https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Category: Church & State

Your tax dollars at work

What do school vouchers mean in this age of Betsy DeVos?

Vouchers for private education are not new to this Administration, but as Trump’s Secretary of Education, De Vos has been pushing those programs like crazy. Public schools, after all, are full of government and unions and even (crazy though it sounds) minorities and poor people and unbelievers. Only by taking tax dollars and turning them over to private educational institutions can good people get the right-thinking education for their successors followers children.

So what sorts of things do kids get to learn at some of the more, um, devout private schools that are paid for by voucher programs?

— How Satan invented “psychology” and “evolution” in the late 1800s in a plot against the growth of Christianity in the United States.

— How women getting the vote led to increasingly un-Biblical behavior in the United States.

— How the Civil War was really a punishment by God of blasphemy and religious cults, and how He made a good thing out of it by causing the South to rise again as the Bible Belt.

Remember, these are lessons being taught from book being bought with your tax dollars, handed over to religious zanies running private schools who are thrilled to have such funding, even as they despise the government that makes it possible.




These Schools Are Teaching Some Truly Insane Things
HuffPost looked into the curricula at Betsy DeVos’s preferred form of education.

View on Google+

When “religious freedom” is “freedom to oppress other religious opinions”

Yes, who is truly surprised that Donald Trump — a man with few truly definable religious opinions — is more than happy to garner political support by nominating a theocratic zany to the federal bench?




“Religious Freedom” Proponent Jeff Mateer Is the Most Dangerous of Trump’s Judicial Nominees
Mateer defends businesses’ right to discriminate against minorities—while opposing laws that protect those minorities’ civil liberties.

View on Google+

Apparently some Christians think Humanity can define God

The state established Lutheran Church in Sweden has asserted that church language in the future should not use terminology that identifies God as being a particular gender.

Conservative Christians go nuts over the news.

To which I say, which is the greater blasphemy?

A. Taking the language of Scripture, written down by men, framed within highly patriarchal bronze age societies, crafted in periods when only men could define the law and women were considered mere chattel property in birth families or marriage, as the actual definition of reality by God.

B. Considering God beyond the bounds of earthly gender or societal gender roles.

I submit that those who choose “A” have something to gain by it. Suggesting that God adheres to anything earthly seems, on the face of it, limiting of the Deity, and therefore blasphemous. And suggesting that anything humans can do would “castrate God” similarly seems to limit the powers of the Deity.




‘Castrating God’: Conservative Christians melt down after Church of Sweden says God not male

View on Google+

On “Thoughts and Prayers” in the aftermath of tragedy

I’ve often heard that the point of prayer is not to invoke a change in reality — a magic spell to cause God to make things all better — but to invoke a change in the pray-er: to clarify needs and wants, to gain inspiration of what to do toward the end being sought, to derive strength for action.

And that comes out, in the Bible, time and time again, particularly in the New Testament, where prayer without action to back it up, prayer for the sake of praying (or, worse, for being seen to be praying), is roundly condemned.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:14-18)

The “thoughts and prayers” of politicians in response to disasters and heartbreak — most visibly of late following mass shootings — are nice to see, but are only meaningful if they are followed up by action. Looking to have the grieving comforted? What are you doing to comfort them? Looking to prevent such things from happening again? What are you doing to stop it?

That’s not to advocate a particular legislative agenda — but, for example, the tragedy of gun deaths has been discussed and debated and lots and lots of ideas have been floated to help address it, from gun regulation to better mental health care to more mental health interventions to better study of the issue to simply coming to accept that piles of bodies are the Moloch-like sacrifice we must make to ensure our freedom. Whatever. This is to advocate grabbing onto one of those agendas, or more than one, and fight for it. Act on it, or be open about your inaction as the wisest course.

Prayer is not a “Get Out of Moral Obligation Free” card. In fact, it’s the precise opposite, because it shows an awareness of a need, and so calls on the pray-er to do something to meet it more than offer up pious thoughts.

