The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing to thwart President Bush's creation of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. The Office was created to assist religious groups compete with secular organizations for federal grants to provide social services. A US trial court originally dismissed the suit, however, it was overturned by the 7th US District Court of Appeals. The suit will be reviewed in the US Supreme Court today.
The foundation believes that citizens should have the right to challenges governmental spending as it relates to the separation of church and state. The establishment Clause of the US Constitution states that government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The foundation believes that President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives is nothing less than an executive order providing assistance to religious groups thus in violation of the Establishment Cause.
The Establishment Clause specifically refers to Congressional spending and not the Executive Branch. If the foundation wins their suit, this will open the door for anyone to bring suit against any governmental action involving religion. The framers of the Constitution did not envision restrictions against governmental action that was directed at assisting its citizenship with promoting their individual beliefs, rather it created the Establishment Clause to stop government from creating a religious hierarchy that applied to all citizens. If the government assist or guides a religious group on how to achieve its goal that does not mean that the government is pressing a religious belief upon every citizen. If it offends you then look the other way, just as I look the other way when you worship your pagan idols.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Gay Education for Elementary Age Children
Two families filed suit in federal court stating that the town of Lexington, Massachusetts had violated the families right to religious freedom because the school was teaching their elementary age children about gay marriage. The suit was filed after parents found out that the school was reading a book entitled, "King and King" to their children. In this book, a prince rejects numerous woman as his princess and finally falls in love with another prince whom he lives happily ever after with.
In the suit the parents stated, the school has "begun a process of intentionally indoctrinating very young children to affirm the notion that homosexuality is right and normal in direct denigration of the plaintiffs' deeply held faith". A federal judge dismissed the suit saying, public schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy." The judge further stated, "diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation".
If public schools are going to continue to teach this garbage in violation of the parents rights then the parent should at least be notified prior to that days teaching. This would allow the parents to withhold their children from school that day.
How is learning about gay marriage going to make our children more engaged and productive in society? It may make them more engaged in the militant homosexual movement but it will not make them any better of a person. There is nothing magical about being tolerant of gay people. It is a sin. Although I may tolerate gay people, I will not tolerate the homosexual life-style and what they are doing is still wrong.
Parents send their children to public schools for many reasons. This "education" is paid for by the tax-payer. How can a school or judge say that it is the schools right to teach this garbage if it is against what the majority of the population believe. 70% of Americans are against gay marriage but yet we let our school system infest our children's heads with it. Topics such as gay marriage should be taught in the home if at all. Schools are to teach our children the basics such as math and science and leave the social and religous upbringing to the parents.
In the suit the parents stated, the school has "begun a process of intentionally indoctrinating very young children to affirm the notion that homosexuality is right and normal in direct denigration of the plaintiffs' deeply held faith". A federal judge dismissed the suit saying, public schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy." The judge further stated, "diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation".
If public schools are going to continue to teach this garbage in violation of the parents rights then the parent should at least be notified prior to that days teaching. This would allow the parents to withhold their children from school that day.
How is learning about gay marriage going to make our children more engaged and productive in society? It may make them more engaged in the militant homosexual movement but it will not make them any better of a person. There is nothing magical about being tolerant of gay people. It is a sin. Although I may tolerate gay people, I will not tolerate the homosexual life-style and what they are doing is still wrong.
Parents send their children to public schools for many reasons. This "education" is paid for by the tax-payer. How can a school or judge say that it is the schools right to teach this garbage if it is against what the majority of the population believe. 70% of Americans are against gay marriage but yet we let our school system infest our children's heads with it. Topics such as gay marriage should be taught in the home if at all. Schools are to teach our children the basics such as math and science and leave the social and religous upbringing to the parents.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
First Freedom Project
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales announced the creation of the First Freedom Project, a program that will strengthen and preserve religious freedom. "Throughout our history, nothing has defined us as a nation more than our respect for religious freedom," said Gonzales. The initiative will create a task force which will review policies and cases to ensure that religious freedom is being protected, as well as distribute religious freedom information in several other forms.
This sounds great and knowing the current administration's values, I hope that this is directed at enforcing the religious freedom of Christians. In today's world, it seems as though every religion is tolerated to a greater extent than that of Christianity. Christianity, which America was founded upon, is continually covered up as if it's an embarrassment and not a modern accepted belief system. Hopefully this push strengthens those Americans with faith and values to stand strong against those who seek to destroy us.
