Tag: defend
Author Says Efforts to Defend Religious Freedom A Scam – Christians Haven’t Lost Any Rights
Posted on April 23, 2014 in Religious Freedom, Uncategorized by Nathan Cherry
I recently came across an article titled “The Christian Rights ‘Religious Freedom Law’ Scam” by Vanessa Sheridan, writing at the Huffington Post.
This might be one of the worst mischaracterizations of efforts to secure religious freedom through legislative action by anyone I’ve read in recent memory. The article is so full of misstatements and absurd claims that it’s hard to decide if it should be at The Huffington Post or The Onion.
Ms. Sheridan first accuses a small group of people of seeking to pass laws that would legalize open discrimination. She is, presumably, talking about laws like the one recently vetoed by Arizona governor Jan Brewer that would have protected the religious convictions of business owners from forced government violation. But in her words this bill would:
Biblical Illiteracy: It’s Not Just Younger Generations That Are “Embarrassingly Ignorant” of Their Faith
Posted on April 18, 2014 in Theology by Nathan Cherry
In recent years I’ve often said that one of the most challenging dynamics for churches to overcome is biblical illiteracy. Presently it seems to me that there is an abundance of biblical illiteracy in the church among both lay-people and leaders alike. That being the case it is easy to see how the church has lost much of its power, influence, and cultural relevance.
The church has experienced loss in a broad range of areas – numbers, giving, baptisms – over the last decade and a half as it simultaneously faces unprecedented persecution from government. Prominent pastors have publicly endorsed and embraced heretical doctrines (think Rob Bell’s “no hell” doctrine), while others have publicly endorsed sin (such as homosexuality). Constant in-fighting over non-essentials (alcohol, tribulation, carpet color) has also served to disillusion younger generations that see a lack of authenticity.
For me, personally, nothing is as pressing and critical as the issue of biblical literacy. This is far more than the ability to read the Bible and understand it; this is about being able to rightly govern one’s life through the filter of grace, redemption, and sanctification. What’s missing currently is a biblical worldview that shapes and informs every aspect of life to the place that sanctification becomes evident.
The picture in this post is that of Scotland Riles. Scotland was miscarried at 20 weeks. But this tragic story has an element of hope and purpose as the father, Tommy Riles, shares the story of his son. Rather than simply having their son removed and discarded as a mass of tissue, the Riles family, as a result of their faith, chose to go through labor and give birth to their son.
After the labor and delivery process, the Riles family spent time with their son, singing, praying, and talking to him. Tommy wrote a letter to his son in which he told him he was proud of his son. Part of that letter says:
Why Yes, Del. Palumbo, West Virginia IS in the Minority
Posted on March 3, 2014 in Life by Nathan Cherry
The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that passed the West Virginia house by an overwhelming margin last week is coming before the Senate this week. The senate is expected to modify the bill.
Ron Stollings (D-Bone) said he expects the committee to modify the “draconian” punishment of one to five years in jail and up to $5,000 in fines for anyone performing a late-term abortion after 20 weeks. Umm…how is that draconian? Is Mr. Stollings suggesting that the life of an unborn child is not worthy of jail time or fines? Murder charges tend to carry steep penalties so I am unclear as to why this is an issue.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Corey Palumbo (D-Kanawha) was surprised to learn that West Virginia is one of only 9 states that has no time restrictions on abortion. Well, Mr. Palumbo, that is a fairly well-known act that someone in public office should probably know.
What this shows me is that our lawmakers are woefully out of touch with reality in regards to the issue of abortion. To think that one to five years in prison and a measly $5,000 fine for killing an unborn child is somehow “draconian” is absurd. Furthermore, without punishments that are steep enough to deter the crimes the criminals have no reason to fear the law or even keep it. For one of our elected officials to now know just how out of touch West Virginia is withe rest of the country in having no time limit on abortion is shameful.
Hopefully these lawmakers will help West Virginia catch up in defending the unborn with proper laws, appropriate penalties, and shared information.
As Marriage Domino’s Fall – West Virginia is Teetering
Posted on March 3, 2014 in Marriage by Nathan Cherry
This pattern of ignoring the law and ruling (by federal judges) or refusing to defend state laws (by attorneys general) should be deeply troubling for anyone that believes in the Constitution. If such a pattern continues it is conceivable that our country will descend into a state of tyranny as those with the power increasingly rule without consent from the people. Our Founder’s sought to protect against this very thing and yet, as we are seeing, this form of government is upon us.
