« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Stop the Christians? “Worship in your Church only, not out here” policy attacked at Harrisburg rally for religious liberty

(4th in A Fortnight for Freedom Series, For Greater Glory PLEDGENo one’s laughing.  But there was apparent irony in Harrisburg, PA this past Friday at a “religious freedom” rally on the capitol steps.  While priests, ministers and rabbis continue to exhort their faithful to practice their faith outside the four walls of their church or synagogue and not just for an hour on Sunday, there is a concerted assault on such freedom underway in America today.

This past Friday’s rally to stand up for religious freedom in Harrisburg, PA featured an especially outstanding presentation by Thomas Shaheen of the Pennsylvania Family Institute that was both brief and irrefutable, and was complemented by a brochure handout given to attendees by the dedicated volunteers of The American Society for Tradition, Family and Property, which was both longer and a more straightforward appeal to Christians which, if read and understood, is irrefutable.

The crowd of 250 listened to a variety of speakers including one who fired up the crowd and seemed to “own” the phrase used by Obama at his rallies – “fired up, ready to go.”  But this reporter especially focused on the Shaheen and TFP presentations because they appeared such wonderful complements to one another.

Shaheen spoke of the major difference between “freedom of worship” versus “freedom of religion,” a distinction which he felt is lost on many people.

President Obama speaks of “freedom of worship” to mean that within the four walls of your church, he does not wish to interference with your ability to worship as you please.  So Shaheen reports, the President in seeking support from Christians for his reelection, says.

In his 2008 election victory, President Obama persuaded a majority of Catholics who voted to cast their ballot for him.  With the Catholic Bishops’ criticisms of his Obamacare “mandate” (edict) to force them to act in a manner contrary to their Church teaching, there is a question as to whether or not he will be able to get a majority of this key constituency to vote for him again.

The Pennsylvania Family Institute speaker gave good solid reasons for concerned Christians and especially Catholics to be critical of the President’s claim to be supportive of religious freedom.

The President differentiates in how he feels the federal government can regulate religious practices at your school, daycare center, workplace, any business you operate or work at, any ministry you may be involved with.

How you interact with those who are being provided social services, the poor, etc., in other words, is a matter of WHERE do you do this?

If you are doing worship INSIDE of a church, Shaheen advises, the President claims he will leave you alone.

If your worship is OUTSIDE of your Church, the President says that is not religious worship and so, the federal government can regulate how and what you may do.

And so, Christian employees, employers, students, teachers, may all be regulated by the federal government, according to the President and his ObamaCare regulators.

Shaheen reports on the direct result of this attack on those who practice their religion by ministries that reach outside of their church.

In Boston, Massachusetts, the state’s “same sex” marriage law has put the Catholic Church out of business with their charitable work among the poor with adoptions.  The Church refuses to bow to the government requirement which outlaws their practice of seeking homes for children which have both a mother and a father.

Shaheen reported on a case unfolding the very week of the Harrisburg rally, in New Mexico, where a wedding photographer was sued because he was not willing to work for a gay couple at their same-sex wedding.  So-called “civil libertarians” who have long insisted that this is an issue that involves freedom, are strangely silent as the law there, is used to attack the lady who doesn’t want to be forced to violate her own religious principles.

The PFI speaker reported that despite her referring the same sex couple to somebody else who would be willing to do their work, an appeals court has already ruled that the same-sex couple can take away her freedom by forcing her to work for them or pay a penalty.

This is clearly an indefensible attack on religious freedom but the defenders of the policy claim that how people worship IN THEIR CHURCH is not being interfered with by any government.

Shaheen reported that there are also attacks on religious freedom on college campuses, with both Catholic and also evangelical student groups being attacked because of their rules that require their leaders to share their same faith.

Imagine that: a Catholic Club cannot require that a President or officer must be a Catholic, a Jewish Club cannot require that an officer must be Jewish?  That sounds absurd but again, the defense of this assault on religious freedom is that they are not interfering with how you practice your religion when you are in your church or synagogue.

In other words if you do what your priest or rabbi says and go OUTSIDE of your place of worship to practice what he is teaching, then the Obama administration and their supporters believe they may counter what you are doing, prohibit what you are doing, punish you for following your faith.

