Kirby Delauter is no fan of freedom of the press.

The First Amendment wins again over "conservative" opposition. 

• Last year, a Georgia Baptist College President argued in court that only "people that are qualified to render those opinions i[n] the market place and exchange of ideas in academia and elsewhere" were allowed to use fair use to criticize him. (This was after he tried to get a six year old, five year old, and a four year old to sign non-disparagements.) He lost. 
• The then Senate Minority Leader argued that a blogger could not use fair use criticism to point out his mistake. He lost. 

This year, a Maryland Republican is threatening to sue his local paper if they even mention his name. The paper's response is priceless.  Kirby Delauter, Kirby Delauter, Kirby Delauter

Blanks? Sure, we sometimes use hyphens in the case of expletives. Perhaps we could do that: "K---- D-------." Or, perhaps, "Councilman [Unauthorized]." We giggled a bit more than we should have when we came up with "the Councilman Formerly Known as Commissioner Kirby Delauter," which doesn't seem as funny written down in black and white and includes his name, which defeats the point. Maybe we should just put his initials, "KD," with an asterisk to a footnote (KD*), or refer to him as GLAT, the acronym for his campaign: "Govern Like A Taxpayer." We could even make it sound a little hip-hop with a well-placed hyphen: G-Lat. Speaking of, could we get away with "K-Del"? Or we could simply go with the Harry Potter-esque "He Who Shall Not be Named." (Cue the lightning strike and peal of thunder.)

Jeffress seems to have changed his position on the First Amendment

Jeffress seems to have changed his position on the 1st Amendment. Only a couple of years ago, Jeffress maintained that the 1st Amendment gave the government the right to give preference to Christianity. According to him, "religion" in the 1st Amendment only applied to Christianity. He has consistently maintained that God will judge America for any government assistance with non-Christian religions.

Deuteronomy 13

13:6 Suppose your own full brother, your son, your daughter, your beloved wife, or your closest friend should seduce you secretly and encourage you to go and serve other gods that neither you nor your ancestors have previously known, 13:7 the gods of the surrounding people (whether near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other). 13:8 You must not give in to him or even listen to him; do not feel sympathy for him or spare him or cover up for him. 13:9 Instead, you must kill him without fail! Your own hand must be the first to strike him, and then the hands of the whole community. 13:10 You must stone him to death because he tried to entice you away from the Lord your God, who delivered you from the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. 13:11 Thus all Israel will hear and be afraid; no longer will they continue to do evil like this among you.

Punishment of Community Idolatry

13:12 Suppose you should hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you as a place to live, that 13:13 some evil people have departed from among you to entice the inhabitants of their cities, saying, “Let’s go and serve other gods” (whom you have not known before). 13:14 You must investigate thoroughly and inquire carefully. If it is indeed true that such a disgraceful thing is being done among you, 13:15 you must by all means slaughter the inhabitants of that city with the sword; annihilate with the sword everyone in it, as well as the livestock. 13:16 You must gather all of its plunder into the middle of the plaza and burn the city and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It will be an abandoned ruin forever – it must never be rebuilt again. 13:17 You must not take for yourself anything that has been placed under judgment. Then the Lord will relent from his intense anger, show you compassion, have mercy on you, and multiply you as he promised your ancestors. 13:18 Thus you must obey the Lord your God, keeping all his commandments that I am giving you today and doing what is right before him.

Update on the Cranston Flowers

The tally goes something like this. One Cranston store did not want to show ID. Another thought it would be bad for business. Another was closed.  A fourth store in Connecticut, originally agreed, but then cancelled under threat of loss of business.  Finally a fifth store agreed, but received at least one harassing phone call.  Honestly all of this is fitting after Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

The Cranston prayer banner debate shifts to flowers as businesses refuse to deliver to the teenage girl at the center of the battle. The Freedom From Religion Foundation in Wisconsin had to go out of state to find a florist to deliver flowers to the Cranston West teen, after four other Rhode Island businesses said "no thanks" to the order.


Co-owner of Glimpse of Gaia Florist Sean Condon, drove all the way from Connecticut to deliver the flowers to the atheist teen who won the lawsuit against her school over a prayer banner. Cranston West was ordered to take the banner down. It's temporarily covered, pending the school committees decision on an appeal.


Condon said, "I think we don't discriminate against people for any reason."