 




‘Thoughts and Prayers’ Could Be Exactly What America Needs
Gandhi called prayer “the most potent instrument of action.” But will politicians follow through?

View on Google+

Coming soon to a pulpit near you: “Vote for This Guy”

While it didn’t make a big splash in the initial analysis of the House tax reform bill, one provision in there is interesting and disappointing in both small and large ways.

The GOP bill will repeal the Johnson Amendment which, back in the 1950s, basically said that a church (or other charitable organization) that was enjoying tax-exempt status could not, in turn, engage in political activity in favor of a specific candidate, because the tax exemption was going to support their charitable work, not their partisan politicking.

While the Johnson Amendment is rarely actually invoked by the IRS, it’s been a bugbear for conservative Christians as a suppression of their Religious Freedom. “How can we possibly preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ freely,” they cry, “if we can’t urge all our parishioners every Sunday to vote for Donald Trump?”

(Note: campaigning on behalf of a political candidate is an activity of the Kingdom of Earth, not the Kingdom of Heaven. This is nowhere more apparent than Christian churches supporting Donald Trump. Thus endeth the lesson.)

Of course, this provision in the tax bill will be much more consequential than just allowing even-more-partisan sermons on Sundays. It’s been suggested that repealing the Johnson Amendment will make activist conservative churches the target for massive voter donation money laundering schemes — all of it tax deductible, to boot! — oversight of which will be zealously resisted by conservative Christians who think that they should be able to directly influence the State, but the State shouldn’t have an control over them — even as they sell their heritage for a mess of pottage.




Trump Tax Bill Repeals Limits on Politicking From the Pulpit

View on Google+

Trump, the Right, and “Judeo-Christian Values”

Here’s an examination by Jim Wright of what people mean by the phrase “Judeo-Christian Values” — touted as “under attack” by our President last week — and how extremely slippery a phrase that is to pin down to what it actually means. Slippery, in fact, to the point of ultimately being a sloppy (but expedient) short-hand for “Our Values,” or even “My Values,” which both boil down to “What I think is proper at the moment for you to be doing (so you better do it).”

None of this means that values are unimportant, but the vague call-out to “Judeo-Christian Values” — the assertion that there is a singular list of values unique to all (or even most) Jews and Christians (and that one can even find agreement as to the definition of those particular sectarian labels) — is generally so unclear as to what is being referenced that use of the phrase these days is either deeply ignorant, a nickname for something else, or a disingenuous dogwhistle looking for a tribal response.

View on Google+

Trump panders to theocrats, at the cost of LGBT and Women

Because of course he did.

First off, he expanded the ease of letting companies off the hook for the contraception mandate. “Gee, we’re devoted religiously to not spending money on our female employees to have birth control, because then we can keep their wages down the rest of the time by claiming that they’ll need all this time off for having kids because they keep getting pregnant.”

One new rule offers an exemption to any employer or insurer that objects to covering contraceptive services “based on its sincerely held religious beliefs.” Another regulation offers a new exemption to employers that have “moral convictions” against covering contraceptives.

Because employment is fungible, so anyone who is stuck at an employer who feels their moral stance outweighs the moral stance of their employees can easily just walk out that door and find a job somewhere else, the sluts.

Two rules were issued because just religious objections weren’t enough.

The Trump administration has legal reasons for issuing two rules, one for religious objections and one for moral objections. Most lawsuits attacking the mandate assert that it violates a 1993 law protecting religious liberty. The administration acknowledges that the law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, “does not provide protection for nonreligious, moral conscientious objections.”

But, the administration says, “Congress has a consistent history of supporting conscience protections for moral convictions alongside protections for religious beliefs.”