Tell Gov. Tomblin to Sign the Pain Capable unborn Child Protection Act
Posted on March 1, 2014 in Life by Nathan Cherry
West Virginia has a chance to make state history as well as send a strong, clear message to Democrats in Washington. The question is whether or not we will claim victory and make that statement, or sink into the abyss that is status-quo for Democratic led politics.
Let’s be clear on the facts first.
West Virginia currently has no laws restricting abortion. Not one. A woman can have an abortion in West Virginia up to the moment of birth for any reason and no one will ask a single question. West Virginia is just one of nine states that have no laws protecting unborn life. What makes this so ironic is that most of our elected lawmakers claim to be pro-life.
AG Holder: State Ag’s Can Ignore Marriage Laws
Posted on February 28, 2014 in Marriage by Nathan Cherry
In what I can only describe as both typical of the Obama Administration and egregious, Attorney General Eric Holder has said that it would be acceptable for state attorney’s general to ignore state laws regarding marriage. A recent article reports:
“Attorney General Eric Holder has given the nod to his state counterparts that they do not have to defend laws they consider discriminatory — effectively giving the green light for states to stop defending bans on gay marriage. Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws must be ‘exceedingly rare’ and reserved for ‘exceptional circumstances.’ He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.”
Typical of the Obama Administration, if you don’t like a law, just stop defending or enforcing it. Never mind that it was enacted by the people of the state, or supported by those people, just stop defending it. Make the law up as you go and do what you want regardless of the state or federal Constitution.
The encouragement for AG’s to dereliction of duty by Holder is egregious. Would AG Holder encourage every person to decide which laws we will and will not live by? What if an AG decided to ignore 2nd amendment protection laws? Would that be acceptable for AG Holder? His words and “advice” are repugnant and offensive to everything that America stands for. It’s no wonder even his own party is calling for his resignation.
Does the Bible Justify Refusing to Serve Homosexual Weddings?
Posted on February 27, 2014 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Note: This article is a follow up to yesterday’s post in which I discussed the article by Kirsten Powers and responses to her article.
Predictably, the pending law in Arizona that would allow businesses to refuse service to homosexuals based on their religious convictions has stirred up controversy around the nation. Proponents of the legislation say it is needed to ensure the religious and conscience rights of Christian business owners are protected from government coercion and mandate. Opponents say the bills are just an excuse for people to discriminate.
What was not predictable in this discussion was how divided Christians themselves would be on the issue. Some Christians are saying no one should have the right to refuse service – not even Christians, and not even when rendering service would violate a person’s convictions. Other Christians are baffled by that position and reiterate that the government should not be allowed to force a person to violate his or her deeply held religious convictions. Dr. Albert Mohler recently said that this was “perhaps the strangest and most disappointing dimension of the current controversy.”
Russell Moore, Kirsten Powers, Erick Erickson: Should Christians Be Forced to Bake Cakes for Homosexuals?
Posted on February 26, 2014 in Marriage, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
Are Christian vendors being hypocrites for refusing to provide services to same-sex ceremonies citing a violation of their faith while continuing to provide services for other unbiblical weddings?
That is the question that is beginning to swirl in light of several state bills that would give Christian business owners the right to refuse service to homosexual couples seeking their services for weddings. Those bills, introduced in Tennessee, Ohio, Kansas, and awaiting the governor’s signature in Arizona, are a response to lawsuits by homosexuals against “wedding vendors” that refused to render services saying to do so would violate their faith.
Government Gone Wild: Will West Virginia Be the Next State to Fall to Judicial Activism?
Posted on February 17, 2014 in Marriage, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
I recently wrote about the trend of attorney’s general refusing to defend the laws of the states that elected them to defend their laws. I commented that this trend was accelerated by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder refusing to defend DOMA. Once the president starts deciding which laws he will and will not defend it is just a matter of time before everyone else decides they can do it too.
Over the last year we’ve seen numerous attorney’s general decide not to defend state laws, while activist judges decide to strike down other laws. The latest in this trend comes from Kentucky where a judge said the state must recognize foreign gay marriages from other states. His declaration is in violation of Kentucky law, but that didn’t stop the judge from deciding to strike down the law and rewrite it according to his opinion. He reportedly ruled: