The Antichrist Conspiracy: Barack Obama

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0822/Birth-control-mandate-HHS-offers-new-way-for-religious-employers
8/22/14
Birth control mandate: HHS offers new way for religious employers

The Obama administration announced an accommodation Friday aimed at ensuring access to free birth control for women who work for religious employers. But religious groups expressed skepticism.

Washington — The Obama administration took steps Friday it said would ensure that women who work for religious employers will have continued access to cost-free birth control coverage, while respecting the views of their employers.

The rules address both religious nonprofits and “closely held” for-profit corporations whose owners have moral objections to some or all forms of birth control.   

The first rule applies to nonprofits and sets up a new pathway for employers to provide notice of their religious objection. Now, effective immediately, eligible organizations may notify the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) directly of their objections, and HHS and the Department of Labor will then notify insurers and third-party administrators to allow the insured to receive separate coverage of contraceptive services. Such services would be provided at no additional cost to enrollees or employers.

Examples of such nonprofits include Catholic and other religious universities, hospitals, and charities.

In the second move, HHS is soliciting comments on how to extend the same accommodation to certain “closely held” for-profit corporations. In June, the US Supreme Court ruled that the administration could not impose the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act on the owners of closely held companies such as Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts-and-crafts stores. The administration is still working out the definition of “closely held for-profit company.”

“Women across the country deserve access to recommended preventive services that are important to their health, no matter where they work,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said, in a statement. “Today’s announcement reinforces our commitment to providing women with access to coverage for contraception, while respecting religious considerations raised by nonprofit organizations and closely held for-profit companies.”

The birth control mandate in Obamacare has spawned dozens of lawsuits, on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional infringement of religious freedom.

Advocates for religious employers said they would review the new rules before issuing an assessment. But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed “disappointment” in the rules.

“On initial review of the government’s summary of the regulations, we note with disappointment that the regulations would not broaden the ‘religious employer’ exemption to encompass all employers with sincerely held religious objections to the mandate,” said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., president of the bishops conference, in a statement.

Instead, he said, the regulations would only modify the “accommodation,” under which the mandate still applies.

“Also, by proposing to extend the ‘accommodation’ to the closely held for-profit employers that were wholly exempted by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hobby Lobby, the proposed regulations would effectively reduce, rather than expand, the scope of religious freedom,” Archbishop Kurtz said.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents numerous organizations challenging the birth control mandate, issued a preliminary response.

“This is [the] latest step in the administration’s long retreat on the HHS mandate,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel for the Becket Fund, which is based in Washington. “It is the eighth time in three years the government has retreated from its original, hard-line stance that only ‘houses of worship’ that hire and serve fellow believers deserve religious freedom.”

Two months ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that closely held for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to provide their employees with birth control that violates their religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby, a family-owned corporation, objected to two forms of morning-after pill and two forms of intrauterine device, saying they could cause early abortions.

Soon thereafter, the Supreme Court sided with Wheaton College, an evangelical school in Illinois, over its objection to the Obama administration’s accommodation for religious nonprofits that object to the birth control mandate. Such nonprofits have the option of signing a form that authorizes their insurer to provide contraception. The federal government then reimburses the insurer.

Wheaton and other religious groups say that signing the form makes them complicit in the provision of contraception that violates their beliefs.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/hobby-lobby-decision-does-not-deny-access-contraceptives
Hobby Lobby decision does not deny access to contraceptives
8/29/14

NORMAN, Okla. -- The decision issued in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby did not change the access to free contraceptives; it merely shifted the cost burden. In their majority opinion, the Supreme Court stated that a less restrictive means of providing these services was already in place—an accommodation issued by Health and Human Services (HHS) for non-profit corporations with religious objections. The Court recommended that such a program be implemented for closely held for-profit corporations who object to providing these contraceptives for religious reasons. Instead of a for-profit company’s insurance premiums footing the bill for such access, the cost will be absorbed by the corporation’s insurance company or third party administrator.

Although this recommendation was explicitly issued in the Court’s decision and top legal minds appeared on various news programs stating that this was what would occur, many were still confused, thinking that Hobby Lobby and any other closely held corporations have the ability to deny their employees access to these services. Keri Parks, Director of External Affairs for Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, failing to comprehend the ruling, stated, “We were deeply disappointed and troubled by this ruling because it means that some bosses will be able to interfere with their employees’ access to birth control.” In addition, during the course of the summer, the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice has issued Facebook posts condemning the Hobby Lobby decision on the basis that it will prevent women from accessing the HHS mandated contraceptives. One of their latest posts was issued on August 16th and stated “Women need access to the FULL range of contraceptive methods – which is why we need to #FixHobbyLobby. SHARE if you agree!” 

For groups that are dedicated to reproductive justice, it seems quite alarming that they seemingly have no grasp of the implications of the decision. The uproar that has accompanied the decision in the Hobby Lobby case has mostly centered around the issue of women’s reproductive rights. People are outraged at the thought that for-profit corporations could deny their employees government mandated access to emergency contraceptives. However, this is not the case. The only issue that changed is what entity will actually be required to pay for the contraception. Employees will still retain cost-free access to the services. Furthermore, as expected, the Obama administration recently released their proposed rules regarding how the employees of such corporations will secure free contraceptives, and what corporations will qualify for the accommodation.

There are a multitude of reasons one could oppose the decision rendered by the Court in the Hobby Lobby case, but if it truly is about women’s access to contraceptives, there is no argument to be made. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the government has a “compelling interest” in ensuring that such services are provided in some manner. However, they ruled that in the case of Hobby Lobby and similar entities, there are less restrictive means to do so, and recommended the accommodation that HHS already offers to non-profit corporations be extended to certain closely held corporations.

There is a likelihood that some corporations will not be satisfied with this accommodation and will pursue further litigation which would seek to relieve themselves from what they would view as culpability in providing such services. Such cases will be much tougher to win. Nevertheless, in the case of the Hobby Lobby decision, all that was changed is what entity will pay for the contraceptives.

The new accommodation will ensure cost-free access to contraceptives regardless of a corporation’s religious objection. For this reason, despite what many individuals and groups have asserted, the Hobby Lobby case is incredibly inconsequential.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/russell-pearce-birth-control-senator-resigns-152716895.html

Vice chairman of Arizona Republican Party resigns over birth control comments
'You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants,' former Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce said
9/16/14

Former Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce has resigned as vice chairman of the state's Republican Party over controversial comments he made about birth control.

“You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations," Pearce said on his talk radio show. "Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”

Democrats and Republicans alike were outraged by the comment.

“For the first vice chair of the Arizona Republican Party to advocate for forced sterilization is unacceptable,” DJ Quinlan, executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party, said in a statement Saturday.

"Russell Pearce’s ignorant, hateful comments are insulting to women everywhere. He needs to resign or be removed from office immediately," tweeted Martha McSally, a Republican nominee in Arizona's 2nd Congressional District.

In a statement announcing his resignation, Pearce said the comments actually weren't his, but that he failed to correctly attribute them and doesn't want to become a distraction ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.

“Recently on my radio show there was a discussion about the abuses to our welfare system," Pearce said. "I shared comments written by someone else and failed to attribute them to the author. This was a mistake. This mistake has been taken by the media and the left and used to hurt our Republican candidates. I do not want the progressive left and the media to try and take a misstatement from my show and use it to attack our candidates. I care about the Republican Party and its conservative platform too much to let them do that."

Pearce added: "I will never back down from standing up for what I believe in, and I will continue to fight for the principles that our founding generation risked their lives for. But I have no intention of being used as a distraction by the Democrats.”

It's not the first time Pearce has stirred up controversy.

In the wake of the 2012 Aurora, Colo., theater massacre, Pearce criticized moviegoers for their failure to stop James Holmes, the suspected shooter in the mass killing.

"Had someone been prepared and armed they could have stopped this 'bad' man from most of this tragedy," Pearce wrote in a Facebook post. "He was two and three feet away from folks, I understand he had to stop and reload. Where were the men of flight 93? Someone should have stopped this man. Someone could have stopped this man."

Twelve people were killed and 58 others wounded at the midnight screening of "Dark Knight Rises."

"Lives were lost because of a bad man," Pearce continued, "not because he had a weapon, but because no one was prepared to stop it. Had they been prepared to save their lives or lives of others, lives would have been saved. All that was needed is one [courageous]/brave man prepared mentally or otherwise to stop this. t could have been done. When seconds count, police are only minutes away."

[Psalm 51:17]

http://theweek.com/article/index/268182/this-is-what-happens-when-republicans-actually-enact-their-radical-agenda

This is what happens when Republicans actually enact their radical agenda
Compromise usually muddies the waters. Not this time...
9/17/14

A persistent elite Washington trope, embodied by folks like Ron Fournier, says that bipartisanship is the key missing ingredient in our system of government. The two parties just need to stop their partisan bickering and join hands to hammer out serious, substantive compromises (read: slash social insurance).

It's certainly the case that because of U.S. constitutional design, compromise is necessary during times of divided government — and the ones who won't do it are ultraconservative Republicans. But there's another model of governance that gets short shrift among the lovers of bipartisanship: letting election winners implement their agenda. By providing clear lines of accountability and making clear who is responsible for which policy, allowing an election winner to govern makes democracy work.

