Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Our Founders vs. NBC and New York Atheists (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44530
Is The V.A. Censoring ‘God’ Out of Funeral Prayers At Houston Cemetery?
Mike Falkenstein
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-v-a-censoring-god-out-of-funeral-prayers-at-houston-cemetery/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-v-a-censoring-god-out-of-funeral-prayers-at-houston-cemetery/
Agenda Behind Botched Pledge Still a Mystery
NO MYSTERY THEY ACTUALLY THINK THEM MERE MORTALS WILL REMOVE GOD OUT OF AMERICA WELL WE'VE DECIDED THEY AREN'T AND THAT'S THAT
http://townhall.com/columnists/marybethhicks/2011/06/29/agenda_behind_botched_pledge_still_a_mystery/page/full/
http://townhall.com/columnists/marybethhicks/2011/06/29/agenda_behind_botched_pledge_still_a_mystery/page/full/
Next Step: Persecuting Churches?
http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2011/06/29/next_step_persecuting_churches/page/full/
WRONG. NO MAN WILL DECIDE OUR LIVES BUT GOD
...............
Share 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up When the New York legislature passed a law last Friday legalizing same-sex marriage, all of New York's Roman Catholic bishops signed a statement warning that they now expect efforts to enact laws attacking churches that defend the truth.
"We strongly uphold the Catholic Church's clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love," said the bishops.
"But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves," they said. "This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths."
The bishops are wrong -- about the timing. Efforts to sanction churches for defending the truth will not be starting now, they have already started.
America's liberal establishment has already shown how it can flout the Constitution and use government to force churches to act against their own moral teachings.
As I wrote in my book "Control Freaks," the 2004 case of Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. the Superior Court of Sacramento County demonstrated this.
In the Catholic Charities case, a six-to-one majority of the California Supreme Court upheld a law enacted by the California legislature that required Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable organizations to provide prescription contraception coverage for their employees if they purchased any prescription drug coverage for their employees at all.
It did not matter to the majority in California's legislature, who passed the law, and then Gov. Gray Davis, who signed it, that employees of Catholic organizations were free to buy any kind of contraceptives they wanted -- with their own money. These politicians wanted to force the Catholic Church to buy contraceptives against its teaching.
The Catholic Church argued that it deeply believed and clearly taught that artificial contraception was wrong. The church also said it believed it had a moral obligation -- as part of its duty to treat workers justly -- to provide prescription drug coverage for its employees.
The liberals behind California's contraceptive law no doubt relished putting the Catholic Church in this box: force Catholic authorities to choose between upholding their church's teaching on artificial contraception or upholding their church's view of the just treatment of workers.
They wanted to force the Catholic Church to choose one wrong or another. It is hard to imagine an uglier or more tyrannical impulse in a politician.
The church resisted. Catholic Charities of Sacramento sued the state, seeking to protect its own and everyone else's freedom of religion.
"This lawsuit has very little to do with health insurance and everything to do with our fundamental rights as Americans," Roman Catholic Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento explained at the time. "It boils down to a very simple question. Under the Constitution, does the state of California have the right to tell its citizens how to practice their religion?"
Three Protestant churches - -including the Lutheran-Church Missouri Synod, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel and the Worldwide Church of God -- joined the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in filing an amicus brief supporting Catholic Charities.
"The state proposes a rule of law that forces a church institution, in violation of its own self-identity and constitution, to pay for something in its own workplace that the institution holds and teaches to be sinful," the churches said in this brief.
"Today's case is about contraceptives," they said. "Tomorrow's will present some other issue that elicits public division, such as abortion, assisted suicide, cloning, or some issue of self-governance, such as the use of resources for evangelization or who a religious agency may hire to do ministry work."
The California Supreme Court's decision was bold and simple. It conceded that the California law demanded that the Catholic Church act against its own teachings.
"We do not doubt Catholic Charities' assertion that to offer insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives to its employees would be religiously unacceptable," said the court.
But it concluded that the state's interest in eliminating "gender discrimination" trumped the Catholic Church's freedom of religion.
"Assuming for the sake of argument the (law) substantially burdens a religious belief or practice, the law nevertheless serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest," said the court. "The (law) serves the compelling state interest of eliminating gender discrimination."
Catholic Charities appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court refused to take the case up, letting California's law stand.
Apologists for New York's same-sex marriage law argue that it includes a religious exemption that protects churches from having to officiate over same-sex marriages and protects them in "taking such action as is calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained" -- including in its employment practices.
That is, of course, until the same kind of ideologues who are now pushing same-sex marriage laws begin suing churches in states where same-sex marriage is a "right" because, they argue, the churches have made them victims of "gender discrimination."
Then Anthony Kennedy gets to decide.
WRONG. NO MAN WILL DECIDE OUR LIVES BUT GOD
...............
Share 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up When the New York legislature passed a law last Friday legalizing same-sex marriage, all of New York's Roman Catholic bishops signed a statement warning that they now expect efforts to enact laws attacking churches that defend the truth.
"We strongly uphold the Catholic Church's clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love," said the bishops.
"But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves," they said. "This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths."
The bishops are wrong -- about the timing. Efforts to sanction churches for defending the truth will not be starting now, they have already started.
America's liberal establishment has already shown how it can flout the Constitution and use government to force churches to act against their own moral teachings.
As I wrote in my book "Control Freaks," the 2004 case of Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. the Superior Court of Sacramento County demonstrated this.
In the Catholic Charities case, a six-to-one majority of the California Supreme Court upheld a law enacted by the California legislature that required Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable organizations to provide prescription contraception coverage for their employees if they purchased any prescription drug coverage for their employees at all.
It did not matter to the majority in California's legislature, who passed the law, and then Gov. Gray Davis, who signed it, that employees of Catholic organizations were free to buy any kind of contraceptives they wanted -- with their own money. These politicians wanted to force the Catholic Church to buy contraceptives against its teaching.
The Catholic Church argued that it deeply believed and clearly taught that artificial contraception was wrong. The church also said it believed it had a moral obligation -- as part of its duty to treat workers justly -- to provide prescription drug coverage for its employees.
The liberals behind California's contraceptive law no doubt relished putting the Catholic Church in this box: force Catholic authorities to choose between upholding their church's teaching on artificial contraception or upholding their church's view of the just treatment of workers.
They wanted to force the Catholic Church to choose one wrong or another. It is hard to imagine an uglier or more tyrannical impulse in a politician.
The church resisted. Catholic Charities of Sacramento sued the state, seeking to protect its own and everyone else's freedom of religion.
"This lawsuit has very little to do with health insurance and everything to do with our fundamental rights as Americans," Roman Catholic Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento explained at the time. "It boils down to a very simple question. Under the Constitution, does the state of California have the right to tell its citizens how to practice their religion?"
Three Protestant churches - -including the Lutheran-Church Missouri Synod, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel and the Worldwide Church of God -- joined the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in filing an amicus brief supporting Catholic Charities.
"The state proposes a rule of law that forces a church institution, in violation of its own self-identity and constitution, to pay for something in its own workplace that the institution holds and teaches to be sinful," the churches said in this brief.
"Today's case is about contraceptives," they said. "Tomorrow's will present some other issue that elicits public division, such as abortion, assisted suicide, cloning, or some issue of self-governance, such as the use of resources for evangelization or who a religious agency may hire to do ministry work."
The California Supreme Court's decision was bold and simple. It conceded that the California law demanded that the Catholic Church act against its own teachings.
"We do not doubt Catholic Charities' assertion that to offer insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives to its employees would be religiously unacceptable," said the court.
But it concluded that the state's interest in eliminating "gender discrimination" trumped the Catholic Church's freedom of religion.
"Assuming for the sake of argument the (law) substantially burdens a religious belief or practice, the law nevertheless serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest," said the court. "The (law) serves the compelling state interest of eliminating gender discrimination."
Catholic Charities appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court refused to take the case up, letting California's law stand.
Apologists for New York's same-sex marriage law argue that it includes a religious exemption that protects churches from having to officiate over same-sex marriages and protects them in "taking such action as is calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained" -- including in its employment practices.
That is, of course, until the same kind of ideologues who are now pushing same-sex marriage laws begin suing churches in states where same-sex marriage is a "right" because, they argue, the churches have made them victims of "gender discrimination."
Then Anthony Kennedy gets to decide.
Demonic and The Underrated Ann
http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/06/27/demonic-and-the-underrated-ann/?singlepage=true
It seems strange to say that Ann Coulter is underrated. Every book she writes is a bestseller — her new one, Demonic, is no exception. When she’s on tour, you can barely turn on a TV or radio without seeing her face, hearing her voice. I was in a restaurant with her once and she was so swamped with admiring members of the public I felt like I was part of a movie star’s entourage. (I don’t really do entourages, but if I had to be part of one, I was glad it was hers.) All the same, I don’t think she gets the respect she deserves.
I don’t expect anyone to give her the Pulitzer Prize. The Pulitzer is one of those prizes liberals give to other liberals so they can call each other “prize-winning.” It’s appalling, however, that in a country where a blithering bomb-throwing hack like Paul Krugman is given an ongoing column in a prominent former newspaper, Coulter is considered too incendiary to have a mainstream column of her own. Her weekly piece online is routinely so witty, slashing and packed with information that it makes even some of the best newspaper columns look like pretty weak sauce in comparison.
I know a lot of serious conservative journalists who haven’t read Coulter or who talk about her work as if it weren’t quite the thing. She’s another one of those pundit babes on Fox News, isn’t she? — all right, maybe the Mother of all Pundit Babes — but not someone you actually take the time to read, doncha know. I haven’t seen a single review of Demonic in a major Old Media outlet. I can’t find one in a Google search either. It reminds me of the experience I had many years ago when I stumbled on the work of a rising pop novelist named Stephen King. For years, I went around telling my intellectual friends that King was something new and fresh on the writing scene. For years, they went around calling him “post-literate,” or “sub-literate,” until the sheer inventive power of his prose overcame their snobbery.
When Ann Coulter is good — and I think Demonic is one of her best — she is doing something special and doing it at a level that makes her unique. It’s not just the heavyweight research or the fearless disdain for received opinion. Her flexible, sardonic, rigorous and unabashedly jokey prose creates an iconic voice that humanizes her polemic and compels you to engage with her specific and original worldview. People are wont to say off-handedly “you either love her or hate her,” but they don’t seem to understand that that’s a writerly achievement of the first water.
Demonic makes an argument more complex than her other books. Books like Slander and Treason tended to marshal legions of facts and examples in support of ideas like “the mainstream media lie,” or “liberals are unpatriotic.” Demonic revives the 19th century science of “crowd psychology,” and argues that left-wing politics descends from the brutal and ultimately enslaving mob madness of the French Revolution whereas conservatives have inherited the mantle of the American founders, who feared the mob above all. The book operates like a prosecutor building a case and even at its most one-sided, is often scarily convincing. The chapters in Part III on violence are brilliant. Had I hair, it would’ve stood on end.
Coulter has her weaknesses, of course. She tends to bark “yes,” the moment the mainstream media say “no,” which will only lead you to the truth about 90 percent of the time. She can go off on tangents (though she doesn’t here). And her take-no-prisoners style… well, takes no prisoners, which isn’t always the surest path to argumentative victory.
But she is, I’m convinced, one of the essayists of the day, possibly of the age, and some of her writing will be taught in schools long after the work of more sober and “respectable” journalists is forgotten.
It seems strange to say that Ann Coulter is underrated. Every book she writes is a bestseller — her new one, Demonic, is no exception. When she’s on tour, you can barely turn on a TV or radio without seeing her face, hearing her voice. I was in a restaurant with her once and she was so swamped with admiring members of the public I felt like I was part of a movie star’s entourage. (I don’t really do entourages, but if I had to be part of one, I was glad it was hers.) All the same, I don’t think she gets the respect she deserves.
I don’t expect anyone to give her the Pulitzer Prize. The Pulitzer is one of those prizes liberals give to other liberals so they can call each other “prize-winning.” It’s appalling, however, that in a country where a blithering bomb-throwing hack like Paul Krugman is given an ongoing column in a prominent former newspaper, Coulter is considered too incendiary to have a mainstream column of her own. Her weekly piece online is routinely so witty, slashing and packed with information that it makes even some of the best newspaper columns look like pretty weak sauce in comparison.
