Welcome to H&C,,, where I aggregate news of interest. Primary topics include abuse with "the church", LGBTQI+ issues, cults - including anti-vaxxers, and the Dominionist and Theocratic movements. Also of concern is the anti-science movement with interest in those that promote garbage like homeopathy, chiropractic and the like. I am an atheist and anti-theist who believes religious mythos must be die and a strong supporter of SOCAS.
While I applaud this ruling, I do wonder if it will set up a SCOTUS showdown taking into consideration Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). A case the WBC won.
The law bans protests within 500 feet of a funeral service from one hour before the rites begin to two hours afterward.
The
8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that it wasn’t
unreasonable to limit the time and location of picketing because of
“vulnerable physical and emotional conditions” of funeral mourners.
,,,
“This
law strikes the appropriate balance between First Amendment free speech
rights and the rights of grieving families to bury their loved ones in
peace,” Peterson said in a press release.
,,,
Friday’s ruling stated that members of Westboro Church have a First
Amendment right to speak, but that right is “not absolute” and that some
restrictions in “time, place, and/or manner” are allowed.
To get a sense of how revolutionary the political fight for power in the U.S. is, we need to look at a few quotes from what has been dubbed, “Paul Weyrich’s Teaching Manual,” the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan on how to gain control of the government of the U.S. Written by Eric Heubeck, and titled, “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement,” the document is no longer available at the Free Congress Foundation’s website for obvious reasons. But excerpts are published at the Yurica Report. The excerpts explain why the Dominionists are winning; the tactics they endorse are sheer Machiavellian:
I have paraphrased the four immoral principles of the Dominionist movement as the following:
1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication.
2) It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of “goodness” whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as “evil.”
3) Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.
4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.
If you remember from part 1, we discussed a general overview of the First Amendment and how it is ONLY speaking of and to governmental entities and their representatives (public vs private sector employment). The First Amendment has no jurisdiction between private parties, such as the "cases" of Phil Robertson or Andrew Wakefield, although there are certain caveats (ie violations concerning anti-discrimination laws, or what I call faux religious liberty cases, BUT you have to bear in mind those cases then are no longer 1st Amendment issues even when said violation may be religious in nature).
You may say whatever you want - again with some caveats (ie yelling fire in a crowded theater) - the gov't can not shut you down although they can place restrictions for public safety (such as safety zones at family planning clinics or a buffer zone at a political rally).
A private entity may disagree and they may criticize you BUT they do not have to provide a platform for your speech. Ultimately that is what the Azucar Bakery case was about in Colorado. Marjorie Silva, the defendant, maintained throughout, "[i]n the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays."
Where Phillips went wrong is that he out-right refused a service/product (providing a wedding cake) that he normally provides to any other customer. Where Silva went right, "[i]n the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays."
Where Jack went wrong, he assumed Silva would cow-tow to his wishes because he is a Christian and his beliefs are sacrosanct and should never be questioned. Where Silva went right, "[i]n the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays."
In a similar vane, it is also why Phil Robertson had no leg to stand on against A&E. As a private company, A&E had certain standards for employees, in their determination Robertson didn’t meet said standards. End of story.
In a nut shell that is the situation being faced by Andrew Wakefield; a lying con-man with no moral integrity. Tribeca is a private entity who chose, after receiving horrible public backlash, not to screen the his film. Contrary to opinion, the powerful elite had nothing to do with this. There isno conspiracy.
Although this IS SATIRE, this article sums up the general sentiment concerning our view of documentaries.
We also learned that the same tenet applies in regards to religion. The gov't has to be hand off in endorsing a specific religion and that hands off approach has to be across the board. It has to be equal to all religions. In other words Christianity and its variants (what we here in the States are most familiar with) can not be given preferential treatment over any other religion. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
That is one of the underlying arguments you will find concerning the SB277 issue in California. Parents can no longer use religion to exempt a child from the required school vaccines.
If you remember SB277 eliminated non-medical exemptions for mandated vaccination in regards to schooling. As I have mentioned, its passing has created a little cottage industry. A point that Orac notes concerning Dr Bob Sears: “SB 277 is generally a good law, but it’s definitely not perfect. Perhaps its most glaring weakness is that all that it requires for a child to obtain a medical exemption is a letter from the child’s doctor. In other words, any physician can provide a letter for parents to use to get a vaccine mandate.” [See also: Now what? Will SB 277 enrich antivaccine doctors? andSB 277 advances, and antivaccine activists lose it (again)]
For example, these are statements within a longer statement by Humble,
I also told him that we have given interviews to CNN, BBC, Sky News and others with none of them reporting what I said so why waste our time. He was persistent about finding out if we cure breast cancer. I finally told him that by the Sacraments of the Genesis II Church we have treated, cured and healed breast cancer. He was appalled that I would say those forbidden words “cure, heal or treat”. Forbidden by the FDA, U.S. Justice system maybe, but not a Church! Maybe the AMA can't say that because they are not set up to “cure” anything but only treat symptoms. I told him that he could see for himself testimonies of many diseases “cured” with the Genesis II Church sacraments. People from all over the world are being “restored to health” with the protocols of our Church. ABC released an article and a two - night coverage of a so-called “investigation” into the “unorthodox underworld” of the Genesis II Church. Here is what was aired.
,,,
As you can see we brought up a different side of the issue that they cannot and will not cover. The only places we have seen our story get out is the alternative media and even many of them are afraid to cover what we do as a Church. The time is now to make a stand against this evil that is destroying our world. This Bible verse sums it up for about who we are really fighting. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”, Ephesians 6:12 King James Bible. Whether you believe the Bible or not those that are well read in history and have their eyes open know this to be truth throughout history.
