Posts Tagged ‘Alliance Alert’
Seriously, This Religious Favoritism is Ridiculous: Further proof that the Jr. Senator-turned-President has little idea of what he is doing.
The European Union Parliament has passed a directive which, if unanimously voted upon by member states, would become law. The directive states that “Christian churches, schools, and social services in Europe cannot limit their membership to those who share their beliefs.” (Read the rest of the article here).
What!? Exactly what is the point of membership if it cannot have parameters to guide exactly who is able and who is not able to become a member? Does anyone really think it is a good idea to discriminate against churches and other religious and Christian organizations so that they are forced to allow people who do not share, or even oppose their ideals into their membership? (And exactly why does someone who opposes a church group or religious organization want to be among its members anyways?)
If such a directive is passed, and signed into law, under equality, tolerance, and fairness then, there should no longer be an NAACP, Girl Scouts, men only or women only anything, Black History month (or any other nationality for that matter), or any other sort of club, group, or association that establishes a difference between itself and other people.
But do you really think that is going to happen?
Now here is where this topic of religious freedom and tolerance gets just plain absurd. This headline came across my desk today: “Obama: U.S. ‘one of largest Muslim countries’”
I don’t’ work for the census bureau but even I know that such a statement is categorically false. But, being the unbiased student that I am, I did a minimum amount of research and found that the President’s claim that the large population of Muslim’s in America makes it one of the largest “Muslim countries in the world,” is completely erroneous.
Toby Harnden, in an article found on the UK Telegraph blog, posts the following:
“The excellent Don Surber crunches the numbers and points out that Obama’s claim is highly dubious. According to Surber, the US has an estimated three to eight million Muslims, less than one per cent of the world’s total and less than at least 23 other countries. The average claim for the US Muslim population is about six million. The precise figure is difficult to get because it’s not included in US census data and many put the figure at much, much less. But even if we assume there are six million Muslims in the US, that makes it only the 34th biggest Muslim country in the world – behind Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, China, Ethiopia, Algeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Tanzania, Syria, Malaysia, Niger, Senegal, Ghana, Tunisia, Somalia, Guinea, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso and Tajikistan.” And:
“Debbie Schlussel cites a reputable survey by Pew that puts the number of Muslims in the US at 1.8 million. This would make it the 48th biggest Muslim country, after the above list plus France, Libya, Jordan, Israel, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Germany, Kuwait, Oman, Eritrea, Lebanon and Serbia and Montenegro – and just above Britain, which would be the 50th.” (Read Harnden’s article here)
So as the evidence clearly points out, America is not even close to being one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. We are, however, one of the largest Jewish countries (after Israel), and the largest Christian nation in the world, according to The Standard’s Michael Goldfarb.
With America being home to more Jews and Christians than any other country in the world, why is President Obama not reaching out to those who hold to Judaism and Christianity? If he wanted to be the President of a Muslim nation why didn’t he run for office somewhere in the Middle East? Instead he chooses to make false claims that will only serve to alienate the majority of the citizens he does serve.
Many lawmakers are seeking to simply destroy any trace of Christianity in America and the world. At the same time that lawmakers are trying to snuff out the rights and freedoms of Christians, they are trying in earnest to protect and widen the freedoms of Muslims. Is this not religious favoritism? Is this not the very definition of intolerance?
If we are going to protect religion then we absolutely MUST protect all religions and the free exercise and expression of those religions. If we are going to say that religious organizations cannot dictate membership based on any set of standards, then this ruling must apply to every group and organization the world over. To do anything less is nothing more than religious persecution.
President Obama would do well to research his facts before making claims that serve no other purpose but to alienate the majority of citizens of the country he serves. It is interesting however that during the election he would only claim to be a practicing Christian and wanted no part of discussing his Muslim heritage and background. Now he seems quite open to discussing and advancing it.
A good reminder to look around the smoke screen of “religious exemption” provisions meant to satiate politicians who are looking for cover to advance their agenda to redefine marriage.
CONCORD, N.H. — New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch and same-sex “marriage” supporters insist that proposed revisions to legislation that would make New Hampshire the sixth state to redefine marriage will not infringe on religious liberties. But ADF attorneys argue that Lynch’s added protections–and the anticipated concession by the drafters–is merely smoke and mirrors geared to divert attention from the fact that recognizing same-sex “marriage” in the Granite State would open up a Pandora’s Box of new attacks on religious freedom.
“Contrary to what marriage redefinition activists might argue, redefining marriage in New Hampshire would have serious consequences for the religious community beyond the limited protections the governor has proposed,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “The governor is right to recognize the threat to religious liberty, but he underestimates the threat by a long shot. Where are the protections for business owners with religious objections to recognizing same-sex ‘marriages’? Formally affiliated organizations are not the only ones who need their religious liberty protected.”
Many people in America are appalled and outraged at the action of judges in recent years who have taken it upon themselves to make up the law and do as they please to suit their own political agenda. This current climate of judicial activism has left many people shrugging their shoulders and scratching their heads.
The latest legal debacle comes out of Iowa where the State Supreme Court made the decision on April 3 to allow same-sex marriage despite a majority opposition from residents. Without a vote and against the will of the majority of Iowans the state court usurped the people and made a decision that would affect the entire state.
One Governor hopeful, Bob Vander Plaats, is fighting back.
Vander Plaats has stirred up a controversy with his remarks at a rally, during which he said that if he had “the opportunity to serve as your next governor, and if no leadership has been taken to that point, on my first day of office I will issue an executive order that puts a stay on same-sex marriages until the people of Iowa vote…” And now his comments, reported in the Des Moines Register, have created mixed emotions among locals.
Elsewhere, New York City Governor David A. Paterson is planning to waste the tax-payers time and money by introducing legislation which would legalize same-sex marriage. Why is this a waste of time? Because such a bill does not even have strong support among the local lawmakers, much less the voting citizens. So instead of focusing on the things that really do matter to New Yorkers, Governor Paterson is adhering to his own agenda.
It seems to me that State Supreme Courts and judges and Governors have forgotten the most important aspect to their public office, the fact that they serve the people and not their own political agenda. Many of our public servants have ignored the fact that their primary function is to serve as the voice for the people they represent. That is what we claim to have after-all, a representative form of government. Who are they representing when they ignore the very people that elected them?
Instead, these career politicians have decided that it would be better to tell the people exactly what would be best for them and then push for that outcome regardless of whether the people like it or not.
Such an example of this insidious politicking came out of West Virginia just recently where, despite overwhelming support for a voter-approved marriage amendment to permanently define marriage as between one man and one woman, two state legislators took it upon themselves to ignore the voice of the people and dictate what would and would not be allowed to be voted on by the people. Consequently, the over 90% of West Virginians who believe in traditional marriage are being ignored by their own lawmakers and not being given the right to decide what is and is not law in their own state.
Our current political climate is nothing short of an out-of-control temper tantrum. Judges are subverting the Constitution in order to be “all-inclusive,” lawmakers are acting as if they are above the law while they decide what is and is not legal, and Washington is more interested in saving plants and animals than in preserving the morals and ideals that this country was founded upon.
I believe it is important now more than ever that we the people speak up and speak out about the principles that matter most to us. Consistently the polls show that the majority of Americans believe in traditional marriage, want abortion laws tightened and to see abortion made illegal, and want the freedom to worship and exercise their faith.
It is our responsibility to hold our lawmakers accountable for their decision. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Vander Plaats when he said, “Who is to balance the courts? Who says that courts get the final say?”
Recent poll, study concludes that Americans are better off with traditional marriage and family.
A new poll released by the Angus Reid Global Monitor is saying the exact opposite of what the news media and talking heads in Washington are saying on the issue of same-sex marriage.
What we see and hear in the news is lawmakers fiercely pushing for more “equality” and ultimately for legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states; regardless of existing state constitutional laws banning same-sex marriage. And everyone from the news media to Hollywood celebrities would have everyone believe that this is what America wants and if not for the few bigoted, narrow-minded conservatives standing in the way, America would already have legalized same-sex marriage.
But is that what the facts are telling us?
The above mentioned poll tells quite a different story. It says that in June of 2008 53% of Americans did not favor legalized same-sex marriage. And as recent as December of 2008 55% of Americans were not in favor. But I bet you didn’t read that in the Sunday paper. (I wonder if the increase in opposition is due to the outlandish and criminal behavior of homosexuals in California in the wake of the Proposition 8 passage.)
And not so coincidentally this poll stands in agreement with a newly released study from The Journal of Communication and Religion. This study confirms what most Americans in general have always believed:
Now, let’s recap what we have learned here. A majority of Americans do not agree with legalizing same-sex marriage and to coincide with that belief is the fact that kids growing up with both parents lead a more well-rounded life leading toward success.
So if this is what the polls and studies are saying, why is it that we are still seeing a push away from the traditional definition of marriage and family? Why would the media feed us biased political rhetoric seemingly seeking to indoctrinate the masses?
One possible answer is that, there is a liberal movement toward total and complete relativism. The proponents of this movement want truth to be something decided by each individual, with no absolutes existing beyond a persons own opinion. So, in light of such a school of thought, to say that same-sex marriage is wrong, or that households with both parents is best for children is the very definition of an absolute. And, in the eyes of the “free thinking” movement toward relativism absolutes are the enemy.
Further Food for Thought:
Why more people are believing it is a choice.
The idea that homosexuality is a genetic component born into certain people that they are not responsible for responding to is losing ground. A recent article by the Alliance Defense Fund highlights the various organizations that are reaching out to homosexuals, and seeing them reach back.
The primary focus of the article is on the nonprofit evangelical organization Joseph’s Coat Ministries, whose founder, Chris Delany, is a self-described “ex-gay” who decided that he was “willing to give faith another chance.”
Delany spent 12 years as an openly homosexual man and, after numerous boyfriends and gay bars realized that he was miserable and needed to change his life. So he embarked on what he calls a “lengthy spiritual transformation in which he was sexually reoriented.” And now, fifteen years, one wife, and two children later, Delany uses his former life as a tool to reach out to others that are struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction. (Read the story: Faith Said to Change Sexual Orientation here)
And I for one am thankful for Mr. Delany and the Joseph’s Coat Ministry, along with others such as the Pennsylvania based Harvest USA, Exodus International, and Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out Ministry. The mere fact that there are so many ministries reaching out to homosexuals, and that these ministries are expanding because of growing demand suggests that it is possible for a homosexual to change his or her lifestyle.
Many of these organizations are using what’s called “reparative” therapy to help people deal with unwanted same-sex attractions. And not everyone thinks this is a good idea. Richard L. Pimental-Habib, an openly gay clinical therapist says, “It doesn’t make sense on any level. The ultimate result is that it doesn’t work.” And David Kaplan, with the American Counseling Association, says “We do not know of any situation where a homosexual has been converted to heterosexuality. What you can do is you can change behaviors…”
Well that just seems to be the point doesn’t it? If homosexuality is not genetic and is instead a choice, then it seems necessary to help people make an alternate choice; to change their behavior. And, quite frankly, it makes perfect sense, on many levels. People are not kidnapped and forced into the programs at these organizations. They come willingly because they don’t want the same-sex attractions that they are feeling. They want to change. And to say it doesn’t work is a slap in the face to the many people that have changed their lifestyle and are no longer homosexual.
It seems that with more people learning about the Flawed Arguments About Gay Marriage, and the reasons Why Marriage is Inherently Heterosexual that the pro-gay community is seeing its chances for legalized same-sex marriage slip away. This all comes as a result of the growing disdain for the idea that homosexuality is a genetic, in-born component of a person that is unavoidable. And that belief comes from the work of the aforementioned organizations that are seeing indisputable results in the lives of people who now call themselves “ex-gay.”
The fact is, to deny that a person can call themselves an “ex-gay” is to deny that an African-American has different colored skin. It just can’t be done. And it still remains true that there are more and more “ex-gay” people out there, and not one single ex African American.
Further Food for Thought: