From: LifeNews.com
Following a decision by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denying Hobby Lobby’s request for an exemption from the Obama administration’s HHS mandate, the Christian retail company said it will defy the mandate.
As LifeNews reported, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has refused to act favorably on an emergency appeal Hobby Lobby stores filed to stop enforcement of the HHS mandate against it.
After a federal court denied a request to temporarily stop enforcement of the abortion pill mandate against the Christian-operated business Hobby Lobby, it took its HHS mandate lawsuit to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor denied its request to block the mandate and the millions of dollars in fines it will be subjected to starting January 1 for not complying.
Sotomayor said Hobby Lobby did not show it met the legal standard for blocking enforcement on an emergency basis, but said the company can continue with its lawsuit in lower court.
Now, an attorney for Hobby Lobby says it will defy the mandate and potentially risk potential fines of up to $1.3 million per day.
Kyle Duncan, an attorney for the pro-life legal group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement that hobby Lobby doesn’t plan to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.
“The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,” Duncan said. “To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”
The most recent polling data from December 2012 shows Americans support a religious exemption to the mandate.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Egyptian Cleric Threatens Egypt's Copts with Genocide
From: Gatestone Institute
The video was made in the context of the Tahrir protests against Morsi: Islamic leaders, such as Hegazy and Ghoneim, seek to portray the Copts as dominant elements in those protests; according to them, no real Muslim would participate. Ghoneim even went on to say that most of the people at the protests were Copts, "and we know you hid your [wrist] crosses by lowering your sleeves."
"The day Egyptians…feel you are against them, you will be wiped off the face of the Earth." — Dr. Wagdi GoneimIslamic leaders continue to portray the popular protests against President Morsi and his recently passed Sharia-heavy constitution as products of Egypt's Christians. Recently, Muslim Brotherhood leader Safwat Hegazy said in an open rally, as captured on video:
A message to the church of Egypt, from an Egyptian Muslim: I tell the church — by Allah, and again, by Allah — if you conspire and unite with the remnants [opposition] to bring Morsi down, that will be another matter…. our red line is the legitimacy of Dr. Muhammad Morsi. Whoever splashes water on it, we will splash blood on him."More recently, Dr. Wagdi Ghoneim — who earlier praised Allah for the death of the late Coptic Pope Shenouda, cursing him to hell and damnation on video — made another video, entitled, "A Notice and Warning to the Crusaders in Egypt," a reference to the nation's Copts, which he began by saying, "You are playing with fire in Egypt, I swear, the first people to be burned by the fire are you [Copts]."
The video was made in the context of the Tahrir protests against Morsi: Islamic leaders, such as Hegazy and Ghoneim, seek to portray the Copts as dominant elements in those protests; according to them, no real Muslim would participate. Ghoneim even went on to say that most of the people at the protests were Copts, "and we know you hid your [wrist] crosses by lowering your sleeves."
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf dies
From: POLITICO.com
A U.S. official says retired Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded the U.S.-led international coalition that drove Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait in 1991, has died. He was 78.
The official tells The Associated Press that Schwarzkopf died Thursday in Tampa, Fla. The official wasn't authorized to release the information publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
"Barbara and I mourn the loss of a true American patriot and one of the great military leaders of his generation. A distinguished member of that Long Gray Line hailing from West Point, General Norm Schwarzkopf, to me, epitomized the 'duty, service, country' creed that has defended our freedom and seen this great Nation through our most trying international crises. More than that, he was a good and decent man — and a dear friend. Barbara and I send our condolences to his wife Brenda and his wonderful family."
A much-decorated combat soldier in Vietnam, Schwarzkopf was known popularly as "Stormin' Norman" for a notoriously explosive temper.
He lived in retirement in Tampa, where he had served in his last military assignment as commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command. That is the headquarters responsible for U.S. military and security concerns in nearly 20 countries from the eastern Mediterranean and Africa to Pakistan.
A U.S. official says retired Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded the U.S.-led international coalition that drove Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait in 1991, has died. He was 78.
The official tells The Associated Press that Schwarzkopf died Thursday in Tampa, Fla. The official wasn't authorized to release the information publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Former President George H.W. Bush, who remains in the intensive care unit at Methodist Hospital, released a statement on the passing Schwarzkopf.
A much-decorated combat soldier in Vietnam, Schwarzkopf was known popularly as "Stormin' Norman" for a notoriously explosive temper.
He lived in retirement in Tampa, where he had served in his last military assignment as commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command. That is the headquarters responsible for U.S. military and security concerns in nearly 20 countries from the eastern Mediterranean and Africa to Pakistan.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Atheists Trying to Shut Down Congressional Prayer Caucus
From: CNS News
In what one Republican calls an "unprecedented" move, an atheist group is advising all newcomers to the U.S. House of Representatives to stay away from the Congressional Prayer Caucus.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), who founded the caucus in 2005, said the American Humanist Association is among the "extremist groups" that "want to make sure they've censored and shut down anything related to faith."
Forbes, speaking Tuesday on "Fox and Friends," said the prayer caucus's 105 members "stand up and fight for religious freedom and religious liberty."
He said the atheist group -- "in a situation that we have never seen before -- actually wrote letters trying to get members not to join."
Among its objections to the Congressional Prayer Caucus, the American Humanist Association complains that the caucus supports and believes in the National Motto ("In God We Trust") and wants to continue the practice of opening Congress with a daily prayer.
"And for those two major reasons they feel that the Congressional Prayer Caucus shouldn't be in existence and people shouldn't join it," Forbes said.
The atheist group also cited the caucus's support for legislation calling on the president to designate 2010 as "the National Year of the Bible" and its support for crosses on public land.
“Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus have repeatedly introduced and supported legislation that many secular Americans feel is unconstitutional and often favors Christianity above all other religions,” said American Humanist Association Executive Director Roy Speckhardt in his letter to newly elected members of Congress.
“Incoming House members should know that approximately one in five of their constituents are not religiously affiliated, and even more insist on maintaining the wall of separation between church and state,” Speckhardt continued. “Secular Americans are ready to work with all members of the 113th Congress, regardless of their personal beliefs, if they agree on this basic constitutional principle.”
Forbes said he has no objection to atheists or anyone else saying whatever they want to say. "The unfortunate thing is these extremist groups don't give us the same right, and they want to censor our ability to say that we do believe in God and we do believe in our faith."
Forbes said the atheists' real agenda is to stop anyone in government from saying anything about God, faith or religion -- and to stop anyone in the church from saying anything about government.
"And that's clearly not the intention of the First Amendment and the Constitution as most of us know it."
In what one Republican calls an "unprecedented" move, an atheist group is advising all newcomers to the U.S. House of Representatives to stay away from the Congressional Prayer Caucus.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), who founded the caucus in 2005, said the American Humanist Association is among the "extremist groups" that "want to make sure they've censored and shut down anything related to faith."
Forbes, speaking Tuesday on "Fox and Friends," said the prayer caucus's 105 members "stand up and fight for religious freedom and religious liberty."
He said the atheist group -- "in a situation that we have never seen before -- actually wrote letters trying to get members not to join."
Among its objections to the Congressional Prayer Caucus, the American Humanist Association complains that the caucus supports and believes in the National Motto ("In God We Trust") and wants to continue the practice of opening Congress with a daily prayer.
"And for those two major reasons they feel that the Congressional Prayer Caucus shouldn't be in existence and people shouldn't join it," Forbes said.
The atheist group also cited the caucus's support for legislation calling on the president to designate 2010 as "the National Year of the Bible" and its support for crosses on public land.
“Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus have repeatedly introduced and supported legislation that many secular Americans feel is unconstitutional and often favors Christianity above all other religions,” said American Humanist Association Executive Director Roy Speckhardt in his letter to newly elected members of Congress.
