Exposing SPLC as Hate Group


 

John R. Houk

© September 3, 2017

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) got its start during the Civil Rights movement of the ‘70s. In those days the SPLC was a hero for targeting racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Neo-Nazi groups (e.g. Aryans and Skin Heads) and other racist hate groups. Good stuff, right?

 

Well the major victories of the Civil Rights movement at least on legal ground has leveled the playing field in the rule of law. Certainly racism still exists in America, but racial minorities have the law on their side to prevent racial exploitation on an overt basis. The racism that is growing now in the America is largely the result of Left-Wing groups stirring up strife with race-baiting in an effort to gain votes. Leftist race-baiting has been a political instrument for the last couple of decades to hinder traditional American values that began to regain sway with the Presidential Administrations of Reagan, Bush II and now populist Conservatism with the surprise election of President Donald Trump.

 

Since the Left can hardly believe they lost to President Trump, they have done everything to lie, obstruct and manufacture anti-Trump accusations ever since that first Tuesday in November 2016.

 

The SPLC is doing their part for the Left by labeling Biblical Family Values organizations as hate groups. There are several groups on the SPLC so-called hate list that are simply Biblical Christian or telling the truth about Islam that I am not going to name here. The Christian ones of interest to me are the Liberty Counsel (LC), Family Research Council (FRC) and American Family Association (AFA).

 

If I had time I could point out Counterjihad writers and organizations that simply expose the darker nature of Islam that the Left refuses to expose and way too many Conservatives are hesitant to expose out of fear of organizations like the SPLC labeling them Islamophobic haters.

 

For both Christians and Counterjihadists, the SPLC hate-labels are merely to turn the relatively uninformed public against what is correct and moral by calling the good as evil.

 

The Conservapedia entry for the SPLC provides a great synopsis of the organization’s hatred of all things American Patriotic, Christian and Counterjihad in the first couple of paragraphs – READ the entire entry:

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a far-Left legal and activist organization created in 1971 in Montgomery, Alabama. It was founded by trial lawyers Morris Dees and Joe Levin, and its first president was civil rights leader Julian Bond, who would later take control of the NAACP. SPLC supports a wide variety of liberal positions; it is pro-immigration (both legal and illegal), advocates multiculturalism and the homosexual agenda, supports Muslims and racial preferences and defendants’ rights, and advocates against what it considers “hate groups”. In 2012, Black pastors confronted the Southern Poverty Law Center for smearing as “hate groups” pro-family organizations opposed to the homosexual agenda.[1] Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden admonished the SPLC in declaring that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with homosexual perversion.[2]

 

The SPLC’s op-ed writings have appeared in the Communist Party USA‘s newspaper People’s World.[3] This “controversial, liberal organization” [4] has been criticized in mainstream press for being extravagant in its spending, and using charges of racism to stifle conservatives.[5] (Southern Poverty Law Center; Conservapedia; page was last modified on 21 July 2017, at 22:33)

 

The Liberty Counsel has been blistered by the SPLC so often that they have been the subject of multiple hate-accusations trying to discredit and ruin the Christian Family Values advocate organization. It has led Mat Staver to ask for legal defense aid several times a week to battle in civil suit beginning with NGO expert Guidestar that used the SPLC hate-list.

 

An article from 7/2/17 I found on American Civil Rights Union (ACRU not to be confused with Leftist ACLU):

 

Frustrated by its inability to win elections, the left is attempting to silence opponents through intimidation, either in the streets or in the courts.

The latest example is the hijacking of Guidestar USA by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

 

Guidestar is a database of more than 2 million nonprofit and non-governmental (NGO) organizations. It’s considered the foremost authority on nonprofits, and had a self-avowed reputation for “remaining neutral.”

 

That changed when a left-wing activist, Jacob Harold, came aboard in 2012. Mr. Harold, whose bio boasts of donating to the Obama campaign, extensive activism on behalf of climate change groups, and hosting a NARAL Pro-Choice D.C. men’s event, tweeted a photo of himself holding a sign protesting President Trump at the radical Women’s March in January.

 

Apart from Vermont ice cream magnates Ben and Jerry, it might be hard to find a more radically leftist major CEO. So it’s no wonder that Mr. Harold welcomed the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority on “hate groups.” Using SPLC’s “hate map” as a resource, Guidestar smeared 46 organizations, many of them Christian, as “hate groups.”

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a long history of abusing nonprofits and individuals with whom they disagree. They tar innocent people and may have inspired at least two terrorist incidents. The SPLC’s “hate map” lumps Christian and conservative organizations with neo-Nazis, skinheads and other violence-prone groups. … (Silencing the Silencers; By Robert Knight; ACRU; 7/2/17)

 

And from Christianity Today:

 

A venerable Christian ministry based in Fort Lauderdale recently saw its name listed on a CNN map of “all the active hate groups where you live,” as well as in local news reports as the No. 1 hate group in Florida.

 

 

“Enough is enough,” said Frank Wright, president of D. James Kennedy Ministries, which filed a lawsuit against the SPLC on Wednesday. The organization also sued GuideStar and AmazonSmile for their use of the SPLC list.

 

… The SPLC recently received a prominent boost from Apple, which pledged a $1 million donation and will launch a new feature to allow users to donate directly from iTunes.

 

 

D. James Kennedy Ministries—formerly called Truth in Action—claims that the SPLC falsely labeled it as a hate group with the intention to hurt its reputation and fundraising efforts, according to a 39-page lawsuit filed in federal district court in Alabama (where the SPLC is headquartered).

 

The suit alleges that the ministry’s inclusion on the list of hate groups amounts to defamation—spreading false, harmful information—as well as a trademark violation, misrepresenting the ministry in order to drum up fundraising support. Wednesday’s filing made the same claims against the charity-research site GuideStar for promoting the SPLC designation, seeking an injunction against further use of the “hate group” label and damages from both organizations.

 

Wanting to call out “hateful rhetoric” during a “highly politicized moment,” GuideStar recently added the SPLC designations onto its profile pages—including for Christian nonprofits who stand for traditional marriage like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Liberty Counsel, the Family Research Council (FRC), and the American Family Association—then removed the hate labels after backlash in June. The controversy made many of these groups, their leaders, and their supporters even more upset over the prominence of the SPLC’s categorizations. (D. James Kennedy Ministries Sues SPLC over Hate Map; By KATE SHELLNUTT; Christianity Today; 8/24/17 10:20 AM)

 

From WND:

 

 

The case alleges that the defendants — online retailer Amazon, online charity reporting company Guidestar and SPLC — damaged the ministries by creating, publishing and promoting SPLC’s infamous “hate” designations.

 

The hate designations already have prompted a lawsuit by Liberty Counsel against Guidestar. And several organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, have demanded broadcasters retract reports quoting SPLC’s hate designations.

 

The case seeks an award for “special harms from the SPLC” over the groups’ rejection by the AmazonSmile program due to the hate designations.

 

 

“It is the SPLC’s intent that the people who receive the information that SPLC publishes about the ministry will rely on SPLC’s information as fact and will base their charitable giving decisions on that information.”

 

For its part, GuideStar “knowingly accepts defamatory information from the SPLC regarding the ministry and knowingly, intentionally, and purposefully republishes that defamatory information with the intent that the people who receive the republished SPLC information from GuideStar will rely on that information as fact for the purpose of making their charitable giving decsisions [sic].”

 

The case alleges defamation against SPLC and GuideStar: “SPLC’s very purpose for placing the ministry on the Hate Map was to harm the reputation of the ministry as to lower it in the estimation of the community and to deter third persons from associating or dealing with the ministry.”

 

 

Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit that advocates for civil and religious rights, sued GuideStar over its use of SPLC’s “hate” labels, explaining the actions resulted in death threats to employees and other harm.

 

“Liberty Counsel has been forced to provide additional security because of the significant threat that GuideStar’s false and defamatory statement has caused. Violent extremists have relied on the false and defamatory statement to commit acts of terrorism and violence against innocent people who merely happen to hold a different viewpoint on certain issues than GuideStar,” Liberty Counsel said.

 

Liberty Counsel pointed out that SPLC “hate” designations already have been linked to two attempted mass murders: the attack by Corkins on the Washington office of Family Research Council and the shooting attack this summer near the capital that severely injured Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La. (LEFT-WING GROUPS SUED FOR VIOLATING CHRISTIANS’ CIVIL RIGHTS; By BOB UNRUH; WND; 8/22/17 8:39 PM)

 

From Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF):

 

 

SPLC’s word-weapon of choice is “hate.” It uses the H-word to harpoon victims through a “Hate Map” – a cluttered visual surrounded by sobering images such as a “hate-graph” and clenched fist symbols. Percentages purportedly communicating something really serious about “hate” assault the viewer’s senses in size 72 font.

 

The map’s approach is indiscriminate, by design. It mixes the likes of the KKK, “Racist Skinhead(s),” and “Neo-Nazi(s)” with groups holding traditional views of human sexuality. Quaint notions on the meaning of marriage, rooted in longstanding religious beliefs, receive special hostility. Never mind that less than 10 years ago nearly every major political figure in the country, including President Obama, said marriage was a union of one man and one woman. Many of those folks are given a pass, however, because their views on that issue have since “evolved.”

 

But the SPLC dictates – because it says so – that those who failed to evolve (some might say “retained their convictions”) are now the functional equivalent of skinheads. Just picture those scary traditional marriage types, roaming the streets with chains, looking for a good fight. This would be a ludicrous and even laughable attempt at equivalency, if not for the harm it does to people of good will (to say nothing of the damage to public discourse).

 

Fortunately, increasing numbers of independent commentators are calling out the SPLC for its outrageous tactics. But as someone once observed (the author is disputed), “a lie gets halfway around the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” (How the SPLC Uses the Word “Hate” to Silence Dissent; By Joseph Infranco; ADF; 8/21/17)

 

These efforts are beginning to cause a bit of Leftist worry. The American Family Association (AFA) posted this video on Youtube:

 

VIDEO: CNN Backs Down On Hate List

 

 

Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel not only is involved in the civil suit against the SPLC, Guidestar and etc., but they are also publicizing some dirt on the SPLC to demonstrate how nefarious the Leftist organization is:

 

I have some breaking news on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that gives us a window of opportunity to expose the SPLC for what it is — a massive, money-making machine of the radical left that is aggressively targeting pro-faith and pro-family organizations.

 

On Thursday, The Washington Free Beacon exposed the SPLC’s ongoing practice of funneling many millions of dollars into offshore accounts, where it apparently is stockpiling vast sums of money.

+ + Why is the SPLC stockpiling millions overseas?

 

This practice of stockpiling millions of dollars in overseas, unregulated bank accounts is highly unusual for a U.S. non-profit and blows the SPLC’s cover as allegedly being a legitimate, grassroots organization. Instead, as Liberty Counsel has reported, the SPLC is a vast enterprise with hundreds of millions of dollars that is pushing an anti-faith, anti-family agenda that threatens every American’s liberties! Now that the SPLC’s unethical and unregulated “offshore” money has come to light, we must do everything in our power to fight back against their “fake hate” campaign and overcome their outrageous lies once and for all!

 

That’s why I’m asking for your help right now…

 

Over the past few weeks, the SPLC has blatantly “leveraged” the Charlottesville tragedy to expand its “fake hate” campaign. As I have been reporting, this has resulted in an AVALANCHE of attacks against Liberty Counsel and a massive increase in funding to the SPLC from commercial entities like Apple, JP Morgan, and others.

 

 

With this revelation of SPLC offshore bank accounts stockpiling millions of dollars, we must move quickly to expand our efforts to both expose the SPLC’s deceptions and defeat the SPLC’s attacks.

 

 

The SPLC is at the forefront of a very strategic effort to equate Christian and family values with “hate.”  Their attacks have multiplied in recent weeks. But right now, I believe we have a unique opportunity to both expose their lies and defeat the SPLC’s twisted strategy. I can’t do this without your help. Please take a moment right now to consider how you can help. And then go here to make your best possible gift. … (BREAKING: SPLC stashing millions offshore! (Liberty Counsel); By Mat Staver; Liberty Counsel Connect; 9/2/17 7:48 pm)

 

And I leave you with PJ Media piece on the hypocrisy of the SPLC.

 

JRH 9/3/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Southern Poverty Law Center: ‘Our Aim in Life Is to Destroy These Groups, Completely’

 

By TYLER O’NEIL

SEPTEMBER 1, 2017

PJ Media

 

Twitter screenshot of CNN endorsing the SPLC “hate map.”

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has gained traction in recent weeks, but contrary to media reports, the group does not exist to “monitor hate groups” but to destroy groups that it targets for “strictly ideological” reasons. In light of large donations from Apple, J.P. Morgan, and George Clooney, and CNN’s favorable coverage of the SPLC, Americans should learn the real motivations behind this far-left organization.

 

In the words of SPLC former spokesman Mark Potok (who spent 20 years as a senior fellow at the SPLC and only retired this year, according to LinkedIn), the group does not exist to monitor hate groups.

 

“Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate groups, I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them,” Potok declared at an event in Michigan in 2007.

 

VIDEO: Mark Potok Speech 1

 

Posted by Bonnie Bucqueroux

Published on Sep 11, 2007

 

Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center Speaks at the 2007 MIAAHC Hate Crimes Conference

 

Potok reiterated this point at a Vermont school group in 2008. “You are able to destroy these groups sometimes by the things you publish,” he declared. “It’s not so much that they will bring down the police or the federal agents on their head, it’s that you can sometimes so mortally embarrass these groups that they will be destroyed” (emphasis added).

 

The SPLC “mortally embarrasses” groups by equating mainstream conservative, Christian, and other organizations with the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists. Make no mistake, this is not a “hate group monitoring” organization, it’s a far-Left defamation racket that exists to target any group it disagrees with politically.

 

“We see this political struggle,” Potok added in his 2008 Vermont speech. “We’re not trying to change anybody’s mind. We’re trying to wreck the groups. We’re trying to destroy them. Not to send them to prison unfairly or to take their free speech rights away, but as a political matter to destroy them.”

 

In yet another 2008 speech, Potok explained the SPLC criteria for a “hate group.” The spokesman said, “Our criteria for a ‘hate group,’ first of all, have nothing to do with criminality, or violence, or any kind of guess we’re making about ‘this group could be dangerous.’ It’s strictly ideological” (emphasis added).

 

Here’s the criteria: “So we look at a group and we say, ‘Does this group, in its platform statements, or the speeches of its leader or leaders — Does this group say that a whole group of people, by virtue of their group characteristics, is somehow less?”

 

SPLC Warns of ‘Turmoil and Bloodshed’ With New Map Identifying Confederate Monuments, Cities, MIDDLE SCHOOLS

 

The SPLC’s actions have revealed what “group characteristics” means. The “hate group” list  features Christian organizations like D. James Kennedy Ministriesthe Family Research Council (FRC)Liberty Counsel, the American Family Association (AFA), and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), along with other groups like the American College of Pediatricians and the Center for Immigration Studies. It also lists Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz and women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali as “anti-Muslim extremists.”

 

If an organization disagrees with LGBT activism, it is a “hate group,” because in the eyes of the SPLC belief in traditional marriage equates to stigmatizing gay people. If an organization or an individual warns against radical Islamic terrorism, that person or group is “hateful” because in the eyes of the SPLC it has stigmatized all Muslims, even if the person is a Muslim himself.

 

In light of these revelations, it makes sense that D. James Kennedy MinistriesLiberty Counsel, and Maajid Nawaz have each filed defamation lawsuits against the SPLC.

 

The SPLC’s broad definition of a “hate group” is exceedingly important, because this “hate” labeling has inspired at least one terror attack.

 

In the summer of 2012, the SPLC’s “hate map” inspired Floyd Lee Corkins III to break into the Family Research Council (FRC), a Christian nonprofit in Washington, D.C. Corkins aimed to murder everyone in the building, and he later pled guilty to committing an act of terrorism. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

 

During an FBI interrogation, the terrorist said he targeted FRC because it was listed as an “anti-gay group” on the SPLC website.

 

VIDEO: Confessed Terrorist Floyd Corkins Admits to Using SPLC Target List

 

Posted by Polk Sheriff

Published on Apr 16, 2015

 

While the SPLC took no responsibility for their hate map inspiring the FRC shooting and refused to remove the FRC from that hate map, the group did claim that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s political action committee released maps putting Democrats in Congress in crosshairs, inspiring the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az.). PolitiFact rated the SPLC’s claim “false.”

 

Nor was the 2012 attack the only terrorist event involving the SPLC. Earlier this summer, Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson shot people at a Republican Congressional Baseball Game practice, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) Hodgkinson “liked” the SPLC on Facebook.

 

The group had repeatedly tarred Scalise for a speech he gave to a white supremacist group, even after Scalise apologized (and was called a “sellout” by former KKK leader David Duke).

 

This connection to terror is particularly troubling, considering the SPLC’s most recent “hate map” — a diagram showing every single Confederate monument across the United States, which also includes elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. The SPLC warned of “turmoil and bloodshed” should these statues not be taken down.

 

VIDEO: Warning of bloodshed with new map of Confederate monuments

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Aug 31, 2017

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has warned of ‘turmoil’ with new map identifying Confederate monuments, cities and middle schools. But is SPLC also part of the problem? #Tucker

 

The group has also been rather slow to admit fault and remove innocent towns from the “hate map” that inspired the FRC shooting. The SPLC falsely listed the historic Iowa town of Amana Colonies as the home of the notorious white supremacist website Daily Stormer. When challenged, the group argued that Daily Stormer writers had met for a book club in one of the town’s restaurants. The SPLC finally removed the town this week.

 

Muslim Reformer Joins Christians in Suing Far-Left Terror-Linked Organization for “Hate” Defamation

 

In spite of all this, the SPLC has been raking in the cash after the riots in Charlottesville, Va. George Clooney and his wife Amal pledged $1 million to the group, and the company J.P. Morgan pledged $500,000. Apple CEO Tim Cook was even more generous, announcing his company would give $1 million to the SPLC and that it would set up a system in iTunes software to let consumers directly donate to the organization.

 

Earlier this month, Lyft announced it would partner with the SPLC “to provide educational resources for drivers.” MGM Resorts announced that it would match employee contributions to the SPLC dollar-for-dollar. Some companies already follow this policy.

 

According to an analysis by Second Vote provided to PJ Media, companies such as Disney, Kraft Heinz, Charles Schwab, Progressive Insurance, Shell, and Verizon have matched their employees’ small-dollar donations to the SPLC. The big offenders are: Pfizer, which gave the SPLC $8,919.5 in 2013 and 2015 combined; Bank of America, which gave the SPLC $9,310 between 2013 and 2015; and Newman’s Own, which gave the group $50,000 between 2013 and 2015.

 

Each of these contributions pale in comparison to the gifts from George Clooney, J.P. Morgan, and Apple, but they are still noteworthy.

 

To make matters worse, the SPLC does not need any of this money. The group is a cash cow, recording more than $50 million in contributions and $328 million in net assets (according to its 2015 Form 990). The Washington Free Beacon reported multiple transactions to foreign entities, including two cash payments of $2.2 million to funds in the Cayman Islands.

 

CNN broadcast the SPLC’s “hate map” on its website and Twitter account this month (with the FRC still marked on the map). In June, the charity navigation website GuideStar adopted the SPLC “hate group” list, marking each profile of the targeted organizations as a “hate group.” ABC and NBC parroted the SPLC’s “hate group” label against Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) last month.

 

 

 

IT’S ON: Christian Group Sues SPLC and Amazon Over “Hate Group” Designation

 

“The SPLC depicts itself as a big champion of rights, but it’s become a champion of wrongs,” Dan Gainor, vice president of Business and Culture at the Media Research Center, told PJ Media in an email statement. “It is no longer the civil rights era group that many of its supporters believe. It now exists largely to attack groups it doesn’t agree with and to fundraise millions and millions of dollars off of uninformed donors.”

 

Gainor warned that “the media make this far worse by legitimizing the group’s so-called ‘hate list.’ In reality, that list is a bizarre mix of good conservative groups and disturbing fringe organizations. The SPLC sees no difference between a group defending the rights of Christians in court and the Klan.”

 

“The media credential this awful hate group and rarely report that some of the SPLC’s biggest fans are dangerous criminals,” Gainor added. He mentioned Floyd Lee Corkins and James Hodgkinson.

 

Apple, J.P. Morgan, George Clooney, Lyft, MGM Resorts, and any organization that partners with the SPLC should know what it’s getting into.

 

Corporate America should not support a group that exists to tar mainstream organizations as “hate groups,” inciting violence against them. It should not bankroll an organization that targets innocent towns and elementary schools as purveyors of hate. It should not support a “poverty” organization that sends millions of dollars to accounts in the Cayman Islands. Enough is enough.

 

SPLC Backs Down: Removes Innocent Town From ‘Hate Map’

 

__________________

Exposing SPLC as Hate Group

John R. Houk

© September 3, 2017

_________________

Southern Poverty Law Center: ‘Our Aim in Life Is to Destroy These Groups, Completely’

 

Copyright © 2005-2017 PJ Media All Rights Reserved.

 

Religious Freedom in Elementary School


religious-liberty-under-attack

John R. Houk

© December 1, 2016

 

Just the other day I had a conversation with my 3rd grade grandson about his reading regimen. He was trying to squirm out of his daily reading by telling me he forgot to bring his book from school.

 

I told him to get a book from home. He tried to tell me we didn’t have any. I knew better. So I told him we many versions of the Bible to read.

 

He told me his teacher said he couldn’t read religious books.

 

I said, “Tough! Get a Bible. I’m going to have to talk to your Public School teacher about Religious Freedom in the First Amendment.”

 

My wife saved our grandson’s bacon by assigning something I can’t recall right now. BUT it really chapped my hide that a Public School teacher said reading the Bible was unacceptable.

 

It’s a good thing I didn’t fly-off the handle. I checked my email later in the day and had received an email from the 3rd grade teacher. Lo and behold – she was asking why I hadn’t been turning in my grandson’s reading record.

 

Oops, my bad I had not kept up with that. Reading the email further reading suggestions were included. Guess what. Religious literature was a part of the approved reading. Now the word “Bible” was not used specifically, but as far as I am concerned “religious” included the Bible.

 

I wish my grandson was as bright in doing homework as he is in slipping out of homework.

 

I was thinking about all this Religious Freedom vs. the mythical Separation of Church and State (See Also HERE and HERE)and I ran into the article I am cross posting below from United Families International about preserving Religious Freedom for our children or in our case grandchildren that we are raising.

 

JRH 12/1/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

PRESERVING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR OUR CHILDREN

 

By Diane Robertson

November 30, 2016

United Families International

 

This week I received an email from Alliance Defending Freedom, a group of lawyers who defend religious freedom, that began thus:

 

“Dear Diane,

 

Do you ever wonder what the future will look like for your children and grandchildren?

 

We live in a world where religious freedom for future generations cannot be assumed. It must be fought for—every day.”

 

As I have studied the issues, written for UFI, discussed the issues with friends, family, and strangers, and written and spoken with lawmakers, I have often thought, “Have we so little compassion for the destinies of our own children that we can feel just about ignoring the destruction of the freedoms we have enjoyed?”

 

There are so many reasons people give to ignore the current erosion of religious freedom– we are too busy; losing our freedom is inevitable; religious freedom marginalizes people with other beliefs; religion itself is bigoted and old fashioned, and so on. The fight for religious freedom is not a friendly fight.

 

It’s true that those on the side of religious freedom are continually disparaged. They are told that their views are based on bigotry and hate for certain groups of people. It’s hard to stand up against such demeaning accusations. And it is certainly not true for most. Most people fighting for religious freedom do so because they believe that everyone should be allowed to live and work according to the dictates of their conscience. They believe in property rights, freedom of belief, and freedom of conscience. They oppose laws that limit the ability of people to live, work, and worship as they believe.

 

In the same email mentioned above, ADF reported that their:

 

“Clients are regular people who were going about their daily business—work, school, church—until they were confronted by a culture intolerant of their faith. A Christian printer faced a boycott and lawsuit because he politely declined to print t-shirts promoting the local ‘pride’ festival. A decorated firefighter was suspended because of a Christian book he wrote in his spare time. A college student was threatened with expulsion because of her Christian beliefs. A church was told that their house of worship is no longer sacred, but just another public accommodation.”

 

These are a few of the ways religious freedom is eroding in North America. It has hit some individuals hard. There are forces working to establish laws that would limit what churches can do in their buildings and even what religious leaders are allowed to preach. There are forces working to regulate private property as if it were public or government property.

 

To help our children and grandchildren enjoy the same freedoms we have enjoyed, we must study the issues, understand current events, and speak up. Losing our religious freedom is only as inevitable as we allow it to be. If enough people act, freedom can still be preserved for the generations to come.

 

______________

Religious Freedom in Elementary School

John R. Houk

© December 1, 2016

____________________

PRESERVING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR OUR CHILDREN

 

OUR 5-POINT MISSION

Strengthening and defending:

 

Family

Family is the foundational unit of society

 

Marriage

Marriage between a man and woman, is founded on chastity before marriage and fidelity in marriage

 

Life

Life is sacred and should be protected including the life of unborn children.

 

Parents

Parents have the right and obligation to love, protect, provide for and teach their children.

 

Religious Liberty

Religious Liberty emphasizes the right to live our lives according to our religious convictions, and the importance of religion to individuals and society.

Obama’s Path to Perdition


Obamanation 2016 - Save Children

Intro to Justin Smith’s ‘Obama’s Path to Perdition

Edited by John R. Houk

June 2, 2016

 

The Leftist elite, major corporations devoted to the concept of Multicultural Diversity and most of the Mainstream Media (MSM) that they are ramming ungodly transgenderism down the throat of Americans that still express Biblical Christianity as normative rather than aberrant. The thing is Americans have been brainwashed for about fifty years to accept ungodliness as a normalized Rights issue. We Christians do not recognize something that is an ungodly choice as a Civil Right. Unalienable Rights are those that can be traced to the Creator of the heavens, the earth and all that exists.