In the northeast part of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Family Institute speaker reports that some municipalities are now regulating and taxing the church annex or church hall that is used for other charitable and religious purposes by the church and by its congregation.

So when parishioners use the very building that their church donations helped pay for and which they thought was an integral part of the practice of their faith for for soup kitchens and food distribution and other assistance to the poor, for fellowship meetings, for assistance to pregnant women trying to avoid abortion if they can get help from somebody, for seminars and lectures and religious speakers and teaching, for prayer meetings and gatherings – all of this does not count as religious freedom in the eyes of President Obama and his allies.

This is not “worship” which only counts, they are saying, if it is inside the four walls of the church itself.

In other words, outside of the Church, the prohibition of the First Amendment that the government shall not interference with our religious freedom, simply does not apply.

Effectively, people of faith are being told once again: stay inside your church and be quiet.

There would be no Christian hospitals or churches in America, if this thinking were to prevail.

Those who use “right and wrong” as the basis for forming their opinions about public policy issues are appalled at this latest effort to silence people of faith and banish them from the public square.

Shaheen concluded his remarks at this past Friday’s Harrisburg, PA “stand up for religious freedom” rally by saying firmly, “this is not about the Catholic Church, it is not a contraception or abortion or gay rights issue, but is about our freedom of religion.  We need to stand together to defend this constitutional right.  This is a constitutional issue.  It is about our freedom or worship.”

Backing up Shaheen’s rally remarks was a brochure handed out to the attendees by the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property,” entitled, “Confronting Religious Persecution in America.”

This author has long been impressed with the TFP from seeing them at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in DC.  They confront insanity and hypocrisy of the left with calm reason and simple but very through explanations of their traditional Catholic views and this brochure was no exception.

They take dead aim at the January 20, 2012 “edict” of Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement ObamaCare, noting that every single U.S. Catholic Bishop has strongly denounced it and that a lawsuit by an array of Catholic institutions has been filed to overturn it.

TFP notes that Catholic Institutions comprise 12.7 percent of America’s hospitals and care for 5.6 million patients annually, according to a 2009 report published by the American Hospital Association.

TFP compares the Obama administration’s attack on the Catholic Church to what happens to subjugated Christians and Jews in Muslim countries which outlaw any practice of their religion and even forces them to pay special taxes and penalties on account of their faith.

There are also a variety of regulations, restrictions and outright persecution of those who practice their Christian or Jewish faith in Muslim countries.  America is now heading in that same direction.

The new ObamaCare rules are but the start of such regulation, restriction and persecution of Christians, according to TFP’s brochure at the rally in Harrisburg.

They report that the Catholic bishops protest the new HHS rules because they put Catholics in a dilemma: they may “either violate their consciences and the divine mandate to preach the Gospel to all peoples or stop providing healthcare coverage thereby incurring heavy penalties.”

The Bishops state that they will not comply.  But they also do not wish to be driven out of the public square, put out of business, forced to retreat into their walled churches.

That is why TFP publishes its literature and participates in rallies such as this one in Harrisburg – to support the American bishop’s third alternative: “calling upon all Catholics and men of good will to vigorously engage in the political process to reverse this unjust government ditat that subserves the First Amendment rights of all.”

The bishops and TFP urge support for “the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” bill introduced in Congress (H.R. 1179 in the House, S. 1467 in the Senate) and urges everyone to write to your Congressmen and your two Senators to ask them to sponsor this legislation, speak out for it, vote for it, enact it.

The TFP goes a step further, pointing out that the secular left which is behind Obamacare, are natural supporters of socialism.  They do not recognize the rights of God-created men but place all men as subservient to the state.  Their natural hostility to the Church and to Christians and people of faith leads them from socialism to totalitarian dictatorship to suppress and silence those who oppose them.

TFP urges prayer and fasting, and action to overturn ObamaCare.  Their brochure concludes with the recommendation that all of us pray for victory in the battle ahead, and they especially commend the Prayer to

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.  May God rebuke him, we humbly pray: and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.”

This reporter suggests that people of faith and those interested in learning more about our concerns should watch the new movie, For Greater Glory, starring Andy Garcia, to gain a better understanding of what happens when the government tells Christians that they must stay quietly inside their Church and stop manifesting their faith outside.

It is a true story of what happened to the Catholic Church in Mexico, which faced an all out effort to destroy them in 1926.  Watching the movie may require some effort because as an independently produced movie it is not showing in all the local movie theaters.

