Supremes Rule Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada

The path of anti-Christian intolerance leads south of the Canadian border . . .

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that citizens are NOT free to quote the Bible regarding the sin of homosexual behavior.  Bill Whatcott's pamphlets (from 2001) using the word "sodomites," and criticizing the Gay Agenda in public schools, were deemed to incite hatred against homosexual people.  The ruling requires Whatcott to pay a fine to two homosexuals who claimed to be offended, plus six-figure loser-pays legal costs.

Whatcott is now complaining that the Supreme Court ruling was based on a statement that he never made:  That homosexuals are pedophiles.

“The ruling and the reasoning [of the court] is terrible.  It’s worse than I expected. What it means is that my life is over as I know it.”

For background regarding Canada, read Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime and also read Government Bans Pastor from Speaking Against Homosexuality

And the European Union High Court Rules Gay Agenda Trumps Christianity

UPDATE 4/12/14: American Christian Arrested for Hate Speech at Canadian University

UPDATE 6/11/16: Canadian Supreme Court Legalizes Sex With Animals

For background regarding the U.S., read Oregon Gov't Says Christian Baker Must Do Lesbian 'Wedding' and also read Christian School Sued by Homosexuals in New Mexico as well as Lesbians Sue Catholic Hospital

UPDATE 6/20/15: Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Wedding Chapel

In addition, read Senator Ted Cruz Says Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

-- From "Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’" by Staff Reporter, The Zimbabwe Mail 3/5/13

“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9. “Scripture records that Sodom and Gomorrah was given over completely to homosexual perversion and as a result destroyed by God’s wrath.”

Another flyer, entitled Keep Homosexuality Out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools, was written in response to the recommendation of the Saskatoon School Board that homosexuality be included in school curriculum. The Supreme Court declared the document to be unlawful because it called the homosexual acts that would be taught to children “filthy,” and contended that children are more interested in playing Ken and Barbie than “learning how wonderful it is for two men to sodomize each other.” The justices ruled that because the use of the word “sodomy” only referred to “two men” and not also the sex acts of heterosexuals, it was a direct target against a specific group of people.

The Supreme Court noted in its opinion, among other concerns, that Whatcott’s use of the Bible to target homosexuals was a problem.

“[Whatcott's] expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources (in this case the Bible) to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred,” the panel ruled on Wednesday.

While speech opposing homosexuality remains legal in the United States, some note that the nation is heading in the same direction as Canada, as discrimination laws are being enforced by state Human Rights Commissions across the country.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Anti-gay pamphleteer asks for Supreme Court do-over on test of hate-speech laws" by Joseph Brean, National Post 3/15/13

[Whatcott's lawyer Thomas] Schuck said neither of the flyers that were found to violate the hate speech code referred to homosexuals as pedophiles, merely as promoters of a dangerous lifestyle. He said Christians have been similarly criticizing heterosexual behaviour like fornication and adultery for 2000 years. Still, he said his chances of a second kick at the can [via a Supreme Court rehearing] are slim.

The flyers, which drew four official complaints, did not explicitly state that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

One stated that “sodomite propaganda” will corrupt the children of Saskatchewan, and that civil law should discriminate against “sodomites and lesbians who want to remain in their lifestyle and proselytize vulnerable young people… Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse and ultimately eternal judgment if we do not say no to the sodomite desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong.”

The other said that society’s acceptance of homosexuality “will lead to the early death and morbidity of many children.” It also says that “sodomites,” by which he means gays, are “3 times more likely to sexually abuse children!”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Supreme Court of Canada Rules on Hate Speech vs. Free Speech: Saskatchewan v. Whatcott" by John McKiggan, Attorney, posted at The Legal Examiner 3/4/13

A complaint was filed with Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission alleging Whatcott was promoting hatred against individuals based on their sexual orientation. The Human Rights Tribunal held the publications contravened s.14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code on the basis that Whatcott’s views exposed persons to hatred and ridicule on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Whatcott argued that the statements contained in the leaflets did not meet the test for hate comments as defined under the Code. . . . [and] also argued that he was entitled to make the statements based on his constitutional protected right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that certain parts of the Human Rights Code that prohibited the statements that ridiculed or belittled persons on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination were not constitutionally protected and did violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the sections of the Human Rights Code that prohibited hatred against persons based on a prohibited ground of discrimination was constitutional and was not protected on the basis of freedom of expression or freedom of religion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Whatcott case leaves troubling concerns" by Joanne McGarry, Executive Director of the Catholic Civil Rights League of Canada 3/14/13

In its decision, the Court pleased free-speech advocates by striking down a portion of the human rights code that prohibited expression that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity” of identifiable groups. But the Court then upheld the phrase “tends to expose to hatred,” wording which can have subjective meaning, and it left the right to hear free-speech cases with the province’s human rights commission.

In effect, the court upheld a system in which people can be prosecuted for hate speech without benefit of the rules of evidence, right to counsel and the presumption of innocence, rights found in a court of law when Criminal Code charges are laid. This means people remain vulnerable to complaints about religious expression . . .

. . . the ruling also made the rather startling claim that criticizing behaviour is essentially the same as criticizing a person because, said the Court, in some cases behaviour is integral to a group’s identity.

The Court’s conflation of behaviour and individual puts it at odds with most religious teaching and is a troubling conclusion to come from our highest court. Additionally, the ruling states that truth is not always an acceptable defence if statements are delivered in a “hateful” way.

To read the entire (liberal) opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists

In addition, read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.

Sex Training Sweeps Campuses on Taxpayers' Dime

Will the attitude of "live and let live" come to a screeching halt when government forces taxpayers and parents to pay for training their children in deviant sex acts through college tuition?  The rave at colleges across America is "sex week" -- a time for students to be engorged on sexology by adult sexperts.

