#1A, #SCOTUS: Redefining Religious Rites

Sup Court

Conservatives are no longer willing to sit-back & take the left-wing’s War on Christians & Catholics anymore, especially when a protracted war is being waged as genocide against Christians in Syria, and persecution against Coptic Catholics in EgyptThis War on Christians & Catholics has found its way to our shores, and Progressive Democrats have promoted it since the early 1900s

To allow a government, whether state or federal, to infringe upon religious freedom and alter biblical rites (like marriage) is to support and endorse a government-religion. The various religions of faith alone set the policies & standards of their religion. One only need to reflect on the 15th and 17th centuries to understand why government does not control religion.

Only one Christian religion endorses gay marriage*, and with the Supreme Court’s ruling as of late, America is once again faced with the tyranny of minority rule. We are quickly becoming the New Episcopalian States of America, where King George’s government holds itself as the moral authority over all religions, especially those who dare dissent from its opinion.

If government were to reign over religion, what type of religion would its people be forced to follow? A religion that murders its innocent, its most vulnerable and unborn? A government that taxes its people in the name of charity and then uses that money to oppose freedom of conscience & the “free-mind?” One would be wise to reconsider the road that the United States government is travelling under Barack Obama and its many misled states, who are actively redefining religious rites and therefore redefining entire religions.

Can our government mandate its people be baptized? Can our government mandate its people attend confession? Can our government mandate people only consume Kosher food, and receive communion? Can our government mandate citizens be born again? Like marriage, each are considered sacred, biblical rites and each are matters of religious liberty, not civil liberty. 

One need only consider the Catholic Church being forced to close its adoption services in both Massachusetts and Washington DC after the implementation of  government’s gay “marriage laws.” It goes against the laws of nature that two people of the same sex produce offspring and likewise, the Church does not offer adoption services to gay couples.

For standing by the biblical standard of holy matrimony & the natural family, Catholic Charities was forced to close its doors for the first time since they opened in 1727. Caring for “widows & orphans” was the primary reason Catholic Charities began its mission, just like all other Judeo-Christian missions. And like in Massachusetts & in Washington DC, if it can happen to Catholics, it can and will happen to the other Christians too.

The First Amendment states that the government will “make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor abridge the free-exercise thereof.”

Has Catholic Charities had its constitutional rights abridged, or did they not defend their right to exercise their faith before the SUPREME COURT rigorously enough? Putting a Christian religion on trial is never a good idea, and reeks of a dark history.

Freedom of Religion does not only protect one’s ability to worship & pray, but it also protects every citizen’s  ability to “practice” their religion and do so free of government interference. To practice or exercise one’s faith requires action. So, the First Amendment not only protects one’s right to “talk the talk,” but it also protects its citizen’s right to “walk the walk.” To actually live in accordance with their faith in all activities, instead of their lives falling subservient to the whims of a central government.

The Right to Religious Freedom is outlined in the 1st Amendment of our Bill of Rights, which is part of the Charters of Liberty and remain unchangeable. Ratified in 1791 at the urging of the Anti-Federalist (Robert Yates, James Winthrop, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Samuel Bryan, George Mason) the Bill of Rights were derived from the Virginia Declaration of Rights and with it the Statute of Religious Freedom as authored by (surprise) Thomas Jefferson.

The Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government for many reasons, chief among them was a government willing to take away the liberty of the people. What type of central government would turn a blind eye to slavery or allow for it at the state level? It is important to note that Anti-Federalist were not Confederates. To the contrary, they opposed the Articles of Confederation and Constitution because neither document protected personal liberties, which is the main concern of the Bill of Rights promoted by the Anti-Federalists.

“The United States are to be melted down into a despotic empire dominated by ‘well-born aristocrats.’ The new government will become one controlled by the wealthy established families and the culturally refined. The common working people are in danger of being subjugated to the will of an all-powerful authority remote and inaccessible to the people. It is this kind of authority Americans had fought a war against only a few years ago.”

Samuel Bryan

…and thus the Bill of Rights was unanimously adopted into the Constitution. Amendments one through ten became unchangeable, and protect every individual’s natural rights & freedom. You can read the Anti-Federalist Papers

This is also where many libertarians and conservatives part ways. Contrary to popular belief, Jefferson wrote that the Government cannot infringe upon religions because to do so would be violative of the “free mind” that chooses to follow one religion or another. Though some would rather not admit the truth; morality, ethics and religion are necessary qualities of enlightenment. The Founders understood that religious practice is left to one’s own conscience (liberty) and are not to be mandated by government. Religious rites, preference and the ability to practice one’s own faith are not of government domain unless that practice takes “human life, liberty & pursuit of happiness” which are Unalienable, or God-given rights, per the Declaration of Independence.

“The Bill of Rights are sacred rights of mankind and are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human-nature, by the hand of the divinity itself. They can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

— Alexander Hamilton

The-Answer-Is-LincolnThe Father of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln even said “My concern is not whether God be on my side, my greatest concern is that I be on God’s side, for God is always right. No one has the right to do wrong,” which includes taking from one group and giving to another, and in effect, stealing away the God given “free-will” aspect of charity.