The anti-religious group wanted to send Ahlquist congratulatory flowers, but four different florists in Rhode Island refused.


Owner of Twins Florist in Cranston, Marina Plowman, was one of the businesses to reject the order.


Plowman said, "It's my freedom of speech I refuse orders when I want and I take orders when I want."


Plowman said part of the reason why she rejected the order was because of the warning that came with it. It said Ahlquist was under the public eye and the deliverer would need to show id to prove they weren't a threat. It was a warning that Plowman says helped make her decision.


"I mean it's not worth it for me to do that," she said.


Floral Express was the second to turn the order down saying they'd be closed on the day of delivery. We checked, and the door was locked. The third business to deny delivery to the teen was Flowers by Santilli.


Owner Raymond Santilli said, "we have beliefs as well as the individual that's in the middle of all this, and we just feel that it's better for us as a business and the city itself just to stay away from this and not to cross the lines."


A warwick florist had agreed to the order, but later withdrew. Ending the flower efforts with Sean Condon. He says almost immediately after delivering the flowers he started receiving harassing phone calls.


Condon said, "That we should be ashamed of ourselves for delivering to that girl. She sounded like a middle-aged woman and this is a teenage girl so I thought to myself I'm not so sure I should be the one ashamed of myself."


The Freedom From Religion Foundation in Wisconsin says they are filing civil complaints against the florists that refused their order.[1]

Police investigate threats against student in banner case

Police said Friday they were investigating threats made against a 16-year-old student who fought for and won the removal of a prayer banner at Cranston High School West.

Jessica Ahlquist has faced harassment both in person and online. She said the court battle has cost her friends and that she doesn't know if she'll return to the school.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the prayer banner in the school auditorium is unconstitutional and must be removed. School officials covered it with a green tarp while they decide whether to appeal.

But debate over the banner hasn't been silenced.

"I think it's been a distraction to the kids in the school. I'll be glad when it's over, things blow over," said parent Kristen Ciacciarelli.

Online, the discussion is far from blowing over. Hateful posts hit Facebook, Twitter and other blogs. Threats have been aimed directly at the 16-year-old Ahlquist, a self-proclaimed atheist.

"It's been very disappointing to read many of the comments being made, not only by students but also the public at large. It's been a difficult time for Jessica and her family as well as the district," Ray Votto, the chief operating officer of Cranston.

Cranston school officials said they are working with police to help protect the teen. NBC 10 has learned that one Cranston public school student has been disciplined because of an online post.

"Police and school personnel are definitely cracking down on it. They see the effects of it and they will take legal action against it," said Amanda Hannon of Stop Bullying Now RI.

School officials said the student who made a post does not attend Cranston West and was not suspended. They wouldn't go into further detail. [1]

Saudia Arabia Executes Another "Witch"

A Saudi woman has been executed for practising "witchcraft and sorcery", the country's interior ministry says.

A statement published by the state news agency said Amina bint Abdul Halim bin Salem Nasser was beheaded on Monday in the northern province of Jawf.

The ministry gave no further details of the charges which the woman faced.

The woman was the second person to be executed for witchcraft in Saudi Arabia this year. A Sudanese man was executed in September.'Threat to Islam'

BBC regionalist analyst Sebastian Usher says the interior ministry stated that the verdict against Ms Nasser was upheld by Saudi Arabia's highest courts, but it did not give specific details of the charges.

The London-based newspaper, al-Hayat, quoted a member of the religious police as saying that she was in her 60s and had tricked people into giving her money, claiming that she could cure their illnesses.

Our correspondent said she was arrested in April 2009.

But the human rights group Amnesty International, which has campaigned for Saudis previously sentenced to death on sorcery charges, said it had never heard of her case until now, he adds.

A Sudanese man was executed in September on similar charges, despite calls led by Amnesty for his release.

In 2007, an Egyptian national was beheaded for allegedly casting spells to try to separate a married couple.

Last year, a Lebanese man facing the death penalty on charges of sorcery, relating to a fortune-telling television programme he presented, was freed after the Saudi Supreme Court decreed that his actions had not harmed anyone.

Amnesty says that Saudi Arabia does not actually define sorcery as a capital offence. However, some of its conservative clerics have urged the strongest possible punishments against fortune-tellers and faith healers as a threat to Islam.[1]

James Dobson: Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America III

October 2008, Dr. James Dobson wrote a letter fictitiously from October 2012.  This is the third installment of excerpts from Dr. Dobson's apocalyptic future.