This sounds great and knowing the current administration's values, I hope that this is directed at enforcing the religious freedom of Christians. In today's world, it seems as though every religion is tolerated to a greater extent than that of Christianity. Christianity, which America was founded upon, is continually covered up as if it's an embarrassment and not a modern accepted belief system. Hopefully this push strengthens those Americans with faith and values to stand strong against those who seek to destroy us.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
More Evidence Against Roe V Wade
In the mist of current news regarding the case of Roe V Wade, it is amazing at how much news is overlooked if it supports the opinion that abortion on demand should be over-turned. In October of last year a baby girl was born. She weighed less than 10 ounces and was only 9 1/2 inches long. She was born and survived after only 22 weeks in gestation. Viability was not considered possible until at least 28 weeks of gestation.
This is one convincing piece of evidence that declares that the supporters of abortion on demand do not have sufficient proof to prove that aborted babies were not even alive during the procedure. Their foundation lays upon the belief that abortion is fine because the baby is not viable, meaning not alive. This shows that a baby is in fact viable at this stage and abortion is nothing less than pre-meditated murder.
This is one convincing piece of evidence that declares that the supporters of abortion on demand do not have sufficient proof to prove that aborted babies were not even alive during the procedure. Their foundation lays upon the belief that abortion is fine because the baby is not viable, meaning not alive. This shows that a baby is in fact viable at this stage and abortion is nothing less than pre-meditated murder.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Family Values Hate Speech
Today, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case in which the judges will determine whether or not "hate speech" should be aloud in the work place. What constitutes the 'hate speech" in question? "Natural family", "marriage" and " family values".
Several employees in an Oakland workplace were attempting to start a group for people of faith to express their views. In a notice they posted, employers stated that statements of a homophobic nature were made and stated that it boiled down to harassment. Both employees were threatened with termination. This came after e-mails were sent that promoted homosexuality and denounced Christian values earlier by other employees.
This is a clear violation of the employees first amendment rights and a clear example of the immoral direction that this country is headed. The Constitution gives anyone the right to state or relay any message as long as it is not clearly offensive to another. Here lies the problem. Traditional marriage and Christian values are not offensive per se in that they have been the mainstream in America since it's creation. In fact, the country's founding fathers based the creation of the Constitution on their belief in God. Homosexuality and other sinful lifestyles are considered offensive to the majority of the American population due to their extreme and un-natural acts.
I hope this case finds its way to the US Supreme Court and that the justices find that the right of these employees and the majority of Americans should be protected from militant activists for gay marriage. This case must be decided based on the original content of the Constitution and not the bastardized version handed down by liberal justices who feel it is their duty to change the rights of the US citizenship even though the majority of it feels different.
Several employees in an Oakland workplace were attempting to start a group for people of faith to express their views. In a notice they posted, employers stated that statements of a homophobic nature were made and stated that it boiled down to harassment. Both employees were threatened with termination. This came after e-mails were sent that promoted homosexuality and denounced Christian values earlier by other employees.
This is a clear violation of the employees first amendment rights and a clear example of the immoral direction that this country is headed. The Constitution gives anyone the right to state or relay any message as long as it is not clearly offensive to another. Here lies the problem. Traditional marriage and Christian values are not offensive per se in that they have been the mainstream in America since it's creation. In fact, the country's founding fathers based the creation of the Constitution on their belief in God. Homosexuality and other sinful lifestyles are considered offensive to the majority of the American population due to their extreme and un-natural acts.
I hope this case finds its way to the US Supreme Court and that the justices find that the right of these employees and the majority of Americans should be protected from militant activists for gay marriage. This case must be decided based on the original content of the Constitution and not the bastardized version handed down by liberal justices who feel it is their duty to change the rights of the US citizenship even though the majority of it feels different.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Death Certificates for Aborted Babies
Tennessee has proposed legislation that would require doctors who perform abortions to file a death certificate within 10 days. Although, some statistics are maintained on abortion, they are not kept on all that are performed in Tennessee. This legislation would allow citizens to see how many babies are actually being aborted and would most likely make the abortion a matter of public record.
Keri Adams, vice president of Planned Parenthood in Tennessee, called the proposal "an attempt to terrorize frightened and vulnerable women who are seeking abortion". "We think it's clearly a violation of privacy".
If a woman is not responsible enough to avoid an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, then she must deal with the consequences of wanting to murder that baby. Why do we concern ourselves with the "privacy" of the mother when we should concern ourselves with the baby who's body is going to be ripped apart and it's life ended by an invasive procedure?
Keri Adams, vice president of Planned Parenthood in Tennessee, called the proposal "an attempt to terrorize frightened and vulnerable women who are seeking abortion". "We think it's clearly a violation of privacy".
If a woman is not responsible enough to avoid an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, then she must deal with the consequences of wanting to murder that baby. Why do we concern ourselves with the "privacy" of the mother when we should concern ourselves with the baby who's body is going to be ripped apart and it's life ended by an invasive procedure?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
