abortion

FOR THE SAKE OF TOLERANCE, ARE WE WITNESSING A MORE ANTI-CHRISTIAN GOVERNMENT?

Posted on

The Denver City Council is stalling consideration of allowing Chick-fil-A, an openly Christian based company, to open a location at Denver International Airport due to comments made by company CEO-Dan Cathy about his opposition to the LGBT community and his beliefs as a Christian, as well as the companies donations made to charitable groups opposing LGBT causes.

 

https://i2.wp.com/barbwire.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/christian-intolerance.jpg

 

This is an absolute violation of the First Amendment as it pertains not only to freedom of religion and belief, but freedom of speech; it is a direct prejudicial and discriminatory attack on a business because of their religious (Christian) stance.

 


 

Freedom of Belief

The First Amendment does not expressly speak in terms of liberty to hold such beliefs as one chooses, but in both the religion and the expression clauses, it is clear, liberty of belief is the foundation of the liberty to practice what religion one chooses and to express oneself as one chooses. 169”If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” 170 Speaking in the context of religious freedom, the Court at one point said that while the freedom to act on one’s beliefs could be limited, the freedom to believe what one will ”is absolute.”


 

Despite ardent assurances from the concessionaires — who have operated other DIA restaurants — that strict nondiscrimination policies will include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Councilman Paul Lopez called opposition to the chain at DIA “really, truly a moral issue on the city.” Robin Kniech, the council’s first openly gay member, said she was most worried about a local franchise generating “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.” She was first to raise issue with Chick-fil-A leaders’ politics.

 

While the Denver City Council delays its decision over whether to allow Chick-Fil-A to operate a business in its airport because of its “Christian values”, the city has become a hotbed of debate across America due to the recent undercover footage shot at a Denver Planned Parenthood clinic. At the center of the debate are questions about Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices and the harvesting of human organs for profit. Congress is currently scheduled to vote as early as next week on whether to pull federal funding from the nonprofit, while several states have already taken it upon themselves to pull their state dollars from the corporate health giant. Colorado Democrats recently voted down a bill that would’ve defunded Planned Parenthood in their state.

 

Are the same concerns over corporate profits being used to fund or fuel racial hate groups, radical terrorist groups, or other such organizations, being raised by governmental officials when considering other such businesses? What about those companies and corporations that openly contribute to groups like Planned Parenthood, which has recently come under Congressional investigation after videos of PP corporate CEO’s and others were released showing a blatant disregard for not only the law as it pertains to abortion practices, but a vile apathy for the babies as well? Perhaps Colorado views the rights of the LGBT community to be more important than those of an unborn child?

 

Colorado isn’t alone when it comes to what appears to be an unwritten “anti-Christian” stance. City leaders in Chicago attempted to block a new Chick-fil-A location for similar reasons three years ago, ultimately backing down after reaching an agreement with the chain. Mayors in both Boston and San Francisco vowed to fend off any foray by Chick-fil-A into those cities as well. It appears that if a Christian business owner wants to setup shop in any of these locations, it is best to keep your Christian beliefs to yourself.

 

 

Footnotes:

[Footnote 169] West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 -04 (1940); United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961); American Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 408 (1950); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 132 (1966); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958); Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1, 5 -6 (1971), and id. at 9-10 (Justice Stewart concurring). – See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation11.html/#f169
[Footnote 170] West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943) – See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation11.html/#f171

The War Against God

Posted on

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth…”

A simple enough sentence describing what many believe to be the beginning of all things. A higher power, God, creator of the universe and all that exists within its confines, spoke all things into being what they are, with the only exception being mankind itself. To create man, according to Christian belief, God chose to form him from the earth and breathed life into his nostrils, with woman being formed later from man’s own rib.

Why did God not simply speak man into existence as he had everything else? Why did he handle the creation of mankind differently from the way he had created the beasts of the earth? The answer to that is simple if one takes into account the complete text of the Bible… mankind was God’s crowning achievement in the world which he created, and yet, this masterpiece has continually struggled against its creator, even waging war against him at various times throughout history.

The human race is a very complex species. We have managed to climb the ladder of knowledge to heights never imagined by those generations that came before us, reaching for the stars and even beyond. We have achieved a great many things over time. We have populated the earth to the point of existing in nearly every nook and cranny of the world. We have overcome great obstacles along the way as well, but we still face one obstacle that continues to threaten our very existence: ourselves.

Some believe that the ultimate proof of a civilized society is in its ability to adapt to the changing culture, to tolerate whatever is presented to them, and to accept it regardless of what was considered acceptable or tolerable in the past. Our society has undergone many controversial changes throughout history. For example; in the past, it was considered inappropriate for a woman to work, or for a man to stay at home rather than go to the office. However, over time this ideology changed. Another more recent example is Homosexuality. Many years have passed since society as a majority frowned upon such relationships. There was a time when individuals engaged in such conduct were shunned and even faced abuse, yet in recent years this choice of lifestyle has been widely accepted by many and tolerated by even more. Now, in many states, there are efforts to publicly and legally recognize these relationships with as much legitimately as those in traditional male/female relationships.

There are many other examples of how culture and ideology has changed over time, both for the better, as well as changes that have taken place which are anything but good, and could ultimately lead to the downfall of mankind.

In recent decades, there has been a study rise in the number of cultural changes that are not only having a devastating impact on our society as a whole, but threaten to shrink the population dramatically, perhaps even leading toward extinction. One such change is the seemingly overwhelming acceptance of a woman’s right to choose whether a child should live or die simply based upon her own will or desire. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with birth defects, risk of death to either the mother or the unborn child, rape, or any other plausibly debatable topic, but rather a simple desire by the mother to not have a child.

In our society it is against the law to kill another human being. To take another person’s life is not only considered illegal, but also an immoral act punishable by life imprisonment or even death. Yet, there seems to be debate about whether an unborn child is really a human being. Some say that because it has not taken its first breath, it is not a person. Others say that because it cannot sustain itself apart from the mother, it is not a person. If there is truth to this, then why is it that in many cases when a murderer takes the life of a pregnant woman the culprit is often charged, tried, and found guilty of two counts of murder? How can a person be charged and punished for committing the crime of having killed an unborn child while hundreds of abortionists committing the same act are protected under the law? Is being Board Certified and licensed to practice medicine all that is needed to kill? In that case, if “Jack the Ripper” were in fact a doctor, could he be found guilty of murder by a judicial system that allows for such a distinction?

There is as much argument in the medical and scientific field over when life begins inside the womb as there is in the political landscape or in the public forum. Both sides have repeatedly presented what they firmly believe to be “factual evidence” over many decades of courtroom debate in order for a determination to be made by the highest judicial minds in the land. However, the determinations of any court are knowingly influenced by many factors including political, social, and even economic ideology. The sad, but very real truth is that, though they may attempt to be impartial, judges are human beings that are subject to the same weaknesses and prejudices as every other human being. As intelligent as they may be, are doctors, scientists, or even judges truly able to make such a determination with any real authority? By that token, how can anyone define when a fetus becomes a human being? Who among us claims to be all-knowing enough to distinguish when a fetus first begins to exist as a person?

One of the largest recent battle grounds over abortion is taking place in the state of Texas. Recent attempts by the state legislature to make it harder to have an abortion have been blocked repeatedly; not only by activists set on seeing a woman’s right to abort a child unimpeded, but by a judicial system made up largely of liberal-minded judges. As the drama of these battles wages on, the question remains; who decides when life begins?

The answer to the question was given in the beginning, though many in today’s society refuse to accept it as truth. The decline of our world, socially, morally, economically… can all be traced back to what began as a war against God and his principals of what is right and wrong. God, the creator of the universe, is the only one capable of knowing with all certainty of when life truly begins. As long as we continue to wage war against God and his principals in order to achieve our desires, our society will continue to decline and our existence will be in jeopardy. Our best efforts to answer such questions based on our knowledge will never be more than a guess, but when we factor in what God tells us, then we have the factual truth.