My sources in south central Pennsylvania report that a group of Christians – both Catholic and Protestants – have pledged to bring the movie to York County, even if they have to rent a hotel ballroom to show it.  One couple in their ranks say that they have a commitment from a local movie theater to show the movie as soon as it can be obtained.  It appears that this may be the best way to see the movie – ASK (Ask and thou shalt receive, seek and ye shall find, Knock and the Movie will be shown Unto you).

Regardless of whether you have watched the movie or wish to pledge to watch it when it becomes available, one way you can signal your support for religious liberty – besides supporting such organizations as the Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI) and Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) is to “sign” a PLEDGE of support to watch the movie, help spread the word about it and to vote in 2012 to preserve religious liberty: For Greater Glory Pledge.

*

As part of my “Fortnight for Freedom” series (as requested by US Catholic Bishops’ Conference) I have posted three articles about the movie and ask you to pass the word.  Several of my articles were (of course) strongly criticized by the secular liberal-liberaltarian element that always acts as if they are at war with Christians.  You can go to the article and click LIKE (which recommends it to your Facebook friend list) to help boost my positive reviews, FOR GREATER GLORY.  And yes, at least one more article is coming now that we’ve seen the movie.  I write regularly at RED STATE in behalf of the “values voter” issues.  In addition to your “like” at the RedState site you can of course, also FORWARD this, or pass on the link to any one of these articles if you prefer.  Viva Cristo Rey!

5/23

http://www.redstate.com/hanoverhenry/2012/05/23/for-greater-glory-movie-takes-aim-at-government-suppression-of-people-of-faith-but-may-not-come-to-a-theater-near-you-on-june-1-unless-you-act/

5/29

http://www.redstate.com/hanoverhenry/2012/05/29/a-call-to-conscience-for-religious-liberty-for-greater-glory/

5/30

http://www.redstate.com/hanoverhenry/2012/05/30/the-2-minute-hate-how-the-liberal-left-uses-old-tactics-to-demonize-conservatives-from-1964-daisy-commercial-to-2012-swatting-erick-erickson-hit-back-watch-for-greater-glory-this-friday/

*

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there.  I maintain a 5x a week, weekdays writing schedule at RED STATE.

You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do (if this is reprinted on any other website, that is).  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

COMMENTS

  • kipling

    That is why they want to drive Christians from the public square and force them to comply with social liberalism in as many places as possible.

    Christians and Jews must be silenced for social liberalism to win. Leftists are not winning in the arena of ideas in many areas so they seek to silence the opposition.

  • Victor_Purinton

    “We do not cater to homosexuals”

    Acceptable or not?

    • avgjo

      Property rights.

      I’m dark, because I’m half minority. If someone wants to not cater to me on their private property, that’s their business. I wouldn’t want to give them my business anyway.

      I figure anyone who wants to patronize a place that doesn’t want them (barring emergencies) either wants to make a political statement or has no self-respect. Neither is good.

      • avgjo

        Homosexuals want the freedom to associate sexually with people of the same sex, but they want to deny the freedom of association to churches and businesses.

        Interesting.

      • avgjo

        Instead of ‘I’m dark…If someone wants to not …’

        Should have read

        ‘I’m mixed. If someone of ANY COLOR wants to not cater to me on their property…’

        Racists come in ALL colors. I’ve dealt with them on BOTH sides of my heritage, and from outside my heritage besides.

        See how easy it is to get caught in the political correct nonsense? So widespread, yet so subtle…

        Apologies to any justifiably offended. I’ll double my vigilance.

        • Victor_Purinton

          as is “No Jews allowed.”

          That’s what you’re saying.

          I’ll give you one thing – at least you’re honest.

          • avgjo

            I admitted that someone has the right to discriminate against me, on their property. I don’t have to let them on my property, either.

            And as I said, I would not want to give someone business who doesn’t like me because of my white, Mexican, Jewish or Indian heritage.

            And for the cheap seats, I repeat: barring a serious emergency, if you want to patronize a business that doesn’t want you there, you’re either an attention seeker trying to make a political statement or you have no dignity/self-respect. Either way, such a person is a fool.

            Funny thing about liberals like you, though. They seem to think that freedom of association is a one-sided deal. It’s kinda like Voltaire said about disagreeing with someone but fighting to the death to defend their right to say it. I may not like someone that would exclude me from their business because of the way I was made, but I will defend their right to do so. Why? Because tomorrow, the same abuse of power that is used to coerce the bigot today is used to coerce me tomorrow.

          • avgjo

            Apparently, you believe that homosexuals should not be coerced based on others’ perception that their activities are sinful, but you believe that ‘homophobes’ should be coerced based on your perception that their behavior is wrong. Care to explain that chaotic view to me?

          • aesthete

            This sums it up for me:

            “if you want to patronize a business that doesn

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            and behavior. If I owned a B&B, I wouldn’t knowingly rent to adulterers, murderers, pedophiles, liars, thieves…well, you get the picture. I’d prefer to have a clientele of honest, loving, traditional families, and if I’m the owner of private property, I have that right. Just like the owners of gay only hotels do.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            I did not intend to imply that gays are adulterers, murderers, pedophiles, liars or thieves. I’ve known some fine people over the years who were gay. I just believe the lifestyle is a choice whereas skin color is not.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      It is totally acceptable for any private business to set it’s own clientele.
      If the Klan wants to open their own bar and grill, that is up to them, I won’t attend.

      If a black Rapper only wants blacks at his concert, no skin off my back.

      If gays want to open a shopping center just for then, fine with me.

      It is called freedom. It’s pretty neat.

      • Victor_Purinton

        … is to keep us from killing each other. Your position is internally consistent, but I think it is disastrous to social harmony.

        • aesthete

          While a Klu Klux Klan White History Month Celebration BBQ would be patently idiotic, I fail to see how it is hurting, much less killing, anyone.

          Same goes for the “gays need not apply” examples above.

          Not everything that is distasteful should be banned. Gays, blacks, whites, etc have purchasing power that they can and do use elsewhere. Personally, I like having bigots declare themselves: it saves me time and impoverishes them.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            …agree with you I do and further… not everyone that one’s priest or rabbi or minister teaches is sinful, ought to be illegal – not by a long shot. If lying is wrong according to most religions (all?) then, ought that to be illegal? Who would say that? Who would give such power to the government?

            Similarly (again) all that is NOT HEALTHY TO EAT or to NOT EAT (ie. tobacco? fat? processed food? 16+ ounce soda?) should not be prohibited by law. It would be fine if a Mayor or President wanted to say “kids don’t smoke” or “kids don’t eat so much bad stuff” but liberals want to keep going and make laws about so much.

            And finally… if one gives the power to punish speech to the government – labeling it “hate speech” and making laws against it, we have yet another “slippery slope” that leads to the use of that power by government to do things people just might not like.

            I didn’t write about what most are commenting here but, if somebody is rude to others – be they black or white, Christian or Jew, or people who have a disease, people who are short or who are ugly, people who are gay or not … tis simply rude behavior and I’d think twice before ever going near such people or their business. But I’d think a lot more than twice, before I go along with another excuse to give the government more power over our lives.

            I wrote about the rally for religious liberty – where the government is ignoring the 1st amendment constraint ON THEM, not a constraint on whether or not you like your local pastor telling you that lying, or killing, or robbing, or premarital sex, or homosexual conduct, is wrong.

            I suggested the movie FOR GREATER GLORY, to see what happened in Mexico in 1926 when the government retaliated against the Catholic pastors they didn’t like criticizing them.

            I thank everyone here for “dropping by” and for your comments, especially when they are civil and polite as they (mostly) are so far.

        • APA Guy

          But in the end, only FREE CHOICE will give you anywhere near the “social harmony” you seem to desperately crave, Victor. This is and always be a country divided to an extent. It’s one of the virtues that accompanies diversity (which celebrates our differences as much or more than our common ground) and liberty.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          race and every other type of social relation is pretty damn bad right now. Maybe we should give freedom a try?

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        those of us who think it is wrongful conduct when a white discriminates against a black, can ALSO join in avoiding such establishments. Those who think it is RUDE and WRONG to speak about a Jew’s religion in such a way, do not have to be JEWISH in order to speak out against such. The Holocaust only happened because of the silence of so many – not just because it was happening to a minority. There is no excuse for being rude to someone just because you found out they are gay. Similarly, there is no reason I have to stand still for it when somebody wants to loudly talk about how they use their genitalia, to borrow from another message posted here. Rudeness and sin and wrong behavior, do not need to be sanctioned by the state in order for us to condemn such behavior and to refuse our business to those who engage in it. So much legislation happens – very often expanding government power – because not everyone thinks it through. Contrary to the secular-left “party line” about values voters, most of us do NOT wish to legislate morality. And the people making the most noise accusing us of that, are in fact the ones attempting to legislate THEIR OWN version of morality or theology, on the rest of us. As you said Kyle8, “it is called freedom… it’s pretty neat.” Amen brother.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    Is your question, do I favor the use of government power to force bed and breakfast establishments – which are small and intimate settings for a small group of couples – to admit a gay couple?

    Good question, but may I ask you:

    What is the name and location of the bed and breakfast in question? I suspect some of my Christian friends who read these pages, may wish to know.

    Is it your view that this query is “on topic” to the article’s point, that Christians are facing the use of government power to silence them?

    Perhaps they might instead have a sign that says: we only cater to married couples when said couples include a minimum of one man and one woman?

    With all due respect, it does appear to me that you might wish to create your own article to discuss this subject because I do not at all see how this is relevant to what I have posted about the attack on religious liberty in America.

    • Victor_Purinton

      … the liberty in question often appears to be the freedom to discriminate against gays.

      Adoption service will not place children with gay couple.

      Photographer will not cater to a gay service.

      Church hall will not allow hosting of gay function.

      Thus, my question (still unanswered).

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        many Christians are able to cite verses in the Bible which appear to prohibit such conduct as you appear to advocate. Do you also wish to prohibit printing and distribution of the Bible so long as it contains such verses? If someone says “I am a Catholic” would you then also bar them from serving in the military because they obviously then, may be a believer in that Church’s doctrine? Perhaps we might compromise and have a “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” policy for Catholics in the military? What about priests who speak from the pulpit about their religious beliefs which appear in contrast to yours? Since this is what the secular-liberal-left calls “hate speech” should that also be prohibited? Will we need to have government agents at each church service to monitor this, or shall we just rely on volunteers who have a toll free number to report any pastor who speaks the prohibited words/phrases/ideas? What do you suggest? Perhaps you can write your own article about this.

        • Victor_Purinton

          tells me that you do not have a coherent position on this issue.

          Can individuals who believe that homosexuality is a sin withhold from them the same public accommodation (facilities, services, products) that they provide to others?

          It’s a very simple question.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            thank you for sharing your expertise on what you believe is coherent and not. Of course, throughout its 2000 history many people have made such accusations about Christians and in fact, as the movie FOR GREATER GLORY illustrates, in 1926 Mexico, some of them also attempted to silence those they thought incoherent.

            the question remains unanswered by you: if people you do not agree with commit a sin, is it your view that the enforcement mechanism of the government ought to be brought down on them, as happened in 1926 Mexico and as is now happening in 2012 U.S.A.?

            If your answer is yes you will be alone in the movie theater cheering, as the Catholic Priests are shot, hung, bayoneted. The rest of us think that the First Amendment is there to prohibit the government doing what you appear to be cheering them on to do – suppress those with whom you do not agree.

            Although your “thing” apparently is the gay issue, it is not mine. I wrote about what the government is forcing on us, in violation of the express requirement to “laissez nous faire” when it comes to our religious practices.

            I remind casual readers here, that when you look by silently as the government does this to Catholics, you ought to remember that there are other rights listed in the Bill of Rights which are ALSO subject to the same attack by government. If they can ignore the prohibition against interfering with religion, what about speech, assembly, the use of firearms, being free from unreasonable searches and seizure, equal protection under the law, etc.?

            We are on the fast track to all powerful government unless we stand together now and say STOP.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        …give the federal government the power to go in and do what – rewrite your pastor’s homily? are there any other things you do not like him saying? And, if you cannot get a parish hall for a gay function, then you would shut down all churches that have such a prohibition? Are there other things you prefer churches not be allowed to do? Is there a way you will put the genie back in the bottle later? I did answer your question by my asking the ones I did, which you have ignored. And, your questions are very distantly related to what I wrote about the government forcing people to do things which the government is prohibited from doing.

        Essentially, to address YOUR religious beliefs, it appears you are suggesting that the government close down, punish, censor or fine all of the activities engaged in by people and institutions of faith who simply do not agree with you. But the First Amendment prohibits your recruiting the federal government to do that.

  • cheetah2

    This is so important and Christians need to be much more aware of what is going on.

  • rightlane1111

    said. He asked that the congregation think hard about starting up thee other churches. By Churches he means ministries to the nursing homes in our community where many of the people do not have a family and Holy Communion means a lot to them. He suggested that little gifts and cards would be welcome.

    Your article was excellent. By the sounds of it, what my minister is proposing will not be readily accepted by Obama and his ilk.

    While Obama has be usurping the Constitution every other week…what has happened to Separation of Church and State? Not Separation FROM…but Separation OF. This is a one sided concept…the government can tell the Church what to do…but any good deeds…such as those stated above are to be taxed or prohibited. Meanwhile, if Catholic Bishops have a problem with abortion, going against the tenets of their Church and beliefs…THEY ARE WRONG.

    What has happened here is this. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have been replaced by a self-appointed God name Obama. This
    ideology, wherein God is thrown to the curb and a human has replaced that God has happened over and over again…Each and every time with failure. Oh we never wanted to see the likes of the Third Reich again…but here we are 2012 embarking on the same thing.

    Someone asked me once…how do I know I am doing the right thing…the answer: Ask yourself if your motive is unselfish, pure (meaning single focused), honest and loving. If the answer is “yes”…you are heading in the right direction.

    Mr. Obama’s motives are pure…he has one agenda. However, he fails on the other three. His policies have been dishonest, unloving and most certainly selfish. Thank you for your article…it is a bigger problem in the USA than you can believe…and yes, it is being talked about within the WALLED confines of MOST churches.

    • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

      …is like saying Mr. Satan’s purposes are singular and straightforward. In a way, all true. But I do appreciate your compliment. I hope that our friends in the Churches who are speaking about this recall ALL THREE of the actions suggested by the Catholic Bishops. Many just think “let us pray.” It has been suggested we also EDUCATE others about the origins and purposes of our religious liberty. And third, that we TAKE ACTION to defend our liberty – such as attending the rally I reported on in this article, writing to your legislators, working for a candidate who will defend our First Amendment rights, etc.

      I agree with you very much – the constitution is being “usurped” is exactly correct. It is why we must speak out, educate, act. Thanks very much for your note (and why not RECOMMEND this article too?).

  • renny

    in most organized religions that are old enough to have different denominations and sects, and they may quarrel among themselves who should be acknowledged as liturgical leaders identities, and which way, if any, a believer should cross himself, if at all, or address transubstantiation may be debated, but our fed. gov. should have enough history to realize that religion is often stronger, more enduring, and more implacable than dictators and their armies: the Eastern European bloc leaders and the collapsed USSR learned the above lesson to their utter failure.

    And for an admin. seeking reelection, the constant assaults on the creeds of certain Christian denominations seems really unwise and counter productive. That the left has always wanted to replace God-centered religion with cults of personality, but to follow such a protocol when something like 86% of the nation says it has some kind of religious belief or conviction appears quite insane.

    As to the homosexual issue, how would a bed and breakfast owner know anyone is homosexual unless he/she registers as such? And that is the crux of the problem of making what one does with his/her genitals a special designation as a civil rights group.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    “…that is the crux of the problem of making what one does with his/her genitals a special designation as a civil rights group.”

    …thou I suspect those who demand such, may not see the humor.

    Once again, it strains politeness to ask: how ought a Christian react to such a demand? Perhaps we ought to create a new article (ie. diary post) and ask for suggestions? You up for it?

    For example: one response to “do you mind if I smoke” which I heard awhile back is: “No. But, do you mind if I fart.” I do not think this qualifies as “The Christian Response” but at least one will not have to go to Confession afterwards for your response (for the non-Catholics: that is when you admit to wrongdoing and ask forgiveness in a confessional, promise to try not to do that anymore, and are then given absolution by the priest).

    But, next time I ever find myself sitting across the table at a bed and breakfast from a gay couple I suppose I repeat your query: why do you think how and with whom you make use of your genitals, qualifies you as to be designated as Protected Members of a civil rights group entitled to Federal Protection?

    Thanks for your note Renny.