Preferring Islam

B1-BRUC-Crescent-Fl_c0-1-2000-1166_s561x327“Over the years it’s been disturbing to see an increased effort by the federal government to punish and marginalize Christianity. After all, we know the separation of church and state is meant to keep the federal government from establishing an official state religion; it’s not about eliminating faith from the public square. And yet if you were to look at federal actions since Barack Obama became president, there is a certain trend of promoting and embracing one religion (Islam) while punishing and marginalizing another (Christianity).” Tammy Bruce

A preference for the Muslim faith

President Obama likes the music if not the words

Tammy Bruce, The Washington Times, March 16, 2015, p. 31

Over the years it’s been disturbing to see an increased effort by the federal government to punish and marginalize Christianity. After all, we know the separation of church and state is meant to keep the federal government from establishing an official state religion; it’s not about eliminating faith from the public square. And yet if you were to look at federal actions since Barack Obama became president, there is a certain trend of promoting and embracing one religion (Islam) while punishing and marginalizing another (Christianity).

This week, as an example, we learned from the Daily Caller that an Islamist imam based in Pennsylvania, Egyptian-born Fouad ElBayly, who called for the death of activist and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has received two contracts from the federal government to teach “guidance and leadership” to Muslims in prison.

That’s right. A man who called for the death of a woman for speaking her mind about Islam has received almost $13,000 in tax dollars to “teach” other Muslims in prison. There are numerous Muslims in this country who have not only not called for the death of anyone, but reject Mr. ElBayly’s sort of tripe. Yet they have not been embraced by the federal government and given a paid forum with which to influence a group especially vulnerable to Islamic radicalization.

Strange, no? Continue reading

Defining Marriage

“In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a law defining marriage for the purposes of federal programs as the union of a man and a woman.” National Review

National Review, March 9, 2015, p. 6

In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a law defining mar­riage for the purposes of federal programs as the union of a man and a woman. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, did not bother to specify what part of the Constitution the law violated. Lower federal courts took the decision as their cue to start inval­idating state marriage laws as well. A federal judge in Alabama has just done so. The chief justice of the state supreme court, Roy Moore, said that the ruling did not bind state officials handing out marriage licenses. The judge has been widely con­demned for disobeying the supremacy clause of the Consti­tution, which puts federal law above state law; his defenders note that the Supreme Court has never said this clause makes the decisions of lower federal courts binding on state officials. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is preparing to rule on a case about the constitutionality of traditional marriage laws. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took it upon herself to pronounce that the country is ready for same-sex marriage to become the constitu­tional rule. Almost nobody raised an eyebrow. We already knew which way she leans on the question. We already knew that the process by .which same-sex marriage is triumphing in the courts has nothing to do with the impartial application of law. Apparently it is no longer necessary even to go through the motions of pretending that it does. Spare Judge Moore, and the rest of us, any lectures about the majesty of the law.

U.S. Supreme Court Challenge

“In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U. S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment. And that’s probably not going to turn out well.” Bob Unruh

SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING

‘Scripture attests that perversions violate the law of the land’

Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily.com, April 7, 2015

gay-marriageIn a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment.

The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin.

The Supreme Court is to hear arguments later this month in a case coming from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges said state residents are allowed to define marriage in their state. The appeal to the Supreme Court contends barring same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

Other briefs already have pointed out that marriage existed before any government, law or constitution, so the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to allow people to simply change the definition.

The new brief goes much further.

“Should the court require the states and the people to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the nation,” the brief warns. “Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is ‘defiled,’ the people have been cast out of their homes.”

The brief cites Leviticus 18:22 and 24-30, a biblical passages that seldom finds its way into popular discourse.

Verse 22 states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

And the subsequent section warns against such defilement. Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,317 other followers