So my headline misspeaks. It’s not just about theocrats, it’s about anyone who has a moral objection. Of course, anyone can claim a “moral” objection. The line between “moral” and pretty much any other justification or bias or hang-up is a short one. Ultimately, this sets a precedent for saying, “If you don’t agree with something in a law, you can just kinda skip doing it.” That’s probably not the message they want to be sending, but I guarantee it will raise further objections to all sorts of laws, which will get selective support depending on what it is and who else dislikes it.

In passing, the Trump Administration further hand-waves off any idea that contraception might be a medical treatment for certain conditions. But it notes it’s doing the nation a favor by making sex less risk-free.

The new rules also suggest that the contraceptive mandate could promote “risky sexual behavior” among teenagers and young adults.

For a serial philanderer, it seems odd that Trump is so gung-ho now about preventing “risky sexual behavior.” Of course, Trump doesn’t really care about these rules; this is Pence / Sessions territory here. Trump is interested only insofar as it solidifies his paradoxical evangelical base.

Meanwhile, the Justice Dept. made it clear that religious objections would apply to more than just nassssty birth control.

The twin actions, by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department, were meant to carry out a promise issued by President Trump five months ago, when he declared in the Rose Garden that “we will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions quoted those words in issuing guidance to federal agencies and prosecutors, instructing them to take the position in court that workers, employers and organizations may claim broad exemptions from nondiscrimination laws on the basis of religious objections.

Mr. Sessions’s guidance issued on Friday directs federal agencies to review their regulations with an eye to expanding their protections for religious believers. Conservative religious individuals and organizations have objected for years to nondiscrimination laws that have affected whom they can hire and fire, whom they can serve and how they can operate. The new directive affords them far broader latitude.

It’s the “Get Out of Discrimination Laws Free (If You Claim That God Told You It’s Okay To Discriminate)” card. And just the sort of thing that Jeff Sessions (and MIke Pence) salivates over as how the government should work, and how people should be allowed to discriminate willy-nilly (but only the right kind of discrimination).

It’s a sad day, frankly. Conservative religionists (or moralists) have long wanted this kind of protection, without realizing the implications. If someone can fire a person because of religious objections to their behavior, well that may sound great if it’s because they’re dirty homosexuals, or people who have children out of wedlock, or even, maybe, heretics and sinners of a different (or not) faith. What happens when someone says, though, “I have a moral objection to Baptists, because I think they are bad people who discriminate against the innocent, so if I find out one of my employees is Baptist, they’re outta here.” Or perhaps, “I morally consider male circumcision to be child abuse, so I have the right to inquire about any employee with male children, and fire their asses if they’ve done such a thing.”

Those conservatives should remember that discrimination is only a “good” thing when you’re the group in the majority, the group in charge. The demographics do not favor those moral persuasions. Which means their presumptions of being in the majority aren’t necessarily sound ones for long.

Other articles noted or quoted:
— https://nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/trump-birth-control.html
— https://www.thecut.com/2017/10/trump-administration-roll-back-birth-control-mandate.html




Trump Administration Rolls Back Birth Control Mandate – The New York Times
New rules vastly expand religious exemptions from an Obama-era requirement for employers to include birth control coverage in their health insurance plans.

View on Google+

Jeff Sessions says it’s okay to fire transgender workers again

Because of course he did. Probably with a prayer on his lips and a song in his heart.

The U.S. Department of Justice has reversed course on whether federal law banning sex discrimination in the workplace provides protections for transgender employees, saying in a memo that it does not. The memo sent to U.S. Attorneys’ offices on Wednesday by Attorney General Jeff Sessions says Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only prohibits discrimination on the basis of a worker’s biological sex, and not their gender identity.

Sessions rescinded a Justice Department memo from 2014 that said Title VII does protect transgender people, a position also taken by several federal appeals courts in recent years.




U.S. anti-bias law does not protect transgender workers -Justice Dept

View on Google+

AD/BC and CE/BCE

Interesting video looking at the development and adoption of the AD/BC system of counting what year it is, as well as when and how CE/BCE came in to gradually supplant it (particularly in academic circles).

