More religious freedoms being taken away. If you’d like to contact the principal to let him know how you feel about this, you can email the principal at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Principal threatens to fire teachers who help Christian club
Earns warning from civil rights organization
September 03, 2010
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A principal who reportedly threatened to fire any teacher who helped with the organization of a campus Fellowship of Christian Athletes club is getting a warning letter from a civil rights organization.
The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, sent the letter to Don Curtis, principal of Wilson Middle School in Fishersville, Va.
“By intimidating teachers, through threat of termination, into refusing to provide the same types of administrative assistance to the FCA as are made available to other student groups, Principal Curtis has pitted himself in direct opposition to the spirit of the First Amendment,” said Rutherford President John W. Whitehead.
“School administrators need to act immediately to correct the erroneous impression conveyed by the principal’s e-mail that religion has no place in the public schools,” he said.
According to a report from WHSV-TV in Harrisonburg, Va., Curtis denied he meant for the note to teachers to stir up controversy or deter the group from forming. He told the station the “tone” of his memo to faculty members “was taken out of context.”
The note, according to WHSV, explained students were trying to form a Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
“As I trust common sense and your elementary knowledge of the law should remind you, the Constitution includes an amendment that expects ‘The government will not establish any religion.’ This has been legally stated and supported through case law, interpreted to mean for schools that the school or its employees will not perpetuate, support or establish any religion at school,” the principal’s note said.
“This means teachers can’t support or participate in religious activities while in the official role of a teacher. … Be as religious as you want when you’re not in your official role as a teacher. Your official role as a teacher starts anytime you’re involved with students.
“Please check with me or your attorney if you need clarification so I can avoid termination proceedings for those of you that don’t believe me or wish to test this concept,” Curtis wrote. “I’m being somewhat of a smart a&*, but I trust ‘You’re feeling me!'”
He subsequently explained that the e-mail was sent to faculty to remind teachers “to be professional.”
“I presented this in my candid style, intended for my faculty. I’ve been told it was intimidating but I had no intention other than to remind the staff of my expectations of their legal and professional behavior,” he explained.
There’s actually a little more to it than that, Whitehead wrote in his letter today to Curtis.
“While the First Amendment does prohibit the government from establishing a religion, it likewise prohibits the government from exhibiting hostility toward religion, interfering with the free exercise thereof, and discriminating against expressive activities based on the religious viewpoint of the expression,” he explained.
“The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not permit government – including school officials – to subject religious individuals or groups to unique disabilities,” Whitehead said.
“The United State Supreme Court has specifically addressed the issue of faculty involvement with religious student groups, and has ruled that such involvement does not conflict with constitutional principles where teachers or other school employees are merely involved with the club for purposes of administration or oversight,” he said.
“I hope this information is helpful to you, and that you will use it to immediately correct the impression conveyed by your e-mail that the budding FCA group should be shunned by your staff,” Whitehead wrote.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Another great article by Mike Adams!! I totally agree and I’ve mentioned this type of thing before. Where have all the men gone? Where have the warriors gone? Unfortunately, today we have more pansies in Christian circles than we used to. It used to be that men would stand up for what they believe, but now it’s the ‘in’ thing to let non-believers trample all over our religious freedom without challenging them at all. In fact, not only will we NOT challenge them, but we see it as “loving” to actually help them with their anti-Christian agenda!! I guess that’s being a ‘good, loving’ friend?? It’s unbelievable and unacceptable! It honestly sickens me and just as Mike Adams mentions below, if we lose our religious freedoms its because we willingly gave it away!! Just as the Jews were led to the concentration camps very easily, so will we be led to our demise. I have read a lot about the holocaust and one of the main themes throught out all of these stories is the fact that they were warned ahead of time, but they just didn’t believe these horrible things would happen to them. They willingly gave up their homes, got on trains, were separated from their families, and were sent to concentration camps because they kept thinking if they just reacted civilly and calmly, surely things would work out. It wasn’t until they saw friends being led to the gas chambers that they thought, “What have we allowed to happen and why did we willingly walk to our doom?” Wake up Christians, before we have to say that ourselves!!
A Boy Named Sue
If Christianity dies in America it will not be for a lack of evidence of its truthfulness. It will be for a lack of dissemination of the evidence of its truthfulness. And the blame for the lack dissemination of that evidence will fall squarely on the shoulders of Christian men who are simply too weak and passive to deserve to be called “Christian” or “men.”
In the last few months, I have been in no less than one dozen arguments with “Christian men” who have attempted to persuade me to stop my advocacy of, and direct involvement in, litigation against public universities. This is despite the fact that the universities are seeking to curtail the rights of Christian students and professors.
Three common arguments I have heard, and my brief responses to them, follow:
Argument for passivity: In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek to whoever slaps us on our right cheek. How do you reconcile that with your assertion that “a lawsuit a day keeps the atheists at bay”?
Response: This one is easy. A slap on the face is a personal insult. Jesus is clearly admonishing us to ignore such personal insults; He isn’t saying we can’t aggressively call out evil. Jesus Himself aggressively called out evil as recorded later in the same Gospel (Matthew 23).
This coming year I am planning a series of legal challenges to universities that have launched “Queer Resource Centers” and “LGBTQIA Centers” on campus. The goal is not to shut the centers down but, instead, to force them to present issues in a more balanced fashion.