While Humble is still active in the debacle he created, a more recent news release is telling. This one is dated December 4, 2015 from Archbishop Mark S. Grenon:
We have prepared a Religious Exemption letter to be given to any government or private organization as a statement of our beliefs about vaccines and other issues regarding toxins entering our body, i.e. “our temple”. If anyone needs this letter please contact us at,,,
This statement, was in regards to a woman who wanted to volunteer as a hospice.
To Humble and his ilk, I have this to say, Why the FUCK would you volunteer at a hospice or such without being vaccinated - the elderly, the ill and immune compromised DIE from flu complications, EASILY. Fuck Jim Humble and his cult.
I get personally peeved at this becasue it is attitude such as this that caused my issue with staph/ MRSA. Which BTW almost derailed my eye surgery 18 months after the fact.
Bishop Kerri Rivera (and Bishop Andreas Kalcker, a oft co-hort) takes it one step further, in her "curing" of autism, with the purging of parasites and intestinal lining (ropeworms) via the ingestion of CLO2 and CLO2 enemas.
Sorry, but not sorry for the gross picture. This is what the parents are sifting through their child's poop for. This occurs daily if not more.
Another example, this 2-part tutorial from Kerri Rivera and in it she describes how to make a 3000ppm CLO2 solution:
A far cry from the recommended concentration for treating our water supply.
What I found interesting,,,
Although Rivera seems to have jumped ship for GcMAF, THIS still appears in relation to Humble and his Genesis II church. My last foray into this wacky world, about a year ago, the number stood at 163. So it would appear, though not vocal, Rivera is still considered part of the fold.
Into that mix we have the whole of the AV movement of which Wakefield is a part; a part he fully embraces.
All this got me too thinking in light of the recent Hovind/Tocco video(s) and the current debacle with Wakefield. (And NO, Wakefield was not exonerated, "To try to argue that a legal ruling such as the one regarding Professor Walker-Smith exonerates Wakefield is an even worse folly than arguing that his being struck off necessarily proves he is a quack. He’s an antivaccine quack based on science; it matters not what the courts say.") SOCAS hasn't been broached per se, but SOCAS is an issue in the broader context of the AV movement as is the idea of religious freedom in general. I wonder how much they have learned from the Reich and their throw spaghetti on the wall approach.
You see, some aspects of the alt-med field fall prey to the conspiratorial mind set exemplified by Hovind and the religious batshittery presented by Genesis II. In fact what scares me is that next on Hovind’s list will be MMS. He already peddles B-17 as a miracle cancer cure, so MMS would not be to far of a leap.
I guess what is bothersome and why collecting my troubled thoughts so difficult is that I see no end in sight. I look to people such as Kevin Folta, the SciBabe, Dr David Gorski among many, many others, who have spent years studying this stuff and wonder - what do they really think when a individual such as Hovind or Wakefield (or in Folta’s case VandanaShiva) make such a mockery out of science. A field they have spent a lifetime to learn.
In the end I am reminded of what the interesting points John Oliver makes about science and science reporting in the media.
"No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! In science, you don't just get to cherry pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway! That's religion! You're thinking of religion!"
"This is really dangerous! If we start thinking that science is a la carte ... that is what leads people to think that man-made climate change isn't real, or that vaccines cause autism, both of which the scientific consensus is pretty clear on."
Brian Deer's available YT video concerning his investigation into Wakefield.
Published on Oct 10, 2014
This is the full version of Brian Deer's November 2004 film on Andrew Wakefield, "MMR: What they didn't tell you."
The award-winning investigation of Wakefield continued for another six years, leading to his erasure as a medical practitioner, and the retraction of research published in the Lancet in 1998 that, upon final scrutiny of the underlying clinical and pathological data, proved to be an elaborate fraud.
"Many people have had articles in the Lancet," Deer commented afterwards. "I've had one out."
It is an issue I was going to address in regards to Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty-A&E flap but destiny took me elsewhere. So today, probably next week, and maybe the week after we will take a look see - were Wakefield's (and Robertson's) rights trampled?
Simple answer is NO. Simple explanation, neither Tribeca or A&E are considered government agencies. As we all know, I don't like simple. Makes for very short diatribes,,,
Of course, the First Amendment only protects against government restriction of artistic expression. It does not apply to the actions of private citizens or businesses.
While government may not shut down an art gallery because it disagrees with the viewpoint reflected in a painting, an art gallery owner can always decline to display a piece of art.
While government may not ban a compact disc because it is offended by the sentiments expressed in a song, a corporation like Wal-Mart can choose not to sell CDs with parental advisory labels.
First though we will have to take in a bit of history. While it deals with SOCAS, or Separation of Church and State, primarily, there are ramifications in regard to the other part of the First Amendment, that of Free Speech.
This is part of a show that I did while associated with another radio platform. It was initially geared toward the Pagan community and those that held non-traditional religious views (those that considered their talents a “gift” from god) - which, for all intense purposes, we as atheist also hold; or well, don’t hold. It was for those that felt themselves "safe" because in their minds they were "Christian enough". I have revamped it a bit to fit my needs for tonight because the information is valid regardless of religious affiliation. It is a primer on SOCAS that I tinker with in an effort to make my presentation better.
As I mentioned prior, its relevance will become important in the next couple weeks when I hope to discuss the movie Vaxxed and Andrew Wakefield's expression of persecution and censorship along with the CDC-Thompson debacle. But also it ties into the current election season as well.
SOCAS issues are again (or should I say still) in the spotlight. As many of you know I follow SOCAS issues pretty close especially concerning the faux "religious liberty" issue in regards to LGBTQI discrimination and the rise of the dominionist/theocratic movement. As non-believers the implications of SOCAS are quite obvious but what about the so-called liberal or progressive Christians that many within our community like to reach out to? The interfaith movement,,, How would the issue of SOCAS effect them? It does, and not in a round about fashion, as you may think.