“Incoming House members should know that approximately one in five of their constituents are not religiously affiliated, and even more insist on maintaining the wall of separation between church and state,” Speckhardt continued. “Secular Americans are ready to work with all members of the 113th Congress, regardless of their personal beliefs, if they agree on this basic constitutional principle.”
Forbes said he has no objection to atheists or anyone else saying whatever they want to say. "The unfortunate thing is these extremist groups don't give us the same right, and they want to censor our ability to say that we do believe in God and we do believe in our faith."
Forbes said the atheists' real agenda is to stop anyone in government from saying anything about God, faith or religion -- and to stop anyone in the church from saying anything about government.
"And that's clearly not the intention of the First Amendment and the Constitution as most of us know it."
Thursday, November 29, 2012
'God' removed from student's poem
From: McDowellNews.com
A decision to remove the word “God” from a school program is causing a world of controversy for McDowell County Schools.
But a First Amendment expert said school officials made the right decision.
During Monday’s Board of Education meeting, two members of the public stepped forward to talk to board members about a First Amendment issue at West Marion Elementary.
McDowell County Schools employee Chris Greene and McDowell County resident Esther Dollarhyde each took a turn talking about West Marion Elementary’s Veterans Day program during the public comment portion of the meeting.
“On Nov. 8, 2012 West Marion held their annual Veterans Day program in the midst of a lot of drama,” Greene said. “We had one parent concerned with the use of the word God in this program. This parent did not want the word God mentioned anywhere in the program. When the demand from this person was heard, the rights of another stopped. It did so by hushing the voice of a six-year-old girl.”
Greene said the student had written a special poem for the program about her grandfathers, both of whom had served in the armed forces during the Vietnam War.
In it, she wrote, “he prayed to God for peace, he prayed to God for strength,” which Greene stated she was told she could not read during the school assembly.
“She was told that she was not allowed to say the word God during this program” stated Greene. “Being a six year old, and not knowing her rights, she did what she was told.”
Greene said the girl wasn’t trying to force people to pray, but was just telling them what her grandfather had done.
“Let me add here that those prayers worked, because he went on to serve two tours in Vietnam,” Greene said. “My question is this, when do the rights of one outweigh the rights of another? I believe that this little girl’s rights were violated and that those who worked so hard to prepare this program should receive an apology.”
Esther Dollarhyde agreed.
“We need to keep in mind what was our country founded on,” stated Dollarhyde. “It was founded on God and Jesus Christ, and our veterans went out and fought for us so we would have a free country, but if we aren’t allowed to honor them the way that the children want to then America is getting lost.”
When contacted after the presentations, School Board member Lynn Greene, who is also Chris Greene’s father, said school officials had overstepped their authority.
“My understanding on the law is a teacher cannot promote any certain religion, but when it comes to students voicing their opinion or expressing themselves in a poem we pretty much have to give some leeway,” Greene said. “To me this whole thing is a violation of that child’s rights. Nobody forced her to write the poem, that was her part of the program. She was asked to write a poem about veterans and she did. My personal opinion is that her rights were violated.”
School Board member Terry Frank said he could not comment until he knew more about the situation.
When asked why the decision was made to remove the word God, Superintendent Gerri Martin said it came about after a serious discussion with West Marion’s Principal Desarae Kirkpatrick and Vice Principal Nakia Carson.
“The discussion (about the poem) occurred between myself, the principal and the assistant principal at West Marion,” stated Martin. “We wanted to make sure we were upholding the school district’s responsibility of separation of church and state from the Establishment Clause.”
When asked why other schools were allowed to hold programs containing poems and student writings with the word God in them, Martin said that was because West Marion was the only one who had asked for consultation about their program.
Kirkpatrick, like Martin, said the decision was based on a public school’s necessity to not infringe upon other students’ freedom of religion.
“After consulting with the Superintendent, Dr. Martin, we jointly decided that we must err on the side of caution to prevent from crossing the line on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution,” stated Kirkpatrick. “As a principal of a public school, I must put aside my personal religious beliefs and follow the law, which upholds that we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but that we, as public schools, cannot endorse one single religion over another.”