 

I do realize that choose not to recognize the existence of God Almighty. That Right to choose is the unalienable Right not the choice itself. “Choice” is the Right, not what is chosen – unless what is chosen is godliness. It is a Right to choose ungodliness. Adam was given the inherent Right of Choice when God commanded him NOT to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were deceived into believing a lie above God’s Command. BUT the choice is a free will act guaranteed by God. When freely chooses darkness over God’s Light there is a penalty that must be paid:

 

Genesis 1:1; 2:7, 9, 15-18

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

Chapter 2

 

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 

And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

 

18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” (NKJV)

 

THE LIE and THE PENALTY Chapter 3

 

Genesis 3:1, 4-7, 9-13, 16-19

 

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

 

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

 

Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

 

10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

 

11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

 

12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

 

13 And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

 

16 To the woman He said:

 

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

 

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

 

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.” (NKJV)

 

God said the penalty was death. Did Adam and Eve physically die? No. Does that make God a liar? No. Death in the account of creation is separation from God’s Presence rather than physical death. When God asked, “Where are you?” It was not because the Almighty did not know their location. Rather it was because Adam and Eve died by separation from God’s Presence. Adam’s free will choice of darkness over Light led to his AND Adam’s future descendants’ separation from God’s Presence.

 

Romans 5:12, 15-19

 

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

 

15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

 

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (NKJV)

 

Only choosing Life in Christ restores Humanity to God’s Presence. Transgenderism is choosing to live in Adam’s bad choice of believing lie rather than the Truth of the Creator.

 

If you are a Biblical Christian at least in your belief system, then being told by humanity to accept ungodly lifestyles should rub you the wrong way. THAT is what the Obama Administration is telling you to do! Obama’s Administration, the Leftist Elite, Multiculturalist corporations and the MSM are telling YOU – a believing Biblical Christian – that you must be a bigot for choosing God’s Values over Humanistic Multiculturalist values.

 

Justin Smith addresses how the Obama Administration is forsaking the U.S. Constitution by telling each individual State and individual citizens to believe the Obama darkness way rather than God’s way or face the unrelenting power of the American Executive Branch. THAT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNGODLY and WRONG!

Keep locker rooms safe

JRH 6/2/16

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Obama’s Path to Perdition

A Far Left Delusion

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 5/31/2016 10:31 AM

 

Pursuing a path to perdition in the service of the radical homosexual agenda and on a civil rights pretext, President Obama would have us believe that all Americans, men and women alike, do not have the same rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act, Title VII and Title IX. His May 13th “guidance letter” to the States, regarding transgender people’s use of the bathroom, violates the rights of women and girls, who do not want to be forced to use the restrooms alongside sexually deviant, confused and delusional men wanting to be women. He is conferring rights that do not exist upon the transgendered, granting privilege above all and superseding the rights of Americans, who object to this sexually aberrant behavior being granted “entitlement” status as a matter of one’s sense of common decency and religious conscience.

 

Lawsuits and counter-lawsuits are now flying, since the Department of Justice civil rights lawyer Vanita Gupta [Pertaining to NC HB2], Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Obama administration have sued North Carolina for enacting HB2, which they describe as “facially discriminating against transgender employees.” On May 4th, fifty-one families (Students and Parents for Privacy) filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education, the Justice Dept., AG Lynch and School District 211 in Illinois, in order to stop school officials from “forcing 14 to 17 year old girls to use locker rooms and restrooms with biological males.” And on May 25th, Tennessee joined ten other states in a Texas led suit that defends North Carolina and the States’ Rights to set restroom guidelines without federal interference; at the very least, they want such matters decided by Congress, as the Founders intended, rather than by a despot’s decree aimed at “fundamentally transforming” American culture.

 

AG Lynch compared North Carolina’s HB2 to policies of racial segregation and efforts to deny homosexual couples the “right” to marry in typical illogical and incoherent fashion. She was wrong on multiple levels.

 

Separate bathrooms for men and women are moral and rational, but separate bathrooms for races are not, because one race’s nature is not inherently different from another race’s nature. The same is not true of males and females, who are inherently different from one another, and laws that recognize only sexually complementary unions as marriages are based on the true belief that men and women are different by nature, a truth that even homosexuals recognize.

 

Even though the guidance letter doesn’t change existing law, it does coerce and threaten to withhold federal funds from all States refusing to comply. Education Secretary John King also explained that once a student’s parents notify a school district that the student identifies differently from their birth records, they must be given equal access, even if it makes others uncomfortable.

 

Rodney Cavness, Port Neches-Grove Superintendent of Schools in Texas, said (FoxNews), “When I get that letter, I’ll throw it away.”

 

Title IX reads in part: “… to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex … A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities for … one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for … the other sex.”

 

Focusing on the Far Left’s delusional thinking, Laurie Higgins noted on May 7th, that the lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Thomas More Society, against School District 211, was sparked by a boy’s demand for unrestricted access to change clothes and go to the restroom with only girls, denying actual girls the right to change clothes and go to the restroom with only girls. Higgins countered ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka’s angry words “that they don’t even fundamentally acknowledge our client is a girl,” with a comic and fiery retort of her own: “I regret being so graphic, but Yohnka’s idiotic statement makes it necessary: Girls don’t have penises.”

 

At high noon on May 13th, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange stated:

 

“School bathroom use is an issue that should be decided by parents, teachers and principals — not federal bureaucrats. The DOJ guidance document is also wrong on the law. Title IX allows schools to have separate facilities for separate sexes. The law says ‘sex’, not ‘gender identity’.”

 

Never failing to support Leftist lunacy, the New York Times quoted the one lone girl they could find, 14-year-old Valerie Martinez from Los Angeles, who said, “I’m totally fine with it — it’s who they are.”

 

Certainly there are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of students who are not comfortable sharing restrooms and locker rooms with an opposite-sex transgender student. If “gender-dysphoric” [Secular Humanist – “Gender Dysphoria Symptoms”; Christian Perspective – “Dr. Mark Yarhouse’s Transgenderized Christianity” and “Gender ideology harms children” (very clinical but very Christian Ministry of Parakaleo)] students have the “right” to use the restroom with only those whose gender identity they share, then certainly “non-gender-dysphoric” students have the right to privacy and must be allowed to use the restrooms with only those whose sex they share.

 

In Marion County, Florida, the schools are embroiled in a similar civil rights complaint by the ACLU, but one board member, Nancy Stacy, who believes sex is determined by anatomy and chromosomes, put the matter in proper perspective, when she stated: “It’s easy. Every student that comes to school says ‘I’m Cinderella’ — should we give them a carriage to ride around in?”

 

Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick angrily stated on May 13th: “Parents are not going to send their 14-year old daughters into the shower or bathroom with 14-year old boys. It’s not going to happen … ” (and he has since stated) … “We will not be blackmailed by the president’s 30 pieces of silver.” He also says that Texas is prepared to forfeit billions of dollars rather than let Obama dictate bathroom policy for their five million students. Hopefully, a majority of the States will follow Dan Patrick’s lead.