For example, those centers using mandatory student activity fees to bolster the case for gay marriage will be pressured (legally) to invite speakers like Frank Turek who will argue the other side of the issue. We will rely on the ten-year old Southworth case in our efforts to ensure that student fees are spent in a viewpoint neutral manner.
When I launch these challenges the “liberal” blogs will say I am secretly gay. That is the way they always respond. It’s a silly personal insult revealing nothing more than the unfortunate fact that many gays secretly hate themselves. I will simply ignore such insults and proceed with the lawsuits.
I would urge everyone – especially those who trumpet the importance of “context” – to read the entire Sermon on the Mount. When they do, they will realize that Jesus also said that those who are persecuted in His name will be richly blessed. The tallest blade of grass is the one that gets cut first. Similarly, the Christian who stands tallest is the one that gets persecuted first.
Therefore, those who stand tall and do not roll over will be the first to be blessed.
Argument for passivity: In Luke 6:29, Jesus urges that one who has his coat taken from him to should also hand over his tunic. Doesn’t that suggest that we should not resist campus efforts to take away Christian rights?
Response: The coat and tunic are material things. We would do well to hand over material things to those in need. If we were more generous on the front end, people would be less inclined to steal. But religious liberty is not a material thing. It is a non-material thing that is the principal basis for this nation’s founding. It belongs to everyone and, therefore, cannot be handed over by any one individual to any other individual.
Put simply, we have a right to hand over our own tunic. But we cannot hand over someone else’s tunic as well. When we give away our rights we give away the rights of others without their consent. That is not a requirement of Christianity. It is a hallmark of cowardice.
Argument for passivity: Doesn’t the Bible tell us to abide by laws and submit to the authority of government?
Response: It sure does. And the First Amendment is the law of the land. When it is violated, we should protest by using the First Amendment. If our protests are ignored we should use civil litigation to uphold the laws that lawless secular humanists seek to destroy. The key word here is “civil.” Christians should not hurl stones in the streets. They should remain civil by filing civil suits.
The Apostle Paul tells Christians they should not sue one another. But he did not say we should not sue heathens. Let us never forget that a large proportion of what is written in the New Testament was written by Paul from inside prison. He was boldly asserting his rights as a Roman citizen. He was not cowering in the face of abject evil, as so many man-boy “Christians” are today.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Why is all this hatred allowed???? Jews should be afraid and those who allow all this hatred of Jews should be very ashamed!! We have GOT to stand up against this. We can’t let it happen again!!!!
RightBias.com/July 6, 2010
Last month, students at a Southern California high school were caught playing a late-night on-campus game of tag called “Beat the Jew.” On the popular social networking site Facebook, a user named Alex Cookson launched an open invitation to an event called “Kill a Jew Day.” It was the fourth time that a call to murder Jews had been put on Facebook within recent days.
In D.C., White House press doyen Helen Thomas was captured on tape nonchalantly opining that all Jews should go back to Germany. Implicit in her statement was her assumption that everyone felt the same way, so what’s the big deal?
Also last month: Egypt decided to revoke the citizenship of any Egyptians married to Israelis. In Amsterdam, anti-Semitism has become so commonplace that Dutch police are now using “decoy Jews” in an effort to to cut the number of verbal and physical attacks on Jews, amid fears that anti-Semitic “hate crime” is on the rise. And in Germany, a Jewish dance group was attacked with stones by a group of children and teenagers during a performance at a street festival in Hannover. The teenagers also used a megaphone to shout anti-Semitic slurs.
European Jewish Congress President Moshe Kantor last week gave a bleak evaluation of European Jewry. “Jews are afraid to walk the streets in Europe with Jewish symbols,” Kantor said. “Synagogues, Jewish schools and kindergartens require barbed-wire fences and security, and Jewish men, women and children are beaten up in broad daylight.”
Jews worldwide are again under attack. The Holocaust and 6 million slaughtered Jews have been forgotten. It now appears that history is on the way to repeating itself, aided and abetted by the world press.
During the much publicized clash between supposed peace activists and Israeli soldiers last month, Israel was roundly condemned when forced to board a ship that was trying to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza under the guise of delivering “humanitarian aid” to Palestinians. Reuters was caught, once again, photo shopping a knife out of the hand of a supposed “peace activist” in a blatant attempt to portray Israel as the aggressor.
The London Telegraph was also caught using a two-year-old photo in its quest to portray Palestinians as victims. It was a photo that was purposefully misleading, as is shown here.
When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas launched 6,500 unprovoked rocket strikes on towns and schoolyards in Israel. The Israeli blockade of Gaza was a necessary self-defense measure to keep these rockets from reaching Gaza. But world opinion as expressed in the media, sees it differently. Palestinians are the victims and Israel should atone. Period.
The communications firm best known for shaping the liberal Moveon.org into a national movement has tackled a new project: orchestrating an international anti-Israel campaign. And it appears to be working.
Even Israel’s good friend, the United States, is throwing it under the bus. According to Israel’s ambassador to Washington, relations between Israel and its staunchest ally, the U.S., have suffered a “tectonic rift.”
Under President Barack Obama, the United States no longer provides Israel with automatic support at the United Nations where the Jewish state faces a constant barrage of criticism and condemnation. American sentiment now increasingly favors the supposed Palestinian “victims.”
As Thomas Sowell says, “Just as the American left has adopted blacks as mascots, so the international left has adopted Palestinians as mascots. In both cases, the actual well-being of the mascots is not the point. Mascots exist to be symbols for others. I n all the years when the Arab states controlled the area that Israel took over after the 1967 war, nobody cared what happened to the Palestinians, much less offered them a homeland.”
If you are one of the unsuspecting Americans who have bought into the “Palestinians as victims” hoax, I urge you, in the interest of fairness, to watch this short video. It is a must-see history lesson from David Horowitz, laying out the true history of Palestine. The facts are incontrovertible.
No matter how thin the pancake, there are always two sides. If we allow the terrorists’ propaganda machine and the world press to continue presenting a false version of Israel and Palestine, it is possible that history could indeed, repeat itself. And we will become allies with murderous Islamic terrorists whose sole goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
When will we realize that the terrorists are using our own laws against us? They speak up and promote hate towards us and we call it ‘free speech’, meanwhile WE can’t say speak out against them and their radical views or it’s called hate speech. Somebody in power needs to have the guts to call them out on this and put a stop to it. Unfortunately our president is more on their side than ours.
How to Stifle Speech
by Cliff May
There’s an old Soviet joke in which an American tells a Russian: “In my country we have freedom of speech. I can stand in front of the White House and yell, ‘Nixon is an idiot!’ and nothing will happen to me. The Russian replies: “In my country, we have the same freedom. I can stand in front of the Kremlin and yell, ‘Nixon is an idiot!’ and nothing will happen to me either.
Updated for the 21st century, the joke might go like this: A Christian tells a Muslim: “In the West, we have freedom of speech. I can go to the Vatican and yell ‘Christianity is a crock!’ and nothing will happen to me.” The Muslim replies: “We have just as much freedom in the Muslim world. I can go to Mecca and yell: ‘Christianity is a crock!’ and nothing will happen to me either.
The fact is very few Muslim-majority countries are free countries. A Muslim who wants to speak his mind without fear, practice his religion as he chooses, and vote for or against politicians in fair elections is better off living in the West than in any of the more than four dozen nations that hold membership in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
But even in the West, freedom is an endowment, not an entitlement. Generation after generation must have the courage to defend what we used to call, without embarrassment, “the blessings of liberty.”
That means recognizing that a war is being waged against what we used to call, also without embarrassment, the Free World. This war is being waged by an enemy many are reluctant to name: Islamists. They are fighting not only with AK-47s and I.E.D.s in such places as Afghanistan and Somalia. They also are fighting with actions, ideas and laws in such places as Europe and America. They are fighting a pitched battle against freedom of speech — the right without which other rights cannot be protected.
And, at this moment, the West is putting up a feeble defense. We are accepting government prohibitions on the thoughts we may express, we are allowing extremists to shout us down and shut us up, and we are self-censoring out of fear or faux-sensitivity. A few examples?
Start with the Dutch government’s prosecution of Geert Wilders, a Member of Parliament who has expressed unfavorable opinions of the Islamic faith and the Koran. Such views may cause offense. But they cannot be criminalized in any country that values freedom.
Would anyone consider prosecuting a Muslim or an atheist for making hostile comments about Christianity or Jesus or the Bible? In 1987, Andres Serrano offended many people with “Piss Christ,” his photograph of a crucifix submerged in a container of urine. Not only was he not prosecuted – he was awarded a prize in a contest sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts (which speaks volumes not only about American freedom but also about the tastes of the “arts community”).
And when Louis Farrakhan, after a visit to Libya, called Judaism a “gutter religion” was there anyone – no matter how outraged – who proposed sending the Nation of Islam leader to prison?
Those who defend the prosecution of Wilders contend that his statements amount to “hate speech.” And that, they assert, is dangerous and therefore must be outlawed. They point to the existence of “hate crimes” in the United States and say it’s more or less the same thing.
But it’s not. The idea behind “hate crimes” is that the law should differentiate between someone who hits you on the head because he wants your wallet, and someone who hits you on the head because you’re black, or Jewish, or Muslim or homosexual. The latter, it is argued, is worse than the former and so merits additional punishment. I have always been doubtful about that proposition. But more to the point: There has been from the start the concern that hate crimes would lead where they have led in the Netherlands and elsewhere: to justifying the criminalization of thought and expression — even in the absence of any act of violence.
Meanwhile, as Mark Steyn notes, a film titled “The Assassination of Geert Wilders” has been produced and promoted – by a Dutch government-funded radio station. No one is being prosecuted for hate speech as a result of that.
Another battle against free speech was called to my attention by Ali H. Alyami, Executive Director of the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia. He sent me a video of Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., at the University of California, Irvine. Alyami suggested I watch it because, he said, it represents a “threat to our freedom of expression.”
It shows a lecture hall in which Oren is to give a talk. A group of students, many but not all foreign and Muslim, have taken seats around the hall. Every few seconds one rises and begins to shout at Oren. Guards lead that individual out. Oren begins again – and another individual stands up, shouts and is led out. The goal is to prevent Oren from completing a single thought – and prevent the audience from hearing what he has to say.
University officials insist such behavior is intolerable – but do you think they’ll actually take the tough measures necessary to prevent such brown-shirt tactics in the future? And what do such episodes say about the values the students are learning from their professors? Is there any reason to believe they – the students or their professors – understand anything about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
One more battle to consider before I let you go: Last year, Yale University Press published The Cartoons that Shook the World, a book about the controversy over the 12 drawings ridiculing Islamist terrorism which were published in a Danish newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten, in 2005.
