For now it seems apparent that things have not changed. But this does not mean this subject should be ignored or pushed under the rug. It seems many people do that with pedophilia, which is understandable considering the particularly heinous nature of this sexual mental disorder. The reality is that only by facing the topic can we steer the discussion towards defending the victims, the children, rather than approval for the predators.
I found myself engaged in lengthy discussions on social media with folks who were both startled and angry that pedophiles could find approval among any part of civilized society. One commenter during my discussion asked “what will this mean in the legal system?” To which I responded: Continue reading
Parents in Europe can breathe a little easier after a draft report seeking to establish abortion as a fundamental human right was rejected by the European Union.
A report on the incident states, “The resolution on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights was presented by Portuguese MEP Edite Estrela but her report is said to be the work of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in Brussels.”
The reason this is important is twofold. First, it seems our lawmakers of late envy Europe and want to refashion the United States in the image of Europe. They repeatedly cite cases, laws, and even culture as a reason for change here in the U.S. I suppose the government overreach, failing economy, and complete lack of moral compass doesn’t mean much to Washington; but it sure does to Americans. We left Europe for a reason.
The second reason this is important is that within this bill was mandates on child sex-education for public schools. I talked about these “standards” here. But rest assured, when you start with teaching 4 year-olds about masturbation, the word standard has little to no meaning. Continue reading
Two articles caught my attention recently. One was from a “parenting” website called “Mommyish” at which a blogger shared a list of reasons to kill your unborn child. Now, I don’t know for sure if the irony of advocating child murder on a parenting website was lost on the writer, but it wasn’t lost on me.
The list of reasons this blogger felt were worthy of killing an unborn child is below.
1. Having a baby would endanger your life.
2. Your birth control failed.
3. You don’t want to have a child because of your career.
4. You feel you are too young.
5. You feel you are too old.
6. You feel strongly about overpopulation.
7. You are worried about the health of the baby.
8. You want no relationship with the person who got you pregnant.
9. You don’t want to have a child.
With the exception of reason number one, the entire list is absurd. Perhaps the most absurd reason of them all is number seven which says that abortion is a good idea if “you are worried about the health of the baby.” Continue reading
One article has stayed with me since I first read it last week. I’m having a hard time even processing what I’ve read, much less any sort of biblical foundation for the decision.
The Kentucky Baptist Convention’s president of children services is urging the convention to change their hiring policy for Sunrise Children’s Services to allow the hiring of homosexuals. In a recent closed-door meeting the president, Bill Smithwick told trustees that “federal protection for homosexuals in the workplace as a ‘civil right’ just as race, gender, national origin, etc., is certain to become law sooner than later. Sunrise will comply or lose.”
Smithwick then presented three options to the leaders including “Follow current policy and terminate the employees. Then refuse to hire homosexuals even when doing so becomes a condition of receiving federal funding. (2) Terminate the employees according to current policy, wait until the government mandates a change, then comply. (3) Change the employment policy now.
Smithwick advocated the third option, arguing that Sunrise cannot operate without government funds and that it risks losing major secular sponsors if it fires homosexuals. Continue reading