Proselytizing compared to rape? Really?

Rachel Allison

There are bombs going off on more fronts than I can name.  The attacks are relentless and escalating.

Abortion—Now the truth is coming out about the “safety” and “compassion” of abortion clinics.  And we thought the supposed “back-alley abortions” were bad?

Euthanasia—being legalized and accepted as “killing with compassion.”

Marriage—If the Supreme Court redefines marriage, marriage, completely severed from its original purpose, might never pull out of its death spiral.  Religious freedom and rights of conscience will be severely compromised.

Educational decline—we have all witnessed its decline, and with Common Core being rammed through at break-neck speed, it will continue to be an agenda driven program run by non-elected federal agencies.

And there’s so much more…

What’s most alarming, a majority of the people seem to be totally unaware and even apathetic to the bombardment.

The most recent bombshell: Court marshals for those who proselyte  in the military.

I quote Bethany Monk from CitizenLink

The Pentagon has released a statement, confirming its policy that would punish service members who share their religious beliefs.

That follows a private meeting last week between Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and the Pentagon. Weinstein said military personnel who proselytize are guilty of sedition and “treason.” He said they should be punished to quell a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”  

“If this policy goes forward, Christians within the military who speak their faith could now be prosecuted as enemies of the states,” according to the Family Research Council. “This has potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military. Our brave troops deserve better. If chaplains and other personnel are censored from offering the full solace of the Gospel, there is not religious freedom in the military.”

As I have studied this and other relevant reporting it looks like the Department of Defense has had this particular regulation in place prior to Weinstein’s demands.

“Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards,” published on Aug. 7, 2012.

Section 2.11 requires “government neutrality regarding religion.”

“Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,” the regulation states.

Military leaders were admonished not to use their position to “promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council has said Weinstein’s hands are all over this work.  I wish I understood better whether MRFF could actually have had imput into the writing of the militaries’ regulations. Weinstein, an avid atheist is now demanding that the DOD start implementing it.

I quote Todd Starnes from Fox News

President Mikey Weinstein and others from his organization met privately with Pentagon officials on April 23. He said U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished – by the hundreds if necessary – to stave off what he called a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”

“Someone needs to be punished for this,” Weinstein demanded to Fox News.  “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.” He compared the act of proselytizing to rape.

“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” he told Fox News.

He said there is a time and a place for those in uniform to share their faith – but he took issues with fundamentalism that he says is causing widespread problems in the military.

Perkins and members of the Family Research Council were stunned that the Pentagon would be taking counsel and advice from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

“Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,” Perkins said. “That’s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.”

If Weinstein has his way, and apparently he has the attention of military leaders “it threatens to treat service members caught witnessing as enemies of the state.”  “Non-compliance,” the Pentagon suggests, “even from ordained chaplains could result in court-martialing on a case-by-case basis.”

Does this sound like something that should be happening in the United States of America…or Hitler’s Germany?

With all the social, moral, and religious bombardment taking place we need to choose our battles wisely…but for America’s sake let us choose to fight! Apathy is a killer.

The FRC has launched a petition drive urging Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to protect the religious freedom of troops “and not to proceed with the purge of religion within the ranks called for by anti-Christian activists.”

Modern-day Russian Roulette

Rachel Allison

At birth, Hydeia Broadbent was abandoned at the University Medical Center of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas where Patricia and Loren Broadbent adopted her as an infant. Although her HIV condition was congenital, she was not diagnosed as HIV-positive with advancement to AIDS until age three. The prognosis was that she would not live past the age of five. Now more than 20 years later, Broadbent spends her time spreading the message of HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention by promoting abstinence and safe-sex practices (for people who choose to have sex

As an early recipient of anti-viral treatments that made AIDS a livable disease, she could have used her platform to emphasize the positives of HIV when coupled with modern medicine.  She could have chosen to give HIV/AIDS patients hope and the promise of beating the odds.

Not Hydeia.  She doesn’t sugar coat the consequences of the disease even when drugs promise a long and somewhat productive life. “There are days when I can’t get out of bed.  Sometimes I am so sick my mornings are spent with my head hung over the toilet.”

Every morning she takes her cocktail of five pills. Hydeia’s medicine costs $3,500 to $5,000 a month.

“There’s so much misinformation.  People think there’s a cure…but there is no cure.”  A positive test result is no longer a death sentence, says Hydeia, “but it is a life sentence.”

“It’s always there.  You’re always going to have HIV or AIDS.  You’re always going to be taking medicine.  You’re always going to be going to the doctor’s office.  You’re always going to be getting your blood drawn.”

Tell that to the millions who can’t fathom contracting HIV/AIDS (or any other STD for that matter.) “Hooking Up” is as common in today’s loose society as chopping wood was for my grandparent’s.

Legislators are outlawing anything and everything so that our society is safe.  The food we eat has to pass strict inspection.  The vehicles we drive, the toys our children play with, the fabric used to make our children’s clothing, roadways, walkways, speed limits…We have legislation in place to protect and defend just about everything.

And yet there are tens of thousands across the globe being exposed to a disease that is more threatening and costly than society will openly and publicly admit. Where is the outcry? The target audience seems to be oblivious to the “Russian Roulette” they are playing.

We need more Hydeia Broadbents educating and laying out the cold hard facts about a disease that can and should be contained and eradicated…Not with condoms.  Condoms have proven to be bogus protection. It can only be eradicated with a value system that teaches self-control and even self-denial…something almost unheard of in today’s society.

Despite the harsh realities of HIV/AIDS and the supposed public awareness, the National Center for Health Statistics, show that in the United States, “for all races combined in the age group 15-24 years, HIV/AIDS moved from the 12^th leading cause of death in 2009 to the 11^th cause of death in 2010.” It was the 7^th leading cause of death in 2010 for the age group 25-44 years.”   Where is the outcry? This is the elephant in the room that is destroying lives, and yet the target audience seems  oblivious to the destruction.  They continue to play with a fire that doesn’t just burn, it consumes.  Would it be taboo to legislate activity so intimate?  Apparently so.

Parents and grandparents, and the Hydeia Broadbents of the world, it is up to us to educate and raise the warning voice that will save lives in this promiscuous society where “if it feels good…” is accepted without thought of consequence or outcome.

The Facts about Your Child’s School and Christmas

Ann Bailey

You can’t sing Christmas Carols or say Merry Christmas.  You can’t put up a nativity scene or read the Christmas story from the Bible.  You can’t do any of this at your child’s school? That’s what groups like the Freedom from Religion want you to believe and much of the population has bought into it.  But what are the facts?

The attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom have put together a fact sheet addressing the myths surrounding “Christmas and Public Schools.”   It is worth going to and reading the list in full.  You can see it here.  But here’s the short version:

• You CAN sing Christmas Carols at public schools
• A teacher CAN wish her students “Merry Christmas”
• You CAN put up a Christmas Tree at school
• You CAN read use the term “Christmas Holiday”

School administrators have been “brow beat” and cowed into thinking that the word “Christmas” has to disappear from our schools.  So have public officials who choose to remove a nativity scene or a “Christmas” tree from public places rather than stand up to the “secular police” and their legal bullies.

Don’t fall for it!   Encourage schools to maintain their traditions – no insist that schools continue their very legal Christmas traditions.  It’s a great time of year and your children should be allowed to enjoy it to its fullest.

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Proposition 8 Case

Diane Robertson

The nine justices of the Supreme Court have just decided to hear the California Proposition 8 case and one DOMA case (Defense of Marriage Act). These cases will be heard before the court in March and a decision will be expected by the end of June.

In the DOMA case, the court will decide if it is constitutional for the federal government to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and limit federal marriage benefits to married couples of the opposite sex.  This won’t necessarily change any state laws on marriage, but the federal government would be required to recognize the marriages of same sex couples in states where it is legal.

In the Proposition 8 case, the court has two paths that it may take. The justices could decide the more basic issue of whether any state can ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law—is same-sex marriage a right protected under the constitution?  Or the court could limit the ruling to apply only to the ban in California. The 9^th Circuit Court of appeals ruled that California’s ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional because same sex couples were already granted the right to marry.

Same sex marriage is currently legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Washington D.C.

If the court rules that same sex marriage is a constitutional right then no one will be able to reject servicing  same-sex couples based on religious conscientious objections—infertility doctors, bed and breakfast owners, reception hall owners, family lawyers, photographers, bakers, etc.  Schools will be required to teach that homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions. Homosexuality will be enshrined in the law.

The two U.S. Supreme Court accepted cases are Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144) and US v. Windsor (12-307).

Reader Poll: “Should a gestational mother (carries an unborn child to term, but not biologically related) have parental rights after the child’s birth?”

Here’s the question we asked readers:            

Should a gestational mother (carries an unborn child to term, but not biologically related) have parental rights after the child’s birth?

Here’s how readers responded:

10 Percent                   Yes                                                                       

63 Percent                   No

27 Percent                   Don’t know

 This is a tough question and it represents just some of the dilemmas associated with assisted reproductive technologies.  Because so many of these technologies created artificial situations for which there are no natural precedents (nor legal or ethical guidelines), the human race finds itself fumbling around searching for the answers.  Unfortunately, it is the children of these situations who are left ungrounded and without a clear path as to their identity and their parentage.  It has consequences for them and for society.

Should a woman, although she might not be carrying a child with her biological material, still not be considered a mother?  Did her body and her blood not nourish and carry the baby for some nine months?  Did not part of her become part of the child during that time?  This is something that is being tested in courts in various places around the world and it is going to take “the wisdom of Solomon” to sort it out.

Laws Put Religious Freedom in Jeopardy

Diane Robertson

Washington State has become the seventh U.S. state to legalize same-sex “marriage.” This new law is considered an anti-discrimination law. Many of these laws, like Washington State’s, will include a religious clause. These clauses are there to exempt churches and clergymen from being sued for discrimination if the church or clergy member, for example, refuses to perform a marriage of same sex couples. Many people believe that these clauses protect any religious-based conscientious objections to same-sex “marriages.”

This simply is not the case.  In response to questions about the New York State’s religious protection clause, Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin R. Nimocks stated:

It does not protect individuals. It does not protect private business owners. It does not protect, for example, a bed and breakfast owner who is using their own private personal property in the type of intimate setting that a bed and breakfast is. It does not protect licensed professionals. For example, it does not protect counselors. It also does not protect lawyers — you may have a family law attorney who does not want to do a same-sex divorce because of their deeply held religious beliefs. It does not protect fertility doctors who may have a strict belief and only want to help [heterosexual] married couples because they believe a kid deserves both a mom and a dad.

Individual citizens are offered no protection under religious clauses in nondiscrimination laws.  An individual’s religious beliefs are just not protected where same-sex “marriage” and civil unions are legal, and in other places with nondiscrimination laws.

In 2005 in Massachusetts,  when David Parker, a parent of a kindergartner, strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality with his son, the school had him arrested and he spent the night in jail. In 2008, the federal court of appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit filed by Parker to have children opted out of homosexual curriculum.

In 2007 in Georgia, a licensed counselor, Marcia Walden, referred a person seeking same-sex relationship counseling to a colleague. Rather than attempt to provide a service that would conflict with her religious beliefs, Walden acting in the best interest of the client referred her to another counselor. The client filed a complaint and Walden was dismissed from her job. Walden lost and the case has been appealed.

In 1999, in California, two doctors at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group referred a lesbian patient to a doctor at an outside clinic for fertility treatments because of their religious beliefs. After a successful pregnancy preformed through the other doctor this patient sued the doctors at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group for discrimination. In 2008, the doctors lost the case and it has been appealed.

In 2006 in New Mexico, Elane, a freelance photographer, refused to shoot a gay wedding between two women and was later sued by Vanessa Willock for discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation.  Elane lost the lawsuit and is now appealing.

These lawsuits are happening all over the United States. In most cases United States citizens, who believe their religious convictions should allow them to refuse services or protect their children, are losing.

At the international level, similar attacks on religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and freedom of expression continue.

In many instances, clergy members are not even protected.   You probably remember the case of Swedish Pastor Ake Green and Canadian Pastor Stephen Boissoin.  Although these men were eventually acquitted of their supposed crime of speaking out against homosexual behavior, thousands of dollars in legal fees and years in litigation have a dampening effect on free speech and upon religious freedoms.  These cases clearly send the message “if you speak out or defend religious positions, there will be a heavy price to pay.”

When Chai Feldblum, Pres. Obama’s appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was asked about conflicts between Religious Freedom and so-called “sexual liberty,” her response was indicative of how liberal courts around the world seem to view this issue:

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

As Marc Stern, general counsel for American Jewish Congress has stated:  “When you have a change that is as dramatic as has happened in the last 10 to 15 years with regards to attitudes toward homosexuality, it’s inevitable it’s going to reverberate in dozens of places in the law that you’re never going to be able to foresee.”

Action Items:

1.  Understand that “religious exemption clauses” that might be written into same-sex marriage laws or into other types of anti-discrimination laws relating to sexual orientation, offer little, if any, protection to individuals, businesses, or non-religious organizations.  Don’t be fooled.

2.  Thoroughly examine any type of proposed legislation surrounding issues of domestic partnership, civil unions, same-sex “marriage” laws, hate crime law, employment law, or any type of “anti-discrimination” policy.  Be advised that individual religious perspective is usually not protected.

3.  Stand firm in defense of traditional marriage.  Actively oppose legalization of same-sex “marriage” and other forms of alternative relationships.

4.  Stand firm in defense of religious freedom and the opportunity for conscientious objection.

5.  Get involved in the appointment and retention of members of the judiciary.  Know the stance of those individuals who are being appointed or elected to judicial positions.

 

A Big Question for Traditional Marriage

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 the 9th cirtcuit court of appeals  ruled California’s ban on “gay marriage” unconstitutional.

In the 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Proposition 8 took rights away from a vulnerable minority without benefiting parents, children or the marital institution.

Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt declared, that Proposition 8 “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples… The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”

This ruling applies to California only. Instead of declaring “gay marriage” a federal right, the judges took a different approach, ruling that the effect of amending the state constitution to ban same-sex “marriage” after same-sex couples had already enjoyed that right is unequal treatment  and in violation of the 14^th amendment’s equal protection clause.

The three judge panel of the 9^th circuit court of appeals gave supporters of proposition 8, time to appeal the ruling before California could resume same-sex “marriages.”

Andy Pugno, lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign committee stated, “We will immediately appeal this misguided decision that disregards the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to restore marriage as the unique union of only a man and a woman.”

As soon as the appeal is made, Proposition 8 will be headed for the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court receives approximately 10,000 cases per year and hears around 80 of  these cases.

The Big Question for supporters of traditional marriage has now become:

What is it better for traditional marriage?

One, the Supreme Court does not grant hearing to the Proposition 8 trial, Judge Reinhardt’s decision is final and only applies to California, or

Two, the Supreme Court grants Proposition 8 hearing and the constitutionality of same-sex “marriage” is decided by nine people?

End Abortion in Your Lifetime

This is your chance to participate in a “March for Life” event.  As we approach the 39^th Anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that has allowed 50 million unborn Americans to have their lives abruptly ended, there are numerous events around the country to remind Americans of the tragedy.  Find one in your community and get involved.

The largest and original “March for Life” will be held on Monday of this year (January 23, 2012).  If you live in the Washington DC area, you’ll want to part of this awe inspiring march.  Click here for a schedule of events.  Many states and large cities host one as well.  Google “Right to life” in your state to get specifics.

We wanted to share with you a great video created by Students for Life as part of their “Turn the Tide 2012” Campaign.  The video brings forward the faces and voices of those who have been impacted by the scourge of abortion.  Most importantly, it shows how the pro-life movement is slowly but surely winning the abortion battle.

Sweet Victory!

In Texas, a federal appeals court upheld the state’s sonogram law, which requires that women seeking abortions view a picture of their baby before having the procedure. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling, which had issued an injunction, preventing the Texas law from taking effect. The decision allows the state to begin enforcing the law immediately, mandating doctors to give pregnant women “truthful, non-misleading and relevant” disclosures before they have an abortion.

The appellate court logically said, “The State’s interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion.”

Texas’ new law not only requires doctors to conduct a sonogram before performing an abortion, showing the woman the image of her unborn child, but they also play the fetal heartbeat aloud and describe the features of the fetus at least 24 hours before the abortion.

Lawmakers in favor of the bill say it merely allows women to make a more informed decision, and that heart sounds and sonogram are “educational aides.”

Opponents argue that women deciding to undergo an abortion do so with much thought and serious reflection. Perhaps, but statistics  show that many women use abortion as their form of birth control.  When four, five, and six abortions are performed on the same woman, what else can it be called?

We at United Families International hope that Texas will lead the charge on this battlefront.  What a sweet victory!

 

 

 

Huge Victory for Religious Freedom

In a case that has been hailed as one of the most important religious freedom tests in over a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered a unanimous decision that clearly states that churches have the right to determine who their employees will be and ensure that those employees share their beliefs.

The case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, involved a teacher at a Lutheran school who, for health reasons, took a leave of absence.  The school had replaced her and was planning to reinstate her at the beginning of another semester.  The teacher, who had received some type of ecclesiastical appointment or “ordination” prior to this event, attempted to sue the school and then was permanently fired.  The basis of her firing was the fact that she had violated her commitments as a “commissioned minister” by initiating legal action.

The EEOC’s arguments were not viewed kindly by the Supreme Court as they ruled unanimously in favor of the Lutheran Church and School.  There is hope that this case will roll back some of the damage done to Religious Freedom from the U.S. Supreme Court 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith.

Those of you who are attorneys at heart or love to dig deeper into the law, you can find a good analysis of this legal victory here.