We see this today in Kansas of all places, where Governor Sam Brownback is in an unexpectedly tight reelection race:

Although every statewide elected official in Kansas is a Republican and President Obama lost the state by more than 20 points in the last election, Mr. Brownback's proudly conservative policies have turned out to be so divisive and his tax cuts have generated such a drop in state revenue that they have caused even many Republicans to revolt. Projections put state budget shortfalls in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, raising questions of whether the state can adequately fund education in particular. [The New York Times]

**Obama's previous HHS was governor of this state prior to Brownback. Goes to show how this system IS rigged!

Brownback's tax cuts were passed back in 2012 with the help of Arthur Laffer, the conservative policy hand who has made his career insisting in the teeth of contrary evidence that tax cuts increase revenue. Multiple experts warned that the Brownback/Laffer plan would actually crater the state revenue collection, but Brownback ignored them and did what he wanted. The results are in, and it turns out when you cut taxes you decrease revenue:

Kansas has a problem. In April and May, the state planned to collect $651 million from personal income tax. But instead, it received only $369 million. [The New York Times]

Naturally, the cuts have required more cuts to critical government services, and most of the tax benefits have been vacuumed up by the rich. Worse still, the promised job-creating effects have also failed to appear. On the contrary, Kansas has actually been performing worse than its neighbors on the jobs front.

In short, movement conservatism produces garbage economic policy. But the beauty is, now that fact is obvious to almost everyone in Kansas, including a bunch of Republicans. To his credit, Brownback actually believed in his ideas and put them in place. He is now paying the price for taking that risk.

Contrast that to the elite DC idea of bipartisanship, in which the ancient grandees from both parties get together, and through the magic of high-minded civil discussion, iron out a compromise to cut Social Security and Medicare, preferably by enough to be called a "Grand Bargain." This has the not-coincidental effect of making it impossible for most people to figure out who is responsible for what — and very easy for either side to spin negative consequences as the other side's fault.

Now, Brownback may well pull out a victory in the end. But Kansas is a very conservative state, and he ought to be cruising to a huge reelection. Future Republicans my well try to jam through similar tax policies copy-pasted from a conservative think tank's guide to enriching the wealthy, but the colossal failure of the Brownback cuts will surely give them pause.

Government by the permanent DC establishment used to at least keep the country on two legs, but with ideologically well-sorted parties, one of them increasingly extreme, it's come perilously close to breaking down multiple times. When considering reforms to the structure of government, as I believe will be necessary sometime in the future, we should keep in mind stories like this one. Democracy works best when the voters have meaningful and comprehensible choices.

[Psalm 51:17]

We see this today in Kansas of all places, where Governor Sam Brownback is in an unexpectedly tight reelection race:

Rick Warren welcomes Obama, Brownback to AIDS summit
http://baptistcourier.com/2006/12/rick-warren-welcomes-obama-brownback-to-aids-summit/
12/13/06

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.msn.com/us/us-senators-call-for-federal-judge-to-resign-over-wife-beating
U.S. senators call for federal judge to resign over wife beating
9/18/14

(Reuters) - Three U.S. senators on Wednesday called for the resignation of a federal judge accused of beating his wife in an Atlanta hotel room last month.

Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, both Republicans of Alabama, joined Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, in calling for the resignation of Alabama-based U.S. District Court Judge Mark Fuller.

“Judge Fuller’s unacceptable personal conduct violates the trust that has been placed in him. He can no longer effectively serve in his position and should step down,” Sessions said in a statement.

The calls for Fuller's resignation come amid a furor over the National Football League's treatment of players accused or convicted of domestic violence, which critics say has been too lenient.

**So pretty much we're seeing the feminist agenda being pushed in high gear recently.

Alabama U.S. Representative Terri Sewell, Democrat of Alabama, called for Fuller's resignation last week.

Earlier this month, Fuller, 55, resolved a misdemeanor charge of battery stemming from the incident with his wife by agreeing to attend a six-month domestic violence program and to submit to a substance abuse assessment.

Barry Ragsdale, an attorney for Fuller, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

A 2002 appointee of former President George W. Bush, Fuller is facing an administrative complaint and was stripped of his docket by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals following the incident.

In a statement after resolving his criminal case, Fuller said he hoped to resume work.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11109080/Pope-Francis-adviser-hints-at-rethink-on-contraception-ban.html

Pope Francis adviser hints at rethink on contraception ban
Cardinal Walter Kasper, a close influence on Pope Francis, says it is up to parents to decide how many children to have ahead of global gathering of Roman Catholic bishops to discuss the family

By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor

1:50PM BST 19 Sep 2014

A leading reformist Cardinal close to Pope Francis has hinted at the possibility of a reinterpretation of the Roman Catholic Church’s blanket ban on artificial contraception.

Cardinal Walter Kasper said it was “the responsibility of the parents” to decide how many children they should have.

He also said that so-called natural family planning, which is promoted by the Church as an alternative to contraception, also has an “artificial” element.

His comments in an interview with The Tablet, the Catholic weekly, are likely to reopen debate about one of the most contentious areas of Catholic teaching just weeks before a special global gathering of bishops in Rome to discuss the Church’s position on family matters.

Cardinal Kasper is the leading proponent of moves to relax the ban on remarried divorcees receiving Holy Communion, arguing for a greater emphasis on “mercy” for individuals without abandoning the Church’s official teaching that marriage is for life.

Pope Francis has openly praised a book the German prelate wrote on the subject and has pointedly made mercy the central theme of many of his public pronouncements in recent weeks.

Cardinal Kasper set out his ideas in a speech to fellow cardinals earlier this year widely believed to have been delivered with the blessing of Pope Francis.

But earlier this week a powerful group of conservative cardinals hit back with a book of their own, timed to coincide with the run-up to Pope’s Francis’s extraordinary synod on the family, warning against any relaxation of the Church’s traditional position.

In his Tablet interview, Cardinal Kasper restated his case for mercy on the question of divorce but also risked further angering some sections of the church by suggesting a possible rethink on the question of artificial contraception.

He said he had “no solution” to the gulf between official Church teaching on artificial contraception, set out in the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae and the practice of millions of ordinary Catholics.

The Cardinal, who is attending the special synod at the invitation of the Pope, said he hoped the issue would be discussed.

“To promote a sense that to have children is a good thing, that is the primary thing,” he said.

“Then how to do it and how not to do it, that is a secondary question.

“Of course the parents have to decide how many children are possible.

“This cannot be decided by the Church or a bishop, this is the responsibility of the parents.”

Leading exponents of natural family planning – which relies on calculating when women are fertile – will be present at the gathering.

But the Cardinal argued that natural methods also have an “artificial aspect”.

[Psalm 51:17]

Surprise!

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/boehner-and-pelosi-unite-pass-bill-funding-planned-parenthood
Boehner and Pelosi Unite to Pass Bill Funding Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, Syrian Revolutionaries
9/17/14

The CR also put no restriction on funding any provision of Obamacare or any regulation issued under Obamacare. That includes the preventive services regulation that requires individuals and families to purchase health insurance plans that cover contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs even if doing so violates their religious faith.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/22/3570132/religious-conservatives-finally-admit-what-they-really-want-out-of-hobby-lobby/
9/22/14
Religious Conservatives Finally Admit What They Really Want Out Of Hobby Lobby

For two and a half years, the Obama Administration has tried to strike a balance between the health needs of workers and the sensibilities of employers who object to contraceptive care on religious grounds. Just last month, the administration announced its most recent accommodation for these religious objectors — an employer can exempt itself completely from the federal rule requiring employer-provided health plans to cover birth control, so long as it informs the government that it seeks a religious exemption and tells them which company administers their health plan.

Yet, according to a court document filed earlier this month by a leading religious conservative litigation shop, even this degree of accommodation is insufficient to satisfy the most vehement objectors to birth control. Indeed, if the courts ultimately accept the arguments presented by this court filing, that would leave the administration largely powerless to ensure that workers whose employers object to birth control still receive contraceptive coverage. The alleged rights of the employer would trump the rights of the employee.

The court filing is a motion filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — the same Becket Fund that represented Hobby Lobby in its successful lawsuit in the Supreme Court — on behalf of Ave Maria University, a conservative Catholic school which claims that “any action ‘specifically intended to prevent procreation’ — including contraception and sterilization — is morally wrong.” In its motion, Becket asks a federal court in Florida to grant Ave Maria a temporary exemption from the federal rules governing birth control coverage while its litigation against the government proceeds.

What’s unusual about this motion, however, is that it specifically denies that the Obama Administration’s latest accommodation for religious objectors is sufficient. “Rather than simply requiring notice that Ave Maria is a religious nonprofit with a religious objection,” the motion complains, “the augmented rule would require Ave Marie [sic] to provide its insurance company’s name and contact information for the specific purpose of allowing HHS to issue a notice requiring the insurer to provide the exact same items through Ave Maria’s healthcare plan as if Ave Maria had given the insurer Form 700 directly.”

To translate this a bit, “Form 700″ is the form religious objectors were required to submit under a previous attempt to accommodate their sentiments regarding birth control. Under that regime, employers who object to birth control on religious grounds could exempt themselves from providing contraceptive coverage by filling out this short form, which required them to disclose the identity of their insurance administrator. Once the government has this form in hand, they would then contact this insurance company and arrange for it to provide contraceptive coverage to the religious objector’s employees without requiring the objector to provide this coverage itself. Notably, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Hobby Lobby strongly suggests that the just-fill-out-this-form accommodation is sufficient to overcome any legal objections to the overall regime for providing birth control to employees.

Nevertheless, several religious employers objected to the fill-out-the-form solution, so the Obama Administration granted them a further accommodation — permitting them to exempt themselves from the birth control rules without having to fill out any particular form at all, so long as the government learns who their insurance administrator is. Without this information, the government has no way of knowing which insurance company should provide contraceptive coverage to employees who are denied this coverage by their employer, and thus the entire system breaks down.

