Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for October 12th, 2011

Obama Administration Attacks Church At SCOTUS

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/10/12

The Obama Administration has decided it can tell a Protestant Church which doctrine it is allowed to enforce. The case is now before the US Supreme Court. Tina Korbe has the background information.

In the early 2000s, Cheryl Perich was a “called teacher” or “commissioned minister” at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich. As such, she taught religious classes, led students in prayer and incorporated religious teachings into secular subjects like math, science, social studies and art.

But in 2004, she was diagnosed with narcolepsy and became unable to teach the fall semester that year. When she failed to return to school in January 2005, the school hired a replacement teacher. The school wanted to “peacefully release” Perich from her “call,” but Perich demanded she be reinstated — and threatened to sue the school if she wasn’t. It was that threat of a lawsuit — not Perich’s narcolepsy — that led the congregation to “rescind her call” (i.e. fire her). Apparently, it’s against church teaching to take an internal dispute of that sort to the secular courts.

Indeed it is against Lutheran Doctrine to sue the Church in secular courts. Flyfisher provided Bible reference material backing up the Doctrine in the comment section.

1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Lawsuits Among Believers

1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

Matthew 18:15-17

A Brother Who Sins Against You

15 “If your brother sins against you,[b] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

So the Lutheran Church is doing something extraordinary and unusual as far as the Obama Administration is concerned: basing its no-lawsuit doctrine on the Bible — something Jeremiah Wright never deigned to do. But even if the Church’s doctrine is not Bible-based — as Jeremiah Wright’s is not — the Supreme Law of the Land (for you Liberals reading this, that would be the US Constitution and not the Obama Administration) is very clear on this point.

First Amendment (first part)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]

That means the Church has the right to govern itself by its own doctrine and the US Government has no jurisdiction. Period. If you don’t like the Church doctrine, you’re free to find another Church or abstain from Church altogether. The government does not have the right to dictate to the Church which doctrine it can mandate and which doctrine it cannot.

Thomas Peters at CatholicVote.org links to the Washington Examiner for some of the details of the oral hearings. As Mr Peters rightly says, the Obama Administration’s arguments and attempts at destroying religious freedom are simply breathtaking.

The justices then rejected the argument of Leondra Kruger, Obama’s lawyer for the EEOC, who argued that there’s no ministerial exception in the Constitution, only the same rights that secular organizations possess to choose their own affiliations.

At this, Scalia exploded. “That’s extraordinary! There, black on white in the text of the Constitution, are special protections for religion. And you say it makes no difference?”

Kagan agreed with Scalia’s rejection of the argument that the First Amendment doesn’t protect churches from government ordering who they should hire as pastor or priest.

Justice Samuel Alito (a Catholic) made a critical point, asking if a Catholic priest married and the church removed him from ministry for violating Catholic doctrine, could the EEOC order him reinstated.

When Kruger answered no, Alito replied that EEOC was making a judgment that certain teachings — such as the Catholic belief that priests must be celibate — are more important than the Lutheran doctrine that ministers cannot sue the church.

Chief Justice John Roberts (also Catholic) agreed, saying, “You’re making a judgment about how important a particular religious belief is to a church.” Government cannot make such theological judgments.

Where, praytell, are all the Constitutional Scholars in the Obama Administration? Oh, right. Better question: Are there any “Constitutional Scholars” in the Obama Administration, including the Chief Executive Officer of the Obama Administration, who have actually, you know, READ the US Constituion? Another question: Is there any part of the US Constitution the Obama Administration is not willing to violate?

This is beyond the point of “old and wearisome” at this stage of the game.

Posted in Character, Christianity, Constitution, Elections, Law, Liberal, Obama, Over-regulation, Philosophy, politics, Religion, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Yet another lie from President Obama’s re-election campaign

Posted by Dana Pico on 2011/10/12

I received this e-mail from Jim Messina, President Obama’s campaign manager, under the title, “President Obama: ‘I will not take no for an answer'”:

Dana —

Last night, the American Jobs Act was filibustered by Senate Republicans. There was no vote on the actual bill.

But it would have succeeded: the American Jobs Act has at least 51 votes — a clear majority — to pass the Senate. And a new poll shows that 63 percent of Americans support it, too.

Today the President recorded a message he wants you to see, laying out where we go from here in the fight for jobs.

Watch President Obama’s video — and pass it on to anyone you think should see it.

The Republicans who voted yesterday to block this bill weren’t thinking about middle-class families. In fact, at last night’s GOP debate, one of their leading candidates actually refused to say he’d extend a payroll tax cut that puts more than $1,000 in the pockets of everyday working Americans.

They might believe it’s in their political interest to oppose whatever the President proposes for the next 13 months, but we know that when it comes to jobs and restoring economic security, Americans can’t afford to wait.

The American Jobs Act would get to work now, providing incentives for businesses to hire unemployed veterans, helping hire tens of thousands of teachers, cops, and firefighters, and rebuilding and modernizing our schools, railways, bridges, and airports. Even though it’s fully paid for and made up of proposals both parties have supported, Republicans yesterday said no.

Now the President wants you to hear directly from him about what’s next.

Watch the video — and make sure your friends do, too:

http://my.barackobama.com/President-on-Jobs

Thanks,

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Paid for by Obama for America

Now, let’s look at Mr Messina’s claim that “it would have succeeded: the American Jobs Act has at least 51 votes — a clear majority — to pass the Senate.” The New York Times story on the defeat of the bill noted that three Democrats voted against it: Senators Ben Nelson (D-NB) and Jon Tester (D-MT), described by the Times as “two moderate Democrats facing difficult re-election campaigns,” voted against it, as did Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who changed his vote from yea to nay as a parliamentary maneuver, to allow him to call for a reconsideration at a later time.

So, with 47 Republicans voting against the bill, and joined by two Democrats, that gives Mr Messina his 51 votes, right?

Wrong! If you read further in the Times’ article¹, you’ll find:

Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, voted to take up the jobs bill, but said that he opposed the measure itself.

OK, now we’re down to 50 votes for the bill, assuming all other Democrats vote for it, and with Vice President Biden to break the 50-50 tie, the bill would pass.

Except, the next two paragraphs tell you:

Senator Joe Manchin III, a West Virginia Democrat who had expressed reservations about the bill, also voted to begin debate and to end what he described as a Republican filibuster.

“But let there be no mistake,” Mr. Manchin said, “if this bill does not change, if it is not improved, if it is not more focused on job creation and more fiscally responsible, I will strongly oppose final passage.”

Now we’re down to 49 votes for the bill, and 51 opposed. The honorable Mr Messina knew this, but he chose to deliberately lie to us and say that there were “at least 51 votes — a clear majority — to pass (the bill in) the Senate.”

Let me stress that again: President Obama’s campaign manager deliberately lied to us. I can’t say that I am surprised in the least.

Of course, the entire process was nothing but a political ploy. The Constitution of the United States specifies:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.²

The Senate bill includes in it provisions to raise revenue, which means, to pass constitutional muster, it would have to have originated in and been passed by the House of Representatives, which was not the case. The President and the Democrats knew that the bill would never pass the Republican-controlled House, and never make it to the Senate. But they were not really interested in passing the bill; all they wanted was a political opportunity to castigate the Republicans, to say that they blocked the will of the majority.

So, once again, the Democrats lied to us. I wish I could say that I am surprised, but I’m really not.
_______________________
¹ – You’ll have to go to the second page to find this information.
² – The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 7.
_______________________
Cross posted on Common Sense Political Thought.

Posted in Obama, Tax, truth | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: