Tag Archives: Free Exercise

And on a dumber note, a leftist tries to post a few "gotcha questions" for conservatives.

1. As opponents of “big government,” why do you fervently support an unending stream of government-sponsored wars, vast government military spending, the power of local police to shoot and kill unarmed citizens, government interference with abortion rights and family planning, government restrictions on marriage, and the linkage of church and state?

Answers (in order)

A) unending stream of government-sponsored wars,

We don't.  We support the unending obligation of the federal government to protect our people, land, liberty.  Those who support "unjust wars" should be questioned as to why they consider themselves "conservative."

B) vast government military spending

We don't.  Members of Congress excepted, most conservatives I know want to see government waste of all types curbed, including military spending.  If money was used wisely, less would be spent.

C) the power of local police to shoot and kill unarmed citizens

Hat tip to Ferguson and the rest of the "unarmed" thugs.

This question makes it sound as if local police are wandering around shooting random citizens (lie.)

I believe that (like every other human being) local police officers than the right to defend themselves if they believe their lives or the lives of others are in danger.  Outside of that, police who are involved in shootings should be investigated and taken to court, should a grand jury (or other official group) think it appropriate.  Oh wait.  That happened and the leftists still are not happy.

D)government interference with abortion rights and family planning

By "abortion rights" you mean the right to kill an innocent unborn.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

a police officer defending themselves against a thug trying to wrestle their weapon away = bad.  Murdering an unborn child before they have a chance to take their first breath = good.

The second lie becomes visible in recent politics.

Conservatives do NOT wish to interfere with adults practicing family planning.

Conservatives DO wish to interfere with the government forcing businesses to act against their deeply held religious beliefs.

E) government restrictions on marriage

Since the government began requiring citizens to get the state's permission to marry, there have been restrictions, whether that be incestual relationships, polygamous relationships, etc.

It's interesting to note that in many  of the states where the courts (government entities) have overthrown the only definition of marriage that we've ever had, it has been the citizens who have voted for constitutional amendments defining "marriage"

So, in reality, we have the majority of citizens voting for the traditional definition of marriage, and the state, petitioned by the minority, telling us "we can't do that."

F) the linkage of church and state?\

the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Let's see.  Has Congress tried to establish a state religion?  No?

And actually, the "free exercise thereof" is being violated - BY THE LEFTISTS!

To even ask that section is another example of the rank hypocrisy of the left.

That's only the first question and my head hurts from the "Alinskyism"




"We've laid down our blood to have a free exercise of religion in this country and will continue to do so."

Working from a variety of sources, I really don't wonder very much what the motive is.

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

The claim:

Just as the spectacle of an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee’s stern questioning of her in the 1990s drew women voters to the polls, these lawmakers and women’s groups say Thursday’s House hearing on the Obama administration’s contraception rule — with an all-male panel testifying before a largely male committee — could provoke the same kind of response


First thing:  There were two panels, the second panel included two women.

Second thing:  it's not about contraception, it's about religious freedom and it's fitting that religious leaders were on the panel.

"The real issue here, it's not birth control; it's religious liberty, it's freedom of conscience, [and] it's the freedom of individuals and their churches to determine their own positions and their own policies about contraception and abortion,"

From the Catholic News Agency (quoting Pamela Haag):

“The phrase 'women’s health' in the birth control dispute is the latest nimble euphemism,” author and blogger Pamela Haag wrote in a Feb. 17 essay published on the “Marriage 3.0” blog.

Access to contraception, she said, “isn’t really about my 'health.' It’s not principally about the management of ovarian cysts or the regulation of periods.”

“Birth control isn’t about my health unless by 'health' you mean, my capacity to get it on, to have a happy, joyous sex life that involves an actual male partner,” wrote Haag, criticizing White House supporters for discussing contraceptives mainly as “preventive services” for women's health.

Even the folks who support the mandate (who are not following the administrations party line) know that it's not about health, it's about the ability of women to have sex without responsibility or consequences.

From Timothy George and Chuck Colson , via Christianity Today:

But Catholic institutions aren't the only ones affected by this mandate. Prison Fellowship, for example, which employs 180 people, could not purchase insurance for its employees that covers abortifacients. Nor could the world's largest Christian outreach to prisoners and their families afford the fines we would incur.

Three years ago, when we co-authored the Manhattan Declaration, we predicted that the time would come when Christians would have to face the very real prospect of civil disobedience—that we would have to choose sides: God or Caesar.

Certainly for the Catholics and for many of us evangelicals, that time is already upon us.

Rev. Matthew Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod:

Harrison's goal Thursday, he said, was to tell Congress to "get the federal government out of matters of conscience for religious people, particularly in life issues where there's long-standing moral and ethical church precedent."

But he also wanted to drive home the intense feeling of alienation that, he said, conservative people of faith feel under the Obama administration. He said he would rather go to jail than comply with even the modified mandate, and that he would "give up my sons to fight" for the First Amendment.

On Friday, he explained those comments: "We've laid down our blood to have a free exercise of religion in this country and will continue to do so."

Harrison told the committee of the charitable work of the Missouri Synod and its members, calling the church "a machine which produces good citizens for this country, and at tremendous personal cost."

The members of his church "work, pay taxes, are charitable and responsible, take care of their children, participate in their communities and government, and serve in military," Harrison said. "The state should be interested in religion for this purpose: We produce good citizens. So stop attacking us. We are in every way a blessing for this country. We feel attacked for our fundamental convictions as if we're a detriment to our country. And that is a lie."