We Won't Support Chick-Fil-A With Our Dollars, but You Must Fund Abortion With Yours...

polifrog



American Thinker:

So while the Tea Party advances small-government principles, wanting to leave citizens free to make their own decisions and reap the benefits or suffer the consequences accordingly, the left pursues a system of big-government command and control. They then turn around and accuse the small-government Christian Tea Partiers of attempting to impose a theocracy in America, when it is the left's plan that is often indistinguishable from theocratic rule.

So true.

Take for example the Chick-Fil-A fun we had recently.  Liberals gladly pushed others to forgo CFA  and  attempted boycotts like 'Eat Les Chiken'.  Surly many chose not to support CFA so as to not fund revenue steams they found immoral.  That is their right.

But what of those folks who do not wish to indulge revenue streams that fund birth control or abortifacients? Even while  reveling in their right to not engage in an activity that funds what they deem immoral, liberals are fine with forcing others to engage in activity those others deem immoral.


Odder still  was that as soon as government inserted itself in the CFA argument via various mayors threatening CFA., much of the  left deserted those mayors.  Why?

The left seemed perfectly willing to use the coercive powers of government to fund abortion.

Why didn't the left support the mayors against CFA?
   
I believe the reason that many liberals did not lend support to those mayors who proposed  bullying the pious is that such actions have yet to be sanctified by governance in the way that governance has moralized the outright unconstitutional coercion of the religious by way of codified law otherwise known as ObamaCare.

Thus, forcing the religious to support an immoral stream of revenue is just fine for liberals. But when government attempts to force the religious to shut up without having first sanctified the nightstick used, well Rahm and the other mayors were forced to backtrack from immoral behavior that had yet been moralized by state  codification.

These are a theocratic bunch, these  progressive, liberal, Democrats  who have effectively handed the power to moralize to governance, but then, what other result could be expected when religion is forced from the public square?











out

Although All Religions Should be Allowed to Inform Governance, None Should Stand Above Any Other...

polfrog




... unfortunately even Our Judges frequently forget that.


Pamela Geller:

Back in October, I reported on Ernest Perce, a parade-goer wearing a "Zombie Muhammad" costume while marching in a local Pennsylvania Halloween parade. He was viciously attacked and choked by Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim (who was enforcing the sharia -- he assumed that it was illegal in this country to insult Muhammad). "He grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck," reported Perce.
Last week, an American judge in Pennsylvania, Judge Mark Martin, ruled on the case and sided with the Muslim, and said that the victim would have been put to death in Muslim societies for his "crime."

Martin told Perce: "Having had the benefit of having spent over two and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. ... In many Arabic-speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society."
So what? This is America, where we don't have to obey the Islamic blasphemy laws -- at least not yet. But Martin went on to reveal why he was ruling against the victim: "Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." He now denies that he is a Muslim, but that's what he said.

Ultimately, it is irrelevant if the judge is or isn't a Muslim. What is germane is his sharia ruling, which is worse if he's not a Muslim. In Islam, sharia supersedes all man-made laws. It is the law of Allah, so one might understand (though not condone) a Muslim judge defaulting to sharia. But an American judge admonishing an infidel victim while holding up the Koran is shocking. You hear the Koran slam down in the audio of the court proceeding. Martin also told Perce: "You're way outside your boundaries or First Amendment rights."
Perce had video of the attack, but Judge Martin refused to allow the video into evidence. The judge refused even to look at the video, saying that he had heard enough and that there were two conflicting stories. In sharia, in any conflict between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, the Muslim is always right. Martin ruled for Elbayomy.

It gets worse...

Read the rest at American Thinker.


Here is Allen West commenting on Muslims sending messages to one another by writing in their Korans.  They defile, yet we apologize:

when tolerance becomes a one way street, it will lead to cultural suicide.

out

Rush Goes Off on Some Idiot Who Believes Religion is a Threat...

polifrog



When the Obama administration attempts to strip American religious diversity from our nation via the contraceptive mandate, and attempts to dictate the selection of church ministers prompting a Supreme Court rebuff that united the court in opposition to the Obama administration it is that administration that is a threat to America.