I think it’s more an historian and traditionalist than as a Christian that I find the transition to CE/BCE vaguely annoying, slapping a different label while keeping the same numeric origin point. It feels like political correctness, of the silly variety. Of course, I also don’t buy that the Founders using “A.D.” and “In the Year of Our Lord” on their document dates proves that they were devout Christians. It’s just a traditional label (and a fun retention of Latin in our culture), so it doesn’t particularly bug me.

Of course in a century we may be using the Chinese calendar (or be huddled in the ruins around our lizard dinners, counting the years since the Great Collapse), which will settle that debate in a Gordian fashion.

View on Google+

Cakes, wedding cakes, and special creative efforts

One of the points I’ve heard made about the current SCOTUS wedding cake controversy was that this was no ordinary cake that was being requested, just something “off the shelf,” but a Personal Creative Effort, something that represented some highly individual personal crafting that, if forced to be created, would be a compulsion counter to “Freedom of Speech,” and if vested in a personal religious sentiment, represents a profound violation of “Freedom of Religion.”

But, as this article notes, that’s a disingenuous argument. Any trade can be vested with special, personal effort. The food that restaurant cooks is a personal effort. The decor of that hotel was hand-picked. Heck, even just baking a cake that’s going to get “normal” non-artistic decor can be said to be a labor of love. Any trade, any craft, any job can be said to be a personal, creative expression, a calling to labor well before the Lord (or whomever). “And let the beauty of the LORD our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.” (Ps. 90:17)

This is not to question whether such protestations of creativity and vocational fervor are legitimate, but only to suggest that using them as a basis for overriding public-accommodations protections under civil rights laws is an instant slippery slope — not just for LGBT folk, but for racial minorities, for woman, for religious minorities, for military veterans, for the handicapped, for anyone currently protected by civil rights laws.

If you open your doors of your business to the public, then it is to the public. The religious expression, if any, is in the making, not in how the product is used by the customer. The creativity is in the crafting, not the virtue (known or unknown) of the person purchasing it. The blacksmith who crafted the nails used in the crucifixion was not condemned for it. Any other basis for legality returns us to the darkness of legal discrimination, under the guise of “religious liberty.”

View on Google+

Chaplains! gone! wild!

The military is a microcosm of society as a whole, even with the added layer of discipline and mission. So it shouldn’t be surprising that questions of religious intolerance and excessive zeal — and just plain bigotry — would find their way into the armed services. It’s troubling amongst the enlisted. It’s dangerous when it’s seen in the leadership.

But it’s particularly problematic when it comes from members of the chaplaincy. Chaplains in the military are in an odd role — sponsored by their particular faiths, they are intended to serve the needs of all the troops, not just their coreligionists. They oversee religious services, provide counsel and support. They walk a fine line between their own religious fervor (one wouldn’t expect a someone devoting themselves to such service to be wishy-washy in their faith) and supporting the people and service as a whole.

Proselytizing is dodgy. Condemning the very foundation of unity, of a pluralistic military and society, should be right out.

A U.S. Air Force chaplain who ministers to thousands of men and women at an Ohio base is asserting that Christians in the U.S. Armed Forces “serve Satan” and are “grossly in error” if they support service members’ right to practice other faiths. In an article posted on BarbWire.com three days ago, Captain Sonny Hernandez, an Air Force Reserve chaplain for the 445th Airlift Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, criticized Christian service members who rely on the Constitution “and not Christ.”

He wrote: “Counterfeit Christians in the Armed forces will appeal to the Constitution, and not Christ, and they have no local church home—which means they have no accountability for their souls (Heb. 13:17). This is why so many professing Christian service members will say: We ‘support everyone’s right’ to practice their faith regardless if they worship a god different from ours because the Constitution protects this right.” Hernandez continued: “Christian service members who openly profess and support the rights of Muslims, Buddhists, and all other anti-Christian worldviews to practice their religions—because the language in the Constitution permits—are grossly in error, and deceived.”