“. . . it really irritates me how people say it takes balls to do something because balls are really not powerful . . . you know, instead of saying that it took balls, let’s agree to say that it takes labia majora.”
-- Kelly Stone, Sex Educator

For background, click headlines below of previous articles:

Hooker, Porn Star Lectures at Univ. of Illinois

Univ. of Minnesota Hires Church Sex Trainers to Teach Orgasm

Orgasm Live Demo in Chicago College Classroom

Sadomasochistic Exhibit Funded by Univ. of Chicago

Bondage-S&M-Sex Student Group OK'd by Harvard



UPDATE 3/20/13: Bowing to public pressure, Univ. of Tennessee pulls funding for "sex week"

-- From "'Sex Week' Lures College Students to Educate Themselves" by Marc Lallanilla, Assistant Editor, Live Science 3/14/13

Following an introductory seminar on "Fornication 101," which covered basic topics such as putting condoms on with your mouth and G-spot stimulation, and yesterday's (March 13) presentation on "Queering the Toybox," featuring eco-friendly gay sex toys and products that remember user preferences through integrated microchips, there's really nowhere left to go, right?

Wrong. Tonight's workshop will address "The Ultimate Guide to Prostate Pleasure," where men will explore "how much fun prostate stimulation can be," according to the official event schedule.

Sex Week has become an annual tradition on college campuses like USC, Yale, Harvard and other institutions, according to Neon Tommy, a publication of the USC Annenberg School of Communication.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "University of Tennessee Uses Student Fees to Host Lesbian Bondage Expert" by Todd Starnes, Foxnews.com 3/14/13

Sex Week is sponsored by the university’s Sexual Empowerment and Awareness at Tennessee club. The six-day event is expected to cost nearly $20,000 – covered in part by university grants, student fees and contributions from academic departments.

There are 30 events planned including “Getting Laid,” “Sex Positivity; Queer as a Verb,” “Bow Chicka Bow Woah,” “How to Talk to Your Parents About Sex,” “Loud and Queer,” and “How Many Licks Does It Take…” – a workshop about oral sex.

In addition to a campus-wide scavenger hunt for a golden condom, the university is hosting noted lesbian bondage expert and erotica author Sinclair Sexsmith. The story was first reported by Campus Reform.

Sexsmith, who serves on the board of the New York Lesbian Sex Mafia, will deliver a lecture titled, “Messing Around with Gender.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Yale Hosts ‘Sex Week’ to Explore ‘Sexual Culture,’ Including Incest and Prostitution" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com 3/6/13

“At Saturday’s workshop [on Mar. 2], multiple student-submitted discussions topics were about sexual fantasies involving family members,” reported a March 4 article in the student newspaper, the Yale Daily News. “When students shared their thoughts on incest, three responses were related to fantasies about fathers.”

The article also said 55 students attended a discussion “to learn about masochistic sexual practices such as those depicted in 50 Shades of Grey,” the best-selling “erotic romance” novel.

The event has a history on campus, with Sex Week traditionally held every other year at the school. The tradition gained national attention when student Nathan Harden wrote a book that was published in 2012, “Sex and God at Yale.”

Harden wrote about lessons in masturbation and oral sex and his disillusionment with the Ivy League school he had dreamed of attending.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Sex Week at Yale University" by Melissa Barnhart, Christian Post Contributor 3/6/13

During a workshop titled, "Sex: Am I Normal," with Jill McDevitt, who has a Ph.D. in human sexuality, and describes herself as being a "sexologist," sex educator and sexual rights advocate, "nine percent of attendees reported having accepted payment for sex in the past," according to The Yale Daily News.  "Other survey responses revealed that three percent of attendees had engaged in bestiality, 22 percent had never had a sexual partner, 12 percent have filmed themselves during intercourse and 52 percent have engaged in consensual pain during intercourse."

Among the seminars during sex week, was a discussion about masochistic acts, like those described in the book, 50 Shades of Grey.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "For mature audiences only" by Lyzi White, Life Editor, The Spectrum (Univ. at Buffalo) 3/6/13

[Kelly] Stone, a sex educator and comedian, will be presenting GREYed expectations on Wednesday as part of Sub-Board, Inc.’s (SBI) Sex Week. Her performance, a combination of education and comedy, focuses on consent and communication in sex and sexuality, according to Jane Fischer, director of SBI Health Education.

Sex Week is a collection of events hosted through SBI that focus on “education, exploration and discussion of healthy sexuality,” Fischer said. . . .

Demire Williams, assistant director of health services, met Stone at the National Sex Ed Conference in New Jersey this fall and enjoyed the way Stone delivered material in a way that made the audience laugh while simultaneously provoking thought about healthy sexuality, Fischer said. When Williams asked Stone to come speak at UB, she agreed.

Stone believes because the country is founded on Puritan heritage and values, as in The Scarlet Letter, there is a lot of sex phobia. However, at the same time, movies and advertisements feature sex heavily because sex sells. So while sex is everywhere, people are still afraid to discuss it.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Students taught oral-sex tricks (and more)" by Joe Kovacs, World Net Daily 2/13/13

The University of Chicago is leaving little to the imagination with its Sex Week schedule, as it hosts a number of eye-opening events that it promises will go “far beyond typical sex education” with workshops including “Great Oral Sex with Tea Time and Sex Chats,” “Anal 101,” “The Perfect Vagina,” “Sex Ed for Kids” and a play titled “Genitalia the Musical.”

According to the university’s official webpage, the oral-sex symposium will include discussion on “going down on men and women, techniques as well as individual differences and sexual health practices. Yes, expect tea.”

Another workshop, titled “Partner Acrobatics,” advertises that members of a circus will “teach you (and your friends) how to stand on shoulders and every other place on the body.”

The session titled “Anal 101” is billed as a course on the “logistics and pleasures of anal sex.” It features lessons on “prep, protection, barebacking, etc.”

The university newspaper, the Chicago Maroon, indicates the sex week is funded by the Dean’s Fund for Student Life and the Student Government Finance Committee.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read about Planned Parenthood's Business Model: Hooking Kids on Sex

Ohio College Nixed Christian Speech, Now Pays $$

In June 2012, students at Sinclair Community College in Dayton, OH held a rally to protest ObamaCare's mandate against religious liberty, but the campus police forbid students to carry signs and speak in public after a homosexualist complained.  This week the students declared victory because their federal lawsuit has resulted in the college abandoning its restrictive "speech code" and paying the cost of the proceedings.

For background, read myriad examples of the anti-christian trend of "higher education" America against both groups of students, as well as individuals.

And read Calif. Yuba College Pays $25,000 Settlement & Agrees to Allow Christian Free Speech Two Hours Each Week

UPDATE 9/2/13: Christian Free Speech Censored at Columbus (Ohio) State Community College

Also read the latest news of the ObamaCare War against Christians.

-- From "Anti-abortion activists sue Sinclair Community College" by Meagan Pant, Staff Writer, Dayton Daily News 7/7/12

The lawsuit stems from the on-campus rally, “Stand Up for Religious Freedom,” held by the Sinclair Traditional Values Club, where, participants claim, campus police made them lower their protest signs and take down a large banner, according to court documents filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Dayton.

[Ruth] Deddens, an original club member and noted antiabortion activist, attends Sinclair through the Lifetime Learning program. Her fellow student, Ethel Borel-Donohue, is a founder of the club and is enrolled in the paralegal program part-time after working as a high school teacher and raising three children. The suit is also brought by a third person, Bryan Kemper of Troy, who spoke at the rally but is not a student.

Kemper is the founder of two faith-based organizations, Rock of Life and Stand True Pro-Life Outreach. He is a self-described former punk rocker and drug addict who got clean and founded the anti-abortion groups.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-Lifers Silenced by Police at Rally Win Free Speech Lawsuit" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 3/12/13

Now, Sinclair Community College agreed to settle a federal lawsuit brought by the Thomas More Society and Ohio attorneys Curt C. Hartman, Christopher P. Finney, and Bradley M. Gibson, in response to what happened.

The case was filed last summer in U.S. District Court, on the heels of a “Stand Up for Religious Freedom” rally opposing the U.S. Health and Human Services conscience-oppressing abortifacient-sterilization mandate. The rally had been organized and sponsored by members of the student body of the Dayton-based school.

As a result of the lawsuit, SCC has adopted a new policy recognizing and allowing for the exercise of broader First Amendment Rights of students and groups hosting expressive activities on campus. The college also agreed to pay $9,000 to cover the plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "College concedes 1st Amendment valid on campus" by Dave Tombers, World Net Daily 3/15/13

[Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society] said, “The police – as is all too common – were the sole folks within hearing or sight of the pro-life messages displayed on the ‘offensive’ signs who sought to enforce their own ‘hecklers’ veto.’

“As the rally was starting, the campus police informed us that all the signs and banners people were holding must be put on the ground after a complaint from a homosexual advocacy group leader,” Kemper told WND. “The police walked around the crowd telling people to put their signs down, that they could not hold them in their hands.”

Research into Sinclair Community College reveals the incident wasn’t the first time campus police have demanded protest signs be put down.

The campus newspaper addressed the unwritten sign policy in a March 2012 article, referring to a meeting in February held by the Traditional Values club that featured a guest speaking about former homosexuals.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

For background on that, read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.

Also read President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion and yet President Obama Denies Leading War Against Christianity, and also read Religious Liberty & Anti-Christian Totalitarianism

Marco Rubio: Pro-life but Gay 'Marriage' by State

Florida's Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, heralded as a fiscal and social conservative choice for president in 2016, now stakes his political ground saying "science has proven that life begins at conception," but he has shifted from the conservative pro-marriage stance, by saying that marriage should be defined state-by-state.

For background, read More GOP Congressmen Proudly Fund Abortionists, Gay Agenda and also read GOP House Rebuffs Conservatives' Religious Liberty  as well as GOP Strategy: Dump Old Uneducated Christian Voters

The question for Christians to discern: Are Republicans abandoning a God-fearing Party platform?



-- From "Rubio CPAC speech marks shift in gay marriage debate" by Philip Klein, Senior Editorial Writer, The Washington Examiner 3/14/13

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday, Sen. Marco Rubio asserted the right of states to define marriage — marking a major shift in the gay marriage debate.

. . . it was eye-opening to hear Rubio, a major conservative in the Senate speaking at the largest annual gathering of conservatives, declare: “Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot.”

Just a few years ago, that sentence might have read, “Just because I believe that states shouldn’t be allowed to redefine marriage does not make me a bigot.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "At CPAC, Rubio gets big applause for stances on marriage, abortion" by George Bennett, Palm Beach Post 3/14/13

“Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot. Just because we believe that life, all life, all human life is worthy of protection at every stage of its development does not make you a chauvinist,” Rubio said.

“In fact, the people who are actually close-minded in American politics are people that love to preach about the certainty of science with regards to our climate but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception,” Rubio said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Marco Rubio CPAC Speech: GOP Senator Addresses Beliefs On Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion Rights" by Elise Foley, The Huffington Post 3/14/13

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) threw some social conservative red meat to CPAC-goers on Thursday in a rant against Democrats who criticize him and members of his party for opposing same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

Rubio does not often speak so forcefully on social issues, but if there's any venue to do it, it's CPAC. His speech was wildly popular: he entered the stage to the first standing ovation of the day, and drew applause every time he took a sip of water. (He also made plenty of jokes about water, a nod to his awkward sip during a post-State of the Union speech.)

His CPAC remarks focused largely on economic issues, from lowering taxes to defunding Obamacare.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Rubio at CPAC: ‘States should have the right to define marriage …’" by Matt K. Lewis, Daily Caller 3/14/13

It was an interesting line. At first blush, it was an example of Rubio defending traditional marriage. But as the DC Examiner’s Philip Klein noted, “Rubio[s] emphasis on states rights to define traditional marriage (rather than [Federal Marriage Amendment]) shows how far debate has shifted.”

This at least, seemed like a big deal to me. It sounded like Rubio was making a policy statement. And this is an idea that is gaining currency. . . .

There are, of course, problems with this. Life is complex. If one state marries a couple, can a second state not recognize the marriage?

On a handful of the defining issues of our day, “federalism” is sometimes another word for cop out.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Sen. Rubio Fires Back at Obama's War on Christianity (last year)

Pope Francis Says Gay Agenda is Work of the Devil

Once again, abortionists, feminists, and homosexualists are disappointed that the new Pope is not going to discard the Bible and Church doctrine.  The man who will lead faithful Catholics has been very outspoken on Culture War issues, lament the liberal media.

