Tag: freedom
Roundup: Houston Pastors Facing Unconstitutional Government Power Grab Over Sermons
Posted on November 3, 2014 in Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
As the battle in Houston continues over the city subpoenaing the sermons of at least five pastors for their involvement in opposing a local “bathroom bill,” the commentary continues to flow. Below you will find some notable voices and their thoughts on the subject to help you stay on top of the issue. Every American should be angry over the fact that any government entity would dare subpoena the speech of anyone, let alone pastors. All speech, and religious speech such as sermons is certainly included, is protected by the First Amendment and the government has no business seeking it. Prayerfully the city will back down. If not, I hope the Texas State Supreme Court squashes the subpoena request and ends the city is sued inquisition. Mayor Parker needs a strong wake-up call and reminder that she has no business intimidating people by violating their civil rights.
CBN: ADF Unimpressed by Houston’s Revised Subpoena’s
The Alliance Defending Freedom released a statement on the changes. “The city of Houston still doesn’t get it. It thinks that by changing nothing in its subpoenas other than to remove the word ‘sermons’ that it has solved the problem. That solves nothing,” ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley said in the statement. “Even though the pastors are not parties in this lawsuit, the subpoenas still demand from them 17 different categories of information – information that encompasses speeches made by the pastors and private communications with their church members,” he continued. “As we have stated many times, the problem is the subpoenas themselves; they must be rescinded entirely.”
The Johnson Amendment: Freeing America’s Pastors from IRS Intimidation Means Repealing It
Posted on October 22, 2014 in Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Most people have never heard of the Johnson Amendment. For that matter as soon as you say IRS code you will lose most of your audience. Nevertheless, this one amendment has had a significant impact on churches and, as a result, on society as a whole.
The Johnson Amendment was inserted into the IRS code in 1954 as a way to limit the speech of pastors and churches regarding elections, political campaigns, and social and political issues. Taking a cue from the fictitious “separation of church and state,” the Johnson Amendment seeks to control the speech of America’s pastors because of the influence they wield.
No doubt the effects of the Johnson Amendment are clear today. At one time America’s pastors took a leading role in education their congregations regarding political issues and candidates, now, most pulpits are silent.
Roundup: Notable Voices Regarding the New HHS Mandate in Light of the Supreme Court Ruling in Favor of Hobby Lobby
Posted on August 29, 2014 in Life, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
After the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate, the administration promised a “fix” to make it all legal. True to their promise a new HHS mandate “fix” was released last week. Unfortunately, the new “fix” does nothing to protect the religious conscience and convictions of business owners and religious organizations.
The following articles provide a detailed analysis of the new “fix” and why it’s really nothing new and doesn’t really fix anything. Stay informed about this very critical issue. At stake is the ability for business owners to live and do business according to their religious convictions without fear of government reprisal. This is important because religious freedom is a cornerstone of our country. If the government can force a business owner to violate his/her religious convictions it won’t be long before every person can and will be made to do the same.
ADF COMMENT ON HHS MANDATE ‘ACCOMMODATION’
Breaking: Democratic Bill to Overturn Hobby Lobby Decision Fails
Posted on July 17, 2014 in Life by Nathan Cherry
The Supreme Court recognized the need to protect the religious freedoms of business owners in not forcing them to violate their conviction by supporting abortion. The extreme abortion-rights position of the left was in plain view in even considering a bill like this.
Records show that our very own John Rockefeller was a co-sponsor of the bill, but it appears Joe Manchin was not. However, both Joe Manchin and John Rockefeller voted in favor of the bill and support forcing employers to violate their religious convictions. THankfully John Rockefeller is retiring and will most likely be replaced by pro-life Shelley Moore-Capito. At least we (West Viriginia) will have one Senator that is not pro-life in name and words only.
Sen. Orrin Hatch said of the bill:
Did The Hobby Lobby Decision Violate Religious Freedom?
Posted on July 17, 2014 in Life, Religious Freedom by Derick Dickens
I love reading articles like this from the left. This article not only misrepresents the facts by linking religious rights to taking four pills in question in the Hobby Lobby case, it disproves what it is trying to prove.
Here are some issues that should be apparent in the article by a little thought behind the words of the article.