I know many of you have seen some of the more egregious political and religious rhetoric I have posted on my Facebook page and blog from what I call the Reich (doesn't matter really how you label them Moral Majority, Religious Right, Tea Party, GOTP, assholes etc.). Many pundits, politicians, pulpits AND celebrities have been espousing their rhetoric and a return to what they call the "Biblical/Christian roots" of our Founding Fathers. The problem is, they have twisted and perverted what the Founders have said, a laDavid Barton, so that it is hard to know what the originalintent was. (The two Barton books I am most familiar with: The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson
and
The Myth of Separation: What Is the Correct Relationship Between Church and State?)
I would so like to play this entire clip courtesy of People For the American Way but time constraints will not allow for it. It is a 7 minute mini documentary entitled "The Religious Right Then and Now" that highlights the Religious Right “near the peak of their power at the 1992 Republican National Convention at the Houston Astrodome. The short film highlights the extreme views of the Religious Right and includes footage of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and numerous right-wing activists: Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer, Phyllis Schlafly, James Robison, etc.”
The formula they've concocted has been called the "15 per cent solution" by the Christian Coalition. Even in a well attended presidential election, only 15 per cent of eligible voters determine the outcome,,, "We don't have to worry about convincing a majority of Americans to agree with us," Guy Rodgers, the Christian Coalition's national field director declared at the 1991 Road to Victory conference. Most of them are staying home and watching Falcon Crest."
"We don't have to worry about convincing a majority of Americans to agree with us," Guy Rodgers, the Christian Coalition's national field director declared at the 1991 Road to Victory conference. Most of them are staying home and watching Falcon Crest."
In 1992, according to People for the American Way, the liberal constitutional watchdog, extremist Christian candidates racked up a 40 per cent win record in state and local races. And, to the horror of Republicans across the nation, they're dominating a number of state wide Republican Party committees. "What the Christian right spends a lot of time doing," says Marc Wolin, a moderate Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress from San Francisco last year, "is going after obscure party posts. They try to control the party apparatus in each county. We have a lot to fear from these people. They want to set up a theocracy in America."
"They have acquired a very detailed and accurate understanding of how political parties are organized," says Craig Berkman, former chairman of the Republican Party in Oregon:
Parties are very susceptible to being taken over by ideologues because lower party offices have no appeal to the vast majority of our citizenry. Many precincts are represented by no one. If you decide all of a sudden because it's your Christian duty to become a precinct representative, you only need a few votes to get elected. Increasingly, they have the key say so on who will be a delegate at the national convention, and who will write the party platform and nominate the presidential candidate,,,
TIMELINE
[This list is by no means exhaustive but highlight incidents that I feel are important to the Reich. Pay attention primarily to pre-1995, as that is when the ball began to roll.]
1730-40s First "Great Awakening" (George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley)
1820-40s Second “Great Awakening”
1942 National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) 1st "Modern" Iteration
1960 Coral Ridge Ministry Dr James Kennedy
1961 CBN Launch Pat Robertson
1962 Engel v Vitale (school prayer)
1966 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
1968 Nixon uses the Southern Strategy exploiting racism in the South
1972 Eagle Forum (Phylis Schafly anti-feminism); Free Market Foundation/Liberty Institute
1973 Roe v Wade; Heritage Foundation and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - Paul Weyrich; Institutes of Biblical Law - Rousas John Rushdoony
1977 Focus on the Family (James Dobson); American Family Association (Rev. Donald Wildmon)
1979 Moral Majority (Jerry Fallwell); Concerned Women for America (Beverly LaHaye) 2nd "Modern" Iteration
1980 American Coalition for Traditional Values (Timothy LaHaye); Traditional Values Coalition (Rev Louis P. Sheldon); 1981 Schaefer's Christian Manifesto; Council for National Policy
1983 Family Research Council (James Dobson now Tony Perkins)
1984 School Voucher program first introduced
1986 Operation Rescue now Operation Save America (Randall Terry)
1987 Christian Coalition (Pat Robertson)
1989 Liberty Counsel (Matthew Staver, Liberty University Jerry Fallwell)
1990 American Center for Law and Justice (Pat Robertson); Discovery Institute
1992 Culture War Speech (Pat Buchanan)
1994 Alliance Defense Fund (Bill Bright Campus Crusade for Christ, Larry Burkett Crown Financial Ministry, James Dobson)
1996 DOMA; Homeschooling included with school voucher program: William Martin’s "With God on Our Side" a companion piece to six-episode PBS documentary of the same name; Fox News launched (founded in 1985)
1997 Pacific Justice Institute 3rd Iteration
1998/99 Wasn't until the Wedge Document that things as we know it today came together
2000 Blackstone Legal Fellowship
2001 911
2004 Born Alive Infants Protection Act
2005 Saddleback Church (Rick Warren) gained national attention; Terry Schiavo case
Manhattan Declaration; Kitzmiller Case
2006 veto of Stem Cell Research by Bush Jr.
2007 National Organization of Marriage NOM (Brian S. Brown PROP 8)
2008 Sarah Palin The Re-branding
2009 Rise of the Tea Party Movement
2010 Citizens United v FEC
2012 "War on religion"; Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
2014 Hobby Lobby case
2015 Obergefell v. Hodges; Kim Davis Affair
Before we continue, there are two very simplistic points to keep in mind while cruising through this topic.
1] I want y'all to do a bit of a fill-in-the-blank (hypothetically, since I am assuming I am preaching to the choir): Church/State separation doesn't effect me because I am a ________ (insert whatever traditional or non-traditional belief system you may practice)
There are currently over 41,000 different Christian denominations/organizations worldwide with approximately 1500 different groups within the US
Altho the exact number of English translations is an unknown, since 1526 when Tyndale's NT began circulating, the number of translation/paraphrases, partial or full, is about 900. I have actually seen numbers as high 3300+
Do you see where this is leading??
This notion is what drives me bonkers, “they” do not realize that within the dominionists ideology, "they" are not the "right kind of Christian" and read the wrong Bile. More on that later, maybe,,, [I am using Ted Cruz as an example as he is the only dominionist left in the presidential race. Kasich, while still a candidate at the time of this writing is not viable nor is he as hard-core as Cruz.]