The McDowell News contacted the First Amendment Center in Washington, D.C., which serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues, including freedom of speech, of the press and of religion, and the rights to assemble and to petition the government.
After studying the situation, President and Chief Executive Officer Ken Paulson stated the school did in fact have the right to remove the word God from the child’s poem.
“Courts have consistently held up the rights for students to express themselves unless their speech is disruptive to the school,” stated Paulson. “When the little girl wrote the poem and included a reference to God she had every right to do that. The First Amendment protects all Americans. She had every right to mention God, (but) that dynamic changed when they asked her to read it at an assembly.”
Paulson stated that because students were a captive audience, which means they didn’t have another place to go if they didn’t want to attend the assembly, that administrators had the right to remove the word God.
“Courts have found that religious references at school-sponsored events generally run afoul of the First Amendment,” said Paulson, adding that if kids had randomly been asked what they thought of veterans, the little girl could have shared her poem, because it wasn’t planned. “When a public school knows there’s going to be a reference to religion then there is a problem and they have to address it. The reason for these restrictions is to prevent the government from endorsing a specific faith or religion. So public schools have to steer clear of religious references.”
But a First Amendment expert said school officials made the right decision.
During Monday’s Board of Education meeting, two members of the public stepped forward to talk to board members about a First Amendment issue at West Marion Elementary.
McDowell County Schools employee Chris Greene and McDowell County resident Esther Dollarhyde each took a turn talking about West Marion Elementary’s Veterans Day program during the public comment portion of the meeting.
“On Nov. 8, 2012 West Marion held their annual Veterans Day program in the midst of a lot of drama,” Greene said. “We had one parent concerned with the use of the word God in this program. This parent did not want the word God mentioned anywhere in the program. When the demand from this person was heard, the rights of another stopped. It did so by hushing the voice of a six-year-old girl.”
Greene said the student had written a special poem for the program about her grandfathers, both of whom had served in the armed forces during the Vietnam War.
In it, she wrote, “he prayed to God for peace, he prayed to God for strength,” which Greene stated she was told she could not read during the school assembly.
“She was told that she was not allowed to say the word God during this program” stated Greene. “Being a six year old, and not knowing her rights, she did what she was told.”
Greene said the girl wasn’t trying to force people to pray, but was just telling them what her grandfather had done.
“Let me add here that those prayers worked, because he went on to serve two tours in Vietnam,” Greene said. “My question is this, when do the rights of one outweigh the rights of another? I believe that this little girl’s rights were violated and that those who worked so hard to prepare this program should receive an apology.”
Esther Dollarhyde agreed.
“We need to keep in mind what was our country founded on,” stated Dollarhyde. “It was founded on God and Jesus Christ, and our veterans went out and fought for us so we would have a free country, but if we aren’t allowed to honor them the way that the children want to then America is getting lost.”
When contacted after the presentations, School Board member Lynn Greene, who is also Chris Greene’s father, said school officials had overstepped their authority.
“My understanding on the law is a teacher cannot promote any certain religion, but when it comes to students voicing their opinion or expressing themselves in a poem we pretty much have to give some leeway,” Greene said. “To me this whole thing is a violation of that child’s rights. Nobody forced her to write the poem, that was her part of the program. She was asked to write a poem about veterans and she did. My personal opinion is that her rights were violated.”
School Board member Terry Frank said he could not comment until he knew more about the situation.
When asked why the decision was made to remove the word God, Superintendent Gerri Martin said it came about after a serious discussion with West Marion’s Principal Desarae Kirkpatrick and Vice Principal Nakia Carson.
“The discussion (about the poem) occurred between myself, the principal and the assistant principal at West Marion,” stated Martin. “We wanted to make sure we were upholding the school district’s responsibility of separation of church and state from the Establishment Clause.”
