I agree with the comment about Hillsdale College. Schools should stop accepting federal funds in order to protect themselves.Concerning the Christian nation comment: https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/10/03/the_founders_intended_a_christian,_not_secular,_society/page/full
Individuals will need to stand for truth and righteousness during these difficult and tumultuous times. Religious freedom is imperative to the laws and rights of the United States where we have the Constitution, a divine document. And this land will only be free from bondage upon a Christian based society. Marriage, one man and one woman, is the foundation of said society. This is the truth and it will stand.
One quote from the founding fathers: ". . . Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed . . . so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger."
In 1934, renowned British anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin tried to prove that marriage was an irrelevant and even harmful cultural institution. He studied 86 cultures. He was forced by the evidence to conclude that only marriage with fidelity, what he called absolute monogamy, would lead to the cultural prosperity of a society. Anything else, such as “domestic partnerships,” would degrade society. The quote in larger context says this: “The evidence was such as to demand a complete revision of my personal philosophy; for the relationship between the factors seemed to be so close, that, if we know what sexual regulations a society has adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its cultural behavior.”Unwin studied Roman, Greek, Sumerian, Moorish, Babylonian, and Anglo-Saxon and 80 primitive cultures. He noted in his study of these 86 civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived more than three generations..
When you play with the devil, you have to play by his rules. So don't play, don't rely on federal funding. Refusing to accept federal funding, as does Hillsdale College, will solve several of these problems.
Read the Communist manifesto online-destruction of family and religion is key.People fear big government and still vote Democrats in? Big government rules from top down so fewer people can determine the fate of the many.No both parties are not the same. party and platform is all you can count on--the public statements and what they hold each other to, IMO.
There are differences between "standing up for your beliefs" and "being discriminatory and prejudiced". Yes, it's a tricky new line that many now have to walk, but it's what happens when religious privilege is rolled back to allow equal rights for all in a secular society. (And yes, the US is a secular nation, NOT a "Christian nation", as anyone who properly reads the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights can see.) It will be difficult and it will take time; in Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2003-2005, most of these issues have been dealt with, although some are still on the table (e.g. accreditation by provincial bar associations for a proposed new law school at a private Christian university). People need to back off on the rhetoric, relax, breathe, stop thinking people on the other side are demons, and not just speak their minds, but listen carefully to those who believe differently. Reasonable solutions will be found by reasonable people.
I don't see a problem with grenade #12. As a matter of fact, at this point I believe that it could actually help our cause if we were to have a complete separation of church and state when it comes to marriage.The State looks upon marriage as a contract between the couple and the State. In their eyes, marriage is creating a business entity that by law can enter into contracts with third parties (ie. mortgages & car loans) as well as qualify for certain government benefits, such as tax deduction, etc. Ministers and other marriage providers are simply "deputized" agents of the State and the State has never cared about the actual ceremony of marriage. This is evident by the fact that individuals can be married in a temple, a chapel, a synagogue, at the beach or even skydiving.I would go as far to say that currently the State doesn’t really even care who signs the marriage certificate. I was not required to register with the State when I served as a bishop. No one from the State ever contacted me after signing a marriage certificate.By making the State the only provider of legalized marriage, all couples will have to get their license and sign their marriage contract with the State at their local county courthouse. Once they are married in the eyes of the State, couples would be free to participate in the “ceremony” of their choice, whether that is in an LDS temple, a Jewish synagogue or a Catholic cathedral. Participation in these marriage ceremonies would be based upon the beliefs and requirements of the individual religion. The State claims no jurisdiction over other religious ceremonies such as baptisms, bar mitzvah's or catechisms, so why should it be any different for marriage ceremonies?Removing the “deputized” relationship between the church and State should protect temples from further legal jeopardy and allow religions the ability to practice their beliefs in peace. I find it sad and ironic that the liberals who scream for the separation of church and state in every other aspect of life don’t seem to be interested in this one. Unfortunately, I don’t expect that it ever will be since it does not follow their ultimate game plan which is complete acceptance of their lifestyle and the criminalization of dissenting views.
A little more attention should be given to two other cases decided by the same court this session. The specifics of these cases are not earth-shaking at first glance. However, they both address the important topic of religious freedom, and in fact the rulings came down overwhelmingly (8-1 and 9-0) in favor of religious freedom under circumstances where an anti-God U.S. Supreme Court could have easily found a rational basis for going the other direction. Note the New York Times’ conclusion after reviewing these cases: “The Roberts court is likely to continue to be receptive to claims based on religious freedom.” Just something to consider.1. The court decided in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores that Samantha Elauf was not required to make a specific request for a religious accommodation to wear a hijab when applying for a position at a children’s clothing store owned by the company. 8-1 Decided June 1
2. In Holt v. Hobbs, the court found that Arkansas corrections officials had violated the religious liberty rights of Muslim inmates by forbidding them to grow beards over security concerns. 9-0 Decided Jan. 20https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/major-supreme-court-cases-in-2015.html?_r=1
Given the activist nature and perverseness of the courts and the willingness of judges to impose personal viewpoints, it is highly doubtful now that the Supreme Court has "found" this new right that any legislation will provide real protection. Why? The current decision has ignored the 10th Amendment as well as the court's own decision--see the Courts overturning of DOMA in which the court clearly stated that the regulation of marriage was a state not a federal function--and judges have decided that those voting to amend state constitutions did so in a "discriminatory" manner. News flash! All elections are discriminatory. One party or position always loses and is thus "discriminated" against. Thus, we cannot, with any confidence, hope for legislative relief so long as such false and wicked ideas pervade the judicial system.
I appreciate the analysis about possible effects of the rulings and action going forwards. While Justice Kennedy may not have used the term 'animus' in this ruling, he did so previously with regard to the motivation of opponents of SSM, which I believe was a watershed moment where this issue is concerned. Thanks for the food for thought.
Email (will not be published)
Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.