For a member of the military to suggest that the Constitution must be subordinated to Christ, or that other faiths are inferior and should not be practiced is, perhaps, theologically sound from Capt. Hernandez perspective, but it’s not an attitude that can be itself be tolerated within the military service of the United States — any more than a fervent evangelical Protestant preacher could be tolerated as the Rabbi of a synagogue: it’s not an assertion as to the correctness of their faith, but their suitability to the position.

I disagree profoundly with Hernandez, but he has ever right, under the Constitution, to hold his opinion. But not to preach it as a member of the US Military. It is destructive to discipline, and a violation of his military oath.

Will he be disciplined? Will he be booted? That’s quite another question.

 




Christians in U.S. Military ‘Serve Satan’ If They Tolerate Other Religions, Air Force Chaplain Says

View on Google+

Churches and FEMA funding of post-hurricane relief

I have no problem with FEMA funds going to assist / reimburse churches that are providing relief and shelter for hurricane victims. That’s the sort of thing that, if the churches weren’t doing it, FEMA or other governmental relief agencies would have to (or it would be left undone).

I have huge problems, however, with the idea using FEMA funds to rebuild church sanctuaries and other aspects of the worship life at places of faith that have been damaged by storms and flooding. There are other ways to do so through SBA loans and other post-hurricane relief, the same as businesses and individual residents. Federal tax money going to restore a place of worship strikes me as a huge overreach with the First Amendment. Even Trinity Lutheran v. Comer was about church facilities that are used for a broadly secular purpose.




Will Trump Direct FEMA to Fund Churches Hit by Harvey? – The Atlantic
The president weighs in on a long-standing debate over using public money to support religious organizations.

View on Google+

Because we need MOAR MONEY in political campaigns!

Various House GOP members are adding in little bits and bobs of campaign finance deregulation into different budget bills, because clearly they think that finding more ways (and more hidden ways) to let people spend their way to political success will favor their party make us all More Free!

Among the featured ideas:

[C]hurches may be able to contribute to candidates without fear of losing their tax-exempt status, furthering President Donald Trump’s promise to “get rid of and totally destroy” a law that forbids such activity.

Yes, what could possibly go wrong with letting churches launder pass on tax-exempt donation directly to political campaigns and candidates. How could that possibly corrupt the political process, or make blur the bounds of church and state (to the detriment of both)?

Remember the reason that churches are tax-exempt because they serve a socially beneficial purpose, in terms of charitable services, and because the power to tax churches could be used to persecute them. The reason is not to let churches as an organization (vs. individual church-goers) donate directly into the political process.

Corporations would be able to ask their employees to donate to unlimited numbers of trade associations’ political action groups instead of limiting employee solicitations to one group per year.

Because companies never, ever strong-arm employees into donating to political causes, and if they solicit for trade association PACs on a regular basis, well, that will just make it harder to detect such shenanigans (with never take place).

Other proposals on the table?

  • Prohibiting the IRS and SEC from regulating corporate political spending. Because since it’s no problem, why have anyone regulating it?
  • Prohibiting the federal government from requiring federal contractors to disclose their political activities and contributions. Because how could federal contractor political donations possibly lead to corruption in how federal contracts are awarded?

Remember, these are the folk who keep saying they are here to “drain the swamp.” From everything I can see here, they simply want to make it deeper.




Republicans tuck new deregulation of campaign financing into House spending bills – MarketWatch

View on Google+

Trump / Sessions Justice Dept. files a brief in favor of anti-gay baker

Because of course they did.

The case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission will be heard before the Supreme Court.

When Phillips designs and creates a custom wedding cake for a specific couple and a specific wedding, he plays an active role in enabling that ritual, and he associates himself with the celebratory message conveyed,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief.

Wall added, “Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights.