Ave Maria’s objection is not exactly surprising, as we explained shortly after the Obama Administration announced its latest accommodation, “employers who have raised the staunchest objections to birth control have often claimed that they cannot take any action that will set in motion a chain of events that leads to someone receiving contraception, as doing so would make them ‘complicit’ in the act of providing birth control,” but their objection is nonetheless significant because it reveals what the stakes actually are in the follow-up cases to Hobby Lobby. If the justices honor Ave Maria’s idiosyncratic objection, then it is unclear that the administration could design any accommodation that will survive contact with the Supreme Court.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/22/republicans-show-growing-enthusiasm-for-tearing-down-the-wall-between-church-and-state/
Republicans show growing enthusiasm for tearing down the wall between church and state
9/22/14

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public life just released its semiannual survey of American attitudes on the role of religion in politics. The survey finds a growing appetite for belief in the ballot box, and politics in the pulpit. These shifts are largely happening on the Republican side of the aisle. And among Republicans, the changes are driven by white evangelical concern that the country is becoming less favorable to religion and, inexplicably, more hostile toward white evangelicals.

Below, eight findings from the Pew study that illustrate these shifts.

1. Desire for churches to play an active role in politics is up sharply from 2010

Pew Research Center

"The share of Americans who say churches and other houses of worship should express their views on social and political issues is up 6 points since the 2010 midterm elections (from 43% to 49%)," according to the Pew report. Fully two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants now hold this view, as do 48 percent of Catholics.

Not surprisingly, Democrats and Republicans are split on the question. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans want churches to speak out on political issues, compared to 42 percent of Democrats. This 17-point gap is more than double the 8-point partisan gap that existed just four years ago, and it's driven by a surge in Republican enthusiasm: Republicans are 11 percentage points more likely to call for politically active churches than they were in 2010. There's been virtually no change on this issue among Democrats.

The share of Americans saying churches should endorse political candidates is now the largest its been in more than 10 years.

2. A majority of Republicans say politicians aren't talking enough about faith.

Fifty-three percent of Republicans say that political leaders are talking too little about their faith, compared to less than a third of Democrats. Again, while Democrats have remained consistent on this measure since 2010, Republicans have shifted nearly 10 percentage points.

For reference, in September, the word "God" has been spoken on the House and Senate floors 75 times, "Christian" 65 times and "Jesus" 10 times. Democrats and Republicans seem to use these words at similar rates.

3. Seven in 10 Republicans say it's important for a political candidate to have strong religious beliefs

"Nearly three-quarters of Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party say that members of Congress should have strong religious beliefs (72 percent)," according to the Pew survey. "Democrats, by contrast, are evenly divided on this question, with 50 percent saying it is important for members of Congress to have strong religious beliefs and 48 percent expressing disagreement with this sentiment."

4. Despite large numbers and political clout, a majority of white evangelical Christians feels discriminated against

Fifty percent of white evangelicals say that there is a lot of discrimination against them. White evangelicals are more likely to say that discrimination is a problem for them than it is for blacks (36 percent), Muslims (45 percent) or atheists (19 percent). Thirty-four percent of evangelicals say that it's become more difficult to be religious in America, and a third see themselves as a "minority" because of their religious beliefs — more than any other group. Never mind that Protestants are actually the largest religious group in America, and that white evangelicals are the largest Protestant sub-group.

White evangelicals are a core coalition of the GOP base. Their belief that they are a persecuted minority in a country where it is difficult to be religious explains many of the Republican trends above — a desire for a stronger church role in politics, a perception that politicians aren't talking about faith enough, and the necessity for politicians to talk about their faith.

These beliefs also undergird some of the GOP rhetoric about a "war on whites" that we've heard recently from people like Mo Brooks (R-Ala.). Of course, the data show that if there is indeed a war on whites, white people are winning it.

5. A majority of Americans now say homosexuality is a sin

Fifty percent say it's a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, up five percentage points from a year ago. Catholics and white evangelical protestants account for the lion's share of that uptick.

6. Support for gay marriage is down

Forty-nine percent of Americans say they support same-sex marriage, down from 54 percent in February. Support fell across all religious groups surveyed, although as the report notes, "it is too early to know whether this is an anomaly or the beginning of a reversal or leveling off of the growth in support for same-sex marriage widely observed in polls over the past decade."

7. Seven in 10 white evangelicals want the freedom to discriminate against gay weddings

Slightly less than half of the general public says a business that provides wedding-related services should be able to refuse those services to gay couples. Among white evangelicals, that figure is more than 70 percent.

[Psalm 51:17]

This is all by design...ultimately to put these draconian birth control pills over the counter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/24/cvs-birth-control-charge-illegal_n_5875174.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
9/24/14
CVS Caught Illegally Charging Women For Birth Control

CVS has been illegally charging women for birth control, violating an Obamacare provision that forces insurers to cover generic contraceptives at no cost to women.

Since learning of a price-coding error that erroneously charged approximately 11,000 women unlawful copays, CVS has moved to fix the problem and refund affected customers.

The issue was brought to public light by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) after one of her staffers was charged a $20 copay when trying to buy generic birth control at a CVS in Washington, D.C. Such a copay is illegal under the Affordable Care Act. Speier wrote a letter to Larry Merlo, the CEO of CVS, earlier this month.

"Although my staff member's issue was eventually resolved a week and numerous phone calls and pharmacy visits later, I am concerned that most women who are likely not familiar with their rights under the ACA may go without this essential family planning service that is supposed to be guaranteed to them under law," Speier wrote in a letter dated September 9.

On September 19, Sol J. Ross, CVS's head of federal affairs, responded to Speier, saying that the company was handling the issue.

"Refund checks will be [sent] to affected plan members by September 26," Ross wrote. "In fact, refund checks have already started to go out and all should be received by October 1."

CVS told The Huffington Post Wednesday that it had identified the glitch before receiving Speier's letter.

"We are committed to assuring that our customers receive the pharmacy benefits that are available to them and apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused," a CVS spokesperson wrote in an email.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of women no longer have to pay for preventative health services and screenings, like an annual check-up, pap-smears and generic birth control. According to a recent study from the Guttmacher Institute, the percentage of privately insured women who no longer have to pay out-of-pocket costs for birth control is growing quickly.

In fall 2012, before Obamacare went into effect, only 15 percent of insured women got free birth control pills. Today, that number is nearly 70 percent. The reason not all women today have health insurance that includes no-cost birth control is that some people are still covered by plans that are temporarily allowed to disregard this provision and other Obamacare rules. Eventually, virtually all health insurance will include no-cost contraceptives.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/2014/09/26/war-in-the-gender-gap-evaporates-n1896725

War in the Gender Gap Evaporates
Suzanne Fields | Sep 26, 2014

The phony "war against women" has taken a strange and unexpected turn. Republican candidates are promoting expanded access to birth control, with contraceptives available over the counter. Democrats in varying shades of blue dismiss something they've always wanted as mere Republican politics. You would think Democrats would be grateful for enhanced access for women, a dream come true.

This is the catch 22 of the 2014 campaign. Democrats and Planned Parenthood are obviously afraid that if Republicans get credit for this pip of an idea, they'll fall into the diminishing gender gap and never be heard again. The latest polls show Democrats hold only a 1-point lead among women on the generic congressional ballot.

It's desperation politics to scorn a proposal to give women greater flexibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, eliminate a costly visit to a doctor and reduce abortions. Over-the-counter sales would make the pill less expensive for the growing number of uninsured women under Obamacare, as well as for women who work for companies with insurance but whose employers hold religious beliefs that prevents them from paying for birth control. The proposal is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Family Physicians. This sounds to me like a win-win proposition.

The birth control pill is the most widely used method of contraception for American women, and if it were available without a prescription, sales volume would likely reduce the cost, now estimated to be about $50 a month, or less than $2 a day. Over-the-counter sales would eliminate expensive doctor's visits and time-consuming clinic visits. The Alan Guttmacher Institute finds that more than 17 percent of American women in their childbearing years between 15 and 44 rely on the pill.

Eliminating it as a prescription drug couldn't happen overnight. Only a bipartisan push from Congress would persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to change its regulation of the pill, but an unlikely coalition of conservatives and liberals could make it happen quickly. It's natural for libertarian support, and the conservative Family Research Council has taken no position against contraception unrelated to abortion.

The great obstacle, of course, is that support for the idea undercuts the Democrats' "war on women" and reduces partisan noise. "What's happened with the over-the-counter birth control issue," Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway tells National Public Radio, "is that the Democrats didn't see it coming. They think they've got a monopoly on talking to women from the waist down."

A dismissive Planned Parenthood television advertisement says candidates who support the change "will turn the pill into yet another bill." Well, that's what politics is all about. Lobbying pressure and advocacy help, too. A doctor's prescription is especially burdensome for poor minority women, and it's difficult to find a pro-choice voter who opposes over-the-counter contraceptives.

None of the Republican candidates in this election cycle so far resemble any of the chest-thumping red-hots of the last cycle. Rep. Cory Gardner, locked in a tight race against Democratic Sen. Mark Udall in Colorado, is described as a "new kind of Republican." In a television ad, Mr. Booker, who supports the free-the-pill initiative, paints Sen. Udall as the man who would "keep government bureaucrats between you and your health care plan." Two driving issues fuse neatly.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is a cheerleader for over-the-counter sales of the pill. He says Democrats have "demagogued" the contraceptives issue. "Contraception is a personal matter," he writes in The Wall Street Journal. "The government shouldn't be in the business of banning it or requiring a woman's employer to keep tabs on her use of it."

The Republican "war on women" has always been an absurd campaign slogan, reeking of mendacity and bad faith. Women are not a monolithic mass in their preferences and attitudes, and their representatives in Congress know it. Politicians are always looking for an issue that works in appealing to a constituency, and contraceptives could be the long-sought unifying force of both liberals and conservatives. It would give women the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the power to keep their most private decisions private -- no doctor, no government intrusion. If both Democrats and Republicans support this sensible idea, this "war on women" is over.

