Tag: first amendment

Categories
Journal News Commentary

New threats to religious freedom

I can’t believe that a city in the US would try to force ministers of the gospel to act contrary to their consciences in their practice of Christian ministry.  Yet that is exactly what is happening in the case of this couple from Idaho.

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364

The radical homosexual lobby will not stop at being allowed to do their own thing.  They also insist on forcing everyone else to agree with them which violates the right of others to disagree with their opinions and agenda.  I pray that the courts will uphold the first amendment rights of these ministers of the gospel on behalf of all of us.

If you think this is an  isolated case, think about the mayor of Houston who recently attempted to subpoena pastors’ sermons in her city to see what they were saying about her agenda.  Talk about government overreach!!   This was another attempt to violate first amendment rights.  She quickly realized that the move was political suicide and withdrew it.

One of the great things about our country is religious freedom.  Right now, this means that ministers in denominations which believe homosexual marriage is okay should be able to do such ceremonies if they also feel it is right.   But if religious freedom means anything at all, it means that ministers in groups that hold to traditional views that homosexual marriage is not in accord with Scriptural teaching, and ministers who individually feel the same way, cannot be forced to officiate at such unions.    It is their right in the United States of America to perform only those ceremonies that they feel comfortable in conscience to perform.

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
News Commentary

The First Amendment covers institutions expressing religious convictions

 

Keystone of the Bill of Rights

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/opinion_today_bishops_treating.html

This opinion is given great press by the Post Standard,  probably because they consider it politically correct.  But it contains an obvious logical disconnect.  The illogical assumption that is that institutions, because they are such, can be somehow disassociated from the values of the persons who founded them and/or run them.   That is patent nonsense.   It is as misguided as the idea of the college out West that recently tried to force student groups to accept leaders who do not agree with the fundamental purposes of the group.    It is preposterous for the same reason.  Institutions such as Catholic hospitals and church-related colleges are extensions of the values of the persons who created them and who continue to run them, values that are inculcated in the DNA of the institution.   If these values are an expression of a religious conviction, they fall directly under the First Amendment and are protected by it.   In addition, when the hospital or college is connected to a religious group, the values of the institution cannot be separated from the values of the sponsoring group.    The Bill of Rights is in place to protect the expression of religious faith whether by one person or a group of persons expressing themselves through an institution.   

Categories
News Commentary

Why we should pray at the 9/11 event.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/09/09/bloomberg-sundays-911-ceremony-a-civil-not-religious-occasion/

 

I do not agree with Mayor Bloomsburg that there should  have been no prayers at the official 9/11 remembrance time.

Ken Klulowski wrote:  “Bloomberg’s sad exclusion of all prayer and clergy from the 9/11 ceremony is also illustrative of something much  broader: political correctness increasingly means intolerance and exclusion of Christians from public life in our society. We see this in bans on prayer at  veterans’ funerals in Houston, as well as in criticism of Governor Rick Perry’s day of prayer event.”   (from <http://www.frc.org/op-eds/excluding-prayer-from-911-memorial-compounds-the-tragedy-of-that-day>)

I personally believe that exclusion of Christian clergy from public events such as the 10th anniversary of 9/11 is a violation of the rights
of the vast majority of Americans who are Christians to freely practice their religion.  To artificially restrict what
would naturally happen; that is to have the religious leaders of the majority express prayers on behalf of the majority, is to truncate the rights of the
majority to express their faith.   The truth is that we cannot get away from choosing a faith.  What we are doing in America is enshrining a
faith called atheism in our public events.    The public exercise of a particular faith does not of itself persecute a minority.  The public exercise of a faith in a natural way does not of itself establish a religion, it simply expresses it.   This is what the First Amendment protects.