(15) Freedom of Choice Act: Congress lost no time in solidifying abortion rights under President Obama. In fact, Obama had promised, “The first thing I’ll do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (July 17, 2007, speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund).  This federal law immediately nullified hundreds of state laws that had created even the slightest barrier to abortion.  States can no longer require parental involvement for minors who wish to have an abortion, waiting period, informed consent rules, restrictions on tax-payer funding or restrictions on late-term abortions. The act reversed the Hyde Amendment, so the government now funds Medicaid abortions for any reason. As a result, the number of abortions has increased dramatically. The Freedom of Choice Act also reversed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, so infants can be killed outright just seconds before they would be born. States whose laws were overturned challenged the law in court but it was upheld by the Obama Supreme Court. “The land of the free”? There is no freedom for these infants who are killed by the millions.

(16) Nurses and abortions: “The land of the free”? Nurses are no longer free to refuse to participate in abortions for reasons of conscience.  If they refuse to participate, they lose their jobs, for they are now failing to comply with federal law. Many Christian nurses have left the health care field rather than violate their consciences. A number of Christian nurses challenged their loss of jobs in court, but the Supreme Court ruled that medical professionals do not have the freedom to refuse nonessential, elective care on the basis of conscience. In its decision, the Supreme Court followed the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in the 2008 Benitez case (see section (6) above).

(17) Doctors and abortions: “The land of the free”? The same restrictions apply to doctors: Doctors who refuse to perform abortions can no longer be licensed to deliver babies at hospitals in any state. As a result, many Christian doctors have left family medicine and obstetrics, and many have retired.

(18) Pornography: “The land of the free”? It’s almost impossible to keep children from seeing pornography. The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and television broadcasts. As a result, television programs at all hours of the day contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts. The court applied more broadly the “Miller test” from the 1973 decision in Miller v. California, by which a work could not be found obscene unless “the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.” In the 2011 decision, the court essentially found that any pornographic work had some measure of “serious artistic value,” at least according to some observers, and thus any censorship of pornographic material was an unconstitutional restriction on the First Amendment. In addition, all city and county laws restricting pornography were struck down by this decision. As a result, pornographic magazines are openly displayed in gas stations, grocery stores and on newsstands (as they have been in some European countries for several years).

(19) Guns: “The land of the free”? It is illegal for private citizens to own guns for selfdefense in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state legislatures and governorships. This was the result of a 6-3 Supreme Court decision in which the court reversed its 5-4 decision that had upheld private gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).  In the new decision, a response to test cases from Oregon, Massachusetts, and Vermont, the court adopted the view of the Second Amendment that had been defended in Heller by the four liberal justices, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. In this new decision, the court specified that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” was limited to that purpose specified in the Second Amendment, namely, to those people who were part of a “well regulated militia” in the various states. To those who argued that this view was not the “original intent” of the framers, they pointed to a long history of dispute over the interpretation of the expression and then said that, in any case, the Constitution was an “evolving” document that must change with the times, and so what may have been applicable in 1790 need no longer be decisive. Therefore they allowed cities and states to limit gun ownership to active-duty military personnel and police officers. Citizens in those areas who are discovered owning guns have been subjected to heavy fines and imprisonment. Inner-city violent crime has increased dramatically....

...Thousands of home schooling parents, seeing no alternative in the United States, have begun to emigrate to other countries, particularly Australia and New Zealand, where home schooling is still quite prevalent....

...After many of these decisions, especially those that restricted religious speech in public places, President Obama publicly expressed strong personal disapproval of the decision and said that the Supreme Court had gone far beyond what he ever expected. But he has also stated repeatedly that he had sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and, now that the Supreme Court had ruled, he had no choice but to uphold the law, for these decisions were the law of the land. [1]

James Dobson: Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America

James Dobson wrote a letter in October 2008 as if he was writing from October 2012.  In Dobson's apocalypse, four Supreme Court Justices retire and Obama has successfully confirmed four new Justices to the Court.  The Supreme Court then proceeds to go on a tyrannical tirade:

...(11) High schools: “The land of the free”? High schools are no longer free to allow “See You at the Pole” meetings where students pray together, or any student Bible studies even before or after school. The Supreme Court ruled this is considered speech that is both “proselytizing” and involves “worship,” special categories of speech which, as liberal Justice John Paul Stevens argued in his dissent in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), should not be allowed in public schools, since it is in a different category from other kinds of speech. (Justice Souter filed a similar dissent, which Justice Ginsburg joined). The new 6-3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court followed his reasoning and outlawed any use of school property for any kind of religious meeting, even outside of normal school hours. In addition, Christian students cannot raise religious objections to curriculum material that promotes homosexual behavior.