Soon after, the OIC demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions on Denmark and it circulated a dossier that contained not just the cartoons but examples of other European insults – most of which were fabricated. Especially memorable was a picture of a man wearing a pig mask, captioned: “Here is the real image of Mohammed.”It was eventually revealed that this was a photo of a Frenchman at a pig-squealing contest; nothing to do with Mohammed. Nevertheless, coupled with the cartoons, it enraged Muslims in many countries, some of whom took to the streets, rioting, setting fires, assaulting anyone who looked European. More than 100 people were killed.
With this as backdrop, Yale decided to exclude the cartoons from the book on the cartoons, and to omit, as well, any images of Mohammed, including those by the 19th century French artist Paul Gustave Doré and the 20th century Spanish surrealist painter Salvador Dalí. Was that because Yale’s executives feared violence? Or, as Roger Kimball has suggested, was it out of deference to Saudi Arabian donors? Either way, it’s hard not to view Yale’s decision as an act of pre-emptive surrender.
The OIC, in its 1990 “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam,” declares that “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely — but then adds: “in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia,” which is to say Islamic law as interpreted by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya and other despotic members of this international religious/political alliance.
Theirs is not a different view of freedom of speech: It is a death sentence for freedom of speech. And it is what they intend not only for the lands they now rule but globally. What does it tell us that they are finding so many people in the West willing – indeed, eager — to assist them?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
I just don’t get this at all!! I have never cared for Brian McLaren and I care for him even less now!! His anti-Israel stand is very disturbing!
The evangelical left’s anti-Israel slant
Chad Groening – OneNewsNow – 2/1/2010
The head of a Protestant renewal organization is calling out a prominent member of the so-called “evangelical left” for leading a delegation on an anti-Israel pilgrimage.
Brian McLaren is the founding pastor of the Cedar Ridge Community Church in the Baltimore area, which is part of the “Emergent Church” movement. He recently led a delegation through Israel and the West Bank decrying alleged pro-Israel partiality.
Mark Tooley, president of The Institute on Religion & Democracy (IRD), says McLaren’s positions are clearly anti-Israel. He says that according to McLaren, the Jewish nation is “a western imperialist power that is oppressing the Palestinians — who are, in contrast, an impoverished Third World victim…suffering because of American economic and military support for Israel.”
In addition, says Tooley, McLaren believes in a moral equivalency between Israel defending itself and Palestinians launching terrorist attacks.
“For example, Brian McLaren — like many on the evangelical left — gives a great deal of attention to Israel’s security fence, which of course has been largely successful in keeping suicide bombers from infiltrating Israel,” says the IRD president. “But as McLaren and others on the evangelical left portray it, it’s a tragic and terrible symbol that is inflicting untold suffering on the Palestinians.”
In a recent blog, McLaren described that security fence as a “segregation wall.”
Tooley says McLaren and his ilk do not favor a two-state solution, but rather a one-state solution that dissolves the Jewish state of Israel and replaces it with one where Muslims are in the majority.
Here are a couple of other sites where you can get more info on this:Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Christians, is this enough to wake you up?? This happens to be a mall near me so it hits home even more.
“Under the mall’s rules, shoppers are not allowed to engage in conversations about potentially controversial topics like religion or politics, unless they already know the person they are talking to. Another mall rule bans the wearing of any clothing with religious or political messages.”
Mall to Christians: God talk banned!
Rules challenged as violating ‘principles of free expression’
Posted: January 30, 2010
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Arguments have moved to the appellate court level in a California case in which a man who talked to two willing strangers in a shopping mall was arrested because the subject of the conversation was God.
The case developed several years ago when a youth pastor was arrested at the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., for having a conversation about religion with two other people.
Matthew Snatchko, who works with youth at his church, was interrupted in the middle of the conversation by a security guard. A second guard joined the confrontation and told Snatchko he was being placed under citizen’s arrest for “trespassing.”
The pastor said he agreed to leave but instead, the guards grabbed him, roughly shoved him against a storefront window and handcuffed him tightly enough to draw blood. Snatchko later was taken to the police station where he was booked on charges of battery and trespassing.
A short time later the charges were dropped, but the Pacific Justice Institute decided to pursue a case against the mall over the impact of the policy on free speech.
After a Placer County Superior Court judge in 2008 affirmed the mall’s regulations, an appeal was launched to the 3rd Appellate District in Sacramento, and the briefs have just now been completed for that court’s review.
“It’s surprising that mall owners think they can arrest patrons for engaging in casual conservations,” said PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds. “While a ‘don’t talk to strangers’ rule may be good for kids, enforcing it against adults is absurd, and we think it violates California’s free speech guarantees.”
The case is being pursued under the state’s constitutional provision for free speech, which extends protections to private locations, because the First Amendment to the Constitution deals directly with government restrictions.
McReynolds said had the case been argued in federal court, it would have had to focus on the discriminatory nature of the mall’s restrictions.
“Singling out religious speech for punishment violates our most basic principles of free expression,” said PJI President Brad Dacus. “If anyone can be arrested for wearing a Christian T-shirt or mentioning God in a shopping mall, we have lost not only our freedom, but our sanity as a society.”
PJI affiliate attorney Timothy Smith of the Sacramento firm McKinley & Smith served pro bono as Snatchko’s lead counsel in the trial court and continues to serve as part of the appellate team.
McReynolds told WND the case focuses on the “draconian” limits set by the mall that were used to arrest the youth pastor. While those charges were dropped, the result of that case wasn’t a court-adjudicated precedent that could be used to protect others.
He said while reasonable regulations certainly are allowed, such as volume limits, targeting speech for banishment because of its subject is not.
“What they cannot do and did in this case [is target] political and religious speech,” he said. “They originally chose to arrest the youth pastor for striking up a casual conversation. Since then, they’ve dug in their heels and are standing firm in their belief they can do whatever they want.”
Oral arguments haven’t been scheduled by the court in the case, and there’s no time frame available yet for when a decision might be reached, McReynolds said.
But PJI’s brief to the court explained the issue.
“The underlying interest of defendants clearly relates to content. While the act of speaking is not generally prohibited, the act of speaking a particular message without a permit is,” the brief said. “Defendants argue that if they do not disagree with the message of the speech, and if the applications are accepted on a first come, first selected basis, the regulation is content neutral.
“Even if the defendants determined that the recipients of the speech might be uncomfortable due to the speech, such a basis for restricting plaintiffs speech is not content neutral.”
The mall’s regulations, besides disallowing commercial speech and speech about religion or politics, also include an exception for those subjects if a speaker knew the other person previously.
“Under the exemption, the plaintiff would have been allowed to have the same conversation in the same exact place if only he had previously met the people with whom he was speaking,” the brief challenged.
“The notion that an individual is not allowed to speak with a stranger about a non-commercial topic without first having their speech examined is preposterous, and is truly silencing in every sense of the word,” the brief said.
The mall’s rules require “a submission of the subject matter of the spoken or written speech,” the brief continued. “Defendants’ licensing process as a whole has a great deal to do with speakers’ message. Not only does the application process require an examination of the subject matter, but plaintiff was actually referred to the licensing application process only after the security guard listened to the content of plaintiff’s speech.”
Officials with Westfield Group, the corporation that owns the mall, did not respond to a WND message requesting comment.
The company’s website says it entered the U.S. market in 1977 by purchasing a single shopping center and today has 55 centers across the U.S. in key markets such as northern California, Chicago, southern Florida, Los Angeles, New Jersey, New York, San Diego and Washington.
“The Westfield Group is the world’s largest listed retail property group by equity market capitalization. The Group has interests in and operates a global portfolio of 119 high-quality regional shopping centers in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, valued at more than $62 billion. Westfield works with over 23,600 retailers across more than 10 million square meters of retail space,” it boasts.
Pacific Justice said Snatchko originally was confronted during a casual conversation with two other shoppers about faith when a store employee listened to the conversation and alerted mall security guards.
Besides the ban on conversations with strangers about religion or politics, the mall also bans any clothing with religious or political messages.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals
Here we have another radical in Obama’s administration who says that ‘gay rights’ should trump ‘religious rights’.
Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals
Monday, January 18, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) – Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”
Feldblum, whose nomination was advanced in a closed session of the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on December 12, published an article entitled “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006.
“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” the Georgetown law professor argued.
Feldblum’s admittedly “radical” view is based on what she sees as a “zero-sum game” between religious freedom and the homosexual agenda, where “a gain for one side necessarily entails a corresponding loss for the other side.”
“For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,” Feldblum wrote.
“Conversely, for those who believe that any sexual orientation, including a homosexual or bisexual orientation, is morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual or bisexual orientation acts in an honest and good manner, it is problematic when the government fails to pass laws providing equality to such individuals.”
Feldblum argues that in order for “gay rights” to triumph in this “zero-sum game,” the constitutional rights of all Americans should be placed on a “spectrum” so they can be balanced against legitimate government duties.
All beliefs should be equal, regardless of their source, Feldblum says. “A belief derived from a religious faith should be accorded no more weight—and no less weight—than a belief derived from a non-religious source.” According to Feldman, the source of a person’s belief – be it God, spiritual energy, or the five senses – “has no relevance.”
‘Identity liberty’ versus ‘belief liberty’
Feldblum does recognize that elements of the homosexual agenda may infringe on Americans’ religious liberties. However, Feldblum argues that society should “come down on the side” of homosexual equality at the expense of religious liberty. Because the conflict between the two is “irreconcilable,” religious liberty — which she also calls “belief liberty” — must be placed second to the “identity liberty” of homosexuals.
“And, in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people,” she wrote.
“Protecting one group’s identity liberty may, at times, require that we burden others’ belief liberty. This is an inherent and irreconcilable reality of our complex society,” Feldblum wrote.
“But in dealing with this conflict, I believe it is essential that we not privilege moral beliefs that are religiously based over other sincerely held core, moral beliefs. Laws passed pursuant to public policies may burden the belief liberty of those who adhere to either religious or secular beliefs.”
The full Senate must now vote on Feldblum’s nomination, but a date for that vote has not yet been set.
As an EEOC commissioner, Feldblum would rule on cases involving alleged violations of federal employment law, including gender, age, and race discrimination.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
Is anyone really listening?? Or are we just going to allow this to continue?? Wake up Christians!!
What were 2009’s worst attacks on Christianity?
Anti-defamation group catalogs top 10 list of bigotry, discrimination
By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A nonprofit organization devoted to advancing religious liberty for Christians has scoured the news, sought the opinion of its e-mail subscribers and selected a list of “the top 10 incidents of anti-Christian defamation, bigotry and discrimination in the U.S. from last year.”
“It is arguable that anti-Christian hatred has spilled over into material forms of persecution in 2009,” said Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. “Christians were killed and bullied for their witness, ministers and churches threatened with violence and vandalized for standing for marriage and Christians were fired for not compromising their faith. If these are not bona fide examples of persecution, than I wonder what more it might take?”
CADC subscribers chose from a list of 20 stories – both those that made headlines and those that were conspicuously absent from wide media coverage – to pick their top 10.
The winners included a wide array of events deemed to insult, injure or marginalize Christianity. They included acts of violence, laws and judgments, actions by schools against students and decisions by the Obama administration to promote causes and leaders at odds with Christian teaching. Here, then, is the list, as reported by the CADC:
1. “The Federal Hate Crimes Bill that attacks religious liberty and freedom of speech.”
As WND has reported, Canada’s experience with “hate crimes” legislation has caused many American Christians to fear the U.S. will follow a similar path of censoring or even punishing in the name of “hate speech” people who declare the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.
Gerald Chipeur is an attorney working to defend a Canadian pastor whose letter to the editor of a local newspaper prompted a complaint, a $5,000 fine and a court order not to express his beliefs further.
Chipeur told WND he expects the same issues now to be raised in the U.S., because of the expanded “hate crimes” law signed by Obama.
“I would be shocked if you did not have 100 times more problems with this legislation than we are. Your system is set up to encourage lawyers to do this, and you have so many more people, there is more opportunity for people to take offense,” he said.
“There are certain people in society who look to the government for everything, including to help them with their hurt feelings. The government was never made for that,” he said.
Regardless, “there are those who want the government to bless their approach to life, whatever it is, because they have this view,” he explained. “They come to the point they want the government to say … you are right.”
Chipeur concluded, “We’ve learned from history that’s a very bad idea. You get persecution, which is exactly what’s happening here.”
“Back Fired” shows how the faith that gave birth to tolerance is no longer tolerated!
2. “President Obama’s appointment of radical anti-Christians like homosexual activist Kevin Jennings as the ‘safe school czar’; pro-abortion advocate Kathleen Seblius made secretary of Human and Health Services; and Chai Feldblum, pro-homosexual and anti-religious liberty judge nominated for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”
In May, WND revealed Jennings, Obama’s pick to oversee “safety” in the nation’s public schools, is founder of the homosexual-activist group GLSEN, which promotes homosexual clubs in public schools and launched the annual “Day of Silence” celebration of homosexuality.
In October, WND brought to light Feldblum’s leadership in an organization she said was out to “revolutionize social mores,” as well has her signature to a petition pushing for the acceptance of polygamy.
Among other exposes of Obama’s radical czars, WND reported on John Holdren, adviser for science and technology, who once predicted an ice age that will kill 1 billion, said abortion can save the planet and believes an adult dog is more ‘rational’ than a human baby.
3. “The Federal Department of Homeland Security issued a report entitled ‘Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate’ that labeled conservative Christians extremists and potential terrorists.”
As WND reported, the DHS report also labeled as “extremists” citizens concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. It also singled out returning war veterans as particular threats.
4. “An activist judge ordered a homeschool mom in New Hampshire to stop homeschooling her daughter because the little girl ‘reflected too strongly’ her mother’s Christian faith.”
Despite being described by court documents as “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level,” the local court determined Brenda Voydatch’s daughter defended her faith too rigorously, suggesting the girl “has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.”
Ten-year-old “Amanda” was therefore ordered to go to public school. In November, the state’s Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
5. “Pro-life activist Jim Pullion was murdered in front of his granddaughter’s high school for showing the truth about abortion.”
While the nation was commemorating the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the well-known Owosso, Mich., man was shot multiple times in front of the local high school. The police said it was a targeted attack by a man who objected to the anti-abortion signs Pullion displayed.
6. “Police called to East Jessamine Middle School in Lexington, Ky., to stop 8th graders from praying during their lunch break for a student whose mother was tragically killed.”
The school later relented and allowed the children to pray the next day.
7. “The overt homosexual participation in Obama’s presidential inaugural events by ‘Bishop’ Vickie Eugene Robinson, the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, D.C., and a homosexual marching band.”
8. “HBO’s program ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ aired an episode where the main actor urinates on painting of Jesus. When confronted HBO would not apologize.”
The episode depicted the comedian Larry David accidentally splashing on a painting of Christ and then walking away. When the owner of the painting later enters the bathroom, she concludes the image is weeping and kneels to pray.
“Why is it that people are allowed to publicly show that level of disrespect for Christian symbols?” asked Deal Hudson, publisher of InsideCatholic.com. “If the same thing was done to a symbol of any other religions – Jewish or Muslim – there’d be a huge outcry. It’s simply not a level playing field.”
In a statement to Fox News, HBO answered, “Anyone who follows ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ knows that the show is full of parody and satire. … Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself. The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious.”
9. “Rev. Fred Winters was murdered while preaching in his pulpit in Maryville, Ill.”
The gunman shot the pastor four times during a church service in March before pulling out a knife. Members of the congregation tackled the assailant and held him until police arrived.
A doctor declared the murderer, Terry J. Sedlacek, suffers from schizophrenia. Sedlacek is being treated at a state facility operated by the Illinois Department of Human Services.
10. “Pro-life Pastor Reverend Walter Hoye of Oakland, Calif., was jailed for exercising peaceful, pro-life speech.”
