The Facts about Separation of Church and State

Thomas Jefferson, The First Amendment and the separation of church and state - most are surprised to discover that neither the Constitution nor the First Amendment contain these words. The First Amendment simply states:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”The fact that the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in no founding document does not prevent many judicial and social activists from invoking that phrase as the basis for many public policy decisions. Today, Thomas Jefferson (author of that phrase) is portrayed as the authority on the First Amendment: Read the rest HERE

A Great Mothers Day Gift

By Bekah Ferguson @ Prolife Blogs

I've learned from experience that it can be difficult to get straight answers from prochoice adherents. There is so much rhetoric, douplespeak and catch phrases, it can be like trudging through a swamp to get to the heart of the matter.

So, to help people understand the prochoice perspective better and to recognize common strawmen, I've compiled some of the arguments I hear the most and what they really mean: click here.

Suddenly one morning, tyranny

Marie Jon, RA analyst @ Renewing America.com

Imagine waking up one morning prepared to do your daily Bible study and discovering that Exodus Chapter 20 had been completely erased. The Ten Commandments were missing. Of course, you would wonder what possibly could have happened.

You then become panicked as you quickly turn to the New Testament, only to discover that the Sermon on the Mount had vanished as well. The verse about loving one's enemy was gone. Even the Golden Rule had disappeared. Upon closer examination, you discover that every guideline concerning living a better way of life was gone

Non-believers suggest that humanity is on its own, and that's all right with them. They believe they are justified in finding their own way. They feel comfortable that a sense of "the collective good" (which keeps them from becoming destructive to one another) will prevail, without the need to rely on God.

It's undeniable that horrors and hurts have been inflicted upon the world in the name of religion, including Christianity. Some misguided men within the ministry have perceived their actions as God's will. In eras long past, persecution was wrongly justified. Innocent people were literally destroyed by those who didn't agree with them. These shameful acts will never be forgotten.

On the other side of the fence lies the question: What are the results when God's Word is totally rejected and the Almighty's laws are distorted or ignored? Do we fare any better?

When there is no moral authority

If you're not a religious person in any real sense, then you reject the authority of a loving God. If so, what stops you from acting in a manner that is morally wrong?

We live in a country where some of our politicians can be bought and paid for — those who possess little or no sense of moral obligation. There is a big problem when our nation's Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat.

Timothy Geithner is the Obama administration's embarrassment. The fact that Geithner is a law-breaker does not seem to bother those who voted for President Barack Hussein Obama. We've obviously become a nation of foolish people who no longer see right and wrong in clear, bold, and distinctive colors.

"Thou shalt not steal" is a commandment that is uniquely germane to the culture in Washington, D.C. Soon, those who earn $250,000 or more will be paying higher taxes. This president seems to believe it is noble to redistribute wealth — but Obama merely wants to rob from those who have and give to others in order to shore up his own political capital
The entitlement trap

Americans are generous people. In down times, our country has always made provision to lend a helping hand when our fellow citizens need lifting up. But social programs were intended, at best, to be a temporary fix, not a way of life.

Actually, it is cruel to facilitate this type of entitlement mentality. People who live on government programs lose their dignity. They fall prey to their own insecurities. Many of them never become successful achievers and accomplish the American dream. The Democrat Party can be blamed for this dilemma. They see people as nothing more than a voting bloc to be manipulated.

Caring conservatives are saddened when they see what is happening within the black community. Too many lives are broken. Too many live in the past, continually looking backward, instead of acknowledging America's noble achievements and their own God-given potential. Some are willing to blame all of their cultural problems on slavery.
Christians must focus on Obama's liberal social agenda. They need to continually point out to those living in the inner cities the dire effects that an ever-expanding welfare-nanny state will have on poor communities. Traditionalists and people of faith understand how religious beliefs encourage personal responsibility, as well as civic pride. If Europe, with its overwhelming welfare rolls, is a reliable indication, it just might be that Obama is willfully taking the United States down the path to hell.

Deceiving the undiscerning

It is obvious that Evangelical and Catholic Christians were purposely targeted during Obama's campaign. He went out of his way to attract churchgoing Americans. Obama spoke about his faith when he took part in Pastor Rick Warren's special forum held at the Saddleback Church. Obama managed to fool naive and trusting God-fearing voters. Obama lied about himself — while his campaign downplayed his outrageous radical social views. He continued lying by putting an emphasis on a contrived commitment to tolerance and civility toward those with whom he disagreed.

Let it be understood that it was Obama's purpose to exaggerate the ways in which his progressive policies and positions were consistent with biblical faith. Unfortunately, his beliefs are far from the gospel of Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. "You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act" (Matthew 7:16).

It is most unfortunate that Obama's efforts were successful. Inroads were made among traditional religious people with a "self-inflicted guilty conscience." If Christians would have heard God's still, small voice, they would not now be crying over their lack of better judgment.