With all due respect, Mr. Wall, dragging Phillips in front of the church and forcing him to shout hosannas over the marriage would be forcing him to violate his “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Saying that he has to treat a gay couple the same as any other customers who wander into his shop (and who, one assumes, are not grilled as to the righteousness of their lives) is not.

“I never thought the government would try to take away my freedoms and force me to create something that goes against my morals,” Phillips told Fox News on Thursday.

Mr Phillips, get over yourself. Baking a wedding cake for a gay couple (or a black couple, or a mixed race couple, or a Muslim couple, or …) is not a test of your morality. It’s part and parcel of being a baker.




DOJ files brief on behalf of baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple
The Justice Department on Thursday filed a brief on behalf of the Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on faith-based grounds, in the latest religious freedom case to be considered before the nation’s highest court.

View on Google+

The Mayor of Nashville renounces the “Nashville Statement”

The “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” — an evangelical Christian group — issued their “Nashville Statement” the other day on the heels of their group meeting in Nashville, Tenn.

Nashville’s mayor is not at all happy about the nomenclature.

Among those who rebuked the declaration was Nashville’s mayor, Megan Barry. The “so-called ‘Nashville statement’ is poorly named and does not represent the inclusive values of the city & people of Nashville,” Barry wrote in a tweet Tuesday.

The “Nashville Statement” itself is basically a series of affirmations and denials that boil down to “homosexuality bad, transgenderism bad, marriage between man and woman good, because we think God says so.” Nothing new here, and just what one would expect from an organization founded to reaffirm Biblical gender roles in the home and church and ““to help the church defend against the accommodation of secular feminism”, but it’s nice to see some folk pushing back against being associated with that sort of thing.




Evangelicals’ ‘Nashville Statement’ denouncing same-sex marriage is rebuked by city’s mayor
Nashville Mayor Megan Barry condemned the statement, saying it “does not represent the inclusive values of the city & people of Nashville.”

View on Google+

Mired in the Kingdom of This World

This is a fascinating interview with Terry Heaton, a TV producer who in the 80s and 90s helped get Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network off the ground, building up the 700 Club and all that jazz to become media empires … and deeply entangled with Republican politics. Today, he regrets it.

What’s interesting to me is that this is not a “Guy was in evangelical circles, guy got disillusioned, guy quits God, guy writes a book.” Its partly that (he is, in fact, flogging his new book on the subject), but Heaton hasn’t lost his faith. Instead, he thinks his experience helped him in his belief, by pointing out how easy it is to go from good intentions to less-than-good actions, and to let temporal considerations begin to hold sway over considerations of faith.

Along the way, he talks about Pat Robertson, both his admiration for the man, and where Robertson became a victim of his own success and the need for more.




Former 700 Club producer: “I knew where the line was. But that didn’t stop us.”
Pat Robertson’s former producer Terry Heaton talks The 700 Club, Trump, and turning the Bible “into a self-help manual.”

View on Google+

Dolts in Pious Clothing

People wonder why Christians don’t speak out against people working under the banner of their religion to say crazy things like “God sets up all kings and rulers, therefore we are obliged to follow Donald Trump with no question, because if you question Trump then you question God.”

Consider this speaking out. And rejecting in no uncertain terms Ms White’s and Mr Bakker’s conclusions here, both as bad theology in the abstract and rubbish in application.




Trump’s Spiritual Adviser: Opposition To Trump Is Opposition To God | Right Wing Watch
Right-wing prepper pastor Jim Bakker interviewed televangelist Paula White, who is one of President Trump’s key spiritual advisers, on his television program today, where she declared that opposition to the president is opposition to God …

View on Google+

Apparently God thinks it’s okay for Trump to take out Kim Jong Un

Trump’s bestest evangelical buddy, Robert Jeffress

Well, not that God’s made any divine declaration on the topic, specifically. But Robert Jeffress, a Texas Baptist megachurch pastor and evangelical confidante of the President, is certain that it’s okay.

“When it comes to how we should deal with evildoers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.”

