Sunday, July 17, 2016

Pro-Religion is Controversial

With the upcoming Republican Convention, various types of ads are tailored for the area surrounding the event. The story below shows how an ad (with a typical message) from the Freedom from Religion Foundation is OK,

The FFRF quoted President Reagan, partially:
"We establish no religion in this country... Church and state are, and must remain, separate."

Of course they did not include this thought, which was part of the same speech by Reagan:
"At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral. And government should not make it more difficult for Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other believing people to practice their faith. And that’s why, when the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down a statute — and you may not have heard about this; it was a statute protecting employees who observed the Sabbath. Well, our administration is now urging the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Connecticut Court decision. This is what I mean by freedom of religion, and that’s what we feel the Constitution intends."

And the quote that was too incendiary to display? It was for the movie "God's Not Dead 2":

"I'd rather stand with God and be judged by the world, than stand with the world and be judged by God."

Thursday, June 23, 2016

California May Demonstrate What Government Can Do to Religion

One would think, after reading the First Amendment, that government would let Christian colleges teach in a way that is true to their Christian beliefs. This is even more logical if you think about the fact that students are going to be aware of the tone of the college before they enroll. But read the article linked below to see what reality can be like:

Monday, April 25, 2016

How Christianity Helped Create Our American Democracy

I have written many times in this blog about the connection between Christianity (and religion in general) and our country's founding. I have mentioned Alexis de Tocqueville in a few posts. Now the Heritage Foundation has written a very nice article about this connection.

Here is a teaser from that article:

"Today, as conservatives continue to fight for religious liberty, we might recall not only individual rights to religious liberty, but religion’s essential feature for the preservation of our political order."

Please read the whole article when you have a minute (it's not very long):

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Military Increasingly Intolerant of Christianity?

Here is a post from Todd Starnes' Facebook page. It doesn't need a lot of comment.

I just received an email from one of our readers who was on board a military transport. He was reading a copy of my book, "God Less America." 

He told me an officer scolded him for reading the book and ordered him to put it away. She accused him of attempting to proselytize while on board a military aircraft.

The reader did as he was told. Later in the flight he began reading on his Nook. The same officer demanded to know what he was reading. 

"So long as it's not the same book, I'm satisfied," she said.

This is what I meant when I wrote in "God Less America" that President Obama was turning our military into a social engineering petri dish.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Is the Current Administration Guided by Our Founders?

This is only one of many examples, some of which can be found within either party, of the federal government taking too much power and done so in an unconstitutional manner.

Recently, the President and Congress got together (in this case, all Democrats) and decided to exempt Congress and Congressional staff from much of what is required in the Affordable Care Act (AFA, or "Obamacare"). This is something the act seems to specifically disallow.

But more important, our government is supposed to be guided by the Constitution. And in order to truly understand the Constitution, one should also understand the Federalist Papers, which were a sort-of discussion among some Founders of what the then-upcoming Constitution should do. James Madison ("father of the Constitution") said this in Federalist 57:

"I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it." (emphasis mine)

How many of our current members of Congress and the Executive Branch have every read the Federalist Papers? How many of them refer back to those documents now and then? My estimates would be a very small number.