Democrats attack at their peril the messenger who delivers a message women are eager to hear. Daniel Payne, a self-described "health-nut anti-synthetic Catholic natural foodie freak," writes in the Federalist that in spite of his religious beliefs and personal preferences, he thinks "there's no justifiable reason for me or for anyone else to impede a woman's access to something like the pill." That sums it up for most of the rest of us, too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Kings 13:15  Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread.
1Ki 13:16  And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place:
1Ki 13:17  For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.
1Ki 13:18  He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him.
1Ki 13:19  So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water.
1Ki 13:20  And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back:
1Ki 13:21  And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee,
1Ki 13:22  But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the LORD did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.
1Ki 13:23  And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back.
1Ki 13:24  And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it, the lion also stood by the carcase.
1Ki 13:25  And, behold, men passed by, and saw the carcase cast in the way, and the lion standing by the carcase: and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.aleteia.org/en/education/article/catholic-college-decides-to-cover-abortions-in-healthcare-plan-5798682532249600
Catholic College Decides to Cover Abortions in Healthcare Plan

University announces it will comply with new state regulation
9/30/14

Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles is complying with a State of California mandate to include abortion in the medical services its insurance policy covers, Live Action News reported.
 
The decision came in the wake of a directive from the director of the state’s Department of Managed Healthcare, Michelle Rouillard. 
 
Los Angeles Loyolan, the campus newspaper, reported on Saturday that LMU’s insurance will cover faculty and staff for elective abortions effective from August 22 to the end of the policy period.
 
“The news was confirmed in an email sent to faculty and staff yesterday. Vice President for Human Resources Rebecca Chandler confirmed that LMU’s insurance providers will now cover all procedures deemed medically necessary, including elective abortions,” the newspaper reported.
 
Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom have already filed a complaint with the US Department of Health and Human Services over California’s decision to force the Catholic university to pay for elective abortions in their health insurance plan.

[Psalm 51:17]

More rotten fruits of "religious freedom"!

http://news.yahoo.com/u-top-court-hear-case-muslim-woman-denied-134915117--finance.html
Supreme Court to hear case of Muslim woman denied employment
10/2/14

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday said it would consider whether a Muslim woman denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store because she wears a head scarf was required to specifically request a religious accommodation.

The nine justices agreed to hear an appeal filed in the closely watched case by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency that sued the company on behalf of Samantha Elauf. She was denied a sales job at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 2008.

Elauf, who was 17 at the time, was wearing a head scarf, or hijab, at the job interview but did not specifically say that, as a Muslim, she wanted the company to give her a religious accommodation. The company denied Elauf the job on the grounds that wearing the scarf violated its "look policy" for members of the sales staff.

A federal district judge ruled in favor of Elauf and the government, but in an October 2013 ruling the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Elauf was required to ask for an accommodation.

Abercrombie has faced other lawsuits including one in which it agreed in 2004 to pay $40 million to several thousand minority and female plaintiffs who had accused the company of discrimination.

The once-trendy but now struggling retailer is well-known for its edgy marketing and often controversial CEO Mike Jeffries.

Jeffries, who was hired in 1992, revamped the company to "sizzle with sex" by introducing racy catalogs and advertising aimed at making the more-than-century-old brand a must-have for teenagers.

But he has stirred debate in the process by suggesting the company's clothes were made for "cool" and "attractive" kids and not for "fat" people. More recently, sales have plummeted, and the company recently announced it would shrink its once well-known logo to appeal to younger shoppers.

The company did not return calls seeking comment on the Supreme Court's action.

A ruling by the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June.

The case is EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-86.

(Additional reporting by Jilian Mincer; Editing by Will Dunham)

[Psalm 51:17]

Uhm...alot of these GOP candidates have backed off of abortion, sodomy, and the whole birth-control issue too!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/27/us-usa-elections-evangelicals-idUSKBN0IG0RI20141027
10/27/14
Christian right key to Republican performance in U.S. midterms

(Reuters) - If Republicans win control of the Senate in the midterm elections they should say a prayer of thanks for Christian conservatives.

Although they get little attention from candidates, white evangelical Christian voters are likely to be fundamental to any Republican victories in the key Senate races, especially in the South.

Reuters/Ipsos polling data shows evangelicals are more enthusiastic than the general population about the midterms.

The religious right's influence may be much reduced since the days of Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell's alliances with Republican presidents.

But Christian conservatives will probably vote in greater numbers on Nov. 4 than others, giving them an outsized say in who runs Congress. Forty-nine percent of evangelicals say they have a great deal of interest or quite a bit of interest in news about the elections, compared to 38 percent of non-evangelicals.

"It strongly shows that the evangelical population is very engaged, very interested in what's happening and much easier to turn out for an election than the population as a whole," said Ipsos pollster Chris Jackson.

**But they don't seem to care about end times prophecies. Scoffers they are!

Almost 40 percent of Republicans said they were born-again or evangelical Christians, according to the online survey.

The party loyalty is striking given that Republican candidates have largely avoided evangelicals' pet topics like opposition to abortion and gay marriage for fear of alienating moderate voters in tight U.S. Senate races.

In one of the few Senate contests where social issues have taken center stage, Colorado Republican Cory Gardner distanced himself from his earlier support for "personhood" bills backed by evangelicals. Such bills would define fetuses as people, and could lead to abortion and some forms of birth control being declared as murder.

In Iowa, Republican Senate hopeful Joni Ernst seemingly softened her strong opposition to abortion when she suggested in a debate this month that there could be exceptions if the mother's life is at risk.

The Supreme Court's decision earlier this month to allow gay marriages by rejecting appeals from five states seeking to ban them was a landmark in longrunning culture wars, but it passed without much fuss on midterm campaign trails.

"The candidates, certainly the Democratic candidates, are not talking about these issues and in most cases the Republican candidates aren't talking about these issues, so we are going to talk about them," said veteran conservative activist Ralph Reed.

His Faith and Freedom Coalition has launched what Reed said is its "most muscular" turnout operation yet. It includes making 10 million phone calls to potential voters and an aggressive ad campaign of online videos.

The idea is to ensure enough evangelical turnout to swing Senate races in states such as Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina and Kentucky, where polls show the average gap between the top candidates is in the low single digits. Republicans need a net gain of six seats to win the Senate.

**And Mary Landrieu's GOP "opponent" in Louisiana(forgot his name, who's a physician) pushed the HPV vaccine toward young girls - as well all know, this particular vaccine has caused the very STDs in them as if they committed fornication without it!

In some ways, Reed is preaching to the choir. White evangelicals have long had a high rate of midterm voting and more than three-quarters of them backed Republican Mitt Romney against President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

"Evangelicals have in fact become one of the core constituencies in the Republican Party. Because they see themselves that way, we see their willingness to vote consistently Republican, even though you could point to a number of issues where the Republican-led House (of Representatives)really hasn’t moved much on their agenda," said Robert P. Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute polling group.

**Or how about the part where abortion was legalized b/c of REPUBLICAN-appointed USSC justices! Harry Blackman and Sandra Day O'Conner ring a bell?

MORE THAN GAY MARRIAGE

Chad Connelly, the Republican National Committee's pointman for faith voters, said evangelical voters are motivated by worry about the economy and mistrust of Obama, adding, "it's too much of a cliche," to think they care mostly about social policy.

**Hate to say it, but the economy is toast - a hopelessly ballooning national debt(which has been going on since way before Obama), and Millenials bringing rotten attitudes to the workforce are playing a big part(who happen to be the children of these GOP-voting Baby Boomers).

Conservative Christians at a Baptist church in Springdale, Arkansas, had a long list of issues that matter to them.

"Where a candidate stands on marriage, immigration, the economy: it's all important. I don't think Obama's doing a good job with terrorism either," said Mary Baker, a retiree.

**And 9/11 was an inside job.

Nevertheless, the stress was on social issues when she and some 20 others at the church watched a national webcast by evangelical leaders who urged the faithful to support "Biblical" values at polling booths.

While the hosts did not specifically ask people to vote Republican, they told Christians to back candidates who hold conservative positions on abortion, freedom of religious expression, and same-sex marriage.

**Yes, the very same perverted bibles that have deleted ALL references to sodomy and effeminate that your "churches" use!

The congregation mostly agreed. Some voiced disappointment that Republicans failed to choose a Christian conservative as presidential nominee at the last two elections.

**Uhm...neither the Bushes nor Reagan were Christian conservatives either. The former were Skull and Bonesmen, and the latter a 33rd Degree Freemason.

"We end up with a crippled duck every time," said Charles Fast, 70, a former policeman.

In the Arkansas Senate race, a Fox News poll this month gave Republican Tom Cotton a 34-point lead over Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor among white, born-again Christian voters.

Even if their votes sway the next Congress, Christian conservatives are going through a difficult period of soul searching over falling church attendance and America's shifting attitudes toward gay rights.

"When same-sex marriages are being conducted in Oklahoma, the culture has shifted dramatically. We have to be honest about that," said Russell Moore, the most prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention.

White Protestants are shrinking as a proportion of the U.S. population. And Moore's denomination, the largest Protestant group in America, has lost membership every year since 2007 as young people drift away. An internal survey found a quarter of Southern Baptist churches that reported statistics did not baptize a single person in 2012.

**Pretty much while these reprobate denominations like the SBC are shrinking, these megachurches are increasing. And Rick Warren is an SBC member. IOW, they're just jumping from one reprobate system to another. And Moore, Warren, etc are ALL in in together!

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/evangelical-hobby-lobby-duck-dynasty-election
10/31/14
How the Christian Right Is Using Hobby Lobby and "Duck Dynasty" to Take Back America

Pundits may be declaring the culture wars over, but conservative Christians are donning their battle gear and rushing back to the front lines. In recent months, a coalition of conservative evangelical organizations has been pursuing an aggressive voter mobilization campaign that involves a combination of high-tech tools, briefings for pastors, and rallies simulcast to mega-churches around the country.