(12) Church use of school property: “The land of the free”? Tens of thousands of young churches suddenly had no place to meet when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools in all 50 states had to stop allowing churches to rent their facilities — even on Sundays, when school was not in session. The court said this was an unconstitutional use of government property for a religious purpose. Most of these churches have been unable to find any suitable place to meet. Public libraries and public parks are similarly excluded from allowing churches to use their facilities. Once again, the reasoning of liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg in 2001 in Good News Club (see above) was able to garner 6-3 support with the new court.

(13) Campus ministries: “The land of the free”? Campus organizations such as Campus Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity, Navigators, Baptist Campus Ministry, and Reformed University Fellowship have shrunk to skeleton organizations, and in many states they have ceased to exist. After the Supreme Court ruled that “proselytizing” speech and “worship” speech did not have the same First Amendment protection as other speech, and after it declared same-sex “marriage” to be the law of the United States, a subsequent Supreme Court decision predictably ruled that universities had to prohibit campus organizations that promote “hate speech” and have discriminatory policies. Therefore these Christian ministries have been prohibited from use of campus buildings, campus bulletin boards, advertising in campus newspapers, and use of dormitory rooms or common rooms for Bible studies. Their staff members are no longer allowed on university property. The only ministries allowed to function on campuses are “nondiscriminatory” ministries that agree to allow practicing homosexuals and members of other religions on their governing boards. With the new Supreme Court appointed by President Obama, the long years of liberal opposition to these evangelical ministries finally bore fruit, and only liberal ministries are left on campuses.

(14) Pledge of Allegiance: “The land of the free”? Public school teachers are no longer free to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States. The 9th Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals heard a new challenge to the phrase “under God” in the Pledge, and, as it had in 2002 in Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., it held the wording to be unconstitutional. Now the Supreme Court has upheld this decision.[1]

James Dobson: Visions from 2012

In October of 2008, James Dobson and Focus on the Family put out a list of predictions that could possibly come to pass if Obama was elected.  In a little theater, Dobson writes this personal footnoted letter from the future, October 2012.  Most of these predictions are the result of Obama stocking the Supreme Court with four justices after Ginsburg, Stevens, Kennedy, and Scalia retired.  By October of 2009 with less than ten months in office Obama will shift the balance of the court.  This apocalyptic vision seems far fetched, but to be fair Dobson says the following: 

...This letter is not “predicting” that all of the imaginative future “events” named in this letter will happen. But it is saying that each one of these changes could happen and also that each change would be the natural outcome of (a) published legal opinions by liberal judges, (b) trends seen in states with liberal-dominated courts such as California and Massachusetts, (c) recent promises, practices and legislative initiatives of the current liberal leadership of the Democratic Party and (d) Senator Obama’s actions, voting record and public promises to the far-Left groups that won the nomination for him...

Well, below are the first series of excerpts of his "not 'predicting'": 

...October 22, 2012 

Dear friends, 

 I can hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” any more. When I hear the words,    

O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?  

 I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, I don’t think I can still answer, “Yes,” to that question. We are not “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.  The 2008 election was closer than anybody expected, but Barack Obama still won. Many Christians voted for Obama – younger evangelicals actually provided him with the needed margin to defeat John McCain – but they didn’t think he would really follow through on the farLeft policies that had marked his career. They were wrong....   

...The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys...

...Many Christian teachers objected to teaching first-graders that homosexual behavior was morally neutral and equal to heterosexuality. They said it violated their consciences to have to teach something the Bible viewed as morally wrong. But state after state ruled that their refusal to teach positively about homosexuality was the equivalent of hate speech, and they had to teach it or be fired. Tens of thousands of Christian teachers either quit or were fired, and there are hardly any evangelical teachers in public schools any more...   