1. They misrepresent teachings of Jewish history. It is clear that an agenda is in the works when this author says it is a religious requirement to support contraceptives. What the article cites is a disagreement among two ancient Jewish Scholars on the role of a form of birth control as it relates to two Jewish Principles. They discussed whether a sponge like material for the prevention of pregnancy is allowed and even use the phrase, “may use” to distinguish it from being a religious obligation, as this article seems to try to advance.
For instance, in my religious tradition I “may use beer.” This does not mean beer is required or part of my religion. Rather, it is something I am allowed to use.
Commentary: What the Hobby Lobby Case is Really About and the False Claims of the Left
Posted on July 5, 2014 in Life by Derick Dickens
This decision really blocks women from being able to make their own health care decisions? Really? Are there religions that really do oppose health care (strawman argument)? Where are all those business owners who oppose all health care? Why aren’t they suing the government?
Wasserman Schultz also expressed concerns for later implications of the law, pointing out that women use birth control to treat illnesses, such as endometriosis and serious menstrual cramping, and saying “the life function day to day for women is dramatically impacted by this decision.”
The decision was limited to four pills. For some reason Wasserman Schultz thinks every pill, pills that help endometriosis and menstrual cramping were banned. Building a strawman, she uses irresponsible language when she says, “the life function day to day for women is dramatically impacted by this decision.”
Two European Cases Hold Critical Implications for American Christians and Churches
Posted on July 2, 2014 in Marriage, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Let me ask a question: how many times have homosexual advocates promised to respect religious liberty and religious freedom as they simultaneously demand “equality” and “rights”?
Activists and lawmakers alike have said religious freedom would be respected as homosexuals continue to push for LGBT rights. Pundits sneer at the idea that churches would be forced to perform gay weddings against their religious convictions. And yet such events are taking place.
Let me ask another question: if the government can force people, organizations and businesses to violate their religious convictions why can’t it force churches to do the same?
Victory for Freedom and Life Delivered by The Supreme Court
Posted on June 30, 2014 in Life by Nathan Cherry
In what will be known as one of the biggest, most influential decisions the Supreme Court has made in the last decade, the court ruled that the government CANNOT force business owners to pay for drugs or devices that can cause an abortion. The HHS mandate, put in place by the Obama administration, demanded that all business owners provide contraception, birth control, and abortion drugs to their employers. Many business owners, seeking to live by their religious convictions against abortion, opposed the mandate. The Obama administration refused to give exemptions to these owners. Many have sued and won in lower courts, all such cases led to the Supreme Court case.
In the high court case both Hobby Lobby, owner by the Green family, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, owned by the Hahn family, argued that the mandate was unconstitutional and violated their first amendment rights to religious freedom. The case was closely watched as the implications would have devastating consequences on religious freedom in America.
But today, as we prepare to celebrate the 4th of July, a day of freedom, the court has ruled that religious freedom is still alive and the government cannot force people to violate their religious convictions.
Truly this is a victory for freedom and the unborn, and yet another crushing defeat for the Obama administration by the Supreme Court.
A press release from Alliance Defending Freedom carries comments by ADF senior counsel David Cortman and Conestoga president and CEO Anthony Hahn regarding the landmark victory:
RIP American Free Speech. Next Up Religious Freedom
Posted on May 7, 2014 in Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Let’s stop pretending that America believes in free speech. I know we all want to believe we still believe in it, we want to scream desperately from the roof tops that America still practices and believes in free speech. The truth is that we don’t.
If America believed in free speech former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich would still have a job. He shared his opinion on the topic of marriage via a monetary donation, a form of speech, and was ousted. Eich “let his voice be heard” by contributing to a cause he believed in and Mozilla, along with the most intolerant and hateful gay activists demanded that he be fired.
If America believe in free speech Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, would not have been banned from the NBA and fined $2.5 million for making racists remarks. Sterling simply shared his own personal views and as a result a media firestorm and public outcry has been overwhelming against him. Some have even demanded the NBA force him to sell the Clippers. (How exactly do you ban an owner of a team? How do you force someone to sell something they own?)
Before anyone gets the impression I’m defending racist comments let me be clear: racism is an immoral sinful practice. Oh, you didn’t know it was a moral problem or sinful? Rejecting a person created in the image of God is certainly a moral issue. Open discrimination against such a person is nothing short of sinful. (By the way, why was the NAACP set to give Sterling an award, again, if he had a record of racism?)