I know a lot of serious conservative journalists who haven’t read Coulter or who talk about her work as if it weren’t quite the thing. She’s another one of those pundit babes on Fox News, isn’t she? — all right, maybe the Mother of all Pundit Babes — but not someone you actually take the time to read, doncha know. I haven’t seen a single review of Demonic in a major Old Media outlet. I can’t find one in a Google search either. It reminds me of the experience I had many years ago when I stumbled on the work of a rising pop novelist named Stephen King. For years, I went around telling my intellectual friends that King was something new and fresh on the writing scene. For years, they went around calling him “post-literate,” or “sub-literate,” until the sheer inventive power of his prose overcame their snobbery.
When Ann Coulter is good — and I think Demonic is one of her best — she is doing something special and doing it at a level that makes her unique. It’s not just the heavyweight research or the fearless disdain for received opinion. Her flexible, sardonic, rigorous and unabashedly jokey prose creates an iconic voice that humanizes her polemic and compels you to engage with her specific and original worldview. People are wont to say off-handedly “you either love her or hate her,” but they don’t seem to understand that that’s a writerly achievement of the first water.
Demonic makes an argument more complex than her other books. Books like Slander and Treason tended to marshal legions of facts and examples in support of ideas like “the mainstream media lie,” or “liberals are unpatriotic.” Demonic revives the 19th century science of “crowd psychology,” and argues that left-wing politics descends from the brutal and ultimately enslaving mob madness of the French Revolution whereas conservatives have inherited the mantle of the American founders, who feared the mob above all. The book operates like a prosecutor building a case and even at its most one-sided, is often scarily convincing. The chapters in Part III on violence are brilliant. Had I hair, it would’ve stood on end.
Coulter has her weaknesses, of course. She tends to bark “yes,” the moment the mainstream media say “no,” which will only lead you to the truth about 90 percent of the time. She can go off on tangents (though she doesn’t here). And her take-no-prisoners style… well, takes no prisoners, which isn’t always the surest path to argumentative victory.
But she is, I’m convinced, one of the essayists of the day, possibly of the age, and some of her writing will be taught in schools long after the work of more sober and “respectable” journalists is forgotten.
It’s Delightful, It’s Delicious, It’s Default
IT'S DESPICABLE
http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2011/06/28/its-delightful-its-delicious-its-default/?singlepage=true
http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2011/06/28/its-delightful-its-delicious-its-default/?singlepage=true
The Peronist in the White House
Controlling the economy, appeasing the masses.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-peronist-in-the-white-house/?singlepage=true
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-peronist-in-the-white-house/?singlepage=true
Obama still proudly pimping himself and Biden to raise campaign cash
SHEESH ALWAYS THE NARCISSIT HE IS
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/28/obama-still-proudly-pimping-himself-and-biden-to-raise-campaign-cash/
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/28/obama-still-proudly-pimping-himself-and-biden-to-raise-campaign-cash/
There are two different subsets of economics
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/28/there-are-two-different-subsets-of-economics/
obama pimping white house chef
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/28/great-obamas-pimping-out-the-white-house-chef-now/
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
wonderful blog. i suggest you follow it.
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2011/06/this-bastard-hs-no-respect-for-any.html
THIS BASTARD HS NO RESPECT FOR ANY LAWS!...HE'S A LIFETIME CRIMINAL!...
Report: Obama Films Campaign Ad In White House, Possibly Violating FEC Laws?
THIS BASTARD HS NO RESPECT FOR ANY LAWS!...HE'S A LIFETIME CRIMINAL!...
Report: Obama Films Campaign Ad In White House, Possibly Violating FEC Laws?
Monday, June 27, 2011
TSA Past Down Elderly Wearing Diapers- But Lets not Insult Muslims
http://9-11domorethenneverforget-stopislam.blogspot.com/2011/06/tsa-past-down-elderly-wearing-diapers.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+9-11DoMoreThenNeverForget-stopIslam+%289-11-Stop+ISLAM%29
TSA Past Down Elderly Wearing Diapers- But Lets not Insult Muslims
TSA Past Down Elderly Wearing Diapers- But Lets not Insult Muslims
Fresnozionism - Moty & Udi and human rights
Fresnozionism - Moty & Udi and human rights
http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/
http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/
Stotsky - Flotilla Participant Alice Walker: The United States and Israel are the Greatest Terrorist Organizations
http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/2011/06/stotsky-flotilla-participant-alice.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)