 

Americans must not allow Obama, the ACLU and sexual deviants to dictate conscience on this matter, denying our unalienable rights and undermining those principles which are the bedrock of freedom and individual rights. We must stop the Dept. of Education from creating an intimidating and hostile environment for our children, and we must protect our children from Obama’s unlawful interpretation of Title IX that shreds their dignity and robs them of their privacy and innocence. Ultimately, we must reject the Far Left LGBT/homoerotic and ACLU vision of a social destiny where every form of sexually aberrant behavior is defined as a personal entitlement.

 

By Justin O Smith

_________________________

Blog Editor: Further Reading (Because the major search engines support Multiculturalism)

 

Black Pastors Say Unequivocally – ‘Transgender Agenda is not Civil Rights’; Christian Action League; 5/27/16

 

Target, Transgenderism, and Transformation; Accuracy in Media; 5/16/16

 

Putting the brakes on ‘fundamental transformation’; One News Now; 5/26/16

 

Feds Bully North Carolina, Cite Inapplicable Laws; Fulcrum7; 5/5/16

 

Parents Sue Obama Over Illinois School’s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Rules; Breitbart.com; 5/5/16

 

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links or text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 7


No Nation Survives without Law

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2014

 

Dougindeap left a comment on the post “The Truth about Separation of Church and State” at NCCR which is a cross post of an Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) brochure that provides reasons for the concept of Separation of Church and State as SCOTUS has set in stone today is and was not a correct interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

 

It is my habit to usually post my perspective on a comment then place the comment below my thoughts. Since Dougindeap divided his comment into eight parts to refute the ADF points. So as I initially began to respond to Dougindeap’s original comment which resulted in various parts with the title “Disputing Separation Church/State” (which as of this writing is up to six parts). You can read an edited version of that comment at the end of my thoughts at SlantRight 2.0 or the NCCR blog. You can read Dougindeap’s unedited comment version at NCCR HERE. I am bucking my typical course and take a valiant effort to briefly take each of Dougindeap’s points to put in my two-cents. I say briefly because I can tell that the six parts of “Disputing Separation Church/State” could go on much longer than I desire to devote to the subject. I have to say something though because I disagree with Dougindeap as much as he disagrees with me. Sadly the slant of the reader’s politics will line the reader with Doug or myself.

 

So here we go.

 

dougindeap commented on The Truth about Separation of Church and State

April 2, 2014 at 8:12 PM

 

[Blog Editor: Dougindeap uses the abbreviation “ALF” when I suspect he was thinking Alliance Defending Freedom which would “ADF”. I mention this for clarity’s sake because we all post comments hurriedly in which typos or missing words occur and not as a criticism of Dougindeap.]

 

Dougindeap:

 

You have succeeded in gathering quite a collection of arguments about separation of church and state, nearly all of which I’ve seen and seen debunked many times. I won’t attempt to touch on every one of the many points, but will take the ALF items one by one.

 

1. While Jefferson’s first use of the term “separation of church and state” may have been in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he hardly was the first to use the term.

 

Certainly Jefferson’s letter had nothing to say about limiting public religious expression. ALF contends against a strawman. No one contends that Jefferson said any such thing.

 

It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views–in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

 

JRH:

 

I believe Dougindeap has correctly expressed the meaning of the First Amendment until he gets to the part I took the liberty to highlight with bold print.

 

When Doug says the government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, he is correct to the extent those individuals are under the direct mandate of the government. The problem is the Left Wing assumption that all instruments of the government are representative of the Federal government. THIS WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL INTENT of the First Amendment.

 

The Bill of Rights which are actually the first ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution provides an intent that must apply to the First Amendment as enumerated in the Tenth Amendment:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Just as Doug points out the First Amendment prevents the U.S. Congress to establish a State Church or to make any laws that prohibits the free exercise of religion. The Tenth Amendment brings specificity in that the State government or “the people” (implying local government such as Counties or cities) can define how individuals working as instruments of government are defined on the State and Local level. Hence the Federal government did not end Established Churches on the State level. The States individually disestablished State Churches as it became obvious the State Established Churches were slipping into the minority among Christian denominations in the various States. Ironically Massachusetts one of the most Liberal States in the American Union today was the last State to disestablish their State Church in the 1833. States’ Rights ended the Established Church in the USA and not the enforcement of the Federal government. In the same manner of Original Intent each State has the power of the law to limit or encourage government instruments such as employees from sharing their individual faith.

 

Dougindeap:

 

2. Justice Hugo Black was not the first to “insert” separation of church and state into American jurisprudence. Not by a long shot. A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court first used that term in 1878 in Reynolds v. United States, where it quoted Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists while interpreting the First Amendment.

 

JRH:

 

In Reynolds v. United States Dougindeap fails to mention the reason for the unanimity of SCOTUS in the 1878 religious Liberty case before them. George Reynolds a citizen of the then Territory of Utah was a Mormon that married more than one wife. Reynolds was convicted of bigamy. Reynolds demanded his First Amendment rights of Religious Liberty. The 1878 SCOTUS officially was more concerned about social norms than Religious Freedom. In Christian America in 1878 bigamy was not only illegal it was also a heinous sin. The reality of the 1878 SCOTUS decision was upholding traditional Christian values over the cult of Mormonism (Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints). Mormons then and now believe in the supremacy of the Book of Mormon and certain so-called Mormon prophetic pronouncements (Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) over the traditional Christian values of the Holy Bible. SCOTUS upheld the conviction of George Reynolds in 1878 unanimously. I have no doubts Mormons consider themselves Christians however their theology is so divergent from the orthodox practices of Christianity an intelligent evaluation even today would come to the conclusion Mormonism at best is its own religion and at worst a cult spin-off Christianity. It should be noted the powers that be in Mormonism had the remarkable revelation that marriage is between one man and one woman in order for the Utah Territory could become the sovereign State of Utah in 1890.

 

As to the 1878 SCOTUS unanimous opinion referencing the Jefferson to Danbury Baptists letter WallBuilders provides the actual intent of that Court opinion:

 

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

 

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added)[12]

 

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

 

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]

 

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

 

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. (Excerpted from – The Separation of Church and State; By David Barton; WallBuilders.com; January 2001)

 

Dougindeap:

 

3. First, ALF tries to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.

 

Second, it is ALF that has confused its history. Contrary to its assertion, Justice Black did not write that the Danbury letter may be accepted “almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.” Rather Chief Justice Waite wrote that in Reynolds v. United States. Black, moreover, did not repeat that statement in Everson.