Welcome Home

Why Doesn't the Lefty Care About Religious Liberty?

polifrog



American Thinker:

Neither writer betrays a particle of comprehension of what religious liberty even looks like. The problem isn't stupidity. Far from it. What they betray is lack of interest.

A cabal of atheists pushing an atheocratic state does not a secularist make.



out

Obama Administration Selectively Denies Loan Forgiveness Based On Religious Affiliation...

polifrog





Lost in the attention garnered by Obama's mandate to compel the Church to act against its conscience concerning contraception, the Obama administration has decided to further displace the church in the public square by supporting government pubic service at the expense of religious public service.


Audrey Hudson

The federal government will no longer forgive student loans in exchange for public service if that service is related to religion, according to a new Education Department rule from the Obama administration.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program announced the change Jan. 31 with little fanfare, while most of Washington was focused on the new ObamaCare rule requiring religious organizations to provide free birth control through health insurance.

Obama continues what has been a decades long struggle to remove religion from the public square and leave us with the de facto government establishment of atheism. With the establishment of atheism in America we will no longer be able count ourselves a secularist democratic nation for we will no longer be a nation of tolerance for all religions, but rather a nation of increasing intolerance toward religion. We will transition from a secularist nation of religious inclusion to a nation of religious exclusion, an atheocracy.


There has never been and never will be an atheocratic democracy, for democratic ideals demand that all individuals and all groups be allowed to inform governance while atheocratic states demand the marginalization of religious groups. In this case it takes the form of stripping the positive incentive represented by the forgiveness of student loans from churches while leaving those incentives in place for others. This weakens the church relative to the friends of governance and we will see less church related public service in the public square.

America is loosing its democratic soul.



out

Newt on Anti Catholic Bigotry During New Hampshire Debate...

polifrog




Newt was absolutely correct here and hits a theme I have returned to numerous times, the intentional displacement of religion by governance:



Given the current debate over the contraception mandate and the fact that such a mandate would force religious institutions out of the services they provide if they are to stay true to their beliefs, Newt was spot on.

However, Illegal Insurrection draws further conclusions of possible collusion between media and liberal governance. Just why did Stephanopoulos bizarrely ask about contraception month ago? Romney was clearly baffled by the question, as it seemed at the time to be entirely hypothetical.





out

Chasing Religion From the Private Home in California...

polifrog

WorldNetDaily:

Chuck and Stephanie Fromm already have been fined $300 for holding Bible studies for their friends at their home, and they face the potential for additional fines of $500 for each study held, according to a legal team taking their case to court.

The newest conflict over Bible studies in homes in America arose in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., where city officials say city code section 9-3.301 prohibits religious organizations in residential neighborhoods without a conditional-use permit, a sometimes very expensive procedure.

The code cites "churches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, religious retreats, and other places of religious worship and other fraternal and community service organizations."

What has been a decades long struggle to remove religion from the public square has left us with the de facto government establishment of atheism. With the establishment of atheism in America we can no longer count ourselves a secularist democratic nation for we are no longer a nation of tolerance for all religions, but rather a nation of increasing intolerance toward religion. We are transitioning from a secularist nation of religious inclusion to a nation of religious exclusion, an atheocracy.

There has never been and never will be an atheocratic democracy, for democratic ideals demand that all individuals and all groups be allowed to inform governance while atheocratic states demand silence from religious groups. In America's case that silencing of the religiously assembled is based on "separation of church and state". But there is no "separation of church and state", there is only this:

• "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

but amid the progressive bureaucratic desire for atheocratic governance the religion clauses have not been so much forgotten as distorted into a tool to silence the voice of some who choose to assemble leaving only atheists at the table.

America is loosing its democratic soul.

out