Fea maintains that Cruz’s campaign rests on the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation; therefore “restore,” “return to,” and “reclaim” has become Cruz’s special mission. Like his father Rafael, and many culture warriors of the Religious Right, Cruz believes that Christians need to reclaim the various aspects of culture—the media, the entertainment industry, education, government—and take dominion over them.
So what exactly are we talking about here?
Very simple really, the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The part we are most interested in ATM: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,,, Keep in mind whom this is speaking of,,,CONGRESS!! Put another way, the government,,, whether it be local, state or federal.
As part of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. This is why some in the Reich want the 14th Amendment removed. It is the basis of many civil liberty cases currently before the courts. By virtue of the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments. This is part of the stink concerning the mRFRA of Indiana along with the idea of taking away rights. It is a foreseeable after effect of the Hobby Lobby ruling. See also: Redefining Religious Liberty: The Covert Campaign Against Civil Rights.
As researcher and activist Jay Michaelson shows in this report, a coalition largely made up of Roman Catholic elites and right-wing evangelicals continues its battle to undermine the promise of the Affordable Care Act by pushing for an even broader realm of religious exemptions in the name of defending religious liberty. Michaelson names the key intellectuals, Religious Right organizations, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and legal groups, like the Becket Fund, that are working together to advance a discriminatory agenda that would allow employers to put contraception coverage out of reach of their employees.
,,,
To date [March 2013], according to this report, there are 49 pending cases, many represented by the Becket Fund, of companies and nonprofits—including universities—claiming that observing the contraceptive coverage requirement is a violation of their religious liberty.
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (Section1)
It wasn't until Everson v Board of Education (1947) that the "establishment clause" was fully incorporated (made to apply against the states). It was then that the phrase "separation between church and state" as attributed to Thomas Jefferson became the mainstay central to this issue.
[Just a brief note:: While much of the debate concerning the 14th Amendment ATM centers on “birth right citizenship”, it is generally held by some that the equal protection clause was not intended to prohibit discrimination as currently held by the courts. I’m not going to get into THAT debate ATM, but bear in mind some want the right to discriminate. And yes it does go back to the Brown opinion of 1947.]
Numerous court cases have been held throughout our history, as far back as 1879, the Court has always looked at our history as a Republic in deciding such cases. Justice Hugo Black, in the Everson decision, sums up the whole issue very succinctly:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164._
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State,,,
In it, he [referring to Madison] eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or nonbeliever, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free, and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions.
As you can see this is not a new issue. It is not some recent atheistic/secular agenda. It is an issue with a long history in our country. If you ever have the time you should read Black's opinion, starting around page 8, he gives a wonderful history lesson concerning religious freedoms of our country and the why of our Constitution being the secular document it is. Contrary to what David Barton and his ilk may have you believe.
Reconstruction is the spark plug behind much of the battle over religion in politics today. The movement’s founder, theologian Rousas John Rushdoony, claimed 20 million followers—a number that includes many who embrace the Reconstruction tenets without having joined any organization. Card-carrying Reconstructionists are few, but their influence is magnified by their leadership in Christian right crusades, from abortion to homeschooling.
Reconstructionists also exert significant clout through front organizations and coalitions with other religious fundamentalists; Baptists, Anglicans, and others have deep theological differences with the movement, but they have made common cause with its leaders in groups such as the National Coalition for Revival. Reconstruction has slowly absorbed, congregation by congregation, the conservative Presbyterian Church in America (not to be confused with the progressive Presbyterian Church [USA]) and has heavily influenced others, notably the Southern Baptists.
The take away for this segment I would like to leave with is this, there is no gray area where the 1st Amendment is concerned. The Founders were quite adamant is regards to SOCAS. And SOCAS as well as issues of free speech only pertain to the govt.
1] SOCAS is not new
2] the separation of powers refers to the govt not private individuals or business. In other words, you can have an opinion, but the 1st and 14th do not protect you from criticism or ramifications
3] in regards to politics, religious liberty is still a big issue.
So in light of Wakefield crying foul (along with Robertson and Chik-A-Filet drive-through guy), when one looks at the entire 1st Amendment minus the reconstructionist lens, it is fairly pain and simple.
What Forster seems to gloss over is the concerted rebranding of the RR around 2000 that began with Bush Jr,
Here is where I have to disagree with Daniel Williams’ groundbreaking new book, God’s Own Party. Williams has collected extensive evidence documenting evangelical activism throughout the last century, upon which I’ve drawn in both parts of this article (along with other sources). But Williams thinks the Religious Right was highly successful; his main thesis is that evangelicals are now essentially in control of the GOP. I agree with David Courtwright that it’s the politicians who have been in the driver’s seat.
Darren Dochuk From Bible Belt to Sun Belt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroot Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism
Axel Schäfer Countercultural Conservatives: American Evangelicalism from the Postwar Revival to the New Christian Right
Moral Minority by David Swartz
28 minute video documenting the birth of the Moral Majority. This video, produced by People for the American Way in 1982, shows actual footage of the politicization of what has become the dominionist movement.
October 11, 2004 video of Joan Bokaer describing the rise of Dominionism in the U.S. government. Joan explains how the Religious Right took over the Republican Party, and how President Bush, along with his Religious Right allies in Congress, are attempting to transform the United States into a Christian nation.
The case highlights the struggle of courts to interpret a convoluted
web of clergy reporting laws that stretches across U.S. Elevating the
tension is the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses explicitly are instructed
not to report child sexual abuse to secular authorities unless required
by state law.
Clergy are mandated to report
child abuse in 45 states, according to the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. But laws in 32 of those states contain some version
of a loophole called a clergy-penitent privilege. Those exceptions allow
clergy to withhold information from authorities if they receive it from
members seeking spiritual advice.
Delaware law requires any individual or organization suspecting child
abuse to report it. But then it gets confusing. The law allows an
exemption for a priest who learns of abuse during a “sacramental
confession,” wording that suggests a privilege specifically for clergy
in the Catholic Church.
,,,
The judge concluded
last week that while Delaware’s clergy reporting exemption could be
interpreted to include the Witnesses, Carmean White’s admission to the
elders was likely not a “sacramental confession.” She denied the
Witnesses’ motion to dismiss the case.
The Witnesses frequently have cited
their right to religious freedom to justify keeping child abuse secret
from secular authorities. The Witnesses’ parent corporation, the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, claimed its First
Amendment rights in a major California lawsuit last year and in several other child abuse cases.
_
The Delaware attorney general's office is suing a Jehovah's Witnesses
congregation in Sussex County, claiming that elders failed to report an
unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy,
both of whom were congregation members.
After speaking with attorneys this week, a New Castle
County Superior Court judge scheduled oral arguments in the civil action
against the Laurel congregation for Nov. 9.
Under Delaware law, any person, agency, organization or
entity who knows or in good faith suspects that a child is being abused
or neglected must call a 24-hour hotline to report it. The law
specifically states that the reporting requirements apply to health care
workers and organizations, school employees, social workers,
psychologists and law enforcement officials.
But a lawyer for the congregation is arguing that the
elders of the Jehovah's Witnesses congregation are protected from the
reporting requirements by clergy privilege, similar to the
confidentiality of a church confessional.
"It's a First Amendment issue," defense attorney James Liguori said.
Curious about the so-called "First Amendment issue", I found this:
The civil case will likely raise questions about the
constitutionality of Delaware’s child abuse reporting mandate. A
Superior Court judge in a Sussex County trial recently upheld the
mandate.
Eric Bodenweiser, a former political candidate charged
with abusing a young boy in the 1980s, asked a judge to rule his pastor
couldn’t give prosecution testimony because the conversation he and the
pastor had was a ‘sacramental confession’ under the law, which is exempt
from mandatory reporting.
Alternatively, Bodenweiser’s lawyers
argued, the law was unconstitutional if it was read to allow Catholic
confessions, but not faith leader-congregant talks in other faiths, to
be privileged.
The judge in Bodenweiser’s case declined to
interpret the law that way and the pastor did testify. That trial ended
in a mistrial; Bodenweiser later pleaded no contest to a lesser charge.
A mother is suing an Oregon school district, claiming a teacher
threatened to kill her son, who is a special education student and gay.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, also names five employees,
including the teacher, Brett Trosclair, and says her son was subjected
to repeated acts of "harassment and discrimination" by school staff.
She's filed a federal First and Fourteenth Amendment lawsuit claiming
his constitutional rights were violated. The suit will also test the federal Title IX law, alleging sex discrimination.
The Oregonian
reports that in a March assembly last year, her son "told his friend
that he thought another student was cute, according to the lawsuit.
Trosclair then turned around, the son said, and told the boys to 'shut
up.' Then the teacher threatened to kill them and throw them down the
stairs, the suit alleges."
UPDATE:: Please tell me exactly what year and century are we in!! I give Justin a
huge round of applause for sticking to his guns on this debacle. As Hemant Mehta notes, "It’s disappointing atheists have to jump through
this many hoops to get
the same sort of treatment religious people get automatically, but I’m
glad the fight will continue."
Yesterday, United States District Judge Malachy E. Mannion denied COLTS’
motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Consider viewing the relevant documents
below.
__
County of Lackawanna Transit System officials gave conflicting
reasons why they rejected an ad from an atheist group, raising the
specter that their actions were a cover-up for discriminatory practices,
an attorney for the group says in court papers.
The Northeastern Freethought Society also has evidence that
COLTS displayed “God Bless America” on its electronic bus signs at some
point and that it only altered its policy regarding religious ads after
the group sought to advertise, said attorney Monica Clarke Platt of the
American Civil Liberties Union.
The arguments are among several Platt raises in response to a
motion COLTS filed in June that seeks to dismiss a federal lawsuit the
group filed against the agency. The lawsuit, filed in April, alleges
COLTS violated the Freethought Society’s First Amendment right to free
speech when it rejected several ads that included the word “atheist.”
In the motion to dismiss, William McPartland, attorney for
COLTS, argued space on the agency’s buses and other property is a
limited public forum, which gives it the right to restrict ads as long
as its policy is “viewpoint neutral.”
Platt contends COLTS has not met the legal standard to qualify
as a limited public forum. Even if it did, the society has evidence that
COLTS accepted ads from several churches, which clearly shows its
policy is not viewpoint neutral, she said.
Hemant Mehta also writes about newest development and recaps the history:
In a letter sent to officials and attorneys at Rankin County School
District in Flowood, Mississippi, the American Humanist Association’s
Appignani Humanist Legal Center decries a teacher’s unconstitutional and
disparaging remarks about atheists.
Sent on behalf of a parent whose child attends Northwest Rankin High
School, the letter describes a history teacher who frequently made
disparaging remarks about atheists and promoted Christianity during
class. The teacher, also a pastor of Rehobeth Baptist Church, recently
announced to his class, “Atheists are throwing a fit because they don't
have their own day. They do have their own day; it’s called April Fools’
Day, because you are a fool if you don't believe in god.” The letter
states that, as atheists, the student and parent feel unwelcome in the
district because of the teacher’s insults.
This is not the first instance of the school district endorsing
religion. In 2013, a former student and the American Humanist
Association filed a lawsuit challenging the district’s practice of
holding religious assemblies. The judgment,
favoring the American Humanist Association, included a consent decree
requiring the district to stop the assemblies. In July 2015, a United
States District Court granted a motion for contempt
filed by the American Humanist Association’s legal center, which ruled
that the district defied the consent decree by sponsoring an award
ceremony with Christian prayers and by permitting Bible distribution in
an elementary school. The court’s order states that the district will be
fined $10,000 for each future infraction.
An Arizona public charter school violated the First Amendment when
it assigned a textbook that promotes religion to students in government
classes, Americans United for Separation of Church and State says.
In a letter sent today
[Aug 28, 2015] to officials at Heritage Academy in Mesa, Americans United explains
that a text used in the school’s mandatory senior government/U.S.
Constitution class teaches students religious beliefs such as divine
creation of all things, divine judgment after death and the Ten
Commandments.
“Lessons promoting religious
doctrines have no place in public schools,” said Americans United
Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser. “Students in government
classes should be learning civics, but Heritage Academy has decided to
inculcate theology instead.”
The government class curriculum is anchored heavily in religion. Students are assigned Proclaim Liberty Throughout all the Land,
which teaches that God created everything, is the source of all proper
law, intervenes in human affairs and responds to prayer. The book
further asserts that America’s democracy cannot survive unless its
people accept a “universal religion” reflecting fundamental Christian
tenets.
This is one of those First Amendment cases that I just don't get the ruling handed down by the Court. Seriously, how hard can it be. There is a religious statue on publicly funded land, it needs to go. As FFRF notes,
FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor called it "phony" and a "sham" to pretend that a "giant Jesus" is secular, thereby ignoring the Knights of Columbus' stated purpose. The Catholic men's club has "leased" at no cost the prominent parcel of land on the federal ski slope to display its Catholic shrine. "That means federal taxpayers are subsidizing religious speech, in this case Catholic," Gaylor said. She added that devout religionists should be offended at a decision that purports that a sacred image of a god is not religious.
But yet,,,
“Big Mountain Jesus” is staying put.
The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on Monday ruled that a 12-foot statue of Jesus at Whitefish
Mountain Resort “did not sprout from the minds of (government) officials
and was not funded from (the government’s) coffers.”
The Ninth
Circuit upheld a 2013 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Dana
Christensen, who dismissed a lawsuit by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From
Religion Foundation objecting to the statue.
“Big Mountain Jesus” is located on public land that the U.S. Forest Service leases to a private organization.
“Thank
goodness for common sense,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel of the
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who argued on behalf of the statue
that has stood on a mountain at the ski resort for 61 years. “Today’s
decision rejects the idea that history and the First Amendment ought to
be enemies.”
As Simon Brown, writing for American's United states, "This is
hardly a win for religion. The Knights of Columbus may have gotten what
they wanted, but this is a hollow victory if ever there were one."
Essentially, the court justified its bad decision on the basis that
an overtly religious statue is not really religious because a lot of
people make fun of it. Seriously? That’s all they could come up with?
This
is an embarrassment. Regardless of who paid for the statue, it’s
clearly a religious symbol on federal land. Since that land is not an
open forum, its placement gives the impression that the federal
government endorses Christianity over all other viewpoints. Until others
may place their own symbols next to Big Mountain Jesus, this will be a
constitutional violation.
And worst of all, the court makes the
curious argument that the statue has somehow become secularized because
people often poke fun at it. How is this a good thing for religion? If
anything, the flap over Big Mountain Jesus only shows the depths to
which some people will descend to keep a sectarian symbol on public
land. They’ll go so far as to deny that it’s religious and sign off on
people making fun of it – anything to keep it there.
A Kansas public school has removed a picture of Jesus that hung in a
hallway for decades after a complaint from a national church-state
separation group, The Wichita Eagle reported.
Royster Middle School removed the print of Warner Sallman’s “Head of
Christ” last Thursday, following a complaint from the national Freedom
From Religion Foundation, Richard Profitt, the school superintendent,
said Friday.
Proffitt, who is in his first year as Chanute superintendent, said
the picture was taken down after the district’s lawyer advised that the
school could not legally display it.
While this incident appears to be "settled" for the most part, an interesting comment caught my eye over at WWJTD that highlights the ignorance of some in regards to SOCAS:
Q:: If gay marriage does not affect your marriage, how does a picture of Jesus affect your belief or lack thereof?
The responses are spot on and most importantly delineate between the 1st and the 14th Amendments,.
One of them violates the separation of church and state. Can you spot which one? ,,,
You see, they're actually the same. Banning same-sex marriage is theists using their position in government to force their mythological views on all, and displaying the Hey Zeus! picture is government officials using their position of power to force their mythology on all.
The only difference is that the former primarily violates the 14th Amendment, and the latter violates the 1st Amendment. ,,, It does, however, violate the part of the Establishment Clause that says that the government isn't allowed to establish or endorse a religion. A picture of Jesus on a government-funded property is an endorsement of Christianity, and therefore against the law.
If it had been a banner reading THERE IS NO GOD it would have been in just as much violation and would have had to be taken down just the same,,,.
But I find this comment sums up the whole of SOCAS, ",,,that's a bizarre question to ask, seeing as how nobody said anything about if affecting our atheism."
Controversy continues to rage over whether foods from genetically
engineered plants should have to be labeled as such. The battle has been
fought in the media, in state legislatures, through referendum issues
and in federal courts. Most mandatory-labeling proposals have failed,
and none is in effect.
Yet even though such selective mandatory labeling has no scientific basis and is expensive to consumers,
those who believe that genetically engineered food is unsafe and those
with a financial stake in disparaging genetically engineered
foods—primarily the organic and “natural products” industries–soldier
on.
Well, the pro-labeling militia is about to get clobbered.
A seemingly unrelated recent Supreme Court decision (which concerned the constitutionality of certain standards for or restrictions on signage
in a town in Arizona) gives the agriculture and biotechnology
communities increased confidence that process-specific food-labeling
initiatives are likely to be deemed unconstitutional by the federal
courts. That decision would have a wide ripple effect.
Information required on labels is considered to be “compelled
commercial speech” and must follow the speech requirements of the First
Amendment. First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams said, “When a court
applies strict scrutiny in determining whether a law is consistent with
the First Amendment, only the rarest statute survives the
examination.” Thus, a law that compels a product label to contain
specific information about the use of a safe and proven manufacturing
process that is unrelated to a health or safety outcome would be
extremely unlikely to survive strict scrutiny.
On July 23, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1599 which
gives FDA exclusive labeling authority for genetically engineered foods
(except beef and poultry, which are regulated by USDA) and statutorily
preempts any state or local requirement for such labeling.
Congress should rethink H.R. 1599. The Reed decision, which calls
into question the constitutionality of any requirement to label
genetically engineered food and makes H.R. 1599′s preemption provision
unnecessary.
So here is the Reich's initial faux persecution complaint,
Last week, Madison, Wisc.-based Freedom from Religion Foundation
(FFRF) sent a letter to officials with the school district to assert
that the quotes are both unconstitutional and “dubious.”
“The numerous biblical quotes currently displayed on MVISD property
unconstitutionally promote Christianity, creating the appearance that it
is favored by the district,” the letter reads. “These quotes must be
removed.”
,,,
The correspondence also contends that the historical quotes were either misquoted or manipulated, and were not true quotes.
Courts have continually held that public school districts may not
endorse religious messages, including text taken from the bible,,,. [The]
MVISD is a public school district and its schools should not be in the
business of advancing Christianity by displaying bible quotes on
district property.” (pp 1-2)
In their explanation to this point, FFRF notes in their letter to the Mount Vernon Independent School District (MVISD) the improper attribution of the golden rule to Jesus (citing Matt 7:12). Standard scholarship shows this idea existed long before Christianity or Judaism.
Another example notes a quote atrributed to Ronald Reagan,"Within
the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." As Grover states, this selection is "dubious, and,
incidentally, intellectually lazy since that is not a direct
quotation." (p 2, footnote 4)
[There are more examples given, but I think you get my drift. Read the letter (PDF) cited above for more.]
Why this is problematic regardless of their accuracy:
Displaying statements by prominent individuals that broadly endorse Christianity is also a constitutional violation. A public school district cannot endorse the religious preferences of prominent historical figures anymore that it can promote the personal religious preferences of its administrators. (p 2)
These "quotes" came from a master list created by school district employees, acting in their official capacities. Therefore, "the quotes on the walls of MVISD are school district speech subject to the Establishment Clause, not private speech posted as part of a public forum." (p 3)
Furthermore, Grover asks a pertinent question concerning the purpose of these quotes, especially when one considers,
When MVISD manipulates historical quotes by removing context and isolating lines that promote Christianity or religion in general, it violates the right of conscience of its students,,,. The district cannot even fall back on the argument that these quotes have educational merit, given the many examples of misquotes, misattributions, and entirely fraudulent quotes displayed on its walls,,,. The district sets a poor example for its students if it cannot be bothered to fact check the messages it chooses to endorse. (pp 3-4)
Across the country, efforts are being made to
manipulate and suppress curriculum in order to conform to right-wing
ideology. Recently, College Board, the “non-profit” company that designs
curriculum for advanced placement (AP) US History courses, revised its standards
to reflect “American Exceptionalism” and minimize negative aspects of
the nation’s historical narrative, such as racism, slavery and the
government’s treatment of indigenous peoples. GOP lawmakers across the
country are attempting to ban AP US History courses completely on the grounds that they are “too biased.”
Last year, the Texas State Board of Education voted to approve US
history textbooks in which Moses is depicted as the nation’s “Founding
Father,” shoving the right-wing Christianist worldview down school
children’s collective throats. Two years ago, a federal circuit court
judge upheld an Arizona ban on teaching social studies courses focusing
on ethnic minorities.
Unfortunately, McVerry focused on the wrong facts in this case. While
it is fair to say that many are offended by a Ten Commandments display
on government property, that is not the main legal issue. The reality is
this Decalogue is unconstitutional because it gives the impression that
government is endorsing belief over non-belief. Whether or not anyone
is offended by the specific display is secondary.
Even if McVerry
had taken a proper First Amendment approach, however, there is no
guarantee that FFRF would have won its case – thanks to a bad U.S.
Supreme Court decision. The Tribune-Review said the Decalogue
was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, sometime during the late
1950s. This allowed Valley High School administrators to argue that the
monument is more a landmark than it is a religious display, a claim that
is sometimes kryptonite for cases dealing with government-backed
religious displays.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court said a Ten
Commandments display that had been on Texas state property since 1961
could remain. The court’s main reasoning was that the monument was fine
because it had been there for so long that it was essentially a
ceremonial symbol with no real religious value.
Of course that argument is incredibly weak, even more so in the face of the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s recent decision
that a Ten Commandments display on the grounds of the capitol building
in Oklahoma City is unconstitutional. That monument is very similar to
the Texas Decalogue – the only real difference is Oklahoma’s was erected
in 2012.
With uninformed pundits like Bartonheadlining church conferences,
no wonder many evangelicals are worried the sky is falling. I hope Mr.
Mitchell will consider giving equal time or at least informing his
listeners that Barton was wrong and the First Amendment still exists in
America.
Throckmorton offers a concise take-down of all of Barton's talking points:
No. Just no.
Barton is completely wrong about the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act. It never passed both houses of Congress during
the same session, and it is not law today. It was not introduced in the 109th Congress
(2005-2007). As an aside, the House speaker during that Congress was
Dennis Hastert and the Senate president was Dick Cheney. ENDA passed
the House in the next Congress but not the Senate. Another version of
the legislation passed the Senate in 2013 but not the House (see this timeline).
Barton
told Mitchell’s audience that President Obama’s executive order
forbidding discrimination by federal contractors came “as a result” of
ENDA. Not so. Barton claims faith based groups have to hire homosexuals.