 

Finally, the further notion, suggested by ALF and advanced by some, that the Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutional separation of church and state in Everson is all Justice Black’s doing is laughable. It bears noting that all nine justices in the Everson case read the Constitution to call for separation of church and state, and indeed all of the parties and all of the amici curiae (including the National Council of Catholic Men and National Council of Catholic Women) did as well; no one disputed the principle, they differed only in how it should be applied in the circumstances of the case.

 

JRH:

 

Actually Hugo Black equally emphasized Jefferson and Madison together. Doug fails to mention that Black’s Majority Opinion included both Jefferson and Madison’s efforts on a State level in Virginia to disestablish any Church to receive tax support because such taxation would be discriminatory toward non-established Christian denominations. Hence Jefferson and Madison were not arguing the removal of recognized Christian Morality but rather the removal of taxpayers’ paying the salary of a State established Clergy. AND so yes, Hugo Black misappropriated the work of Jefferson and Madison use of a States’ Rights issue to apply to Federal authority. Hugo Black attempts to solidify the Church/State separation by adopting Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. How did Black connect a States’ Rights issue to Federal authority? Then Black used the presumption that the Fourteenth Amendment which officially ended Slavery in all the States by Federal rule of law, then by extension Black presumed the Fourteenth Amendment nullified the Tenth Amendment which in turn pertained to individual State sovereignty bowing to the will of the Judicial and Executive branches of government. This interpretation had the effect to keep the influence of Christianity outside the scope of State level and local level government parameters in the rule of law.

 

Dougindeap:

 

4. That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

 

Contrary to ALF’s supposition, separation of church and state rests on much more than just the First Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

 

JRH:

 

Doug mistakenly equates the lack of the words “Wall of Separation of Church and State” in the Constitute is the same as other civics terms not being the Constitution such as “Bill of Rights, separation of powers (i.e. in branches of government), checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty” and so on. The reason Doug is mistaken because all those other terms are specifically spelled out in the Constitution BUT the term “Wall of Separation of Church and State” is not spelled out AT ALL The First Amendment ONLY spells out that Congress cannot make a law to Establish a State Church and that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

 

Dougindeap:

 

5. While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

 

JRH:

 

Dougindeap quotes James Madison’s first writing of a proposed First Amendment: “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”. I suspect Doug is implying Madison’s influence spoke for all the Congressmen in constructing religious freedom as imputed by Federal government authority en toto as opposed to States’ Rights. That is DEFINITELY not the case because of House deliberation the First Amendment’s form ratified as law is what was sent to the States for ratification. Hence States’ Rights coupled with the Tenth Amendment became the actual Original Intent of the First Amendment which included the individual States upholding the primacy of the values of the Christian religion by which all Denominations upheld regardless of varying theological dogma.

 

Since the Declaration of Independence led to the Articles of Confederation which were then superseded by the U.S. Constitution in 1789 shows that the Founding Fathers bowed to the will of ‘We the People’ in the promotion of the very least the promotion of Christianity as what will maintain the general welfare of the people of the new USA.

 

Here’s an abbreviated list of the Continental Congress pushing Christian Morals and Values for the General Welfare (1774 – 1789):

 

1. Congress’ First Act: A Resolution to Pray – September 6, 1774

 

2. Congress Ordered Purchase and Printing of Bibles – September 11, 1777

 

3. Congress Expressly Promoted Religion – October 12, 1778:

 

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness: Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.

 

4. The Declaration of Independence – formally adopted it on July 4, 1776, and signed it August 2, 1776. The Declaration directly appeals to God at least four times

 

5. Congress Appointed Days Of Prayer, Thanksgiving, and Repentance – In the approximately fifteen years of its existence, the Continental Congress approved at least fifteen proclamations calling on the states to appoint days of special worship or honor to God. Dates enumerated from 1777 through 1787.

 

The above lists remarkable does not contain the Northwest Ordinance enacted by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation July 13, 1787. The legislation has 14 Sections and the Fourteenth Section has Six Articles. The purpose for the Northwest Ordinance was to establish a Central government rule of law for expansion westward from the Original 13 States and a method of admitting new sovereign States to the United States of America (then under the Articles of Confederation). Christianity and Religious Freedom combined are expressly part of the designs of the Northwest Ordinance.

 

Sec. 13. And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest: (Bold emphasis Blog Editor’s)

 

Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:

 

Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

 

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. …

 

The two bills James Madison vetoed was done correctly. The bills’ goals were to Establish the Episcopalian Church in the city of Alexandria within the District of Columbia and provide public funds to buy land for a Church in the Territory of Mississippi. On a Federal basis the First Amendment specifically states that Congress can make no law establishing a Church. AGAIN this has nothing to do with the laws enumerated to the several States not in the U.S. Constitution (Tenth Amendment).

 

My above thoughts on the history of the Courts and Church Establishment already refute the Doug’s claim that Church/State Separation issues is “hardly a new invention of modern courts.”

 

Dougindeap:

 

6. Dreisbach’s fundamental error is his largely unspoken and unexamined presumption that the Constitution’s separation of church and state is merely a First Amendment textual matter. As noted above, however, it is rather a bedrock principle of our Constitution, resting on much more than the First Amendment.

 

JRH:

 

Already proved this line of thinking is in error by Dougindeap.

 

Dougindeap:

 

7. The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

 

Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

 

JRH:

 

The only contention I can agree with Dougindeap is that the First Amendment prevents the Federal Congress from Establishing a State Church and that the Federal Congress cannot enact laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Everything else not forbidden by the U.S. Constitution is the purview of each State in the Union of the United States of America. The tiny url posted by Doug does not work or at least not in my Chrome or Internet Explorer browsers. When I Googled ‘Wake Forest Q&A primer on Separation of Church and State’ I discovered Dougindeap has been posting link since at least 2010. I can find no such document online from Wake Forest. Perhaps the closest thing I can find is a PDF document entitled, “Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law”. I found two links for this document: One by Wake Forest and another posted on the Anti-Defamation League website but both are the same document. Both documents are dated January 2010. The document is a collective work by a bunch of people that are on opposite sides of the Church/State Separation issues. The document is anything but definitive. The closest section talking about the First Amendment and Church Establishment is Chapter Two of the roughly 32 page document with End Notes longer if you include acknowledgements by Wake Forest’s (at least then) Director of Wake Forest University Divinity School and the Center for Religion and Public Affairs. The Chapter Two title is “Is the First Amendment the only constitutional or legal provision that affects these issues?

 

Chapter Two clearly expresses the First Amendment is functional as a Federal law in which there is a large degree of discretion on the State level of law in which the First Amendment does not address.

 

In connection to this PDF document (Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law), the “diverse” committee that truly consisted of representation of both sides of the political spectrum on Church/State issues was led by Melissa Rogers as the Director of Wake Forest University Divinity School’s Center for Religion and Public Affairs during the PDF document’s 2010 publication. Melissa Rogers is hardly neutral a person that looks equally on both sides of the coin on Church/State issues. Rogers is a downright and overt proponent of the revisionist Left Wingers choosing to exclude the merits of Original Intent of the Constitution in relation to the opinions of the Founders on how Christianity effects the general welfare of a good society. Even the Founding Fathers in James Madison (See also HERE) and Thomas Jefferson that were closer to the secularist Enlightenment discrediting of orthodox theology of Christianity agreed that Christian Morals and Values promoted a good society.

 

Dougindeap:

 

8. While some, including myself, grow tired of the semantic wrangling over the phrase commonly used to describe or name one of the Constitution’s fundamental principles, that principle—by whatever name—remains central and essential to the Constitution and our way of life.

           

JRH:

 

Doug says he is getting weary of wrangling that Separation of Church and State is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. I myself am frustrated about Leftists trying so hard to prevent the historical nature of Christianity of being such a huge influence on the development of our nation. It is my belief that the Leftist efforts at historical revisionism is to transform America into a society that abandons Christianity as a Moral Foundation. Then replace Christianity with a Secular Humanist perspective as a foundation for societal morality. Such a humanist morality places the created on a pedestal above the Creator. No matter how lofty the ideals of man being inherently good, actual history shows that man is inherently evil. That inherent evil exists in human nature because God’s first created human being – Adam – betrayed God the Creator by agreeing with the serpent Satan and partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why did Adam consume the fruit? Satan told Eve, who Adam did not rebuke, believed the serpent that the fruit would make her and Adam like God knowing the difference between good and evil. Adam’s act of disobedience of God voluntarily sold his nature to the dominion of Satan. Since Adam was made the perpetual steward of God’s created Earth. That meant the earth also came under Satan’s control. Adam’s disobedience led to the punishment of being separated from God which is spiritual death. Humanity and Earth became cursed to a Fallen nature explaining an inherent evil nature. The inherent evil nature of man will inevitably lead to unwholesome if not downright wicked choices in which selfish desires overrule the general welfare of humanity.

 

The good news for humanity God the Creator promised a way out for Adam choosing Satan’s lie as truth rather than God’s holy union.

 

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:

 

“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel
.” (Bold Emphasis Blog Editor – Genesis 3: 14-15 NKJV
)

 

Verse 15 is God’s first Promise of a Redeemer to bring humanity back into right standing with God Almighty. Then and only then will humanity not need laws of a government to curb the inclination of a Fallen human nature. Secular Humanism is wrong, humanity is not essentially good.

 

JRH 4/5/14

Please Support NCCR

The Truth about Separation of Church and State


1st Amendment

 

I have been several parts of a series entitled Disputing Separation Church/State (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). As of this writing I am up to Part Six and there is more to come. In doing the reading for these posts I came across a PDF designed as a brochure to dispute the Leftist influence that has move American Courts to stretch the interpretation of the First Amendment beyond the scope of its original intent. As I said I am still continuing my series on the subject; however below is an excellent to the point and relatively brief synopsis of reasons the present exploitation of the rule of law pertaining to the separation of Church and State is not a legal concept in the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/31/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************

The Truth about Separation of Church and State

Contrary to popular opinion, the term “separation of church and state” is found nowhere in the United States Constitution.

 

From PDF Brochure:

Alliance Defending Freedom

 

While the First Amendment clearly forbids the creation of a national denomination, it says nothing about the so-called “separation of church and state.”

 

§  The term “separation of church and state” was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1801, when he responded to their concerns about state involvement in religion. Jefferson’s letter had nothing to say about limiting public religious expression, but dealt with government’s interference in the public expression of faith.

 

 

§  It was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who first inserted the term “separation of church and state” into American jurisprudence in his majority opinion of Everson v. Board of Education (1947). He wrote: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

 

 

§  Black’s opinion was based on a previous misreading of Jefferson’s 1801 letter in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States (1878). Black also confused his history. In the opinion, he wrote that the Danbury letter was “almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment.”

 

 

§  The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” No mention is made of a “wall between church and state.”

 

 

§  The true purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from establishing a national church, like the Church of England, or require that sectarian policy be forced on an individual state or on the federal government. While the amendment does recognize a “differentiation between church and the government, it does not mean that they could not cooperate with each other.”

 

 

§  In 2001, Daniel Dreisbach, Associate Professor of Justice, Law and Society at American University, wrote that Black was wrong to apply the term “separation of church and state” to the First Amendment. The danger of Black’s argument, according to Dreisbach, is that it gives constitutional reasons to “separate religion, religious values, and religious organizations from public life.” He continues: “If we can’t talk about religion in any meaningful way in public schools, religious citizens can’t communicate their faith in public life. [The public square] must be ‘sanitized’ of religious messages, and we are left with a strictly secular public life.”

 

 

§  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allies, along with other groups hostile to religious freedom, have used Black’s wording to:

 

o   Deny churches the right to rent public school facilities for Sunday worship services.

 

o   Have public displays of the Ten Commandments removed from public buildings.

 

o   Prohibit students from praying at graduation ceremonies or football games.

 

o   Threaten fixed income housing project residents with eviction for displaying signs about prayer in their apartment windows.

 

o   Tell an eight-year-old girl that she cannot pass out handmade Valentines that read “Jesus Loves You.”

 

o   Tell pastors that they do not have the right to speak freely from their pulpits applying Scripture and church teaching to candidates and elections.

 

 

§  In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in ruling in favor of a public display of the Ten Commandments, wrote: “The ACLU’s argument contains…fundamental flaws… [It] makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

 

 

For almost four decades, the ACLU’s distortion of the “separation of church and state” went nearly unchallenged. Since 1994, Alliance Defending Freedom has taken the ACLU and its allies head-on to expose this distortion and restore the original intent of U.S. Constitution with regard to religious freedom. Since its inception, Alliance Defending Freedom has helped to win many groundbreaking cases in defense of religious freedom and expression. The result is that the so-called “wall of separation,” erected by Hugo Black and others, is slowly starting to crumble. With your prayers and support, Alliance Defending Freedom will continue to tear down the “wall of separation.”

_______________________________

About – ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: FOR FAITH. FOR JUSTICE.

 

Alliance Defending Freedom is a servant ministry building an alliance to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.

 

Recognizing the need for a strong, coordinated legal defense against growing attacks on religious freedom, more than 30 prominent Christian leaders launched Alliance Defending Freedom in 1994. Over the past 18 years, this unique legal ministry has brought together thousands of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations that work tirelessly to advocate for the right of people to freely live out their faith in America and around the world.

 

Building an Alliance for Victory

 

Unlike any other legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to empower its allies and READ THE REST