 

But Pastor Jeffress, one might say, what about all that stuff Jesus said love and turning the other cheek? What about Paul’s Letter to the Romans, where, in ch. 12, Paul is quite clear on the subject (bolding mine):

9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. 10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; 11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; 12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; 13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. 14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. 15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. 16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. 17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

No worries, says Jeffress — that only applies to how Christians should act to other Christians. Behaving toward those pagan heathen Commie atheists in North Korea is, presumably, another matter.

Jeffress says that Romans 13 is the key here. Earthly powers and rulers — you know, kings, dictators for life, presidents — are appointed by God, and therefore are allowed to smite the evil (like other national leaders who, we presume, weren’t appointed by God).

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

So if the President says “jump,” you say, “How high, sir?” If the President says, “We’re going to nuke North Korea!” you salute and cheer. Because Trump acts as God’s agent in the world, it appears (though Jeffress believed quite otherwise about Obama), and to deny him and his saber-rattling at North Korea is to deny God.

Is it any wonder Trump likes it when Jeffress is around?

Oklahoma's "admitting privileges" anti-abortion law struck down

Laws that force doctors providing abortions to have admitting privileges in local hospitals are portrayed by their advocates as being designed to "protect women's health." But they are clearly and overtly designed to reduce the places where women (especially in rural areas and conservative areas) can actually get an abortion.

First, outpatient abortions are actually safer, statistically speaking, than outpatient colonoscopies. But nobody's passing laws to require doctors performing in-office colonoscopies to have local admitting privileges.

Second, "admitting privileges" means being able to actually admit a patient to a particular hospital without an admission exam by hospital physicians. But these laws are ostensibly about responding to some dire (and rare) emergency complication from an abortion — and in a medical emergency, patients are seen and treated without the need of a referral by an external doctor with admitting privileges.

SCOTUS this year struck down a similar law in Texas, for that very reason, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court followed that precedent in striking down a state law with that provision.

I have little doubt we will see increasing efforts by state and federal legislatures to do what they can (where so inclined) to restrict abortion rights, and Trump has promised that he'll appoint judges — especially to the Supreme Court — that will support such efforts. Wins like this against disingenuous laws are going to become more difficult, I fear.




Oklahoma abortion restrictions blocked
The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a state law that would have required abortion providers to have special relationships with hospitals, in continuing fallout from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a similar provision in Texas.

View on Google+

You either allow all prayer or no prayer. It's really that simple

The WaPo headline is misleading (as a read of the article shows). The Phoenix City Council has had a long tradition of opening sessions with a prayer. Not surprisingly, those have always tended to be Christian prayers. Someone noted that actually restricting the prayers to Christian groups was a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. A member of the local Satanic Temple applied to get into the queue for the invocation. Rather than allow that, the City Council has voted 5-4 to replace the invocation with a moment of silence.

That's all pretty straight-forward Constitutionality 101. If you are going to have government-sponsored expressions of religious faith, you cannot arbitrarily decide with religions get to make those expressions. That's the sort of thing that's kept the Satanists out … and often the Muslims … and before them the Jews … and before them the Catholics … and the Baptists … and the Quakers … and …

Sadly enough, some Phoenix pols aren't happy with this solution because they think it means the "Satanists" have won against the "Christians" (despite the fact that the Satanic Temple didn't ask for the invocation to be changed to a moment of silence, but did reasonably expect to have their own prayer included as an invocation). Those politicians vow to have a citizen referendum to overturn the decision — which, presumably, will then let the city in for a protracted legal battle that will end in a lot of money being spent and much the same result.

I understand not liking the message from people you don't agree with. But our Constitution explicitly protects us from people's religious or political opinions from being silenced or oppressed. That doesn't just protect the folk at the Satanic Temple; that protects everyone.




How the Satanic Temple forced Phoenix lawmakers to ban public prayer
The issue came down to a controversial vote.

View on Google+