However, this order only applies to federal contractors not all faith
based groups. Then he uncorked a doozy by claiming that churches have to
hire pedophiles who want to run church nurseries. Of course, this is
ridiculous fear mongering.
Stop a minute to think about that
claim. Anyone who has any knowledge of church work or volunteer work
with children knows Barton’s claim is ridiculous. In many schools, you
can’t volunteer to accompany your child’s classroom on a field trip
without criminal and child abuse clearances. In recent years, churches
have been required by liability insurers to screen all volunteers before
working with children. Barton’s claims are absurd and irresponsible.
On the claim that a church has to hire an openly gay applicant, Barton
offers no evidence. I know of no case where a non-gay-affirming church
was required to hire a gay person for a religious function. Churches
discriminate on the basis of religion all the time by hiring only those
who agree on even fine points of doctrine. Many churches also
discriminate on the basis of gender by not hiring women for certain
functions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance makes it clear that “governmental
regulation of church administration, including the appointment of
clergy, impedes the free exercise of religion and constitutes
impermissible government entanglement with church authority. The
exception applies only to employees who perform essentially religious
functions, namely those whose primary duties consist of engaging in
church governance, supervising a religious order, or conducting
religious ritual, worship, or instruction.” Clearly, youth directing is
an essentially religious function.
I have previously shared this article (via Twitter) concerning the ACLU's decision to no longer support the federal RFRA but felt it is important enough to warrant it's own post. In discussing Hobby Lobby, the mRFRAs by various states and the meddling of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Melling explains why the ACLU has taken this stance.
The RFRA was passed in 1993 after two Native Americans were fired
from their jobs and denied unemployment benefits because they used
peyote, an illegal drug, in their religious ceremonies. The Supreme
Court rejected a claim they had brought under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, but Congress disagreed with the justices and enacted the RFRA with near-unanimous support.
The
ACLU supported the RFRA’s passage at the time because it didn’t believe
the Constitution, as newly interpreted by the Supreme Court, would
protect people such as Iknoor Singh, whose religious expression does not
harm anyone else. But we can no longer support the law in its current
form. For more than 15 years, we have been concerned about how the RFRA
could be used to discriminate against others. As the events of the past
couple of years amply illustrate, our fears were well-founded. While the
RFRA may serve as a shield to protect Singh, it is now often used as a
sword to discriminate against women, gay and transgender people and
others. Efforts of this nature will likely only increase should the
Supreme Court rule — as is expected — that same-sex couples have the
freedom to marry.
,,,
Yes, religious freedom needs protection. But religious liberty
doesn’t mean the right to discriminate or to impose one’s views on
others. The RFRA wasn’t meant to force employees to pay a price for
their employer’s faith, or to allow businesses to refuse to serve gay
and transgender people, or to sanction government-funded discrimination,,,. It’s time for Congress to
amend the RFRA so that it cannot be used as a defense for
discrimination. Religious freedom will be undermined only if we continue
to tolerate and enable abuses in its name.
First off Bryan, her name was Vanessa Collier; she was a 33-year-old wife and mother of two. How despicable of you to remember the name of Lana Rusev, an individual who willfully violated the law, but couldn't take the time to find out about a woman you chose to vilify.
Second there is no law suit, as far as I can tell. Not only have the courts generally not interfered with a church's ecclesiastical decision making [cf. Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 724-25 (1976); Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1872). Serbian Orthodox Diocese v.Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 710; Maryland & Va. Churches v. SharpsburgChurch, 396 U.S. 367, 368 (1970); Presbyterian Church I v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969)], it is a violation of the First Amendment. Ruling on such matters would foster excessive government "entanglement" with religion and, thus, violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause and/or free exercise clause. [Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 709, 713, 1976] But keep in mind that a civil trial may result as the church in question allegedly did not return the rental fee(s) for the space in question; that is a whole different issue
Although, since this so-called church does receive federal monies in support of their rehabilitation facility, maybe someone should suggest a legal challenge. But that would be too easy. And, talk about pushing an agenda, this family and their friends have been hurt enough by "your" christo-fascist beliefs as it is. What purpose does it serve, other than to facilitate your own gestapo-like agenda as outlined by Wayne Besen article, The Religious Right’s 10-Point Playbook For Hijacking Nations. You and your cronies have aptly demonstrated two points as outlined by Besen:
Find inflammatory wedge issues and scapegoats to divide people and force them to choose sides.
Constantly agitate and manufacture havoc, because theocracy can only be attained amid chaos. Without a functioning central government, the shadow infrastructure created by fundamentalists makes them the best situated to fill a vacuum, restore order at the price of liberty, and install their regime
Sorry to say Bryan you have a very short memory as it wasn't to long ago y'all were bitching about a mall in Georgia who shut down a prayerful group of power-walkers. If I remember correctly a bunch of your minions decided to demonstrate publicly for feeling they were unjustly wronged.
Your church may be next. Do not think for one minute that the First Amendment all by itself will guarantee your church's protection from rabid gay activists and their minions in the court system. The courts have already shredded the First Amendment virtually beyond recognition, and as far as protecting your church's religious liberty, it may be hardly worth the parchment it's printed on.
A church in Lakewood, Colorado, is under fire from the gay lobby for canceling a funeral for a lesbian when her family insisted on including in the service pictures of her kissing her lesbian lover. The family is considering a lawsuit against the church, and given the predilection of the courts and its "Gay Rights Uber Alles" mindset, we can expect such a lawsuit to find a sympathetic ear.
What can your church do to make its stance abundantly clear and head off possible lawsuits at the same time? The elders of my church have formally recommended to our church family an amendment to the Constitution and bylaws that spell out in no uncertain terms the church's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage. (The elders have wisely provided church members with a 30-day comment period before the statement becomes official.)
In part, the intention here is to anticipate the possibility that the church will be approached to host a gay wedding and its pastor asked to perform a same-sex ceremony.
and
)