Outright fraud

It's too bad that Pastor Rick Warren delivered his inaugural invocation and gave credence to a pandering fraud. Obama has suckered the faithful into believing that his administration is not an adversary of full-gospel, Bible-keeping Christians.

It is a shame that many in our country are not paying attention to the egregious effects of Obama's stimulus plan, which will encourage more people to depend on the government. People who support more social entitlement programs don't understand the consequences of Obama's overextending hand of socialism.

"We The People" are not interested in being led down the very same secular progressive path as the European countries. It is becoming clear that Obama's ambitions might finally bring Americans out in droves demanding to take their country back.

I have absolutely no intention of playing down my personal disdain for this usurper who sits in the White House. I do question the sincerity of Obama's religious experience. Black Liberation Theology espouses racism and is definitely Marxist. Obama is a devotee of this bigoted, quasi-religious system. Although he chose to walk away from Trinity United Church of Christ, I believe his heart remains with Revs. Otis Moss and Jeremiah Wright.

Excerpts from "Obama's New Pastor Club" by Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com:

"While Barack Obama has not found a new church since he left Jeremiah Wright' den of anti-American, socialist hate-mongering, he has assembled a new club of pastors for 'private prayer sessions on the telephone and for discussions on the role of religion in politics.'


"The Times tells us none of those Obama sought out are affiliated with the religious right, but 'the group can hardly be characterized as part of the religious left either.'

"Oh yeah?

"One of those selected by Obama is Jim Wallis. Show me an issue in which Wallis is not in lockstep with the religious left and I'll eat my hat." Full article
False hope

Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. History records the hard reality of those nations that tried to separate God's rule from their laws and culture. They never lasted, disintegrating into tyranny and horrifying persecution. The drive-by media never tells the American public the truth, however. When the game of "class warfare" is played out, bad consequences ensue. What is happening to our country is not by happenstance.

The French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levi used to be a Marxist, but later in life found his Christian faith. One of his memorable quotes is very honest and telling: "Apply Marxism in any country you want, you will always find a Gulag in the end."

It is very strange that progressives say they have brought us hope and change. How can that be? America was founded on our Constitution. The primary danger associated with the rise of the nanny state is that when government assumes the moral responsibility for others, people are less likely to do so themselves.

In countries like Sweden and Denmark, the large increases in welfare spending over the last half century have ended up eroding the moral fiber of families, and have disrupted civic institutions within these societies. Sound familiar? People have become dependent on the big government Sugar Daddy to meet their basic needs.

The problem with welfare dependency is that when people take the welfare state for granted, they are less likely to attend to the emotional, social, and material needs of their family and friends as earlier generations did. As the resultant social pathology deepens, crime, drug addiction, and similar ills begin to stifle lives. With government taking on an ever-expanding role, and with an ever-increasing rise in tax rates to support this growth, taxpayers can easily lose their sense of altruism and feeling of moral unity toward others.

Socialism then becomes self-fulfilling — as it destroys society's voluntary support system and fills the void with a police state.

Do we want our government to penalize hard-working citizens because they are high earners? A good work ethic should be rewarded because earned wealth creates jobs and promotes healthy, productive capitalism. Why should legislators demand that anyone be forced to share their wealth?

Take America back by using your activist tools.

Activist tools

Besides living a life that invites the guidance and gifts of God's Spirit — that thereby we might be a blessing to our country and to those persons we encounter — it's also vital that we become acquainted with effective tools for political activism, so we might fulfill our God-given duty as citizens and significantly multiply our influence for good.

Among the many grassroots resources is —

AmericasRevival.com — a website sponsored by RenewAmerica that's in the process of being revamped to better inform and equip God-fearing grassroots activists. The site is a strictly nonpartisan organizing tool for restoring our country to its biblical, constitutional, and Declaration-based foundations. It is not aligned with any particular candidate or national leader, and emphasizes the need for each individual citizen to lead out in reclaiming America upon God-centered precepts and principles. We'll keep you posted as we add new features to the site.

Heritage.org - Headlines - Quick Hits

Quick Hits from Heritage.org

Republican lawmakers released an 18-page outline of an alternative budget that proposes to cut overall government spending except for defense, ban additional spending for bailouts of financial companies, and cut the maximum income tax rate to 25 percent from the current rate of 36 percent.

North Korea moved a long-range missile to a launch pad this week and plans to send it into space in early April in defiance of repeated international warnings.

Government owned Freddie Mac is fighting efforts by regulators to tell private investors the extent of their financial troubles.

The World Trade Organization warned yesterday that protectionism could prolong the recession.

Liberal advocates of amnesty are launching a new strategy to push lawmakers and the White House to take up their cause.

Protecting Freedom for Health Care Providers

From Heritage.org

Religious institutions have long been an essential part of health care delivery in our nation. Long before government programs began monopolizing the health care industry, religious institutions were providing care to the poor and most vulnerable. Today, Catholic health care facilities alone make up a third of the nation’s hospitals. As the federal government has encroached further and further into health care decision making, religious freedom advocates have passed a number of laws designed to protect the consciences of health care providers. But these laws have rarely been enforced.

Seeking to better end discrimination against health care providers who object to participating in controversial medical procedures, the Bush Administration issued a regulation intended to increase awareness among health care professionals of their rights, finally assign proper enforcement responsibility within HHS, and bring needed clarity to laws that have essentially been gathering dust for decades.

Just five weeks into his presidency, the Obama Administration officially signaled their intention to rescind this regulation. An Obama HHS official explained to the Washington Post: “We’ve been concerned that the way the Bush rule is written, it could make it harder for women to get the care they need. It is worded so vaguely that some have argued it could limit family-planning counseling and even potentially blood transfusions and end-of-life care.” But as Heritage fellow Randy Pate argues the regulation clarified the law for the first time and assigned an enforcement home within HHS. Pate continues:

[T]he proposed rescission would do away with the progress that has been made and replace it with nothing. Because the conscience protection laws themselves aren’t going away, rescinding the regulation would result in real ambiguity and confusion. … Why rush to roll back conscience protections for health care professionals? If the Obama Administration is genuinely concerned about potential confusion here—rather than just pandering to the extreme pro-abortion lobby—the proper course is to let the regulations operate for a while and see what happens. Instead, the proposed rescission is an attempt to impose a “gag rule” that prevents meaningful enforcement of conscience laws and leaves health care professionals in the dark about their rights.

The head of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations David Stevens went even further, telling the Washington Post: “It is open season to again discriminate against health-care professionals. Our Founding Fathers, who bled and died to guarantee our religious freedom, are turning over in their graves.”

Federal law requires the Obama Administration to solicit comments from the American people and substantively respond to them before any regulation can attain the force of law. You can contact the Department of Health and Human Services and let them know how you feel about Obama’s destruction of the conscience clause here at A Doctor’s Right.

You have until April 9 to have your voice heard.

The Knock on the Door

From AmericanThinker

A sitting President of the United States is "organizing a political organization loyal to him, bound by a pledge, outside the government and existing party apparatus. The historical precedents are ominous."

What is so ominous about an organization? Americans, Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed, "constantly form associations.... If it is proposed to inculcate some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society."

Certainly, thousands of organizations seek to influence the political debate. There's Newt Gingrich's American Solutions or the left-wing People for the American Way, for instance. .

Political parties are another example of an association, of course. Before, during and after political campaigns, the Democrats and Republicans promote their agendas. As legal entities, they have their own constitutions, their rules of business, their chairmen and officers. They have to be accountable to both the government and their members.

But there is a new organization on the political scene -- "Organizing for America," announced by President Barack Obama in late January but officially unfurled last weekend.

Certainly, thousands of organizations seek to influence the political debate. There's Newt Gingrich's American Solutions or the left-wing People for the American Way, for instance.
Obama describes OFA as a "grass-roots movement" but OFA is a "project" of the Democratic Natrional Committee.

As Politico reported, OFA will take the 10 million person database built up by the Obama campaign "to mobilize support for the president's legislative agenda."

A visit to the OFA website reveals that supporters are not simply asked to sign up, they are asked to take a pledge. A pledge to support -- not the flag, not the constitution, not the country, not even the Democratic party, but Obama and his "bold plan." OFA does not use the Democratic Party logo but the "O"-shaped logo of the Obama campaign in which the red white and blue of the flag are abstracted to soft pastel colors.

(Celebrities like Ashton Kuchner and Demi Moore did not wait until the official launch to "pledge to be of service" to Barack Obama, of course.)

You will not find any mention of OFA`s governing structure, their budget, their bylaws, or their officers at the OFA website. Donations to the website go to the DNC, but OFA is managed out of the White House. If you click on the comments button, you are taken to a link to the White House email.

Those who take the pledge are asked to "talk with people about the President's plan" and to "ask them to sign their names to the pledge" in support of Obama's policies.

So we have a Movement -- this is their term, not mine -- organized by, and loyal to, a sitting President. Pledge canvassers, armed with your name, will ask you to pledge loyalty to the President too. A president whose term has already become a permanent campaign, is signing up ground forces in a mass organization pledged to personal loyalty to their Leader.

Does anyone know of any historical precedents for this in the United States?

Did Mitch Stewart, youthful director of OFA, who asks Obama's acolytes to organize "neighborhood by neighborhood" study anything at school about Mao's "Red Guards?

How about Fidel Castro's "widespread system of neighborhood informers"?

Or Hugo Chavez's use of "neighborhood committees"?

Did Stewart learn anything about democracy at all?

Do any of Obama's pledged servants understand why a sitting president has no business creating and deploying his own supporters to help organize their neighbors?

Keep in mind that these acolytes have renounced any thought of questioning the actual policies of the maximum leader. Whatever he says, they are for it. They have given their word.

And they are coming to have a talk with you.

As Thomas Lifson wrote, "This is not the way a democracy is supposed to operate."

8 Bad Arguments for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

8 Bad Arguments for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Posted using ShareThis