The goal of these gatherings is to drum up outrage over recent political skirmishes, including the Hobby Lobby lawsuit, and to persuade believers that their religious freedoms are under attack by ungodly forces. During one recent event, which was shown in churches across the nation, speakers likened the situation of US churchgoers to Christians beheaded by ISIS in Syria. "We see the struggle between good and evil, light and darkness, truth and lies," said David Benham, whose planned HGTV reality show was canceled after his fiercely anti-gay remarks came to light. "What's happening with swords over in the Middle East is happening with silence over here in America."

The campaign dates back to March, when United in Purpose, a nonprofit funded by wealthy evangelical Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, convened a Voter Mobilization Strategy Summit near Dallas. At the event, churches and conservative Christian political organizations forged a strategy to mobilize voters for the 2014 midterms. United in Purpose, a behind-the-scenes technology and communications group with deep dominionist ties, also shared a variety of tools including videos and voter mobilization apps. (One app allows pastors to compare their membership rosters with voter rolls, so they can better guide their flock to the polls.) The Family Research Council and Texas-based Vision America, which played a key role in the summit, then began hosting policy briefings for pastors and staging lavishly produced voter mobilization events that were broadcast live to churches and groups across the country.

In September, the two organizations hosted an event called Star Spangled Sunday, ostensibly to celebrate the 200th anniversary of our national anthem. A parade of prominent conservatives, including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, took the stage to warn that Americans' religious freedoms were under siege. The faithful were also shown a video presentation from Hobby Lobby president Steve Green, who spoke about his successful legal battle against Obamacare's birth control coverage mandate. "Just a few years ago, I would never have imagined that we would have filed suit against our own government," he said. "There are struggles that people of faith are facing today that have never been faced before. So there's a great need for men and women of faith to stand up and let their vote be heard."

Cruz, the tea party lawmaker, sounded a similar note during his speech. He warned that "religious liberty is threatened" at home and abroad and reminded viewers that the Supreme Court case was decided in Hobby Lobby's favor by a narrow 5-4 vote. "One vote difference and the answer from our government becomes: The federal government can try to force you to violate your religious faith."

Two weeks after Star Spangled Sunday, the Family Research Council and Vision America Action joined a coalition of organizations, including Concerned Women for America and Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, to sponsor the Value Voters Summit. Religious liberty was also front and center at this annual Washington confab. In mid-October, the same coalition joined United in Purpose to host another simulcast, called iPledge Sunday. The event, which was shown in churches across the country, featured more breathless warnings about the supposed crackdown on religious freedoms. Retiring Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) argued in a pretaped interview that religious persecution around the world is at the "highest level it's ever been" and lamented that Christians aren't doing more to fight it. "Frankly," he added, "some people in the church may have to go to jail, and that would wake up America."

The polished production also featured a taped interview with twin brothers David and Jason Benham, who lost their planned HGTV show after People for the American Way, which advocates church-state separation, dug up audio of David railing against "homosexuality and its agenda that is attacking the nation" and claiming that public schools were teaching "demonic ideologies."

It was during the iPledge Sunday simulcast that David Benham argued that the show's cancellation was part of a global "struggle between good and evil" and likened his own situation to Christians beheaded by ISIS. iPledge Sunday's cohost, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, echoed David's message: "In the Middle East they use the sword, and here they use silence. But in both ways, the voices of Christians are lost." He then urged viewers to visit 123Vote.org, where they can pledge to "vote biblical values" and can use the technical tools developed by United in Purpose to find unregistered Christians and get them to sign up.

**That's b/c you signed up for 501c3, and hence gave over ALL of your 1st ammendment rights!

Perkins and his allies intend to keep hammering on the Christian-persecution theme as Election Day nears. The final simulcast, scheduled for Sunday, will feature speeches from the Benham brothers and Phil Robertson of A&E's Duck Dynasty—people the right holds up as victims of a conspiracy to silence Christians. The event will be broadcast from Houston's Grace Community Church, one of five congregations that recently received subpoenas from the city demanding it hand over sermons and other documents. City officials have since dropped that request, made as part of a legal battle over an anti-discrimination law that many churches oppose. But the incident has become a rallying cry for religious conservatives who believe their freedoms are under siege, which makes it a potent tool for mobilizing Christian voters. As Perkins put it during a recent conference call, "We're going to be praying that God will be using this to spark the national revival that we so desperately need."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, where were all of this "evangelical conservatives" when George W. Bush said Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Why weren't they fighting for their "religious freedoms" then?

[Psalm 51:17]

The campaign dates back to March, when United in Purpose, a nonprofit funded by wealthy evangelical Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, convened a Voter Mobilization Strategy Summit near Dallas. At the event, churches and conservative Christian political organizations forged a strategy to mobilize voters for the 2014 midterms. United in Purpose, a behind-the-scenes technology and communications group with deep dominionist ties, also shared a variety of tools including videos and voter mobilization apps. (One app allows pastors to compare their membership rosters with voter rolls, so they can better guide their flock to the polls.) The Family Research Council and Texas-based Vision America, which played a key role in the summit, then began hosting policy briefings for pastors and staging lavishly produced voter mobilization events that were broadcast live to churches and groups across the country.

http://unitedinpurpose.org/partners

Check out some of the minions that are partnered with this organization...2 of them being Catholic Vote and KENNETH COPELAND MINISTRIES!(among many others like David Barton's Wallbuilders)

The strong delusion is right around the corner.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-court-rejects-religious-objection-obamacare-contraception-deal-164613992.html
U.S. court rejects religious objection to Obamacare contraception deal
11/14/14

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a win for the Obama administration on insurance coverage for contraception under Obamacare, a U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled that Catholic non-profit groups' religious rights were not violated by a compromise already achieved on the volatile issue.

Catholic groups had sued over the compromise, saying they should not have to pay for or facilitate access to contraception or abortion, but a judge wrote in the ruling that under the compromise, "the regulations do not compel them to do that."

Handed down by a three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit, the unanimous decision is the third by an appeals court to rule in favor of the government. The issue could yet be decided by the Supreme Court.

The court ruled that the compromise on contraception coverage, issued in 2013 and amended in August, did not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs, which would be a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Judge Nina Pillard wrote in the decision that the compromise helps the plaintiffs wash "their hands of any involvement in providing insurance for contraceptive services."

The compromise allows the groups to avoid paying for the coverage required under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, often known as Obamacare. Groups can certify they are opting out, which then forces insurers to pick up the tab.

The Catholic groups that sued, Priests for Life and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, argued the certification process still essentially forces the groups to authorize the coverage for its employees, even if they are not technically paying for it. Religious institutions are exempt from the contraception coverage requirement.

The ruling comes five months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that closely-held companies could, on religious grounds, seek exemptions from the contraception provision. Days later, in a case similar to the Washington dispute, the Supreme Court allowed a college in Illinois a temporary exemption while litigation continues.

[FervorForFaith]

Thought this would fit here, given the main point of my Obama series. This is a video that the assistant pastor at the church building I mentioned in a post a while ago sent me via e-mail.



Hitler 2.0 agenda showing up again...

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/tony-perkins-america-faces-new-cultural-revolution-gone-mad
Tony Perkins: America Faces ‘New Cultural Revolution--Gone Mad’
January 20, 2015 - 11:40 AM

CNSNews.com) -- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins delivered a “State of the Family Address” last night in which he cited multiple government attacks on religious freedom and said America faces a "new cultural revolution--gone mad."

“The threats America faces are not potential--they are clear, present and dangerous,” said Perkins in an address broadcast online and on American Family Radio. “Ironically, they come most sharply today not from the radical economic doctrines of Karl Marx, nor from the lights of what Winston Churchill called 'perverted science,' but from the darkness of unrestricted sexual license—a new Cultural Revolution—gone mad."

In the audience, were four American families who have seen their religious liberty attacked in recent times.

Among them were the Hahn family, who operate Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet-making business in Pennsylvania. When the federal government ordered the Hahns, under an Obamacare regulation, to provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and devices in their employee health-insurance plan--or pay $95,000 per day in fines--they sued the administration. When the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the administration could not enforce the same regulation against Hobby Lobby, a lower court issued an injunction preventing the administration from enforcing it against the Hahns.

Barth Bracy of Connecticut and his family also attended the "State of the Family Address." Bracy, who is the head of Rhode Island Right to Life, lives in next-door Connecticut. When Connecticut’s new Obamacare exchange offered no health insurance plan that did not cover elective abortions, he sued. “Thankfully, in its second year, Connecticut offered a prolife plan,” Perkins said in his address. “The Bracys have withdrawn their suit, but they know the battle is far from over.”

Aaron and Melissa Klein of Oregon also attended the event. They own the “Sweet Cakes by Melissa’ bakery.

“When the Kleins politely declined to make a wedding cake for two women seeking to get married under a federal court ruling that struck down Oregon’s pro-marriage referendum, the women filed a complaint under Oregon labor law,” said Perkins. “The Oregon Bureau of Labor fined the Kleins $150,000, a sum that will bankrupt them and their five small children. In the state of Oregon’s view, the Kleins need to be ‘rehabilitated’ from their religious views on the nature of marriage. Needless to say, government re-education regimes are not the American way.”

Also in attendance was Victoria Miller, who owns W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg, Pa. She “faced media scorn when she declined to provide wedding dresses for a same-sex ceremony,” Perkins said. “I am pleased to report that last month the Bloomsburg town council decided against drafting an ordinance that would have compelled businesses like Victoria’s to service an event it cannot morally support.”

Perkins argued that respect for religious freedom is central to, and essential for the preservation of, American freedom.

“A government able to bankrupt people for standing by their beliefs, on marriage or any other matter of conscience, is a government of unbridled power and a threat to everyone’s freedom,” he said.