...(5) Public broadcasting: “The land of the free”? The Bible can no longer be freely preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such “offensive” doctrines as criticizing homosexual behavior. The Supreme Court agreed that these could be kept off the air as prohibited “hate speech” that is likely to incite violence and discrimination. These policies followed broadcasting and print restrictions that were in place prior to 2008 in Canada and Sweden.

(6) Doctors and lawyers: “The land of the free”? Physicians who refuse to provide artificial insemination for lesbian couples now face significant fines or loss of their license to practice medicine, following the reasoning of a decision of the California Supreme Court in North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Benitez), which was announced August 18, 2008.  As a result, many Christian physicians have retired or left the practices of family medicine and obstetrics & gynecology. Lawyers who refuse to handle adoption cases for same-sex couples similarly now lose their licenses to practice law.

(7) Counselors and social workers: “The land of the free”? All other professionals who are licensed by individual states are also prohibited from discriminating against homosexuals. Social workers and counselors, even counselors in church staff positions, who refuse to provide “professional, appropriately nurturing marriage counseling” for homosexual couples lose their counseling licenses.  Thousands of Christians have left these professions as a result. 

(8) Homosexual weddings: “The land of the free”? Church buildings are now considered a “public accommodation” by the Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. If they refuse, they lose their tax-exempt status, and they are increasingly becoming subject to fines and antidiscrimination lawsuits.

(9) Homosexual church staff members: “The land of the free”? While churches are still free to turn down homosexual applicants for the job of senior pastor, churches and parachurch organizations are no longer free to reject homosexual applicants for staff positions such as parttime youth pastor or director of counseling. Those that have rejected homosexual applicants have had their tax-exempt status revoked, and now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has begun to impose heavy fines for each instance of such “discrimination,” which, they say, is “contrary to the U.S. Constitution as defined by the Supreme Court.” These fines follow the pattern of a precedent-setting case in February 2008, in which the Diocese of Hereford in the Church of England was fined $94,000 (47,000 UK pounds) for turning down a homosexual applicant for a youth ministry position.

(10) Homosexuals in the military: One change regarding the status of homosexuals did not wait for any Supreme Court decision. In the first week after his inauguration, President Obama invited homosexual rights leaders from around the United States to join him at the White House as he signed an executive order directing all branches of the military to abandon their “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and to start actively recruiting homosexuals. As a result, homosexuals are now given special bonuses for enlisting in military service (to attempt to compensate for past discrimination), and all new recruits, and all active-duty and reserve personnel, are compelled to take many hours of “sensitivity training” to ensure they demonstrate positive attitudes toward those with different sexual orientations and practices. Any one who seems hesitant or who objects is routinely passed over for promotion. In addition, any chaplain who holds to an interpretation of Scripture that homosexual conduct is morally wrong and therefore does not espouse “mainstream values,” is dismissed from the military.  This is not “the land of the free” for them.[1]

Villains make no scruple to take any oath

To say that "religion cannot stand without a state establishment," is not only contrary to fact, (as has been proved already,) but is a contradiction in phrase. Religion must have stood a time before any law could have been made about it; and if it did stand almost three hundred years without law, it can still stand without it.


The evils of such an establishment, are many.


First. Uninspired, fallible men make their own opinions tests of orthodoxy, and use their own systems, as Pocrustes used his iron bedstead, to stretch and measure the consciences of all others by. Where no toleration is granted to non-conformists, either ignorance and superstition prevail, or persecution rages; and if toleration is granted to restricted non-conformists, the minds of men are biased to embrace that religion which is favored and pampered by law, and thereby hypocrisy is nourished; while those who cannot stretch their consciences to believe anything and everything in the established creed, are treated with contempt and opprobrious names; and by such means, some are pampered to death by largesses, and others confined from doing what good they otherwise could, by penury. The first lie under a temptation to flatter the ruling party, to continue that form of government which brings them in the sure bread of idleness; the last to despise that government, and those rulers, that oppress them. The first have their eyes shut to all further light, that would alter the religious machine; the last are always seeking new light, and often fall into enthusiasm. Such are the natural evils of the establishment of religion by human laws.


Second. Such establishments not only wean and alienate the affections of one from another, on account of the different usage they receive in their religious sentiments, but are also very impolitic, especially in new countries; for what encouragement can strangers have to migrate with their arts and wealth into a state, where they cannot enjoy their religious sentiments without exposing themselves to the law? when, at the same time, their religious opinions do not lead them to be mutinous. And further, how often have kingdoms and states been greatly weakened by religious tests! In the time of the persecution in France, not less than twenty thousand people fled for the enjoyment of religious liberty.


Third. These establishments metamorphose the church into a creature, and religion into a principle of state, which has a natural tendency to make men conclude that Bible religion is nothing but a trick of state; hence it is that the greatest part of the well-informed in literature are overrun with deism and infidelity; nor is it likely that it will ever be much better, while preaching is made a trade of emolument. And if there is no difference between Bible religion and state religion, I shall soon fall into infidelity.


Fourth. There are no two kingdoms and states that establish the same creed and formalities of faith, which alone proves their debility. In one kingdom a man is condemned for not believing a doctrine that he would be condemned for believing in another kingdom. Both of these establishments cannot be right, but both of them can be, and surely are, wrong.


First. The nature of such establishments, further, is to keep from civil office the best of men. Good men cannot believe what they cannot believe, and they will not subscribe to what they disbelieve, and take an oath to maintain what they conclude is error; and, as the best of men differ in judgment, there may be some of them in any state: their talents and virtue entitle them to fill the most important posts, yet, because they differ from the established creed of the state, they cannot—will not fill those posts; whereas villains make no scruple to take any oath.


If these, and many more evils, attend such establishments, what were, and still are, the causes that ever there should be a state establishment ofreligion m any empire, kingdom, or state?


The causes are many—some of which follow:


First. The love of importance is a general evil. It is natural to men to dictate for others: they choose to command the bushel and use the whip row: to have the halter around the necks of others, to hang them at pleasure.


Second. An over-fondness for a particular system or sect. This gave rise to the first human establishment of religion, by Constantine the Great. Being- converted to the Christian system, he established it in the Roman empire, compelled the Pagans to submit, and banished the Christian heretics; built fine chapels at public expense, and forced large stipends for the preachers. All this was done out of love to the Christian religion; but his love operated inadvertently, for he did the Christian church more harm than all the persecuting emperors ever did. It is said, that in his day a voice was heard from heaven, saying: ". Now is poison spued into the churches." If this voice was not heard, it, nevertheless, was a truth; for, from that day to this, the Christian religion has been made a stirrup to mount the steed of popularity, wealth and ambition.


Third. To produce uniformity in religion. Rulers often fear that if they leave every man to think, speak, and worship as he pleases, that the whole cause will be wrecked in diversity; to prevent which, they establish some standard of orthodoxy, to effect uniformity. But, is uniformity attainable? Millions of men, women and children, have been tortured to death, to produce uniformity, and yet the world has not advanced one inch towards it. And as long as men live in different parts of the world, have different habits, education and interests, they will be different in judgment, humanly speaking. ~ Rights of Conscience - John Leland - ca 1790's[1]

Wallace v Jaffree

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time, it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. [n36] But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the [p53] Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. [n37] This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, [n38][p54] and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects -- or even intolerance among "religions" -- to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain. [n39][p55] As Justice Jackson eloquently stated in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943):

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

The State of Alabama, no less than the Congress of the United States, must respect that basic truth.[1]

9/11 Cross Part 2

I mentioned Irish American Franciscan Chaplain Father Brian Jordan in a previous post: [9/11 Cross 2002] Here he is blessing the cross after it was installed at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, July 23, 2011.[1]  I was investigating to see who altered the cross.  The first photo is how the cross was found.  Notice the edges are bent.  The cross was straightened and dulled after it was found.  In 2002, Father Jordan said that "God creates", but he did not create the cross this way.  Men changed these beams.  

Like the atheists that are protesting, I am not too hot on the idea of holy water being used in a religious government ceremony on ground consecrated by the Pope himself.  However it is more complicated than that.  Even Trinity Church is a National Historical Landmark.  In Lower Manhattan many worship on public land already.  Also cemeteries on government land have religious consecration services.  It is not uncommon to bring a clergyman.     

Susan B. Anthony on Ernestine Potowski Rose

The one distinct feature of our association has been the right of individual opinion for every member.  We have been beset at each step with the cry that somebody was injuring the cause by the expression of sentiments which differed from those held by the majority.  The religious persecution of the ages has been carried on under what was claimed to be the command of God.  I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.  All the way along the history of our movement  there has been this same contest on account of religious theories.  Forty years ago one of our noblest men [Phillips] said to me, “You would be better never [to] hold another convention than allow Ernestine L. Rose on your platform;” because that eloquent woman, who ever stood for justice and freedom, did not believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible.  Did we banish Mrs. Rose?  No, indeed! 