Charity is OFFERED of free-will but it becomes a Government TAX when mandatory & people of faith are left with their “choice to give” stolen, along with God’s glory. Recipients of charity then look to the Government for help in their lives, and we all know what type of selfish-guidance the Government promotes when trying to take-over the role of Religion.

Health Care is a social issue, not a Constitutional right. And Obamacare caused premiums to skyrocket, and caused business to freeze hiring. A social issue that is forcing religions into court against the government, is also causing economic demise.

Public Housing is a social issue, not a Constitutional right. But Government-mandated subprime loans were the primary cause of the housing bubble, and the eventual pop of economic demise. A mere social issue was responsible for the Wall Street Crash of 2008.

Education is a social issue, not a Constitutional right. Only since Jimmy Carter was President has the Department of Education existed and since its establishment, education has been an abysmal failure. More and more money is thrown at the Dept of Education despite its corrupt Teachers Union, which has only served to  trap the poor in failing-schools that suffer increasing drop-out rates and plummeting test-scores. Again, a social issue is causing economic demise.

Clearly, social and economic issues are directly linked. So, one cannot be a fiscal conservative alone. It’s an oxymoron. When a person says they are a “fiscal conservative, but social liberal,” they are admitting that they are not conservative at all. Conservatives would no more do away with the 1st Amendment then they would the 2nd, 10th or 14th Amendments.

Below is the Oversight Committee on Religious Freedom, where various leaders of faith testified to the matter here (at 48 minutes below)


The Evils of Socialism and Communism were addressed by Cardinal Fulton Sheen, who under FDR, was not ALLOWED to say on the radio,whoa to those who trust in Russian Cossacks because they are many & in Russian tanks because they are strong. You cannot defeat Satan (National Socialist) using Beelzebub (Communist)”


Economic Impact on Morality & the “Free Mind”

To tax a man for things he disbelieves in is both sinful and abhorrent,” Thomas Jefferson


We the People pay for International abortions here

Obama’s Un-Mexico City Plan via USAID (US Agency For International “un-Development”) here

UNFPA (United Nations “De-Population” Fund ) here

And Coercive Sterilization here

HR 1967 here  “To prohibit funding organizations that support or participate in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

HR 220 here  “Concerning the response of the United States to forced abortion and the coercive one-child policy in the People’s Republic of China, and the resulting ‘gendercide’ of girls in that country.”

Rush Limbaugh regarding the lawsuit against Catholic Charities in Massachusetts here


Aristocrats, Establishment Attack Dogs, Biblical Rites and Equality

The right to vote for women originated from the Suffragettes, who were “Church Ladies” from various religionsPro Life Tea here.  Now religions are being attacked with a false war on women meme, and some on the right are leading the charge.  Here  is Anne Coulter on “Mother Jones.com,” a far-left online website. It is the same Anne Coulter that has repeatedly taken shots at the pro-life Tea Party. Incidentally, the real Mother Jones was a famed labor-union heroin whose husband was a Confederate soldier & resided in Tennessee. She eventually rose all the way to Chicago, bringing along with her the far-left labor platform. It goes to show that it is not North vs South thing, but Right Vs Left.

Anne Coulter was named Go-Proud’s Gay Icon & will serve as their chairperson, no doubt promoting government marriage laws. This explains some of the Anti-Christian bigotry exhibited by the elite during the 2012 GOP Primary, who would do away with the “Laws of Nature’s God,” and selfishly substitute only their preference while dismissing refuting evidence. Theory is not a “Law of Nature.” The notion of a “gay gene” was refuted in the mid 1990s, after it was disclosed that Dr. Hamer—the current scientist of the day—ignored refuting evidence. The testing was again refuted by scientist in Canada who could not verify Hamer’s “experimentation,” even when using a larger control group.

In a recent report by CNN, militant gay activist, Mikey Signorile urges homosexuals to:

Anne Coulter cant be trusted LIFE“Demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to DEBUNK A MYTH and RADICALLY ALTER ARCHAIC INSTITUTIONS.” They should “fight for same-sex marriage and ITS BENEFITS and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to TRANSFORM THE NOTION OF FAMILY entirely.”

Signorile outed the agenda altogether when he admitted the fight was over “benefits.” Money. The whole issue is about selfishness, and for those looking for a government grant.

A militant atheist agenda led to Catholic Charities being forced to end services, with their right to exercise abridged. And like “immoral mandates,” the same fate will visit other religious missions too. Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter, and Matt Drudge ought to know better than to test the people of faith, or their religions.

The government has no place redefining religious rites and ‘transforming’ entire religions. After all, what religion would its people be forced to follow? The best idea maybe to get government out of the marriage business altogether. If the only reason the government is involved in legislating a religious rite is to collect license fees, then it only lends more support for the need of tax reform, sooner rather than later.