US Supreme Court Sets Stage for Full-on Review of ObamaCare
Bob Adelmann
The New American
Two rulings by the Supreme Court on Wednesday not only affirm the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they also hearten pro-life constitutional conservatives who hope the rulings set the stage for a full review of the constitutionality of ObamaCare (aka the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) by the high court in the fall.
The first ruling, in a 7-2 decision, concerned the Little Sisters of the Poor, and finally puts to rest the question whether the Trump administration, through an Executive Order to the Department of Health and Human Services, could expand the exemption under which faith-based ministries such as the Little Sisters could avoid having to provide contraceptive health services to their employees.
When ObamaCare was first foisted upon the American citizenry in 2010, it specifically exempted churches from providing contraceptive healthcare coverage but said nothing about faith-based ministries. So, under ObamaCare, the HHS ruled that religious non-profits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor had to comply, or suffer the consequences of huge fines.
During President Trump’s first year in office, he ordered the HHS to issue a new rule expanding the exemption. Several states sued, claiming that Trump had overreached. The opinion of the high court was penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote, “Consistent with their Catholic faith, the Little Sisters hold the religious conviction ‘that deliberately avoiding reproduction through medical means is immoral.’”
Showing posts with label Religious Liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious Liberty. Show all posts
Wednesday, 15 July 2020
Tuesday, 14 July 2020
Religious Freedom Upheld
Big SCOTUS Win For Religious Liberty
Rod Dreher
The American Conservative
Finally, some good news!:
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Wednesday in favor of two religious schools that argued they should not have to face employment discrimination lawsuits brought by former teachers.
The case concerned the “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws that protects religious employers from certain lawsuits brought by employees. It was brought by two Catholic schools in California that were hit with discrimination lawsuits by teachers whose employment was terminated.
“The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
“Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate,” he wrote.
Alito’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
The buzz I’m hearing from some of my religious liberty lawyer friends is that today’s ruling is a big boost for David French’s theory that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch are trying to carve out a judicially imposed via media between gay rights and religious liberty.
I was delighted to see that in the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito cited The Benedict Option as grounds for stating how important religious schools are to people of faith:
It’s humbling to discover that one’s work has been cited by a Supreme Court majority in an important religious liberty defense case. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to do my part to protect religious liberty and religious schools. If you haven’t yet read The Benedict Option, I hope you will re-consider. All the bad faith jibes that it’s nothing but “head for the hills” propaganda were implicitly knocked down by Justice Alito today. The arguments put forth in that book made a difference in the way SCOTUS ruled in an important case building a wall of protection around the communities of religious schools. If Justice Alito takes the book seriously, maybe you should too.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rod Dreher is a senior editor at The American Conservative. He has written and edited for the New York Post, The Dallas Morning News, National Review, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Washington Times, and the Baton Rouge Advocate. Rod’s commentary has been published in The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, the Weekly Standard, Beliefnet, and Real Simple, among other publications, and he has appeared on NPR, ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the BBC. He lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with his wife Julie and their three children. He has also written four books, The Little Way of Ruthie Leming, Crunchy Cons, How Dante Can Save Your Life, and The Benedict Option.
Rod Dreher
The American Conservative
Finally, some good news!:
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Wednesday in favor of two religious schools that argued they should not have to face employment discrimination lawsuits brought by former teachers.
The case concerned the “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws that protects religious employers from certain lawsuits brought by employees. It was brought by two Catholic schools in California that were hit with discrimination lawsuits by teachers whose employment was terminated.
“The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
“Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate,” he wrote.
Alito’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
The buzz I’m hearing from some of my religious liberty lawyer friends is that today’s ruling is a big boost for David French’s theory that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch are trying to carve out a judicially imposed via media between gay rights and religious liberty.
I was delighted to see that in the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito cited The Benedict Option as grounds for stating how important religious schools are to people of faith:
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rod Dreher is a senior editor at The American Conservative. He has written and edited for the New York Post, The Dallas Morning News, National Review, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Washington Times, and the Baton Rouge Advocate. Rod’s commentary has been published in The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, the Weekly Standard, Beliefnet, and Real Simple, among other publications, and he has appeared on NPR, ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the BBC. He lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with his wife Julie and their three children. He has also written four books, The Little Way of Ruthie Leming, Crunchy Cons, How Dante Can Save Your Life, and The Benedict Option.
Wednesday, 22 April 2020
Churches Singled Out For "Special Attention"
We'll Show Those Churches!
No, COVID-19 Didn’t Suddenly Empower Government To Do Anything It Wants To Churches
Banning church services and arresting pro-life citizens isn’t about public health and safety, it’s about some government officials silencing speakers they don’t like.
Ryan Tucker
The Federalist
COVID-19 has touched every aspect of our lives, and our religious freedom is no exception. As the world deals with this pandemic, churches are finding creative solutions to minister to people in crisis. Yet too often they face unsympathetic or even hostile government officials, intent on needlessly shutting down their efforts.
Take Greenville, Mississippi, for example. During Holy Week, Temple Baptist Church found itself in the national spotlight after it invited congregants to safely gather and pray together, drive-in style, with congregants staying inside their cars.
That’s why my colleagues and I at Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit in federal court on Good Friday on behalf of Temple Baptist. Eight uniformed Greenville police officers went to a Wednesday night church service and ticketed church members $500 apiece for attending a drive-in service that complied with state safety and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
In response to the lawsuit, the city refrained from ticketing congregants on Easter Sunday. But then on Monday, the mayor held a press conference and said that while the citations issued to Temple Baptist congregants would be dropped, Greenville’s unconstitutional ban on drive-in church services would remain in full force against future services.
But the First Amendment is not so easily ignored. ADF has asked the court for a temporary restraining order, and the U.S. government has filed a statement of interest in the case in support of the church. A different federal court called a similar ban in Louisville, Kentucky, “stunning” and “‘beyond all reason’ unconstitutional.”
No, COVID-19 Didn’t Suddenly Empower Government To Do Anything It Wants To Churches
Banning church services and arresting pro-life citizens isn’t about public health and safety, it’s about some government officials silencing speakers they don’t like.
Ryan Tucker
The Federalist
COVID-19 has touched every aspect of our lives, and our religious freedom is no exception. As the world deals with this pandemic, churches are finding creative solutions to minister to people in crisis. Yet too often they face unsympathetic or even hostile government officials, intent on needlessly shutting down their efforts.
Take Greenville, Mississippi, for example. During Holy Week, Temple Baptist Church found itself in the national spotlight after it invited congregants to safely gather and pray together, drive-in style, with congregants staying inside their cars.
That’s why my colleagues and I at Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit in federal court on Good Friday on behalf of Temple Baptist. Eight uniformed Greenville police officers went to a Wednesday night church service and ticketed church members $500 apiece for attending a drive-in service that complied with state safety and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
In response to the lawsuit, the city refrained from ticketing congregants on Easter Sunday. But then on Monday, the mayor held a press conference and said that while the citations issued to Temple Baptist congregants would be dropped, Greenville’s unconstitutional ban on drive-in church services would remain in full force against future services.
But the First Amendment is not so easily ignored. ADF has asked the court for a temporary restraining order, and the U.S. government has filed a statement of interest in the case in support of the church. A different federal court called a similar ban in Louisville, Kentucky, “stunning” and “‘beyond all reason’ unconstitutional.”
Friday, 6 March 2020
"These Are the Days of Elijah"
Australia is Wrestling with Religious Freedom
Murray Campbell
The Gospel Coalition (AU)
The fight against the Religious Discrimination Bill is heating up with a submission from some of the nation’s powerful Unions and with a bank telling everyone to love their way or go away.
The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Industry Group have written a letter to Attorney General, Christian Porter, warning the Government about perceived flaws in the Bill.
I am not saying that the Bill is perfect and that improvements cannot be made. I personally wish there was no need for a Religious Discrimination Bill in Australia, but hardline secularists continue to threaten religious freedoms and raise the temperature against religious Australians such that a Bill has become important, if not necessary.
So what are the Unions’ concerns? According to Dana McCauley, the primary issue relates to “a risk of harm to the staff and customers of Australian businesses.”
Employers are concerned the provision will conflict with their obligation under workplace laws to provide safe environments free of bullying and harassment, risk damage to their reputations, harm productivity and make it harder to recruit and retain staff.
The argument goes like this: this Bill will give religious people license to be mean and say horrible things to other workers and customers and employers won’t have the power to stop it. But is this the case?
Associate Professor, Neil Foster, has detailed that “The Bill does not authorise all religiously motived” acts, and second, the Bill does not create rights to new forms of horrible speech, but it does protect freedom of speech that operates against the background of already existing rights.
The “right” to make offensive remarks, is a right which already exists as part of our long tradition of protecting free speech, even speech which we don’t like and which upsets people. That is why we need a right to free speech—none of us are tempted to censor speech we agree with!
There has been a tidal wave of pressure to succumb to the new sexual code of conduct, and I can’t but help conclude that the ACTU and AI are just the latest to succumb.
Murray Campbell
The Gospel Coalition (AU)
The fight against the Religious Discrimination Bill is heating up with a submission from some of the nation’s powerful Unions and with a bank telling everyone to love their way or go away.
The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Industry Group have written a letter to Attorney General, Christian Porter, warning the Government about perceived flaws in the Bill.
I am not saying that the Bill is perfect and that improvements cannot be made. I personally wish there was no need for a Religious Discrimination Bill in Australia, but hardline secularists continue to threaten religious freedoms and raise the temperature against religious Australians such that a Bill has become important, if not necessary.
So what are the Unions’ concerns? According to Dana McCauley, the primary issue relates to “a risk of harm to the staff and customers of Australian businesses.”
Employers are concerned the provision will conflict with their obligation under workplace laws to provide safe environments free of bullying and harassment, risk damage to their reputations, harm productivity and make it harder to recruit and retain staff.
The argument goes like this: this Bill will give religious people license to be mean and say horrible things to other workers and customers and employers won’t have the power to stop it. But is this the case?
Associate Professor, Neil Foster, has detailed that “The Bill does not authorise all religiously motived” acts, and second, the Bill does not create rights to new forms of horrible speech, but it does protect freedom of speech that operates against the background of already existing rights.
The “right” to make offensive remarks, is a right which already exists as part of our long tradition of protecting free speech, even speech which we don’t like and which upsets people. That is why we need a right to free speech—none of us are tempted to censor speech we agree with!
There has been a tidal wave of pressure to succumb to the new sexual code of conduct, and I can’t but help conclude that the ACTU and AI are just the latest to succumb.
Saturday, 6 July 2019
And Then There Was The English Court of Appeal Decision
Folau’s Prospects Bolstered
Landmark Religious Freedom Ruling in Britain
By John Steenhof
Sydney Morning Herald
Britain's second-highest court handed down a decision on religious freedom yesterday that will send chills down the collective spine of Rugby Australia. In contrast, Israel Folau and his team will be thanking God for divine providence that is akin to manna from heaven.
In Ngole v the University of Sheffield, the English Court of Appeal has decided: “The mere expression of religious views about sin does not necessarily connote discrimination.”
The factual similarities to Folau’s case are remarkable. Felix Ngole was a social work student at the University of Sheffield and a devout Christian. In 2014, he posted Bible verses about homosexuality on a public Facebook page as part of a political debate. Sheffield University accused Ngole of breaching a vague and broadly worded code of conduct.
Through a hearing and two committee appeals, various bureaucratic apparatchiks repeatedly incanted that quoting Bible verses constituted “views of a discriminatory nature” and breached professional guidelines.
As the British appeal court stated: “The university wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that "homosexuality is a sin") does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.”
Felix Ngole arrives at court in London, where he challenged a ruling that he was lawfully removed from a Sheffield social work course after being accused of posting comments about homosexuals and bisexuals on a Facebook page.
This lines up almost exactly with Folau’s case.
Landmark Religious Freedom Ruling in Britain
By John Steenhof
Sydney Morning Herald
Britain's second-highest court handed down a decision on religious freedom yesterday that will send chills down the collective spine of Rugby Australia. In contrast, Israel Folau and his team will be thanking God for divine providence that is akin to manna from heaven.
In Ngole v the University of Sheffield, the English Court of Appeal has decided: “The mere expression of religious views about sin does not necessarily connote discrimination.”
The factual similarities to Folau’s case are remarkable. Felix Ngole was a social work student at the University of Sheffield and a devout Christian. In 2014, he posted Bible verses about homosexuality on a public Facebook page as part of a political debate. Sheffield University accused Ngole of breaching a vague and broadly worded code of conduct.
Through a hearing and two committee appeals, various bureaucratic apparatchiks repeatedly incanted that quoting Bible verses constituted “views of a discriminatory nature” and breached professional guidelines.
As the British appeal court stated: “The university wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that "homosexuality is a sin") does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.”
Felix Ngole arrives at court in London, where he challenged a ruling that he was lawfully removed from a Sheffield social work course after being accused of posting comments about homosexuals and bisexuals on a Facebook page.
This lines up almost exactly with Folau’s case.
Tuesday, 25 June 2019
Israel Folau: What Is At Stake
Folau’s Court Case V. Religious Freedom
The Gospel Coalition, Australia
Sacked Australian Rugby player Israel Folau decided earlier this month to begin legal proceedings against his former employer Rugby Australia. He has recently produced a YouTube video explaining his decision and has opened up a gofundme page to raise funds for his legal expenses.
This high profile court case will likely have ramifications for religious freedom here in Australia. As such, TGCA spoke to Associate Professor Neil Foster to gain insight into this event.
TGCA: Why exactly is Israel Folau taking his former employer to court?
I don’t have access to the court documents which have been filed, but based on news and other internet reports it seems that the situation is as follows: he seems to be making a claim under s 772 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FWA”), which provides:
To repeat what I have previously said on my blog:
One obvious question is whether the termination here has been for the “reason” of Mr Folau’s religion. His exhortation was a paraphrase of a Bible verse, and accompanied by an encouragement to repent and seek salvation in Jesus Christ. But it might be claimed that the termination was not on the basis of his religion, but rather on the basis of his choosing to express his religion in a way which insulted or offended homosexual persons.
The question is a complex one.
The Gospel Coalition, Australia
Sacked Australian Rugby player Israel Folau decided earlier this month to begin legal proceedings against his former employer Rugby Australia. He has recently produced a YouTube video explaining his decision and has opened up a gofundme page to raise funds for his legal expenses.
This high profile court case will likely have ramifications for religious freedom here in Australia. As such, TGCA spoke to Associate Professor Neil Foster to gain insight into this event.
TGCA: Why exactly is Israel Folau taking his former employer to court?
I don’t have access to the court documents which have been filed, but based on news and other internet reports it seems that the situation is as follows: he seems to be making a claim under s 772 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FWA”), which provides:
An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for one or more of the following reasons, or for reasons including one or more of the following reasons:..(f)…religion.This provision was inserted into the Act to implement Australia’s obligations under some international conventions drafted by the ILO (the International Labour Organisation), referred to in s 771 of the FWA.
To repeat what I have previously said on my blog:
One obvious question is whether the termination here has been for the “reason” of Mr Folau’s religion. His exhortation was a paraphrase of a Bible verse, and accompanied by an encouragement to repent and seek salvation in Jesus Christ. But it might be claimed that the termination was not on the basis of his religion, but rather on the basis of his choosing to express his religion in a way which insulted or offended homosexual persons.
The question is a complex one.
Wednesday, 12 June 2019
On Religious Liberty
The National Review Blind Spot
Douglas WilsonBlog & Mablog
[This article addresses religious liberty in its true biblical sense, versus its pagan secularist sense in the United States. Bhe issues raised are relevant to every country and every church in the West. Ed.]
INTRODUCTION
I was going to title this piece Another French & Indian War, but when I looked it up I discovered that Sohrab Ahmari is of Iranian descent. So that didn’t work out, and let us hope that things improve a bit for me from here.
And besides, this issue is not really about those two gentlemen. Rather, the skirmish between them is actually the great issue of our day in microcosm. This affects everything that is happening to all of us, on a daily basis. It is all here—from Ahmari’s pungent observation about our apparent inability to object to library hour trannies to French’s concern that “if we clobber them with our values when we have the upper hand, have we not given them permission to clobber us with their values when they have the upper hand?” Well, maybe it is not all there. Just to keep things festive, we also have to throw in those evangelicals who have no problem with the library hour trannies, but who are deeply hurt and offended by my use of the word tranny.
Define upper hand. Define values. Define festive. By what standard? Define clobber.
THE CONCLUSION FIRST
Modern life is hectic, and so there may be those out there who just want the central takeaway point right off. Well, here it is.
Religious liberty is itself a religious value, and it is not a religious value that all religions share equally, or even at all. And the implications of this for the secular forms of classical liberalism are pretty dark. The implications for the Christian forms of classical liberalism are not dark at all, and I promise to explain further.
So if you want religious liberty for Christians, and if you want religious liberty for non-Christians, then you must have an overarching cultural worldview that values that kind of thing.
Saturday, 2 February 2019
Back To The Future
The Coming Test Acts Will Challenge Religious Freedom
And the pressure they bring to bear will be a major test of faith for Christians.
By Michael Brendan Dougherty
National Review Online
Think of a country where leading politicians question whether members of a long-established religious minority are fit for public office. Or where the head of state attacks the legal protections that allow minority religions to choose their own leaders without state interference. Think of that country’s press, which has deep ideological and financial affinities with the ruling class’s prejudice, whipping up scare stories about that minority’s schools. Maybe you were thinking of Hungary. But all of these are recent examples of American secularism. And if news of recent weeks is any indication, the pace is only going to pick up.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People,” John Adams wrote, “ It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Well, Americans stopped being a “religious People” quite a long time ago. And they are becoming progressively less attached to organized religion by the day. Consequently, the accepted meaning of the First Amendment has been changing. And the Constitution is becoming inadequate for the defense of religious people and their institutions.
Instead of allowing the flourishing of various religious bodies in a democratic republic, the language of the First Amendment is used to cultivate a special disgust and suspicion of religious people when they act in public or in the civic space.
And the pressure they bring to bear will be a major test of faith for Christians.
By Michael Brendan Dougherty
National Review Online
Think of a country where leading politicians question whether members of a long-established religious minority are fit for public office. Or where the head of state attacks the legal protections that allow minority religions to choose their own leaders without state interference. Think of that country’s press, which has deep ideological and financial affinities with the ruling class’s prejudice, whipping up scare stories about that minority’s schools. Maybe you were thinking of Hungary. But all of these are recent examples of American secularism. And if news of recent weeks is any indication, the pace is only going to pick up.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People,” John Adams wrote, “ It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Well, Americans stopped being a “religious People” quite a long time ago. And they are becoming progressively less attached to organized religion by the day. Consequently, the accepted meaning of the First Amendment has been changing. And the Constitution is becoming inadequate for the defense of religious people and their institutions.
Instead of allowing the flourishing of various religious bodies in a democratic republic, the language of the First Amendment is used to cultivate a special disgust and suspicion of religious people when they act in public or in the civic space.
Monday, 16 July 2018
Anti-Christian Hatred On the Rise
Is History Beginning to Repeat Itself in London?
St Paul’s Cathedral calls police when man reads Bible in English?
BarnabasFund
Faith comes from hearing (Romans 10:17) and authoritarian governments always seem to recognise the power of God’s Word, with many seeking to restrict free access to Bibles and Christian literature around the world. Countries including Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, Tajikistan and Iran prohibit entirely or place restrictions on owning and distributing Bibles.
For many persecuted Christians, access to Bibles and Christian literature is severely limited and owning a Bible can have serious consequences. In the strongly Muslim Maldives, a Christian convert found with a Bible in their home can be imprisoned. In several Communist countries, the Bible is viewed as a subversive text. Today, we report on a clampdown on Bible mission work in South Korea, where for over a decade Bible texts have been sent over the border into North Korea by balloon and other secret means.
William Tyndale was strangled and burnt at the stake in 1536 for his desire to enable everyone in England to read the bible for themselves
Nearly 500 years ago, the Bible in English was considered a subversive text in Britain because it enabled ordinary people (who did not understand Latin) to read the Bible for themselves.
St Paul’s Cathedral calls police when man reads Bible in English?
BarnabasFund
Faith comes from hearing (Romans 10:17) and authoritarian governments always seem to recognise the power of God’s Word, with many seeking to restrict free access to Bibles and Christian literature around the world. Countries including Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, Tajikistan and Iran prohibit entirely or place restrictions on owning and distributing Bibles.
For many persecuted Christians, access to Bibles and Christian literature is severely limited and owning a Bible can have serious consequences. In the strongly Muslim Maldives, a Christian convert found with a Bible in their home can be imprisoned. In several Communist countries, the Bible is viewed as a subversive text. Today, we report on a clampdown on Bible mission work in South Korea, where for over a decade Bible texts have been sent over the border into North Korea by balloon and other secret means.
William Tyndale was strangled and burnt at the stake in 1536 for his desire to enable everyone in England to read the bible for themselves
Nearly 500 years ago, the Bible in English was considered a subversive text in Britain because it enabled ordinary people (who did not understand Latin) to read the Bible for themselves.
Thursday, 28 June 2018
The Fangs and Claws of An Unjust Law That Breaches the Bill of Rights
Marriage Celebrants Will Be Sacked
Politicians Misled the Public
Family First
Media Release 22 June 2018
Family First NZ says that marriage celebrants will be sacked if they refuse to marry a same-sex couple, despite the fact that it goes against their personal convictions, despite the fact that they may have been registered well before the same-sex marriage law was even passed, and despite assurances from politicians that this would not happen.
The Celebrants Association of NZ has told celebrants in their latest newsletter that “Independent Marriage Celebrants who refuse to marry couples because they are the same gender, will lose their registration.”
“This means that the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages is now targeting existing celebrants and not just new applicants for their beliefs.
Politicians Misled the Public
Louisa Wall Particularly Complicit
Family First
Media Release 22 June 2018
Family First NZ says that marriage celebrants will be sacked if they refuse to marry a same-sex couple, despite the fact that it goes against their personal convictions, despite the fact that they may have been registered well before the same-sex marriage law was even passed, and despite assurances from politicians that this would not happen.
The Celebrants Association of NZ has told celebrants in their latest newsletter that “Independent Marriage Celebrants who refuse to marry couples because they are the same gender, will lose their registration.”
“This means that the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages is now targeting existing celebrants and not just new applicants for their beliefs.
Wednesday, 27 June 2018
Supreme Court to the Rescue
Leviathan Checked
Jack Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop Sees 3 Times More Customers Since Supreme Court Victory
Stoyan Zaimov
Christian Post
Jack Phillips told The Christian Post on Thursday that his bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, has seen three times more customers since his Supreme Court victory.
"We have had so many people coming by to support us as the case has gone on, and there has been an outpouring of love and support since the decision came down. The state's targeting of my beliefs cost me 40 percent of my business and forced me from 10 employees down to four. But we're so happy to be busy doing what we do best at our shop," the Christian baker told CP in an email.
"We're also eager to start designing custom wedding cakes again," Phillips added. "A cake is a canvas, and I'm really looking forward to creating beautiful art that celebrates such a special day." Close to 400 supporters lined up at Masterpiece Cakeshop to celebrate his Supreme Court victory earlier this month, according to Alliance Defending Freedom, whose lawyers defended him. Cookies were offered to the LGBT activists who came out to protest.
As for the response from the community, he said that even though one can never get used to death threats, for the most part people have been supportive and understanding of his position.
Jack Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop Sees 3 Times More Customers Since Supreme Court Victory
Stoyan Zaimov
Christian Post
Jack Phillips told The Christian Post on Thursday that his bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, has seen three times more customers since his Supreme Court victory.
"We have had so many people coming by to support us as the case has gone on, and there has been an outpouring of love and support since the decision came down. The state's targeting of my beliefs cost me 40 percent of my business and forced me from 10 employees down to four. But we're so happy to be busy doing what we do best at our shop," the Christian baker told CP in an email.
"We're also eager to start designing custom wedding cakes again," Phillips added. "A cake is a canvas, and I'm really looking forward to creating beautiful art that celebrates such a special day." Close to 400 supporters lined up at Masterpiece Cakeshop to celebrate his Supreme Court victory earlier this month, according to Alliance Defending Freedom, whose lawyers defended him. Cookies were offered to the LGBT activists who came out to protest.
As for the response from the community, he said that even though one can never get used to death threats, for the most part people have been supportive and understanding of his position.
Saturday, 9 June 2018
Crooked Thinking
NZ Human Rights Commission On A Bender
Professor Paul Moon
AUT University
Anyone hoping that the current purge of the Human Rights Commission will go far enough to flush out the hubris at its core is likely to be disappointed.
Indeed, despite staff changes, and a damning report into its culture, the commission will continue with its march towards introducing a damaging change to our society: its plan to make what it calls "disharmonious speech" aimed at religions an offence.
What makes this audacious and unwanted encroachment on our right to speak and think freely all the more insidious is that this proposed ban on "disharmonious speech" would not apply equally to the criticism of all religions.
The open season on attacking Christianity, for example, would remain, with its followers responding, as their faith requires, by turning the other cheek. Instead, the commission is explicit that this proposed free-speech ban would only apply to the sort of disharmonious comments that are "targeted at the religion and beliefs of ethnic minority communities" in New Zealand.
There are several troubling aspects of this plan. Firstly, the commission is moving from protecting people from unpleasant speech (which itself is dubious) to protecting ideas from criticism. If a belief is so fragile that some disharmonious comments might damage it, then maybe the adherents of that belief ought to reconsider its worth rather than seek to shield it from scrutiny.
Secondly, the commission is conflating religion with ethnicity, which is an appalling case of stereotyping.
Professor Paul Moon
AUT University
Anyone hoping that the current purge of the Human Rights Commission will go far enough to flush out the hubris at its core is likely to be disappointed.
Indeed, despite staff changes, and a damning report into its culture, the commission will continue with its march towards introducing a damaging change to our society: its plan to make what it calls "disharmonious speech" aimed at religions an offence.
What makes this audacious and unwanted encroachment on our right to speak and think freely all the more insidious is that this proposed ban on "disharmonious speech" would not apply equally to the criticism of all religions.
The open season on attacking Christianity, for example, would remain, with its followers responding, as their faith requires, by turning the other cheek. Instead, the commission is explicit that this proposed free-speech ban would only apply to the sort of disharmonious comments that are "targeted at the religion and beliefs of ethnic minority communities" in New Zealand.
There are several troubling aspects of this plan. Firstly, the commission is moving from protecting people from unpleasant speech (which itself is dubious) to protecting ideas from criticism. If a belief is so fragile that some disharmonious comments might damage it, then maybe the adherents of that belief ought to reconsider its worth rather than seek to shield it from scrutiny.
Secondly, the commission is conflating religion with ethnicity, which is an appalling case of stereotyping.
Wednesday, 25 April 2018
Removing Jesus Christ From The Public Square
Chic Atheism
Well, that didn't take long. Broadcaster, Mike Hoskings has begun to voice the need to suppress the Bible. It's a dangerous book, apparently. In this regard, Hoskings is following faithfully in the footsteps of the big atheist dudes--Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and latterly, Xi Jinping--all of whom spent a long time and much energy attempting to defame and suppress the Bible. Nice company there, Mike.
Hoskings was opining upon the Australian rugby player, Israel Folau's profession of faith, which includes his belief in I Corinthians 6: 9-10.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.Hoskings rejects those statements. They are untrue, false, misleading, superstitious--we can roll out pejoratives adjectives all day. Now, the normal pattern in a Western democracy which is supposed to champion liberty of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, is for Hoskings to say, "I disagree with your opinions and views, but I will die defending your right to say them". One recalls the notorious atheist Voltaire uttering just this sentiment.
But the ostensible atheist Hoskings thinks these Biblical particular statements set a dangerous precedent.
Saturday, 24 March 2018
Basic Human Liberties Under Threat in the UK
Confronting the Illiberality of Secular Humanism
During a recent debate in the UK, Fiona Bruce, MP exposed the erosion of human rights and religious liberty in the UK. She makes a powerful appeal for religious liberty as one of the most basic of all human rights and liberties. In the end, religious liberty is the liberty of conscience.
Without liberty of conscience, tyranny beckons.
During a recent debate in the UK, Fiona Bruce, MP exposed the erosion of human rights and religious liberty in the UK. She makes a powerful appeal for religious liberty as one of the most basic of all human rights and liberties. In the end, religious liberty is the liberty of conscience.
Without liberty of conscience, tyranny beckons.
Tuesday, 20 February 2018
Letter From America (About "Christian" Capitulation)
How Religious Liberty Dies
David French
National Review Online
So, this is what passes for national news:
First-grade teacher Jocelyn Morffi lost her job at Saints Peter and Paul Catholic School a day after she returned from her Florida Keys wedding.
A female teacher at a Catholic school married a woman and got fired. Why should anyone be surprised that a Catholic school follows Catholic teachings?
The answer’s obvious, of course. National news organizations are populated with people who loathe orthodox Christian teaching on sexual orientation and identity, and stories like this are simply advocacy disguised as reporting. They know news articles ratchet up pressure. They know members of the community respond to negative coverage.
And, sure enough, in the middle of the AP article linked above is this depressing detail:
David French
National Review Online
So, this is what passes for national news:
First-grade teacher Jocelyn Morffi lost her job at Saints Peter and Paul Catholic School a day after she returned from her Florida Keys wedding.
A female teacher at a Catholic school married a woman and got fired. Why should anyone be surprised that a Catholic school follows Catholic teachings?
The answer’s obvious, of course. National news organizations are populated with people who loathe orthodox Christian teaching on sexual orientation and identity, and stories like this are simply advocacy disguised as reporting. They know news articles ratchet up pressure. They know members of the community respond to negative coverage.
And, sure enough, in the middle of the AP article linked above is this depressing detail:
Several parents say they were surprised and upset at Morffi’s firing, which they learned of in a letter from the school Thursday evening. About 20 parents went to the school Friday morning to demand an explanation.Over the long term, this is the real threat to religious freedom.
Monday, 6 November 2017
Burning Incense to Caesar in the Land of the "Free"
Christian Ghettoization in the United States
We posted recently a piece on the trials of a Christian man in the UK who has been ruled unfit to engage in social work because of his "offensive" Christian beliefs. It raises the threat of what we are calling "ghettoization"--that is, creating second or third class citizens who face discrimination because of their beliefs.
It is not just in the UK that this is occurring. There are now plenty of instances and examples in the United States. Rod Dreher exposes what is now happening in the "land of the free".
We may not (yet) be at the point where Christians are forbidden to buy and sell in general without state approval, but we are on the brink of entire areas of commercial and professional life being off-limits to believers whose consciences will not allow them to burn incense to the gods of our age.
The workplace is getting tougher for orthodox believers as American commitment to religious liberty weakens. Progressives sneer at the claims of anti-Christian discrimination or persecution. Don't you believe them. Most of the experts I talked to on this topic spoke only after I promised to withhold their identities. They're frightened that their words today might cost them their careers tomorrow.
Saturday, 21 October 2017
Freedom of Religion Restored at Oxford
Oxford College Bans 'Harmful' Christian Union From Freshers' Fair
Camilla Turner/Tony Diver
The Telegraph
[H/T: Kiwiblog]
An Oxford College has banned the Christian Union from its freshers’ fair on the grounds that it would be “alienating” for students of other religions, and constitute a “micro-aggression”. The organiser of Balliol’s fair argued Christianity’s historic use as “an excuse for homophobia and certain forms of neo-colonialism” meant that students might feel “unwelcome” in their new college if the Christian Union had a stall.
Freddy Potts, vice-president of Balliol’s Junior Common Room (JCR) committee, said that if a representative from the Christian Union (CU) attended the fair, it could cause "potential harm" to freshers. Mr Potts, writing on behalf of the JCR's welfare committee, told the CU representative at Balliol, that their "sole concern is that the presence of the CU alone may alienate incoming students”.
Camilla Turner/Tony Diver
The Telegraph
[H/T: Kiwiblog]
An Oxford College has banned the Christian Union from its freshers’ fair on the grounds that it would be “alienating” for students of other religions, and constitute a “micro-aggression”. The organiser of Balliol’s fair argued Christianity’s historic use as “an excuse for homophobia and certain forms of neo-colonialism” meant that students might feel “unwelcome” in their new college if the Christian Union had a stall.
Freddy Potts, vice-president of Balliol’s Junior Common Room (JCR) committee, said that if a representative from the Christian Union (CU) attended the fair, it could cause "potential harm" to freshers. Mr Potts, writing on behalf of the JCR's welfare committee, told the CU representative at Balliol, that their "sole concern is that the presence of the CU alone may alienate incoming students”.
Saturday, 8 July 2017
Another Win
The Supreme Court’s Religious-Freedom Message: There Are No Second-Class Citizens
Public programs must be open to all.
While there are many threats to religious liberty, few are more consequential over the long term than the state’s ever-expanding role in private life. If the government is able to vacuum up tax dollars, create programs large and small for public benefit, and then exclude religious individuals or institutions from those programs, it has functionally created two tiers of citizenship. Secular individuals and institutions enjoy full access to the government they fund, while religious individuals and institutions find themselves funding a government that overtly discriminates against them.
Tuesday, 2 May 2017
Theresa May Leads By Example
The Right of Christians To Express Their Faith
Nick Hallett
BreitbartLondon
British Prime Minister Theresa May has launched a defence of the right of Christians to express their faith in her Easter message. Mrs. May said the government would stand up for people who speak openly of their religion, and would oppose moves to drive faith from public life.
In a video message, the Prime Minister, whose father was an Anglican vicar, said she was shaped by the “values that I learnt in my own childhood, growing up in a vicarage”.
“We should be confident about the role that Christianity has to play in the lives of people in our country. We should treasure the strong tradition that we have in this country of religious tolerance and freedom of speech. We must continue to ensure that people feel able to speak about their faith and that absolutely includes their faith in Christ. And we must do more to stand up for the freedom of people of all religions to practise their beliefs openly and in peace and safety.”
Nick Hallett
BreitbartLondon
British Prime Minister Theresa May has launched a defence of the right of Christians to express their faith in her Easter message. Mrs. May said the government would stand up for people who speak openly of their religion, and would oppose moves to drive faith from public life.
In a video message, the Prime Minister, whose father was an Anglican vicar, said she was shaped by the “values that I learnt in my own childhood, growing up in a vicarage”.
“We should be confident about the role that Christianity has to play in the lives of people in our country. We should treasure the strong tradition that we have in this country of religious tolerance and freedom of speech. We must continue to ensure that people feel able to speak about their faith and that absolutely includes their faith in Christ. And we must do more to stand up for the freedom of people of all religions to practise their beliefs openly and in peace and safety.”
Tuesday, 21 February 2017
The US Version of the Star Chamber
Washington’s Supreme Court Imposes Its Progressive Faith on a Christian Florist
John French
National Review Online
If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced. That disturbance was the Washington Supreme Court’s oppressive ruling in State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, a case holding that a florist was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding.
The pretext for overriding the florist’s rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washington’s so-called “public accommodations law,” which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers “regardless” of their sexual orientation.
Let’s be clear, according to the plain language of the law and the undisputed facts of the case, Stutzman did nothing illegal. She had always consistently and joyfully served gay clients, including the man who ultimately decided to bring potentially ruinous legal claims against her. On each of those prior occasions, however, she was not using her artistic talents to help her clients celebrate an occasion she considered immoral.
In other words, she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
The ruling in Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers should chill First Amendment advocates everywhere.
John French
National Review Online
[A few days ago, we published a piece on how the state in the UK is taking steps in the direction of persecuting those who speak to others about the Christian faith. Persecution is taking a different form in the United States, but the end result is same. In the US, some courts are overtly insisting upon submission to the state religion and are beginning to punish non-conformity. Ed.]
If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced. That disturbance was the Washington Supreme Court’s oppressive ruling in State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, a case holding that a florist was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding.
The pretext for overriding the florist’s rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washington’s so-called “public accommodations law,” which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers “regardless” of their sexual orientation.
Let’s be clear, according to the plain language of the law and the undisputed facts of the case, Stutzman did nothing illegal. She had always consistently and joyfully served gay clients, including the man who ultimately decided to bring potentially ruinous legal claims against her. On each of those prior occasions, however, she was not using her artistic talents to help her clients celebrate an occasion she considered immoral.
In other words, she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)