~ Susan B. Anthony defending Cady Stanton’s heretical Woman’s Bible at 1896 NAWSA convention.  She took a rabbit trail to defend Potowski Rose.

The Mrs. Rose that Anthony is referencing was controversial item.  In 1854, the Chaplain of Congress forbade her to give lectures in the Capitol, because of her religious beliefs.  The Chaplain admitted that barring her violated her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion.[1]

Shorter College adopts the Liberty Way?

The AJC has been hearing from folks about Shorter University’s decision to require employees to sign a “Personal Lifestyle Statement” forbidding premarital sex, adultery and homosexual sex. 

The Personal Statement also requires that employees be active members of a local church. And the employees must agree to not drink in public places where students may see them, including restaurants, concerts and sports events. Nor can they attend a Shorter function if they consumed alcohol six hours prior to the event.[1]

Memo from the Elementary School Principal

PRAYER AROUND THE FLAGPOLE: The event takes place every Monday at 8:15 at the flag pole next to the office and is sponsored by our area Pastors. This is not to be confused with the “Pray around the flagpole” which is annual on the 4th Wednesday in September. Our pray around the school’s flagpole event is to pray for the nation, for each other, and for our school. Many outstanding people are leading information session to our congress for them to understand the first amendment. Pastor Steven Andrew states: “Our children need God back in schools,’ and he is calling Christians nation-wide to bring back the Holy Bible and Christian prayer to schools. The First Amendment was for Christianity, not other religions. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise of [Christian] religion.” Including God, the Constitution says, “The year of our Lord” and “except Sundays.” Our Founding Fathers fought for God’s unalienable rights of Christian life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom comes from obeying God. Let’s get active to bring back the Holy Bible and Christian prayer to schools.” Our prayer around the flagpole gatherings are permissible because they are community led and take place outside of class time.[1]

The principal says that he does not agree with the quotes.  He says he was not trying to endorse the prayer event.  He does believe that the First Amendment applies to all religions.  The actual pastor who will be leading the event, Pastor Baker, says he believes that the First Amendment applies to all religions.

So then why did the principal quote at length another pastor's views that the First Amendment only applies to Christianity?

"This is his opinion and what he says,” Davis said about Andrew’s article. “To me it just looked like it all went together with the morals. I don’t think it was a stretch at all for him to make those comments or for me to share them.”[2]

Given the rest of the memo, I am tempted to believe the principal.  He goes on to talk about Congress and tax policy.  Pastor Baker leads the prayer events at three other schools.  It is not Baker's fault that another pastor wrote something and it is not Baker's fault that the principal decided to quote it in a school memo.   Baker did cancel the events at all four schools originally, but then renewed them at all four schools.  He believes that to cancel would admit that there was something wrong in the first place.

The principal on the other hand really screwed this up.  Yes, the faculty need to be notified. However, the way he notified them was ridiculous.  If he did not endorse the event, he sure did seem like it.  He quoted a constitutional opinion that was contrary to the school's policies. 

If the principal was not trying to endorse the event with a school memo, he did a poor job.  I feel sorry for the pastor who is leading the event who seems like a reasonable guy to get sideswiped by this principal.

Elementary School Principal sends out a memo, "The First Amendment was for Christianity, not other religions."

Optional prayer meetings are fine as long as they are not organized or endorsed by the faculty.  Those quotes in the memo seem pretty damning however.   In the memo, he quoted a Christian article that said that the First Amendment only applies to Christianity.  Some people were rightfully shocked to find out that their principal did not think they had First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.  Now he says that he did not endorse the quote, yet does he believe it?

Clay County, Fla. -- Clay Hill Elementary principal Larry Davis is drawing criticisms from across the country. 

It all started with a school memo. Davis informed his staff that a local pastor would be holding weekly prayer sessions underneath the school's flag.

In the memo to about 40 faculty members, Davis quoted an article from a Christian website stating, "Our children need God back in schools," and he is calling Christians nationwide to bring back "the Holy Bible and Christian prayer to schools." 

That sparked one parent to take action, calling Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation. 

"Utterly unacceptable in a principal, I do not think he should be a principal at a public school," said the group's co-president, Laurie Allie Gaylor. 

Davis went on to quote, "The First Amendment was for Christianity, not other religions." 

"That would be like if he had sent out a newsletter to the school saying the First Amendment or the constitution was only for white people," said Gaylor.

Davis said he didn't have time for an interview and that he didn't endorse the quotes. The Clay County Schools superintendent stated at a recent school board meeting that Davis' comments were over the line.[1]

Basketball Coach Asked his Team to Pray

In 2006, Clay Jenkinson's eleven year old daughter attended a public school in Kansas. The girl's basketball coach started praying before games with his team.  He would say, "Lets all pray and if you do not feel like praying, you can stand over there."  Jenkinson's ex-wife went ballistic saying that the First Amendment says you cannot have an establishment of a religion.

As Jenkinson notes this prayer was not a Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim prayer.  It was not even a Catholic prayer.  It was a Protestant prayer.   If you take a sports team and tell a student that if she does not want to participate she can stand over there, you are punishing a student for her freedom.  The coach meant well, but he was ostracizing those that were not willing to participate in his religious exercise.

This story can be found on the Thomas Jefferson Hour Episode 634.  Clay Jenkinson's website is http://www.jeffersonhour.com/

Pastor Jeffress II "No you don't that is not what the 1st Amendment says!"

Spoken like a "true atheist" and spoken like a "true Christian"? The atheist is right, if you have a law that says that one religion, Christianity, can do things that no other religion can, then you create second class citizens.



The other day I put it this way:

Pastor Jeffress believes that the First Amendment says that a teacher can select a 6 year old Christian boy to lead his public school first grade class in prayer. However, when the boy's practicing Jewish best friend volunteers to lead the following day, the teacher can say, "I am sorry Ben you can't, because you are a Jew."

This was based off a Southern Baptist who taught 3rd grade at a Public Elementary School  in the 1940's.  Every morning she would put two Catholic students and one Jewish student in the hallway while she led a "Christian" Bible Study for her students.  Obviously the parents of the Jewish child were outraged and the principal put a stop to the practice citing "Mr. Jefferson"'s wall of separation of church and state.[1]  I will write more about it later, but in a sermon, Jeffress blatantly claims that you do not have to allow prayer from any other religion than Christianity.  Perhaps, Jeffress would object to the tone of "you can't, because you are a Jew", but he would not object to the constitutionality.[2]
 

Pastor Jeffress and God are against religious freedom.

Are We Witnessing America's Last Days? from First Dallas on Vimeo.


Really Hitler?

Apparently God is against the Air Force Oath. "Apparently God does not fully appreciate the merits of theological diversity". ~ Pastor Jeffress http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/02/air_force_academys_pagan_mistake.html

The Academy also has Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist worship areas.  While they trace their roots to pre-Christian Europe, Wiccanism was created in 1952 and Neo Drudism was created in 1960.

"Every servicemember is charged with defending freedom for all Americans, and that includes freedom to practice our religion of choice or, for that matter, not to practice any faith at all," said Chaplain (Lt. Col.) William Ziegler, Cadet Wing chaplain. "Being in the military isn't just a job -- it's a calling. We all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and that means we've all sworn to protect one another's religious liberties. We all put on our uniforms the same way; we're all Airmen first."...

...The presence of diverse worship areas reflects a sea change from five years ago, when reports surfaced alleging religious intolerance at the Academy. Sergeant Longcrier became Pagan shortly after arriving at the Academy in 2006 and said he believes the climate has improved dramatically.[1]

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.[2]

Pastor Jeffress?

Apparently Pastor Jeffress of First Dallas believes that abortion should be illegal, the government should write prayers for school children to recite, and sodomy should be illegal. “Three decisions that have so weakened our spiritual and social structure that our collapse is inevitable.” Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Roe v. Wade, 1973, & Lawrence v. Texas, 2003[First Dallas]

“True tolerance allows other religious believes – but it also allows for the showing of preference to the belief of Christianity. Our forefathers didn’t hesitate to declare that America was a Christian nation,” the pastor declared. “Never in our wildest imagination was [the First Amendment to the United States Constitution] meant to prostrate Christianity…and elevate any other infidelity of a religion.”

Some of our forefathers did hesitate to call this country a Christian nation.