For background, read Pope: All Religions to Team Up Against Gay Agenda and also read Pope Says Gay Agenda & Abortion Dooms Society as well as Pope Says Public Opinion Won't Liberalize the Church

“. . . we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated.  This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.”
-- Pope Francis said in 2007, as then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio

For background concerning communion, read about Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's Pro-choice Stance and about her Catholic Opinion on Nuns and Abortion; also read how the Bishops Chasten VP Biden, a 'Practicing Catholic'

In 2010 the Vatican proclaimed: Liberal Catholic Candidates Must Repent Publicly

UPDATE 3/20/13: Biden, Pelosi Take Communion in Rome, Pope Opposed

-- From "Is There Hope for Francis on Gay Rights?" by Richard Socarides, The New Yorker 3/14/13

Pope Francis comes from one of only eleven countries where same-sex marriage is legal. In Argentina, where Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as he was known until Wednesday, was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, the population is mostly Roman Catholic, and yet same-sex marriage became legal there in July, 2010, a full year before the law changed in New York. (It is the first Latin American country with marriage equality.) Yet any Catholics who were hoping that new leadership would modernize (even a little) the Church and its teaching when it comes to the issue of homosexuality will likely be disappointed.

. . . Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the President of Argentina, said that Francis’s remarks suggested “medieval times and the Inquisition.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pope Francis on Same-Sex Marriage: 'A Move of the Father of Lies;' 'A Total Rejection of God's Law'" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 3/13/13

In 2010, when his native Argentina was considering a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage, Pope Francis I, then archbishop of Buenos Aires, said that the legislation was a total rejection of God's law and an effort by the father of lies to confuse and deceive humanity.

Then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio made these observations in a letter to a group of monasteries in Argentina, in which he asked the sisters for their prayers in defeating the same-sex marriage legislation.

The Argentinian Congress approved the same-sex marriage legislation and Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner signed it into law on July 21, 2010.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cardinal Bergoglio Hits Out at Same-Sex Marriage" by Edward Pentin, National Catholic 7/8/10

. . . Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires and Primate of Argentina, has said that if a proposed bill giving same-sex couples the opportunity to marry and adopt children should be approved, it will “seriously damage the family.”

He wrote: “In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New Pope Francis Called Abortion the 'Death Penalty for the Unborn'" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 3/13/13

Last year, then-Cardinal Bergoglio stated, “Abortion is never a solution. We listen, support and understanding from our place to save two lives: respect the human being small and helpless, they can take steps to preserve your life, allow birth and then be creative in the search for ways to bring it to its full development.”

In an October 2, 2007 speech Bergoglio said that “we aren’t in agreement with the death penalty,” but “in Argentina we have the death penalty.  A child conceived by the rape of a mentally ill or retarded woman can be condemned to death.”

Meanwhile, he made the following comments to his priests last year: “In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don’t baptize the children of single mothers because they weren’t conceived in the sanctity of marriage. These are today’s hypocrites… Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it’s baptized!”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 7/28/15: Gay Agenda Destroys Everything it Contacts

GOP Strategy: Dump Old Uneducated Christian Voters

The fiscal conservative media have joined the liberal media in the drumbeat to convince Republican Party strategists to abandon “Evangelical whites, tea-party Republicans, older voters, and whites that do not have a college degree.”

So, the establishment GOP thinks it has had difficulty reigning in the Tea Party voters, "well, they ain't seen nothing yet!"  How many Republicans will be elected when the Christians support a new third party?

“I have any number of gay friends who are Republicans, but what makes me tick is that I have concerns that this is another issue that would limit the growth of the Republican party.”
-- Dr. Jan van Lohuizen, former George W. Bush pollster

For background, read GOP House Rebuffs Conservatives' Religious Liberty and also read More GOP Congressmen Proudly Fund Abortionists, Gay Agenda as well as GOP Rising Star Jindal Pushes Liberalized Contraceptives

As always, GOP leaders are lobbying church leaders to vote Republican, but the question for Christians to discern is, Are Republicans abandoning a God-fearing Party platform?

UPDATE 9/22/14: Republicans Going Gay, to be 'Moderate' & Likeable

UPDATE 6/24/14: Wisconsin GOP Sen. Johnson Says Abortion & "Gay Marriage" are Non-issues

UPDATE 4/14/14: GOP Platform OKs Abortion & 'Gay Marriage:' Nevada

UPDATE 3/4/14: GOP Coalition Favors 'Gay Marriage' in Appeals Court

UPDATE 3/19/14 - 'Gay Marriage' Divides GOP: Rand Paul vs. Ted Cruz

UPDATE 1/24/14: Biblical Beliefs Unacceptable to GOP Illinois Leaders

UPDATE 12/14/13: GOP Funds Pro-abortion Homosexual Candidates

UPDATE 4/7/13: Warning GOP Against Dumping Christians & Morals

-- From "Republicans for Gay Marriage?" by Daniel Foster, National Review Online 3/13/13

. . . “If you look at the crosstabs, the opposition [to gay marriage] is really concentrated in a few really small groups,” van Lohuizen says. “Evangelical whites, tea-party Republicans, older voters, and whites that do not have a college degree.”

. . . gay marriage enjoys majority support from all major religious confessions except white evangelical Protestantism — including mainline “non-evangelical” Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. And while a majority of whites without college degrees oppose gay marriage, majorities of whites with college degrees, and nonwhites of all education levels, support it.

Even among Republicans, opposition to same-sex marriage is increasingly tenuous, particularly along two axes. First, self-described tea-party Republicans oppose gay marriage 84/13, while Republicans who describe themselves as neutral toward or opposed to the Tea Party oppose gay marriage by smaller 62/34 and 52/47 splits, respectively. This is a more or less momentous split depending on how credible one finds evidence that tea-party membership is in sharp decline.

Second, and perhaps most critically, exit polling shows that 51 percent of Republicans under 30 support gay marriage in their state. If this datum alone holds, one might think, gay marriage is a fait accompli in the near to medium term. And indeed, the polls report just that feeling among the broader public: 83 percent of voters, supporters and opponents included, think that gay marriage will be legal nationally in the next five to ten years.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Rand Paul on Gay Marriage: If We 'Make the Tax Code Neutral,' We 'Don't Have to Redefine What Marriage Is'" by David Weigel, Slate Magazine 3/13/13

At yesterday's briefing for reporters at National Review's D.C. offices . . . I asked [Sen. Rand] Paul how Republicans would have to tweak their messages if they competed in California. What about immigration, what about gay marriage? I paraphrased a joke Paul had told last year in Iowa, after Barack Obama had flip-flopped -- sorry, EVOLVED -- on gay marriage, and Paul told social conservatives that Obama couldn't "get any gay-er."

"I've been told that joke wasn't very funny," deadpanned Paul. "I'm not going to change who I am or what I believe in. I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults -- I'm not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn't mention the word marriage, then we don't have to redefine what marriage is. We just don't have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don't we not define them by marriage? Why don't we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don't have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the Southeastern part of the country, we don't have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral."

. . . And Paul says this a month after Marco Rubio says marriage should be "left to the states."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Party of Liberty vs. the Party of Coercion" by Jeffrey H. Anderson, The Weekly Standard 3/13/13

In the aftermath of Mitt Romney’s defeat in last fall’s election, and the defeat of a myriad of Republican Senate candidates (establishment and Tea Party alike) in Romney’s wake, Republicans are getting no shortage of free advice.

. . . a fair amount has been written about the need to make the moral case for conservatism. But to be particularly effective, that case must transcend strictly material concerns. After all, the core of the case for what we now call “conservatism” is the revolutionary idea that every human being has a God-given right to be free. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism in America

As well, read GOP Moderation Lost the 2012 Presidential Election, Say Evangelicals

. . . and be reminded, it's been proved: The Tea Party Movement is Christian

Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws

While establishment Republicans are now pushing to recreate the Party nationally toward a pro-homosexual stance, and ignoring its traditional pro-life position, conservative Republicans in state legislatures, along with the help of some Democrats, are passing more restrictive abortion legislation than ever.

With withering public support for baby-killing, abortionists have only one hope: activist pro-abortion courts.

Last week, Arkansas enacted a dramatic law restricting abortion after 12 weeks gestation.

"There are so many battles in so many states that are very similar that I think the bulk of the [Arkansas] law will, without question, make itself up to the [Supreme] Court."
-- Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List

For background, read Pro-life Legislation Floods America and also read Eroding Roe v. Wade State-by-state as well as Pro-life Position Prevails in Polls

UPDATE 7/8/13: Abortionists Lament Ever-greater State Limits

-- From "Anti-abortion law makes Arkansas ground zero in intensifying national debates" by Shannon Bream, FoxNews.com 3/11/13

. . . Pro-choice groups, citing Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court precedents, feel confident it's a fight they will win.

"The [Arkansas] bill is clearly unconstitutional, clearly inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent," Louise Melling, the American Civil Liberties Union's deputy legal director, said. ACLU officials said they are planning to jointly file a legal challenge with the Center for Reproductive Rights before the Arkansas law is set to go into effect.

While the so-called "Heartbeat Law" is hashed out in court, [State Sen. Jason Rapert, the Republican who authored the law,] says he plans to introduce a measure that would ban state officials from allowing any state or federal funds from flowing to organizations that perform abortions, namely Planned Parenthood.

If he succeeds, Arkansas would join a number of other states that have blocked funding to the family planning organization, including Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Why Have So Many States Banned Abortion?" by Chris Good, ABC News 3/12/13

Abortions are becoming illegal in America at a rapid clip.

Before 2010, no states banned abortions outright at any stage of pregnancy. Nebraska started the trend with a 20-week abortion ban in April 2010. In 2011, Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, and Oklahoma followed suit, and in 2012, Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana passed curbs of their own. Last week, Arkansas became the first state to approve an abortion ban this year.

Abortion-rights activists are worried about a ban under consideration in North Dakota, plus a continuing wave of regulations on abortion clinics that, activists say, have forced clinics to close by making it impossible for them to operate. More of those regulations have advanced in recent years, too, opponents warn.

Combined with two major court cases that shifted the legal standards for limiting abortions, GOP gains at the state level have made it easier for groups like Americans United for Life (AUL), a national anti-abortion group that drafts model legislation in Washington, D.C., and works to pass it through state legislatures.

If states keep passing laws, and anti-abortion activists get their way, the Supreme Court may have to decide whether it will take up the issue once again.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Arkansas’s Abortion Ban and One Man’s Strong Will" by Erik Eckholm, New York Times 3/11/13

Fetal heartbeat laws are already under consideration by legislatures in Ohio, Kansas and North Dakota, and have a good chance of passage in the coming year, their proponents believe, even though legal experts say they have little chance of surviving in federal courts.

Similar proposals are less far along in Kentucky, Mississippi and Wyoming.

Evangelical groups like the Family Research Council in Washington are among the enthusiastic promoters of fetal-heartbeat limits. But traditional leaders of the anti-abortion movement, like National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic Church, think such laws will quickly be overturned in federal courts, reinforcing the existing limit set by the Supreme Court that women have a constitutional right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy.

The largest anti-abortion groups prefer an incremental strategy that has resulted in hundreds of state laws to narrow abortion rights, like requiring women to have sonograms beforehand and imposing longer waiting periods.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Harassment of Pro-lifers Costs Illinois City $$

After a five-year legal battle, the City of Rockford has agreed to pay legal fees of pro-life activists who sued the city in federal court, and agreed to amend ordinances and properly train police forces to ensure the constitutional rights of Christians' free speech and assembly.

“It is amazing the degree to which we have to go to federal court to drive home the fact that these rights exist and [that] policemen have as much a duty to enforce those rights and protect them as they do to catch robbers and so forth.”
-- Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society (pro-lifers' legal counsel)

For background, read Rockford Abortionists Bomb Pro-life Catholics and also read Unsafe Rockford Abortion Clinic Closed by Health Dept.

-- From "Rockford, Ill. agrees to educate law enforcers about the law" by Charlie Butts, American Family News 3/7/13

Pro-life prayer warriors for years have conducted prayer vigils at an infamous Rockford abortion mill, now closed, and had continuing run-ins with police in violation of their constitutional rights. In addition, over the past few years pro-life volunteers have been assaulted, instructed to remove their motor home from the city, and drowned out with a noisy chainsaw.

“One of our pro-life sidewalk counselors there, Kevin Rilott, was told by a policeman to ‘Get out of my sight’ – he didn't like Kevin apparently,” the attorney [Tom Brejcha] observes. “And so he got out of the policeman's sight; but then the policeman said he was jaywalking and gave him the first jaywalking ticket, I think, in recent Rockford history.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Rockford Police to Take Classes on Citizens' Constitutional Rights" posted at Christian Newswire 3/1/13

"In the past the city of Rockford had refused on numerous occasions to protect pro-life demonstrators against threats as well as actual assaults by lawless persons hostile to the pro-life view," said Kevin Rilott [of Rockford Pro-Life Initiative], one of the primary plaintiffs in the federal suit. "We brought our lawsuit against the Rockford to compel our own city's law enforcement officials to protect pro-lifers as well as other citizens from against such public and private harms."

The settlement dictates a comprehensive policy reform on Rockford's part, mandates law enforcement education and training regarding citizen rights, requires payment by the city for the plaintiffs' legal fees as well as modest compensation for damages incurred when a pro-life bus bench advertisement was defaced and obliterated and future advertisements barred. Also, a spurious city complaint against Rilott for alleged "jaywalking" outside [the] now-shuttered abortion premises was dismissed.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Further background reading:  Supreme Court Rules for Pro-lifer with Fetus Photos and also read Judges Counter Obama's Attacks on Pro-lifers as well as Wyoming Pays $30000 for Censoring Pro-life Posters

Prayer Returns to Mississippi Schools: New Law

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant will be signing into law Senate Bill 2633 that counters the wave of anti-prayer bullying by atheist organizations threatening expensive lawsuits against schools in order to end rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution -- specifically religious liberty and states rights.

For background, read Atheists Threaten to Sue Every School in Mississippi and also read Missouri Votes to Bring Prayer Back to School, Countering Atheists as well as Prayer in America: Hidden Faith, or Public?

UPDATE 3/16/13: Christian lawyers offer services to defend any schools attacked by atheists

UPDATE 3/15/13: New York Times slams all states favoring religious liberty in public schools

-- From "Bill legalizing school prayer sent to governor’s desk" by The Associated Press 3/7/13

The House voted 108-6 for final passage of the bill yesterday without debate.

The measure would guarantee student rights to talk about faith in class and allow them to organize religious clubs. Sponsors, in legislative debate, have said teachers and school administrators are confused about what religious expression is legal, and that the state needs a law to keep schools from wrongly suppressing religion.

. . . [The law] would also create a path to allow students to pray at football games and graduations and during morning announcements.

It suggests naming such events as “limited public forums.” The proposal sets out a model policy districts could adopt, specifying that certain groups of students would be allowed to speak on such occasions. Students could pray, or not, and the school would state it’s not responsible for student actions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Mississippi governor expected to sign bill allowing prayer in schools, at events" by Charles Herrington, WDAM-TV7 (Hattiesburg, MS) 3/8/13

The bill seeks to establish public forums for student speakers "at all school events at which a student is to publicly speak." The bill goes on to say schools would be required to provide such a forum while at the same time schools must publicly express that they do not sponsor the messages delivered within it. Thus, certain school activities would now be labeled as "limited public forums" in which students may lead prayers. Those forums, according to the bill, may include football games, pep rallies, graduation ceremonies, and morning announcements.

In addition, Senate Bill 2633 would guarantee the rights of students to voluntarily express religious beliefs within school assignments, something students are already allowed to do, and guarantee students the right to voluntarily talk about faith in class work, activities that are not currently forbidden.

Other aspects of the bill include guaranteeing the freedom of students to organize religious clubs and their right to wear to school religious symbols and clothing with religious messages.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

CIA Head Sworn In: No Bible & No Religious Liberty

In an America where congressmen are sworn into office by placing their hand on myriad religious texts other than the Bible, or no text at all, President Obama's new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency placed his left hand on an early version of the U.S. Constitution that does not include the Bill of Rights (thus, no First Amendment) -- a version never ratified by America's founding fathers.

For background, read America No Longer a Christian Nation: Bibles in Congress replaced by myriad other "holy" books and also read 'Creator' Systematically Deleted from American History

-- From "John Brennan Sworn In As Director Of CIA" by Donna Cassata and Robert Burns, Huffington Post 3/8/13

The White House said Vice President Joe Biden swore Brennan in during a private ceremony in the Roosevelt Room, the morning after he won Senate confirmation amid a contentious debate. Republicans had blocked his nomination but lifted their delay after the administration bowed to their requests for clarification about the president's power in using drones [to kill enemy individuals of his choosing].

With Obama in attendance but media excluded, Brennan took the oath from Biden in the Roosevelt Room. Rather than swearing on a Bible, Brennan placed his hand on an original copy of the Constitution from 1787 that had George Washington's handwriting and annotations on it. He told Obama he requested the document from the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law, an administration official said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Brennan sworn in on Constitution, sans Bill of Rights" by Jennifer Epstein, Politico 3/8/13

John Brennan took the oath of office to become CIA director on Friday and swore not on a bible, but on an early draft of the Constitution.

Vice President Joe Biden administered the oath at 10 a.m. in the Oval Office, and the White House released the photo shortly after 1 p.m.

As has been noted elsewhere, this copy of the Constitution doesn't include the Bill of Rights, which wasn't ratified until 1791.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion and yet President Obama Denies Leading War Against Christianity, and also read Religious Liberty & Anti-Christian Totalitarianism

However, Pastor Says Obama NOT Antichrist: Poll Numbers too Low

Pornography Creates 5-year-old Sex Offenders

A new study of British police reports shows that several thousand young boys have committed sex offenses against other children.  Analysts at The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) believe there is a link to Internet pornography flooding the minds of kids -- even those too young to read -- a phenomenon not confined to the U.K.

For background, read Predatory Pre-school Girl Forces Oral Sex on Boys in California and also read School Sexualization Standards by NEA, Abortionists as well as President Obama Enables Pornographers

UPDATE 7/22/13: British Government to End Kids' Access to On-line Porn

-- From "Five-year-olds among thousands of young people accused of sex offences" by Kevin Rawlinson, The Independent 3/4/13

The figures, obtained by the NSPCC, show that between 2009 and 2012 police dealt with more than 5,000 cases in which under-18s were accused of sexual offences against other children. The cases included allegations of rape and sexual assault, and the data showed that almost all of the alleged offenders were boys. In all, there were 4,562 individuals accused of offences, 98 per cent of whom were male.

Claire Lilley, a policy adviser at the NSPCC, said: "We are treating an increasing number of children who have carried out online grooming, harassment in chatrooms and 'sexting'. We hope our findings will ring alarm bells with the authorities that this is a problem which needs urgent attention." She added:"In some cases older children are attacking younger ones and in other cases it's sexual violence within a teenage relationship. While more research needs to be done on this problem, we know that technology and easy access to sexual material is warping young people's views of what is 'normal' or acceptable behaviour."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Children, some aged five, commit thousands of child sex offences" by Wesley Johnson, Home Affairs Correspondent, UK Telegraph 3/4/13

At least three [police] forces – Avon and Somerset, Humberside and Cambridgeshire – all showed abusers as young as five.

The NSPCC, which has worked with five-year-old children showing “precocious sexual behaviour”, said it was often the case they were mimicking things they simply should not have seen at such a young age.

The children may have seen pornography on an older brother’s computer, shared a bedroom with teenagers and witnessed inappropriate behaviour, or could have been allowed in a room while parents were watching sex scenes on the television.

Three out of five child victims knew their attacker, in one in three cases it was a family friend or acquaintance, and in one in five it was a family member, the NSPCC said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Our Sexualised Society Is Harming Our Children and Turning Some of Them Into Abusers" by Jon Brown, NSPCC's Head of Strategy & Development for Sexual Abuse 3/5/13

. . . sex offenders are often seen as adult men targeting, grooming and abusing children but the fact is that children and teenagers are far more likely to know their attacker than not and, increasingly, the attacker is likely to be a peer such as someone they know from school. Where the relationship between victim and abuser was recorded (again, they often didn't have this information), in 80% of cases the children were known to each other.

We're concerned at the NSPCC that easy access to hardcore pornography is warping young people's views of what is 'normal' or acceptable sexual behaviour. Adults have a choice about what to watch within the law, but my concern is that the internet is exposing ever younger eyes to things they are just not yet ready to process. They are learning about sex from porn and not from proper respectful relationships. Much of the material is violent and simply vile; it paints a picture of sex as one sided that has no basis in love or respect. Just last week two boys were jailed for raping a girl after watching violent pornography on the internet.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Porn turned thousands of British children into sex offenders, report says" by Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews.com 3/4/13

The report's content, though specific to Great Britain, contains universal truths.

“Child-on-child sex abuse and rape is a growing problem in every culture where pornography flourishes,” Patrick Trueman, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan administration and president of Morality In Media, told LifeSiteNews.com.

“Children act out what they see. If they see acts of love and charity, they will mimic those,” Trueman said. “But when they see sexual violence, domination, rape, and other similar acts so commonly depicted in modern-day pornography, as today's children do, they will act out those, as well.”

Therapists continually cite the role access to pornography and sexually explicit television scenarios play in sexualizing children and, in some cases, triggering them to exploit others.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Iceland's plan to ban Internet porn sparks uproar" by Jill Lawless and Gudjon Helgason, Associated Press 2/25/13

The government of the tiny North Atlantic nation is drafting plans to ban pornography, in print and online, in an attempt to protect children from a tide of violent sexual imagery.

Pornography is already banned in Iceland, and has been for decades — but the term is not defined, so the law is not enforced. Magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse are on sale in book stores, and more hardcore material can be bought from a handful of sex shops. "Adult" channels form part of digital TV packages.

Iceland's left-of-center government insists it is not setting out to sweep away racy magazines or censor sex. The ban would define pornography as material with violent or degrading content.

Gunnarsdottir said the committee is still exploring the details of how a porn ban could be enforced. One possibility would be to make it illegal to pay for porn with Icelandic credit cards. Another, more controversial, route would be a national Internet filter or a list of website addresses to be blocked.

That idea has Internet-freedom advocates alarmed.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

GOP House Rebuffs Conservatives' Religious Liberty

Yesterday the U.S. House leadership rushed passage of the "continuing resolution" (CR) legislation to fund the budgetless federal government for the rest of the fiscal year INCLUDING funding for ObamaCare to force Christians to fund abortifacients, sterilization, contraceptives, etc.  Fourteen Republicans voted against the bill.

Congressional proponents for religious liberty see the CR process as the best opportunity to force a religious conscience exemption into ObamaCare, because failure to pass the CR results in a full government shutdown before April.

“We want a resolution on this government assault on our first freedom. The House leadership should reconsider its decision not to place this language on the Continuing Resolution.”
-- Tony Perkins, Family Research Council

For background, click headlines below for previous articles:

Bishops Say Catholic Church Will Defy ObamaCare

Christians Oppose ObamaCare, Support Hobby Lobby

Supreme Court Allows Christians to Sue ObamaCare

Bishops Slam Obama: Criminal in Eyes of God

Bishops Warn Voting for Democrats is 'Grave Sin'

The question for Christians to discern: Are Republicans abandoning a God-fearing Party platform?

-- From "House approves bill to fund government through September" by Reuters 3/6/13

The House bill was passed by 267 votes to 151. It gives President Barack Obama's administration flexibility in how it will achieve savings in defense and veterans' programs that are required as part of the $85 billion [sequester] automatic spending cuts that began on Friday.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Right jabs GOP inaction on Obamacare" by Ginger Gibson, Politico 3/7/13

So far, the CR, the legislation that will keep the government funded through March 27, is progressing with minimal drama, with both sides trying to avoid a shutdown. Democrats have mostly abandoned efforts to completely undo the sequester through the bill. Republicans have left out the kind of language that would delight the base but meet a quick end in the Senate.

But some conservative leaders are fuming that Republicans, particularly in the House where the GOP controls the chamber, didn’t at least trying to attach language to eliminate Obamacare through the legislation.

. . . Tony Perkins, head of the conservative Family Research Council, said Democrats were successful while in the minority with attaching party priorities to “must-pass” legislation but Republicans haven’t followed that model.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "GOP House Approves CR That Funds All Obamacare--Including Regulation Attacking Religious Freedom" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 3/6/13

On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Rules Committee rejected a request by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R.-Okla.) to allow the full House to simply vote on an amendment to the CR sponsored by Bridenstine, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R.-Kans.) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R.-Fla.) that would have stripped funding from implementation of Obamacare.

. . . 14 Republican House members, led by Rep. Diane Black (R.-Tenn.) and Rep. John Fleming (R.-La.), wrote Boehner and Cantor last week asking them to include language in the CR that would reverse the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation in order to protect the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

. . . Bridenstine then asked the Rules Committee on Wednesday--when it approved the rule that would govern House floor proceeding on the CR--to allow a vote on his amendment. The Rules Committee, however, rejected Bridenstine's request and refused to allow the rank and file members of the House to even vote on the proposition of defunding Obamacare.

The Republican leaders did not include language in their CR to reverse this regulation--even though Boehner himself had declared in a House floor speech on Feb. 8, 2012 that the regulation was a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion and that Congress would not let it stand.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "GOP Leaders Urged to Include Religious Freedom Protection in Gov't Funding Bill" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 3/6/13

Radio talk show host Janet Parshall also spoke at the press conference. She expressed concern that the government is moving from protecting religious freedom to only protecting freedom of worship.

"When it becomes freedom of worship, rather than a freedom of religion, what the government is telling us in so many terms is you can believe what you want to believe as long as it's in the four walls of your church or your home, but, sorry, you can't take it out to the public square," Parshall said.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and executive editor for The Christian Post, echoed Parshall's concerns.

"Freedom of religion," Land said, "leaves citizens of faith free to bring their religious convictions to bear in every arena of life, and to use those convictions to critique injustice ... The church is now faced with a stark choice in America. Is it going to be the confessing church, or is it going to be the lapdog church?"

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "FRC’s Perkins to House GOP Leaders: Ban 'This Government Assault on Our First Freedom'" by Patrick Burke, CNSNews.com 3/6/13

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have refused to allow the language barring funding for the HHS mandate from being included in any Continuing Resolution, opting instead to allow a stand-alone bill to proceed to a vote.

“We are grateful for the members of Congress like (Reps.) Diane Black (R-Tenn.), John Fleming (R-La.) and Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), who are keeping this issue at the forefront by introducing this piece of stand-alone legislation,” Perkins said.

“But the reality is,” he added, “a stand-alone bill will never pass the United States Senate and be signed by the president dealing with this important issue. It has to be on a must-pass piece of legislation like the CR.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "House GOP Proposes Healthcare Conscience Act" by John Jessup, CBN News Washington Correspondent 3/7/13

The measure, introduced by Reps. Diane Black, R-Tenn., Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., and John Fleming, R-La., is designed to protect the rights of pro-life employers, insurers and medical workers.

The idea is to give them the right to go to court if they're forced to take part in procedures that violate their religious or moral beliefs.

The move is solely a GOP effort spear-headed by a handful of House Republicans.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.



From "Cruz amendment would defund Obamacare" by Ginger Gibson, Politico 3/6/13

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) will offer an amendment to the continuing resolution – the bill to keep the government open after March 27 — that would defund the Affordable Care Act.

“The very first priority of every elected official—Democrat and Republican—should be restoring economic growth, so we can ensure continued strength, prosperity, and opportunity for the next generations,” Cruz said in a statement. “Obamacare does precisely the opposite. It is already hurting small businesses, reducing the hours Americans are allowed to work, forcing employers to drop coverage, and leading to substantial increases in healthcare premiums—especially for young people.”

Cruz’s effort is unlikely to make any progress in the Democrat-controlled Senate. But he’s still going to try.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion even though Obama Denies Leading War Against Christianity

It comes down to Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism in America

Colorado Court OKs Vouchers to Christian Schools

By overturning the Denver District Court ruling, the Colorado Court of Appeals has approved the Douglas County School District's "Choice Scholarship Program" vouchers that allows parents to use money provided through the public school district to send their children to private, often Christian, schools.

-- From "Colorado Court of Appeals overturns block of school vouchers in state's wealthiest county" by The Associated Press 2/28/13

[Previously,] Denver District Judge Michael Martinez had sided with a group of parents and the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. They argued the voucher program in Douglas County violated the separation of church and state because it gives scholarship checks that parents can use at religious schools.

The judge noted that some religious schools authorized for Douglas vouchers require students to attend religious services. Martinez said the voucher program violates both financial and religious provisions in the Colorado constitution.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court overturns block of Douglas County Schools school voucher program" posted at KMGH-TV7 (Denver) 2/28/13

The appeals court said Thursday the Douglas County Schools Choice Scholarship Program does not violate the state Constitution.

“This is incredibly positive news and a huge victory for the students and parents of Douglas County,” said DSCD Board of Education President John Carson.  “We know that each student learns differently, and our goal is to provide every parent with the opportunity to choose the best possible educational environment for their child.”

The program offered up to 500 students $4,575 in state funds for tuition at mostly religious, private schools.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Colorado appeals court: Douglas County school voucher system legal" by Karen Augé, The Denver Post 3/1/13

Michael Bindas, attorney for the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, which worked on behalf of Douglas County schools, said the ruling is one more in a string that have upheld voucher programs.

"This opinion has national significance because the court recognized a program that is neutral toward religion and operates on private parental choice is constitutional," Bindas said.

Of the 23 schools Douglas County had accepted into its voucher program, 16 were religious in nature.

Several of the schools accepted into the voucher program required students to participate in religious services or classes. The district provides an "opt-out" for students, but opponents argued such a provision would be impractical.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "ACLU Plans To Appeal School Voucher Ruling" posted at Law Week Colorado 2/28/13

Judge Jerry Jones’ majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of the voucher program drew a dissent from Judge Steve Bernard, who wrote: “In my view, [the Colorado Constitution] prohibits public school districts from channeling public money to private religious schools. I think that the Choice Scholarship Program is a pipeline that violates this direct and clear constitutional command.”

Jones also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.

The plaintiffs were represented by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU of Colorado and pro bono attorneys from a handful of firms.

Defendants included the Douglas County School District and the Colorado Board of Education, which were represented by Jim Lyons and Eric Hall of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, and the state, which was represented by the Colorado Attorney General’s Office.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read School Vouchers Advance in Indiana & D.C.