Perkins called on Americans to rally around a number of causes the Family Research Council believes will start moving the country back in the right direction. These included:

--Paying more attention to religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy. “We propose that the Obama Administration elevates the importance of religious freedom in foreign affairs, as a basic liberty essential to peace as well as justice, with stronger enforcement of the International Religious Freedom Act through our aid programs, and for sanctions against governments hostile to religious freedom,” said Perkins.

--Enacting a federal law that would ban abortion in the United States after the 20th week of pregnancy. “The United States is one of only four nations on the planet to allow elective abortion throughout the entire term of pregnancy, including when at five months the unborn child can feel pain,” said Perkins.

--Enacting a federal law to prevent discrimination against people who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. “The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act prevents the federal government from doing to the Kleins what Oregon has done, or what a town council in Pennsylvania almost did to the Millers,” said Perkins.

--Enacting additional laws to prevent sex trafficking of women. “Abortion on demand and human trafficking compose a common league of evil,” said Perkins. “Ending that league is the abolitionist cause of our time.”

Near the end of his speech, Perkins made a plea for Christians to work for racial reconciliation in America.

**"racial reconciliation? Really? Like Ferguson? NOW we know who the REAL minions are behind this!

He noted the presence in the audience of Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., who is senior pastor of the Hope Christian Church in Washington, D.C., and presiding bishop of the International Communion of Evangelical Churches. In 2008, Perkins and Bishop Jackson coauthored “Personal Faith, Public Policy.”

“When we wrote our book 'Personal Faith, Public Policy' we desired to model racial reconciliation as we saw racial division within the body of Christ as a scandal—a stumbling block to secularists who long saw that the nation’s most religious regions suffered from some of its worst racial prejudice,” Perkins said.

“Over the past 50 years much progress has been made in building new bonds of solidarity in the church and in society, but looking around us today can we truly say that America has transcended the racial divide?” said Perksins. “As we wrote in our book, we are convinced that only the church can deliver our nation from the fires and fetters of racial hatred. On this question, we come not to demand more of government, but more of ourselves."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't be hoodwinked by this "religious freedom" nonsense - for example, look how Islam has infiltrated this country, big time. So are they saying the Islamapocalypse that's hit this country is OK, b/c Muslims are entitled to their "religious freedom"?

Did Jesus Christ die on the cross for our "religious freedom"?

Mark 16:15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/court-nixes-faith-based-birth-control-mandate-challenge-212411536.html
2/12/15
Court nixes faith-based birth control mandate challenge

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A federal appeals court has reversed lower-court victories by two western Pennsylvania Catholic dioceses and a private Christian college that challenged birth control coverage mandates as part of federal health care reforms.

The 3-0 ruling Wednesday by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the reforms place "no substantial burden" on the religious groups and therefore don't violate their First Amendment right to religious expression.

All three organizations are mulling whether to appeal to the entire 3rd Circuit Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Such a ruling should cause deep concern for anyone who cares about any First Amendment rights, especially the right to teach and practice a religious faith," Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik said in a statement. "This decision says that the church is no longer free to practice what we preach."

At issue is an "accommodation" written into the Affordable Care Act that says religious organizations can opt out of directly providing and paying to cover medical services such groups would consider morally objectionable. In this case, that refers to all contraceptive and abortion services for the Catholic plaintiffs, and contraceptive services like the "week-after" pill and other medical coverage that Geneva College contends violate its anti-abortion teachings. The school in Beaver Falls is affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church.

Justice Department lawyers have argued the accommodation solves the problem because it allows religious groups to opt out of directly providing such coverage. But the plaintiffs contend that merely filing the one-page form, which puts a religious group's objections on record with the government, violates their rights because it still "facilitates" or "triggers" a process that then enables third-party insurers to provide the kind of coverage to which they object.

The appellate opinion written by Judge Marjorie O. Rendell rejects that reasoning.

"Federal law, rather than any involvement by the appellees in filling out or submitting the self-certification form, creates the obligation" for third parties to offer the objected-to coverage, Rendell wrote.

The opinion says the form merely provides a way for the religious groups to avoid being penalized for opting not to directly provide the benefits. But the groups have argued the form does more than that if the third-party providers can't provide the services before the form is filed. That question is expected to be raised in future appeals.

The Catholic plaintiffs raise a second issue. Churches themselves, and their employees, are automatically exempt from the health care mandates. But affiliated organizations — like the college — and charities are not, so the dioceses contend the law essentially divides the church against itself.

The 3rd Circuit, based in Philadelphia, is the fourth federal appeals court to rule that the accommodation is not a burden on the nonprofits' exercise of religion. The other courts that have ruled are based in Chicago, Cincinnati and Washington, D.C. At least four other appellate courts are considering the same issue, and experts on both sides expect the Supreme Court eventually will settle the matter.

The justices could act on a request by the University of Notre Dame as soon as Feb. 23. The earliest the issue could be argued at the Supreme Court is October, and a decision would not be expected until 2016.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/25/more-courts-are-telling-businesses-stop-using-religion-to-discriminate
2/25/15
More courts are telling businesses: stop using religion to discriminate
Louise Melling
Ever since Hobby Lobby, a slew of court rulings are telling companies that their religious rights have limits

The US supreme court ruled last summer that the national retail chain Hobby Lobby has the right to impose the religious beliefs of its owners on the company’s employees by refusing to cover contraception, as required by federal law. The court’s ruling rested on the premise that complying with the law violated the business’ religious freedom.

Since then though, in other contexts, lower courts and commissions have been stepping up and ruling against companies that try to use the freedom of religion argument as a pretext for discrimination against LGBT people and women.

Religious freedom is integral to this country. It must - and will – be protected. But what is being increasingly recognized is that religious freedom gives us all a right to our beliefs. This right, though, like all our rights, has limits. Those limits come into play when acting on our beliefs harms others.

Religious liberty can’t be used by businesses to turn away lesbian and gay couples seeking to celebrate a relationship, or by religiously associated nonprofits who treat women employees like second-class citizens by denying contraceptive coverage. The promise of equality is not real or robust if it has exceptions.

Just last week, a court in Washington found a florist in violation of that state’s anti- discrimination law after the store refused to provide flowers for a gay couple’s wedding. The owner of the store said serving the couple would have violated her faith by signaling approval for the wedding. The court said she’s welcome to have her beliefs. But those beliefs don’t give her the right to turn people away simply because they’re gay. The court also concluded that referring the couple to a non-discriminating business doesn’t cut it. Such a result, would “defeat the purpose of combating discrimination” and “allow discrimination in public accommodations based on all protected classes, including race”, according to the court.

The Washington court is not alone. In the recent wave of cases concerning businesses serving the public, every court and commission that has considered a claim that religious belief justifies discrimination has said, “No license to discriminate issued here.”

When a photography studio argued a right to refuse to photograph a commitment ceremony, the state supreme court in New Mexico said no. When a wedding venue argued for a right to turn away a lesbian couple, the New York State Division of Human Rights said no. When a cake shop argued a right to refuse service to a gay couple seeking a wedding cake, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission said no. And an administrative law judge in Oregon said no to a bakery that refused to provide a same-sex couple a cake for their wedding.

The trend, however, isn’t limited to the LGBT context. The courts are denying a new wave of challenges to the rules providing for contraceptive coverage. Right now, in essence, if those institutions object to providing contraception for religious reasons, they can notify their insurer or the federal Department of Human Services of their objection, and the insurer will provide and administer coverage. Religiously affiliated nonprofits are objecting even to this requirement, saying it makes them complicit in sin. To date, four courts of appeals have considered challenges to this rule; every one of those courts has rejected the claim.[/b]

The courts have rejected this effort to stretch the Hobby Lobby ruling one step further. At least one court has called it like it is, noting that what the institution is objecting to is not filling out paperwork. The real objection is women getting the contraceptive care they need.

The supreme court’s Hobby Lobby ruling was without precedent. For now at least, the courts and other governmental bodies aren’t accepting the invitations, coming fast and furious, to sanction the next wave of discrimination.

And they can’t, not if they want to be true to equality and religious freedom. When there were calls in congress and courts across the country to let businesses turn away African Americans because of religious beliefs, the answer was a resounding “no.” The answer should be the same today.

Businesses and nonprofits have twisted the idea of religious freedom, arguing that it provides the right to discriminate. They’d like the right to put up a big sign that says, “We don’t serve your kind here,” and claim that’s okay simply because of their religious beliefs.

The growing response from courthouses and government bodies has been a loud and clear, “No.” This shift promises that religious freedom will be protected – and the promise of equality will too.

[Psalm 51:17]

And the soap opera continues to drag on...

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-throws-ruling-obamacare-contraception-mandate-134041881.html
3/9/15
Supreme Court sends Notre Dame contraception mandate challenge to lower court

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out an appeals court decision that went against the University of Notre Dame over its religious objections to the Obamacare health law’s contraception requirement.

The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in favor of the Obama administration in light of the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed closely held corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.

The court’s action means the February 2014 appeals court ruling that denied the South Bend, Indiana-based Roman Catholic university an injunction against the requirement has been wiped out.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act, known widely as Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women including access to contraception and sterilization.

In the 2014 ruling, the high court said that Hobby Lobby Stores Ltd could, on religious grounds, seek exemptions from the contraception provision.

Days later, in a case similar to the Notre Dame dispute, the Supreme Court allowed a college in Illinois a temporary exemption while litigation continues.

Catholic groups say they should not have to pay for or facilitate access to contraception or abortion because of religious objections.

But courts that have considered the issue since then have found that a compromise aimed at nonprofits with religious affiliations, issued in 2013 and amended in August 2014, did not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Religious rights are protected under a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Notre Dame case was the only appeals court decision on that issue that pre-dated the Hobby Lobby ruling.

The compromise allows the groups to certify they are opting out, which then forces insurers to pick up the tab.

