Viral Video: Baby Celebrates 1 Year Birthday After Being Born Months Premature
Posted on November 26, 2013 in Life by Nathan Cherry
The video below is incredible for a number of reasons. First, it shows the first year of a little boy born 3 1/2 months premature. After spending many days and nights in the NICU the boy went home and finally celebrated his first birthday. The video tribute to his first year is nothing short of amazing.
This video is also incredible for the context it presents. This boy was born at 5 1/2 months gestation. According to abortion rights groups, Planned Parenthood, and President Obama, this child was not actually a child at this time. Whatever he was, he was not a human being worthy of protections from the torture of abortion. This is why these groups and our president have repeatedly fought to make it legal to kill children at this point in pregnancy.
As well, in our home state of West Virginia it is currently legal to kill an unborn child up to the moment of birth. So this child, obviously human, obviously alive, could have easily been killed by his mother is she would have chosen to do so. Why doesn’t West Virginia believe it is important to protect living human beings like this little boy? Why do our lawmakers continue to claim to be pro-life while they do nothing to protect the unborn?
Watch the video below an realize that children just like this little guy are being murdered each and every day thanks to the efforts – or lack of effort – by Planned Parenthood, President Obama, and others. If the video doesn’t appear automatically please refresh your browser. Click here for original article. Continue reading…
Breaking: Federal Judge Declares Pastors Housing Allowance Unconstitutional
Posted on November 26, 2013 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Joe Carter at The Gospel Coalition writes: “A federal judge has ruled that an Internal Revenue Service exemption that gives clergy tax-free housing allowances is unconstitutional. According to Religion News Service, the exemption applies to an estimated 44,000 ministers, priests, rabbis, imams and others. If the ruling stands, some clergy members could experience an estimated 5 to 10 percent cut in take-home pay…U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb ruled on Friday (Nov. 22) in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, saying the exemption violates the establishment clause because it ‘provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.'”
It’s important to note that the federal judge issued a stay of her ruling until the appeals process plays out. So for now nothing will change and no pastor or church will be affected. However, the efforts to strip this protection for pastors and churches has continued with this latest ruling. Here’s why it’s important:
Without this tax protection many churches will not be able to afford a pastor due to the size of their congregation. This tax protection allows the church to provide a house (parsonage) or tax credit for the pastor’s housing expenses as part of his compensation without it being taxed. This allows the pastor at a small church to “take home” more pay because he does not have to pay taxes on it. The obvious benefit here is that the pastor is able to live on less because a portion of his income is not subject to taxation. Continue reading…
Answering Questions on ENDA
Posted on November 25, 2013 in Public Policy, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
The federal ENDA bill appears to be stalled, perhaps dead…for the moment. After passing in the Senate by a solid majority it appears the House will not bring the bill up for a vote. Even though West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin promised to oppose legislation like ENDA, in the end he broke that promise and voted in favor of the bill. However, to this point House Speaker John Boehner has opposed ENDA and said he will not bring it up for a vote in the House of Representatives.
One thing is for sure: this is the end of ENDA. There is no doubt that this bill will come back and we need to be prepared to oppose it. West Virginians in particular need to be prepared to oppose ENDA on the state level as we will no doubt be facing a state level ENDA bill again in the 2014 legislative session.
For those who are not familiar with ENDA, Joe Carter, writing at The Gospel Coalition, has written a short, informative article answering some of the most frequently asked questions about ENDA. In particular he answers the question why should Christians be concerned about ENDA?
“As a practical matter, ENDA teaches a view of human embodiment that Christians will strongly object to. Christianity embraces the body and self as an integrated whole; as unique creations that witness to the divine action and creativity of God through our being created male and female. Male and female are not arbitrary, socially imposed constructs. They are rooted in our biology. In contrast, the worldview behind ENDA assumes an ‘expressive individualism’ where our bodies become instruments of the will, capable of being re-created according to preference and desire.”
I highly recommend reading this article.
Lack of Common Sense Required for Abortion Advocates
Posted on November 25, 2013 in Life by Nathan Cherry
Abortion advocates say some of the most outrageously absurd things. I don’t know how else to characterize the words that come out of their mouths. By any logical, rational standard the ideas and comments they put forth make absolutely no sense and would in any other context be considered too ridiculous to take seriously.
Take for example the comments of a British abortion advocate and attorney who said that rape victims bear some responsibility for being raped. In other words, “the fact that you were violently attacked and forced against your will to have sex is kind of your fault too.” I can’t even imagine making such a statement in the case of a prostitute being raped because logic dictates that there is a difference between consensual and non-consensual sex in every context.
But what can you expect from someone that openly advocates the legalization of sex with 13-year-olds? Don’t forget that there is a strong connection between the abortion industry and pedophile advocates; it makes things so much easier for them. Continue reading…
Robert P. George: What Lincoln Really Said at Gettysburg
Posted on November 22, 2013 in Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
If you’re not familiar with the writings of Robert P. George, you should be. The brilliant professor of law at Princeton is well respected in most circles for his keen insight into matters of law and public policy. But he is also respected as a man of faith that believes in the conservative, traditional values America was founded upon.
After President Obama removed the words “under God” from his recitation of the Gettysburg address this year an article of Dr. George’s surfaced in which he addressed the issue. Defenders of the president claim that Obama was merely quoting one of the “other copies” of the Gettysburg address in which the words “under God” do not appear. Indeed at least five copies of the address exist and at least two o those copies do not have the words “under God” in them. But this excuse is not acceptable, as Dr. George explains:
“Of course, none of these copies is actually the Gettysburg Address. The Gettysburg Address is the set of words actually spoken by Lincoln at Gettysburg. And, as it happens, we know what those words are. (The Bliss copy nearly perfectly reproduces them.) Three entirely independent reporters, including a reporter for the Associated Press, telegraphed their transcriptions of Lincoln’s remarks to their editors immediately after the president spoke. All three transcriptions include the words “under God,” and no contemporaneous report omits them. There isn’t really room for equivocation or evasion: Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address—one of the founding texts of the American republic—expressly characterizes the United States as a nation under God.” Click here for original article.
Public Libraries Providing Access to Porn
Posted on November 22, 2013 in Family, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
Imagine taking your kids to the public library. While some might think public libraries are obsolete in the age of the Internet, many people still go and libraries are a valuable asset to any neighborhood. Now suppose you’ve taken your kids to visit the library on a beautiful, sunny day to enjoy looking at books and other activities. You walk your kids through the library, hand in hand, discussing what kind of books they will look at when, to your horror, you see…
Someone on one of the library computers is looking at porn!
This is just not a scenario out of a parent’s worst nightmare; this is a real-life scenario taking place in libraries around the country. A recent case involves a library in Orland Park, Illinois, where residents are asking the library to install filters on public computers to block access to pornography. Some however are concerned that such filters violate free speech rights and insert more government into the lives of Americans.
It’s encouraging to hear that parents around this public library are asking for filters on the computers located within reach of young kids. In a hyper-sexualized society where children are often caught in the crosshairs of marketers and advertisers, parents must be vigilant in protecting their kids. It seems the concerns of parents are at least causing the public library to reconsider its policy of no filters on the computers. Continue reading…
If you paid attention to the vote that took place in Albuquerque this week you were disappointed by the defeat of a ballot measure aimed at protecting unborn children. Voters rejected a measure that would have banned abortion after five months. This is the point in pregnancy when an unborn child can feel pain, which makes abortion nothing less than cruel torture and murder.
While the defeat of this measure might be immediately disappointing, Family Research Council researcher Anna Higgins says good will come from this very public battle:
“The hard work that was put into the measure was not in vain. Due to efforts such as these, people are waking up to the fact that abortion necessarily involves two lives and that late term abortion is an unnecessary evil. In fact, 64% of Americans support banning the practice of late-term abortion. We must build on this effort in [Albuquerque] and begin to introduce similar legislation in cities across the country. These efforts go a long way towards exposing the truth about abortion. They also force those who support the heinous practice to defend themselves in light of the reality that abortion causes excruciating pain to the preborn child and is dangerous for the mother.” Click here to read original article.
The Founders, History, and Public Prayer
Posted on November 21, 2013 in Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
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…
The Practical End to ENDA
Posted on November 20, 2013 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
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…
The Logical End of ENDA
Posted on November 19, 2013 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
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.”
Do you also remember when Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Kellie Fiedorek said ENDA doesn’t protect people of faith? That’s what she said: Continue reading…