As WND reported, in May 2008 Hoye filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, arguing that an Oakland city ordinance banning counselors or protesters from approaching within eight feet of people entering an abortion clinic is a violation of constitutional free speech rights.
Twelve days later, Hoye was arrested for allegedly violating the law he was seeking to overturn.
Hoye was found guilty of violating the law when he was caught holding a sign that read, “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help you,” outside an Oakland abortion clinic.
He was fined and jailed for 18 days earlier this year.
LifeSiteNews reports one of Hoye’s lawyers, Michael Millen of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, has announced his intention to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“It is now illegal to stand still on the sidewalk and extend your arm to hand out a piece of literature,” Millen said, referring to the city ordinances eight-foot bubble rule. “Mark this day down. … On this day, a federal court judge ruled that it is constitutional to put someone in jail for a year for holding out a hand with a leaflet.”
The CADC’s other stories that weren’t voted into the top 10 included the following:
• The ongoing saga of Rifqa Bary, the 17-year-old Ohio convert to Christianity from Islam who fled to Florida because she feared her family would kill her, only to be returned by the courts to Ohio.
• The threat leveled by county officials against a home bible study in San Diego County, requiring the group to stop meeting until they get a permit for religious assembly.
• The “Antichrist” film, reviled as “the most horrific movie ever seen” for explicit and pornographic sadomasochism, violence and occult content.
• The lawsuit filed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation seeking to stop Congress from displaying the national motto and Pledge of Allegiance at the Visitors Center in Washington, D.C.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Very interesting article. This episcopal priest was not interested in this woman’s coming to her church if she wasn’t a liberal?? And the left says we aren’t tolerant??? Please, what a joke!!
The Hypocrisy of the Left
By Robin of Berkeley
Dec 28, 2009
I have been looking for God my whole life. I first recognized Him in the black foster parents I worked with who manifested Christ-consciousness.
I then found him four years ago, when my parents died three weeks apart and I was carried by a force stronger than myself. And more recently, as I’ve gone from left to right, I have discovered him in the many conservatives guiding me, such as AT readers.
Given my spiritual longing, I decided it was time to explore places of worship. Being a secular Jew, my first step should have been a temple. However, the synagogues around here are practically recruitment stations for Obama (aside from the Orthodox ones, but I don’t speak a word of Hebrew). So I decided to experience church on Christmas Eve.
Checking out churches online, I found almost none that offered political neutrality. Most heralded their progressive credentials, welcoming the transgendered, but not conservatives.
I was pleased to find an Episcopal church whose website focused on religion, not ObamaCare. I left a message for the priest that I was looking for a church that didn’t press a political agenda because I wasn’t a liberal.
I received an icy reply from the priest, the Reverend Lucy, who said with barely-contained disgust, “I don’t think you should check us out.”
Her response left me shaken and angry. I understand that leftists despise conservatives. I have seen that creepy look of pure hatred when I naïvely told a leftist friend about my political conversion.
But an Episcopal priest rejecting me during the holiest time of year? Isn’t anything or anyone sacred?
In shunning me, the Reverend Lucy exposed not only her own hypocrisy, but the duplicity of the left itself. She unveiled the left’s dirty little secret — that their doctrines are as bogus as global warming.
I used to believe it all. But when I removed one piece — that the left protects women — the whole house of cards came tumbling down.
Obama and his friends preach tolerance, but there is bigotry at their group’s core. As displayed by the Reverend Lucy, this is a spiritually vacuous ideology. While they fashion themselves as human saviors, they clearly don’t like people very much, and they despise conservatives.
Why do they hate us, even during the season to be merry? I think it’s because we see right through their elaborate disguises.
We know who they are — the Audacity of Obama. Dreams from his Marxist Father. Before us, the Emperor has no clothes. Even the left’s priests are no true servants of God.
The left can easily dupe the masses who are still congratulating themselves for electing a biracial president. Obama sneers, glares, and gestures dismissively. He castigates Sgt. Crowley for supposed racism, pals around with dictators, and chuckles while millions are out of work.
Yet half the country is convinced that he’s the nicest guy around.
There’s a resonant story about Suzuki Roshi, the beloved 60s-era Zen master. A visiting teacher asked Suzuki Roshi whether his students had mastered a particular Buddhist scripture. Suzuki responded that he didn’t know.
Aghast, the visitor demanded, “Then how do you evaluate the students’ progress?”
Suzuki answered quietly, “I observe how they treat each other.”
To know everything about the “progressives,” just observe how people have been treating each other since Obama came on the scene. For one, the misogyny has been despicable.
Then there’s the surge of attacks on law enforcement, from the murders of police officers in Seattle and Oakland to the slaughter of soldiers at Ft. Hood. Obama is sending out a “question authority” vibe — everyone’s authority, that is, except his.
In the Berkeley area, there appears to be a skyrocketing of black-on-white crimes. I’m hearing stories from clients of even more brazen street crimes and harassment.
I’ve written about two horrendous crimes at local schools the last few months: the gang-rape and beating of a teenage girl at Richmond High School and the stoning of a middle-school teacher during her class.
Just two weeks ago, there was another horrific assault at the same middle school: a fourteen-year-old boy raped a twelve-year-old girl during the school day. While the politically correct media refuses to tell, the word on the street is that these recent crimes have been racially motivated.
We are a country in rapid decline — another red flag that leftist ideology is destructive. Not only is the value of the dollar sinking, but our moral fiber is unraveling before our eyes.