Notre Dame says the certification process still essentially forces the groups to authorize the coverage for its employees, even if they are not technically paying for it. Religious institutions are exempt from the contraception coverage requirement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Born-again believers, please don't be fooled by this, b/c...

1) Look who is fighting this - the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH - as tempting as it is, PLEASE don't wave your pom-poms in victory b/c doing so WILL alight yourself with the RCC!

And besides - our conversation and blessed hope is with our LORD Jesus Christ with ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN!

2) Look at the last bolded above - this is yet another back-door way for insurance premiums to GO UP! This is all by design with Obamacare to skyrocket insurance premiums, and ultimately get everyone to beg for this one-payer system! Problem. Reaction. Solution.

[Psalm 51:17]

Was just reading about it in another article - apparently, they didn't overturn it(completely, that is) - they just merely punted it back to a lower federal court(to reconsider it). The title of this article is rather misleading.

Like said above - this soap opera continues...

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-against-govt-catholic-college-contraception-192246159.html
Supreme Court rules against gov't in Catholic college contraception case
3/9/15

Washington (AFP) - The United States Supreme Court on Monday overturned a court judgment in favor of the Obama administration which barred a Catholic university from refusing to pay for contraception for employees on religious grounds.

The Supreme Court had already ruled in favor last year of a Christian-owned company, Hobby Lobby, which had sought to avoid paying for worker healthcare plans which included contraception.

Monday's ruling overturned a judgment against the University of Notre Dame, a prominent Catholic college, which had also refused to fund contraception, a mandatory provision under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

The judgment was the only one of its kind in the United States forcing a religious organization to support certain kinds of contraceptives, such as the morning after pill.

But in a brief decision issued Monday, the highest US court overturned the earlier ruling, sending the case back to a federal court of appeal and ordering it to reconsider in light of the June 2014 decision.

Monday's ruling reflected the position of the Supreme Court last year, when the nine justices, five of whom are conservative, ruled that freedom of religion ought to apply to businesses as well as individuals, meaning an employer should not be compelled to pay for contraception if it violated his or her religious beliefes.

"This is a major blow to the federal government's contraception mandate. For the past year, the Notre Dame decision has been the centerpiece of the government's effort to force religious ministries to violate their beliefs or pay fines to the IRS," said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in the case.

"As with the Supreme Court's decisions in Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, this is a strong signal that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the government's narrow view of religious liberty.

Monday's ruling is the latest instance of the Supreme Court making a ruling related to Obama's healthcare reforms.

Last week the justices debated a case which asks whether some seven million people who signed up for Obamacare via the government's website are actually entitled to tax subsidies that make the coverage affordable. Unlike the contraception case, their decision could strike down the law.

A decision is expected before the end of June.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like a whole new can of worms is opening up...

Let's say a Muslim business denies services to a sodomite couple - does anyone here honestly believe the courts will side with the sodomites, like they did in their cases against Christian business owners who denied them services?

Let's say Hindu business owners fire their Christian employees based on whatever - does anyone here honestly believe the courts will side with the Christian employees?

Does everyone here see where this is going?

[Psalm 51:17]

There is NO "revival" in the last days! And look at what is promoted here!

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Christianity-on-rise-increasing-10-signs/2015/03/09/id/629134/
10 Signs Christianity Is on the Rise
3/9/15

Christianity is a dying relic of an ancient past. The Internet is killing it. Science is killing it. Western sophistication is killing it. Right?

Wrong.

In many ways, Christianity is on the rise as never before—worldwide, and in America. Here are the ways we can tell:

1. Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds worldwide.

The research shows Christian numbers rising, not falling worldwide. "Christianity should enjoy a worldwide boom in the coming decades, but the vast majority of believers will be neither white nor European, nor Euro-American," writes Philip Jenkins of Baylor University, author of "The Next Christendom."

In America, this will mean that as white descendants of Europeans fall off a demographic cliff, they will be replaced by the growing Southern Christian and Catholic populations.

2. Nominal Christianity is dead — and that’s a good thing.

Meanwhile, in America, research showing that Christian numbers are tanking is a little misleading. What it really shows is a fall in the number of people who call themselves Christians but have never darkened the door of a Church. We no longer feel we have to dishonestly mark the "Christian" box, and we now feel it's OK to be honest and mark the "atheist" box—but this shows health rather than weakness.

It is an interesting dynamic: In the West, the nominal Christianity that was inherited unthinkingly is disappearing and in the East and South, real Christianity is a rapidly growing grassroots movement. Books like God's Century by Monica Duffy Toft of Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and God Is Back by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge of The Economist are trying to figure out what that will mean.

3. The Church is promoting the sacraments.

But the nominal Catholic rate still causes problems. We know various polls place Mass attendance at various small percentages. What we don’t know is the extent to which they merely show that nominal Catholics still mark "Catholic" on polls.

Another thing we also know is that the Church is promoting the first necessary step to increased Mass attendance: confession. The Vatican’s 24 hours for the Lord March 13-14 is doing this church-wide, seeing promotions pay off in Great Britain, while events such as Chicago’s Festival of Forgiveness and Philadelphia's confession push are doing the same in America.

4. Eucharistic Adoration is on the rise.

A good measure of whether Catholics are more than nominal is Eucharistic adoration. To spend time with Jesus Christ is the very definition of a Christian, after all. Adoration is offered at 7,094 U.S. parishes as listed by RealPresence.com. In 2005, that website’s president, Mike Mortimer, estimated that there were 715 perpetual adoration chapels in America. The Vatican now estimates that there are 1,100 perpetual adoration chapels in America.

The worldwide church is led by a man who prays a daily Eucharistic hour and the Church in America is actively promoting Eucharistic adoration through events like the Eucharistic Adoration Novena.

5. Catholic youth movements have never been stronger.

A movement’s future is only as strong as its next generation, and so for Catholicism to have a future it has to have a youth movement. Catholicism does. Our most recent World Youth Day attracted 3.7 million — one of the 30-year event’s largest gatherings ever.

At home, we see a pro-life force largely led by young American Catholics, which dwarfs almost every other activist movement. Tens of thousands of Catholic young people descend on Washington each January for the March for Life, and you can add to that the young people at the 115 smaller marches for life throughout the United States and the nationwide life chain events in October.

6. … and the Catholic youth movements are linked to higher education.

When I went to college, people referred to "the **** four" or "thriving five" Catholic colleges faithful to the magisterium. Now I work at a college and we continually hear new stories of schools trying to reclaim their Catholic identity in order to compete. Today, the National Catholic Register’s latest Catholic Identity Guide lists more than 30 schools that are promoting the strength of their Catholic identity.

At the same time, new Catholic centers at state schools are trying to make inroads in hostile environments that dismantle students’ faith: The Seek 2015 conference of FOCUS (The Fellowship of Catholic University Students) attracted nearly 10,000 college students this year.

7. New, young vocations.

Another phenomenon you can’t help but notice in Catholic circles is hidden from official numbers: the new young vocations. We see them at Benedictine College all the time — in our classrooms, in our Abbey, and among our alumni. But because of the huge numbers of elderly priests and nuns, the total numbers of priests and nuns keeps dropping in America.

Research does show that millennials are "even more likely" to consider vocations than the generation before them, and anecdotal evidence shows that there was a Benedict Effect before there was any Francis Effect in vocations, and that priests under 35 represent a sign of hope in the Church.

8. Strong, engaged Bishops.

Complaining about bishops is a pastime as old as the Church itself. It can be done in a helpful way (see the letters of St. Paul in your New Testament) and in an unhelpful way (as in the joke about the part of the bishop-making ceremony where the candidate’s spine is removed).

But the 21st century has seen a huge change in the way American bishops engage the world. It first became noticeable with the candidacy of John Kerry, a radically pro-abortion politician whose nominal Catholicism forced bishops to take a stand. Then came the rise of Obama and the HHS mandate — which every U.S. bishop denounced. Finally, new strong bishops are emerging from what Thomas Peters calls the "Benedict Bishop Bump."

9. A new interest in Scripture.

Many people predicted when "The Da Vinci Code" was popular that the long-term effect of the novel’s crazy anti-Scriptural premise would be to increase interest in Scripture. That paradoxical prediction has proven true. In the wake of "The Da Vinci Code," a new interest in Scripture can be seen in popular books, television miniseries, and major Hollywood movies.

10. The witness of the martyrs.

Last but not least by a long shot is the witness of the martyrs. The beautiful way Christians are showing their deep faith and love for Jesus Christ, as I've said before, will grow the Church just as it did in the former atheist communist bloc, and indeed as it did in the early Church.

The bottom line is that if Christianity is true, then we can expect it will continue to rise and not die. If it's not true, then it will certainly die — and the sooner, the better. But since Jesus Christ really did die and rise and leave us the sacraments, don’t expect it to go away any time soon.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-thank-baptists-for-religious-liberty-135442/
Rick Warren: 'Thank Baptists for Religious Liberty'
3/10/15

Baptists have long been champions of religious freedom, recounted mega church pastor Rick Warren and Southern Baptist spokesman Russell Moore, in a panel moderated by Judge Ken Starr, president of Baptist affiliated Baylor University.

**I believe Ken Starr, if you remember, was the Lewinsky prosecutor during the Clinton scandal years. IOW, what is someone who's part of the world system in a Christian setting?

Last week's symposium on "Proselytism and Development" was hosted by Georgetown University's Berkley Center, whose Religious Freedom Project is directed by IRD board member Thomas Farr.

Early champions of religious liberty included Rhode Island colony founder Roger Williams and Baptist clergy like John Leland who influenced Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Religious liberty scholar Paul Marshall, an IRD board member, once noted that ironically the most ardent advocates of religious liberty have been strict theological exclusivists, like Roger Williams, who barely thought anyone but himself was saved.

Russell Moore, in his panel with Warren and Starr, made a similar point. "We have a history of being irritants," he said. "Baptists weren't interested in being a mascot. Thomas Jefferson was not qualified to teach in any Baptist Sunday school." Yet Baptists encouraged and supported Jefferson's exertions for religious liberty.

**And you are a LIAR, Russell Moore!

If Caesar has the power to regulate religion then Caesar has power over the soul, Moore said of the Baptist perspective. Moore's Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has been prominent in defending domestic and international religious liberty.

Echoing similar sentiments, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, a Southern Baptist congregation in California that is one of America's largest churches, observed that countries with the greatest religious freedom have a Christian background.

"Thank the Baptists for religious liberty," urged Warren, who also participated in an earlier panel with a Jewish relief group chief. "What Jefferson meant by separation of church and state is the exact opposite of what is thought today," recalling Jefferson's famous letter to Danbury, Connecticut Baptists extolling a "wall of separation" between church and state, which Jefferson meant as protection for, not limits on, the church and faith.

Warren sardonically noted that the number of atheists and agnostics is quite small outside Europe and Manhattan. "The future of the world is not secularism but pluralism," he surmised, saying he has no objection to countries recognizing their respective religion's culture shaping role, whether with Buddha statues or Islamic iconography, so long as they affirm religious liberty in the present.

"Coercion is not conversion," Warren said. "God gave me the right to accept or reject Him so I must give others the same right. But I do believe in sharing in what I deeply hold." He noted religious freedom is America's first freedom, and the Constitution doesn't just guarantee freedom of worship a private exercise but full freedom of religion in every sphere.

Warren warned against double standards. "Proselytizing has become a negative word only used against Christians. But everybody does it. Everybody does it but it's bad only for [Christian] believers." He lamented the pervasive social attitude that, "If you don't agree with me you hate me or you're phobic. It's not hate speech to disagree with somebody."

Agreeing with Warren that Evangelicals seek "commonality" with others for the public good, Moore urged finding "Evangelicals who are the most genuinely Evangelical and not the ones who don't believe anything. Don't assume that because an Evangelical is wary [on some issues] or has strong positions that they won't cooperate" on other issues for the common good.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-top-court-throws-obamacare-contraception-ruling-141350982.html
4/27/15
U.S. top court throws out Obamacare contraception ruling

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday revived religious objections by Catholic groups in Michigan and Tennessee to the Obamacare requirement for contraception coverage, throwing out a lower court decision favoring President Barack Obama's administration.

The justices asked the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision that backed the Obama administration in light of the Supreme Court's June 2014 ruling that allowed certain privately owned corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.

Obama's healthcare law, known as Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women including access to contraception and sterilization.

Various challengers, including family-owned companies and religious affiliated nonprofits that oppose abortion and sometimes the use of contraceptives, say the requirement infringes on their religious beliefs.

more

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/22/hobby_lobby_sequel_fifth_circuit_rejects_obamacare_contraceptive_mandate.html
6/22/15
Federal Court Vehemently Rejects Latest Challenge to the Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate

On Monday, the Fifth Circuit—one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country—rejected a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate in an opinion written by Judge Jerry E. Smith—one of the most conservative federal judges on the bench. The challenge, brought by nonprofit religious groups, claimed that the mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by forcing these groups to sign a form that would eventually allow their employees to access contraception. In a concise, emphatic opinion, the court ruled that the mandate complies with RFRA.

Although the challenge relies on the same law used in the Hobby Lobby case, it differs in crucial ways. In Hobby Lobby, for-profit corporations objected to the mandate's requirement that they provide employees with insurance coverage of contraception. The court held that this requirement substantially burdened Hobby Lobby's exercise of religion, in violation of RFRA. Here, however, religious nonprofits are not being required to provide contraceptive coverage to their employers. Rather, they need only submit a form or notification announcing that they refuse, based on their religious beliefs, to provide such coverage. Once they have, their insurer will be directed to provide separate payments to women who desire contraception.

The religious groups currently suing the government claim that the act of submitting this form constitutes a substantial burden on their religious exericse, in violation of RFRA. Signing the form, they argue, will set into motion a chain of events that ultimately allows their employees to gain access to contraception. The Third, Sixth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits have already rejected this argument; the Fifth Circuit now joins their ranks. At the heart of the court's opinion is this remarkable passage:

Although the plaintiffs have identified several acts that offend their religious beliefs, the acts they are required to perform do not include providing or facilitating access to contraceptives. Instead, the acts that violate their faith are those of third parties. Because RFRA confers no right to challenge the independent conduct of third parties, we join our sister circuits in concluding that the plaintiffs have not shown a substantial burden on their religious exercise.

This logic is ripped directly from Justice Anthony Kennedy's Hobby Lobby concurrence, which tempered Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion. Kennedy explained that RFRA claims might fail if the asserted religious exercise burdened a third party's ability to exercise her own rights. And that, pretty clearly, is what's going on here: These religious organizations are essentially asserting that RFRA protects their ability to forbid their employees from accessing contraceptive coverage. Five appeals courts have now firmly rejected this reasoning. And until a court rules the other way, the Supreme Court will probably refrain from wading into the controversy.

[Psalm 51:17]

Disclaimer: This is from a Roman Catholic source - However, I do believe(IMHO) that Catholic churches will be targeted first in the aftermath of this b/c the NWO establishments has been painting the RCC as the "persecuted", and ultimately painting them as the "true church"(as we discussed here). Once they get past this stage, these Fundamental Evangelical churches will be next in line.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/things-are-going-to-get-very-tough-very-quickly-for-the-church-and-her-alli
Things Are Going to Get Very Tough, Very Quickly, for the Church and Her Allies
6/26/15

Most were not surprised by the Supreme Court decision today. Court watchers who had attended the hearings earlier this year were rather certain that the mood of the court was to find a constitutional right to marriage and extend it to those with same-sex attraction.

I am not a lawyer and will not therefore speak to the legal demerits of this decision. Others, including the minority on the Court, can speak to that.
But as a citizen I wonder how we have come to a place in our legal and legislative system where unelected judges for life, who in effect answer to no one, can make such increasingly common and sweeping decisions regarding basic human institutions.

Increasingly in our nation, many are beginning to feel quite powerless over the most basic aspects of their life. Governmental decisions in both the executive and judicial branches of government are eclipsing and overruling plebiscites and laws crafted by and enacted by elected legislators, who are answerable to the American people.  Judges are imposing, often at brisk speed, sweeping changes with little opportunity for appeal or redress. The wide use of executive power by presidents has also become wide and sweeping in the same matters.

The balance of power has shifted dramatically toward the judicial branch and judges who “know better” than the American people or their elected legislators.

Clearly there is a place for judicial review of laws and policies. But it is increasingly evident that the judicial activism of recent decades is way out of balance.

Sadly, both conservatives and liberals have often had recourse to courts for matters that really should have been handled in the giveand-take of the legislative process. Too many people have preferred to **** with judicial fiats, rather than building political consensus. Too many legislators, and even the American people, have ceded this authority to nine individuals who answer to no one. This is not healthy.

It remains to be seen how this new constitutional right (never before known until now) will affect our religious liberties. Judge Kennedy’s assurances notwithstanding, I am not optimistic that within short order, large numbers of legal challenges to the Church’s right to refuse recognition and celebration of such unions will be eroded steadily, and at some point made illegal altogether. If you think I am alarmist, I ask only that you consider how many businesses and “wedding chapels” have already been fined for rejecting on religious grounds the demand to cooperate with the celebration of same-sex unions.

Remember this too: It is not just “the Church” that has a right to religious liberty. YOU have a right to religious liberty. Rather consistently local judges and others have said that religious liberty does not prevail for individuals who own businesses or engage in commerce.  In effect, you can have religious liberty, so long as you don’t own a business. Here too there are legal nuances, but the fundamental trajectory is clear: Anyone who opposes the celebration of same-sex unions and lifestyle are going to be increasingly entangled in the courts and face more and more charges.

Less than ten years ago, predictions of today's legal landscape would have been laughed at as dubious. Those who envisioned it were called fearmongers and worse. But here we are. And pardon me for being more than a little concerned that the slope is going downhill faster and steeper than any of us care to imagine. Things are going to get very tough very quickly — not just for “the Church”, but for traditional believers and anyone who dares stand against what has become a juggernaut of judicial activism and rule from the bench.

Every American should be concerned by this. This is a sword that swings both ways.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/july/wheaton-college-loses-emergency-contraception-appeal-outsou.html
Wheaton College May Have to 'Outsource Sin'
Court refuses to grant injunction. School must allow federal funding for Plan B, ella, and IUDs.
Timothy C. Morgan and Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra [ POSTED 7/8/2015 03:10PM ]

A federal appeals court will not give Wheaton College a preliminary injunction in connection with its civil suit to be free from one key Obamacare requirement.

So for now, the college is required to notify the government of its objection to providing emergency contraception through the college’s health insurance plan.

When notification takes place, it triggers a program to provide free contraception coverage for health plan participants. The college considers the use of FDA-approved, morning-after pills (Plan B, ella) and intrauterine devices (IUDs) immoral since such contraception may work after fertilization.

But the US District Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit) on July 1 denied the preliminary injunction. “[Notification] is hardly a burdensome requirement; nor does it leave the provider—the opt out—with any residual involvement in the coverage of drugs or devices of which it sincerely disapproves on religious grounds,” wrote Judge Richard Posner.

The court said it was denying the injunction for two reasons.

“[Wheaton College] has failed to show that delaying a judgment in its favor to the conclusion of proceedings in the district court would do the college any harm...The college has also failed to match the relief it seeks to the illegalities it alleges...the government isn’t using the college’s health plans, as we have explained at perhaps excessive length.”

more