When asked why other schools were allowed to hold programs containing poems and student writings with the word God in them, Martin said that was because West Marion was the only one who had asked for consultation about their program.
Kirkpatrick, like Martin, said the decision was based on a public school’s necessity to not infringe upon other students’ freedom of religion.
“After consulting with the Superintendent, Dr. Martin, we jointly decided that we must err on the side of caution to prevent from crossing the line on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution,” stated Kirkpatrick. “As a principal of a public school, I must put aside my personal religious beliefs and follow the law, which upholds that we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but that we, as public schools, cannot endorse one single religion over another.”
The McDowell News contacted the First Amendment Center in Washington, D.C., which serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues, including freedom of speech, of the press and of religion, and the rights to assemble and to petition the government.
After studying the situation, President and Chief Executive Officer Ken Paulson stated the school did in fact have the right to remove the word God from the child’s poem.
“Courts have consistently held up the rights for students to express themselves unless their speech is disruptive to the school,” stated Paulson. “When the little girl wrote the poem and included a reference to God she had every right to do that. The First Amendment protects all Americans. She had every right to mention God, (but) that dynamic changed when they asked her to read it at an assembly.”
Paulson stated that because students were a captive audience, which means they didn’t have another place to go if they didn’t want to attend the assembly, that administrators had the right to remove the word God.
“Courts have found that religious references at school-sponsored events generally run afoul of the First Amendment,” said Paulson, adding that if kids had randomly been asked what they thought of veterans, the little girl could have shared her poem, because it wasn’t planned. “When a public school knows there’s going to be a reference to religion then there is a problem and they have to address it. The reason for these restrictions is to prevent the government from endorsing a specific faith or religion. So public schools have to steer clear of religious references.”
U.S. Birth Rate Hits Record Low
From: NationalJournal.com
The U.S. birth rate dropped to its lowest level since the beginning of the Great Depression, led by a drop among immigrants, according to a report data released Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
In 2011, the overall birth rate was 63.2 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, the lowest since at least 1920, Pew reported, citing numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics. The birth rate reached 122.7 in 1957, the peak of the Baby Boom. After the mid-1970s, the birth rate stabilized at about 65 to 70 births per 1,000 women annually, until the beginning of the Great Recession.
Since 2007, both the U.S. birth rate (the number of live births per 1,000 women ages 15-44) and the number of births have dropped significantly, according to the report.
Overall, the birth rate declined 8 percent from 2007 to 2010. Among U.S.-born women, the birth rate dropped 6 percent. The decline among foreign-born women was 14 percent. Among Mexican women, the birth rate fell even more, to 23 percent.
Despite the recent decline, foreign-born moms continue to give birth to a disproportionate share of the country’s babies, the report said. In 2010, immigrants represented about 13 percent of the U.S. population while foreign-born mothers accounted for 23 percent of all births.
After 2007, the number of U.S. births, which had been rising since 2002, fell abruptly, according to the report. This decrease was also led by immigrant women. Overall the number of births between 2007 and 2010 dropped 7 percent, pulled down by a 13-percent drop in births to immigrants. By comparison, births to U.S.-born women dropped only 5 percent.
The Pew researchers attributed that drop to a change in behavior (the falling birth rates) rather than a change in the number of women (those born in the U.S. or immigrants) of childbearing age.
An earlier Pew report attributed the recent fertility decline to “economic distress.” The study showed that states with the largest economic declines between 2007 and 2008 were most likely to experience relatively large fertility declines the following year.
Hispanic women - both those born in and those born outside the U.S. - experienced larger birth-rate declines from 2007 to 2010 than other groups. They also experienced greater percentage declines in household wealth than white, black, or Asian households between 2005 and 2009, according to the report. Latinos also experienced a greater rise in poverty and unemployment than non-Latinos after the Great Recession began.
The recent decline in births to foreign-born moms reversed a trend in which immigrant women accounted for a rising share of the country’s births, according to the report. In 2007, immigrant mothers accounted for a quarter of all U.S. births, compared to 16 percent in 1990. By 2010, foreign-born moms accounted for 23 percent of all births.
Despite the drop-off among the foreign-born, Pew population projections indicate that immigrants who arrived since 2005 and their descendants will account for 82 percent of U.S. population growth by 2050. Even taking the recent decline in immigration into account, new immigrants and their descendants are still expected to lead most of the nation’s population increase by mid-century, according to the report.
Other findings:
The U.S. birth rate dropped to its lowest level since the beginning of the Great Depression, led by a drop among immigrants, according to a report data released Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
In 2011, the overall birth rate was 63.2 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, the lowest since at least 1920, Pew reported, citing numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics. The birth rate reached 122.7 in 1957, the peak of the Baby Boom. After the mid-1970s, the birth rate stabilized at about 65 to 70 births per 1,000 women annually, until the beginning of the Great Recession.
Since 2007, both the U.S. birth rate (the number of live births per 1,000 women ages 15-44) and the number of births have dropped significantly, according to the report.
Overall, the birth rate declined 8 percent from 2007 to 2010. Among U.S.-born women, the birth rate dropped 6 percent. The decline among foreign-born women was 14 percent. Among Mexican women, the birth rate fell even more, to 23 percent.
Despite the recent decline, foreign-born moms continue to give birth to a disproportionate share of the country’s babies, the report said. In 2010, immigrants represented about 13 percent of the U.S. population while foreign-born mothers accounted for 23 percent of all births.
After 2007, the number of U.S. births, which had been rising since 2002, fell abruptly, according to the report. This decrease was also led by immigrant women. Overall the number of births between 2007 and 2010 dropped 7 percent, pulled down by a 13-percent drop in births to immigrants. By comparison, births to U.S.-born women dropped only 5 percent.
The Pew researchers attributed that drop to a change in behavior (the falling birth rates) rather than a change in the number of women (those born in the U.S. or immigrants) of childbearing age.
An earlier Pew report attributed the recent fertility decline to “economic distress.” The study showed that states with the largest economic declines between 2007 and 2008 were most likely to experience relatively large fertility declines the following year.
Hispanic women - both those born in and those born outside the U.S. - experienced larger birth-rate declines from 2007 to 2010 than other groups. They also experienced greater percentage declines in household wealth than white, black, or Asian households between 2005 and 2009, according to the report. Latinos also experienced a greater rise in poverty and unemployment than non-Latinos after the Great Recession began.
The recent decline in births to foreign-born moms reversed a trend in which immigrant women accounted for a rising share of the country’s births, according to the report. In 2007, immigrant mothers accounted for a quarter of all U.S. births, compared to 16 percent in 1990. By 2010, foreign-born moms accounted for 23 percent of all births.
Despite the drop-off among the foreign-born, Pew population projections indicate that immigrants who arrived since 2005 and their descendants will account for 82 percent of U.S. population growth by 2050. Even taking the recent decline in immigration into account, new immigrants and their descendants are still expected to lead most of the nation’s population increase by mid-century, according to the report.
Other findings:
- The majority of births (66 percent) to U.S.-born women were to white mothers. That share has dropped since 1990 when it was 72 percent. The majority of births to foreign-born mothers were to Hispanic moms.
- Teen mothers make up a greater share of births among U.S.-born women (11 percent in 2010) than foreign-born mothers (5 percent).
- Mothers ages 35 and older make up a higher share of births to immigrants (21 percent in 2010) than to moms born in the U.S. (13 percent). Mothers born outside the country accounted for more than a third of births to women ages 35 and older that year.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
America’s Free Speech Retreat
From: Reason.com
On the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, scores of men armed with rocket propellers, hand grenades, and automatic rifles assaulted two separate U.S. diplomatic buildings in Benghazi, Libya, for more than four hours, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite clear evidence of planning and the symbolism of September 11, officials in Barack Obama’s White House spent the next week blaming the attacks on a crude, straight-to-YouTube trailer for an anti-Islam movie called Innocence of Muslims, made by an ex-convict living in Cerritos, California.
“What sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended very many people around the world,” the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said September 16 on Fox News Sunday. “It began spontaneously in Benghazi, as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” Rice asserted on ABC’s This Week that same day, “where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.”
On the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, scores of men armed with rocket propellers, hand grenades, and automatic rifles assaulted two separate U.S. diplomatic buildings in Benghazi, Libya, for more than four hours, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite clear evidence of planning and the symbolism of September 11, officials in Barack Obama’s White House spent the next week blaming the attacks on a crude, straight-to-YouTube trailer for an anti-Islam movie called Innocence of Muslims, made by an ex-convict living in Cerritos, California.
“What sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended very many people around the world,” the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said September 16 on Fox News Sunday. “It began spontaneously in Benghazi, as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” Rice asserted on ABC’s This Week that same day, “where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.”
Monday, November 12, 2012
Obama takes aim at religious liberty
From: WashingtonExaminer.com
As an old saw has it, "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." The Obama administration says your right to live as a Christian ends if you go into business.
Democrats are crowing about a second Obama term, and the Left's culture-war troops are emboldened by their trouncing of social conservatives. Religious conservatives need to plant their spears and brace for the coming federal assault on religious liberty.
The Obama administration this month, in defending its health plan's contraception mandate, articulated a narrow view of the First Amendment's religious liberty protections.
Obamacare requires employers to pay for contraception and sterilization coverage. This includes coverage of "morning-after" contraceptives, whose makers admit the drugs can kill a fertilized egg by preventing or "affect[ing]" implantation.
Many Christians oppose Obama's mandate on the grounds that morning-after pills function as abortifacients. Catholic teaching also holds that contraception undermines marriage and the family by stripping sex of its natural life-giving and love-giving properties.
The Catholic Church lobbied for an exemption. The administration exempted only houses of worship, but not the institutions run by the church. So, St. John the Evangelist parish in Silver Spring doesn't have to buy contraception insurance for its employees, but what about Holy Cross Hospital down the road? It will get huge fines if its health plan even requires a $5 co-pay for the Pill.
Other religious institutions, such as Catholic colleges Belmont Abbey and Notre Dame, along with evangelical Wheaton College, have sued, arguing that they should not be forced to violate their consciences.
But why should only religious institutions be allowed to exercise their consciences? The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
Should government be allowed to force ordinary people to violate the moral laws to which they subscribe?
David Green says no. Green and his family own Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts-and-crafts stores. They sued the administration on the grounds the contraception mandate prohibited their free exercise of Christianity by forcing them to pay for abortifacient morning-after pills.
The Greens weren't arguing that morning-after pills should be illegal. They weren't even trying to keep their employees from using them. They just didn't want to implicate themselves in what they saw as immoral activity.
The administration responded with an unsettling argument: The Greens aren't protected by the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause in this case because they operate a secular business. "Hobby Lobby is a for-profit, secular employer," the Obama administration wrote in a brief, "and a secular entity by definition does not exercise religion."
Part of the administration's argument is that the mandate controls the corporation's actions but it does not apply to individual owners.
So, people have First Amendment protections as long as they don't start businesses. If they do, and if they operate their businesses according with their own consciences, they "become laws unto themselves," as the Obama administration puts it.
So this is who the Left has in mind when it says conservatives are trying to legislate morality: people who dare to follow their moral and religious beliefs, as opposed to a code devised by bureaucrats regulating a secular state.
If people want to adhere to their faith, they best stay quiet about it. The liberal commentariat made that clear this past election season.
"I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools)," writer Kevin Drum fumed in the liberal Mother Jones, "hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars -- and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy."
Washington Post religion writer Lisa Miller probably made it clearest with her op-ed blasting the "smug fecundity" of Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. You see, they have too many kids.
She sneered at their "family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins."
This is the culture war today -- Christians offend secular liberals by not abiding by the Left's social mores. In effect, they "impose" their morality if they dare exercise their religion in public. Christians are intolerable rebels if they try to operate institutions outside of government.
This is why a re-elected Obama is daunting. Conservative theologian George Weigel warned that the Obama administration "will, unfettered by reelection concerns, accelerate its efforts to bring free voluntary associations to heel as de facto extensions of the state."
In the case of Green and Hobby Lobby, the Obama administration showed its narrow view of the freedom of religion. Where else will this view lead the administration?
As an old saw has it, "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." The Obama administration says your right to live as a Christian ends if you go into business.
Democrats are crowing about a second Obama term, and the Left's culture-war troops are emboldened by their trouncing of social conservatives. Religious conservatives need to plant their spears and brace for the coming federal assault on religious liberty.
The Obama administration this month, in defending its health plan's contraception mandate, articulated a narrow view of the First Amendment's religious liberty protections.
Obamacare requires employers to pay for contraception and sterilization coverage. This includes coverage of "morning-after" contraceptives, whose makers admit the drugs can kill a fertilized egg by preventing or "affect[ing]" implantation.
Many Christians oppose Obama's mandate on the grounds that morning-after pills function as abortifacients. Catholic teaching also holds that contraception undermines marriage and the family by stripping sex of its natural life-giving and love-giving properties.
The Catholic Church lobbied for an exemption. The administration exempted only houses of worship, but not the institutions run by the church. So, St. John the Evangelist parish in Silver Spring doesn't have to buy contraception insurance for its employees, but what about Holy Cross Hospital down the road? It will get huge fines if its health plan even requires a $5 co-pay for the Pill.
Other religious institutions, such as Catholic colleges Belmont Abbey and Notre Dame, along with evangelical Wheaton College, have sued, arguing that they should not be forced to violate their consciences.
But why should only religious institutions be allowed to exercise their consciences? The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
Should government be allowed to force ordinary people to violate the moral laws to which they subscribe?
David Green says no. Green and his family own Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts-and-crafts stores. They sued the administration on the grounds the contraception mandate prohibited their free exercise of Christianity by forcing them to pay for abortifacient morning-after pills.
The Greens weren't arguing that morning-after pills should be illegal. They weren't even trying to keep their employees from using them. They just didn't want to implicate themselves in what they saw as immoral activity.
The administration responded with an unsettling argument: The Greens aren't protected by the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause in this case because they operate a secular business. "Hobby Lobby is a for-profit, secular employer," the Obama administration wrote in a brief, "and a secular entity by definition does not exercise religion."
Part of the administration's argument is that the mandate controls the corporation's actions but it does not apply to individual owners.
So, people have First Amendment protections as long as they don't start businesses. If they do, and if they operate their businesses according with their own consciences, they "become laws unto themselves," as the Obama administration puts it.
So this is who the Left has in mind when it says conservatives are trying to legislate morality: people who dare to follow their moral and religious beliefs, as opposed to a code devised by bureaucrats regulating a secular state.
If people want to adhere to their faith, they best stay quiet about it. The liberal commentariat made that clear this past election season.
"I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools)," writer Kevin Drum fumed in the liberal Mother Jones, "hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars -- and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy."
Washington Post religion writer Lisa Miller probably made it clearest with her op-ed blasting the "smug fecundity" of Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. You see, they have too many kids.
She sneered at their "family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins."
This is the culture war today -- Christians offend secular liberals by not abiding by the Left's social mores. In effect, they "impose" their morality if they dare exercise their religion in public. Christians are intolerable rebels if they try to operate institutions outside of government.
This is why a re-elected Obama is daunting. Conservative theologian George Weigel warned that the Obama administration "will, unfettered by reelection concerns, accelerate its efforts to bring free voluntary associations to heel as de facto extensions of the state."
In the case of Green and Hobby Lobby, the Obama administration showed its narrow view of the freedom of religion. Where else will this view lead the administration?
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