Gandhi taught that a civilization’s greatness can be measured by how it treats its weakest citizens. So how are society’s most vulnerable doing?
Medical care may be withheld from the elderly, children are being sexualized and “queered” in public schools, and conservative women are subject to degradation and rape threats.
Another measure of a nation: whether political opponents can speak freely. In Obama’s America, prepare to be labeled a racist should you question “The Man.” Find yourself ostracized by liberal friends, colleagues, and even churches should you not pass the political litmus test.
No wonder the left doesn’t want us anywhere near their bully pulpits. We can see right through their media-orchestrated charade.
I decided to confront the Reverend Lucy about her un-Christian behavior and challenge her to do better. I e-mailed her the following:
I inquired about whether I would feel comfortable at your church because I am not politically liberal. You left me a message with barely contained hostility. You stated, “I don’t think you should check us out.”
The fact that you responded to me in such an uncharitable manner makes me terribly sad. Has politics divided people so much that even a minister will treat someone unkindly for having a different political ideology?
In this holiest of seasons, I wish for you a change of heart, an opening of the heart, to those who come to your door. Because when someone makes a phone call to you — which isn’t easy — they are in need of God. Don’t you, as a minister, have a sacred duty to respond with God’s infinite love and mercy?
With the blessings of the season,
No, she didn’t write back.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
School goes ballistic when 2nd-grader draws Jesus
Boy, 8, said to gets psych evaluation after sketch of Christ on cross called ‘violent’
Posted: December 15, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
An 8-year-old boy has been suspended from school and forced to undergo a psychological evaluation after he drew a picture of Jesus Christ on the cross, his father claims.
A teacher at Lowell Maxham Elementary School in Taunton, Mass., allegedly said the second-grade student created a violent drawing, the Taunton Daily Gazette reported.
The boy’s picture portrayed a crucified Jesus with Xs over his eyes to indicate that he had died on the cross.
The child’s father, outraged at the school’s action, asked to remain anonymous to protect his son. He said his boy drew the picture after returning from a family trip to see the Christmas display at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette, a Christian retreat.
He said when the teacher asked students to draw something that reminded them of Christmas on Dec. 2, the boy recalled his trip and created a portrait of Christ on the cross.
“As far as I’m concerned, they’re violating his religion,” he told the newspaper.
Associated Advocacy Center educational consultant Toni Saunders said, “I think what happened is that because he put Xs in the eyes of Jesus, the teacher was alarmed and they told the parents they thought it was violent.”
Saunders said the boy has special needs, and the school reacted inappropriately.
“They made him leave school, and they recommended that a psychiatrist do an evaluation,” she said.
But the boy’s father told the newspaper the school required an evaluation – at the parents’ expense – before the student would be allowed to return.
“When she told me he needed to be psychologically evaluated, I thought she was playing,” he said.
However, the school district claims the boy was never suspended.
“This incident occurred nearly two weeks ago,” said a statement from the district. “It was handled appropriately, and the school staff and family had been working together in a cooperative and positive manner.”
The district also claims the picture published above is not the same drawing that was discovered by the teacher and that the teacher did not assign the students to sketch a picture that reminded them of Christmas.
The father stands by his story. He said his son, who receives special reading and speech instruction, has never shown a propensity toward violence.
“He’s never been suspended,” he said. “He’s 8 years old. They overreacted.”
The boy returned to school on Dec. 7, but he said his son has been traumatized and will be transferred to another school in the district.
The district said its actions were not religious and nature and were based solely on the wellbeing of the student.
“At this time of year, Christmas is one of many religious and secular holidays,” the statement said. “Taunton, known as the Christmas City, takes pride as a community in celebrating this Christian holiday together with Hanukah [sic], Kwanzaa and many others.”
Bloggers have overwhelmingly demanded that the teacher be fired. They posted the following responses:
• The Taunton School District needs to be examined. How could a teacher’s concern get this far? Let’s not forget that several administrators had to agree with the teacher’s reaction in order to have the child sent home and request exam. What do they have to say for themselves?
• This was not a mistake. It is an intentional anti-Christ slap in the face at Christmas. If something like this was done to a child of any other minority religion the teacher would be fired.
• I hope the parents consider transferring the child to a parochial school where his religious understanding will be more sensitively recognized. Shame on the school administrators.
• I would like to start a petition to suspend this teacher immediately pending a full investigation into whether or not she should be terminated. Some parents try very hard to instill the values of religion in their children, and for this teacher to tell this student he did something wrong is disgusting. If my kids were in her class, I would pull them out and demand a new teacher or a change of schools.
• I’m a liberal, non-religious individual and even I think this is totally ridiculous! Since Christmas is a religious holiday, the teachers should have expected some religious imagery from little kids!
• How does one make the crucifixion non-violent?
• Teacher needs a lesson in church. Jesus Christ’s death was violent.
• The teacher is the one with the issues; this qualifies as abuse.
• I believe that this teacher needs to be removed from teaching put in a mental institution. This teacher is mentally disturbed and a psycho and danger to society.
• This teacher needs to be fired! She traumatized an 8-year-old, Fire her! No discussion necessary!
Concerned individuals may e-mail Maxham Elementary School or call Principal Rebecca Couet at (508)821-1265, or fax to (508) 821-1274. The Taunton Public Schools district office may be reached by calling (508) 821-1100 or e-mailing Superintendent Julie Hackett.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
« Previous Entries