Religious Freedom is anything but.

A PARTIAL LIST OF THINGS THAT MAKE “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM” LAWS RIDICULOUS:

Recently passed laws in Arkansas and Georgia argue that men and women should be allowed to withhold services from people they find to be “morally objectionable on religious grounds,” such as the LGBT community and unwed mothers. Here is just a partial list of why those laws are ridiculous:

1) The laws allow believers to punish those who do not believe, this is the opposite of religious freedom.

2) One of this country's false origin false narratives says English people seeking to escape religious persecution founded the USA. Now we are trying to create an environment that condones the “reason” those people came.

3) The same people who are now seeking a “special right” to deny service to others once criticized gay marriage as being a “special right”.

4) The constitution – the first amendment says congress can make no law establishing a religion; therefore it follows that no religious beliefs can be treated preferentially over another. 

5) Most of the supporters claim to be Christian, but Jesus never instructed his followers not to serve their fellow man. 

6) Selective enforcement – will the business owners be required to survey every costumer and apply a uniform standard to the denial of service? Or will they be allowed to use their own judgment as to who is “immoral”.

7) How many of the supporters would accept gays not serving them because of their religion?

8) How many of the laws supporters would be denied service by other believers everything they had ever done was put under scrutiny?

NYT's Frank Bruni: Gays Are Not A Threat To Your ‘Religious Liberty’

In a op-ed published in The New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni delves into the au courant debate on the intersection of same-sex marriage and so-called “religious liberty."

Bruni highlights how foes of marriage equality, having failed to prove why government has a vested interest in discriminating against same-sex couples, have resolved that the best way to defend their advocating for discrimination is to sound the dog whistle of “religious liberty.” In other words, the enemies of equality argue that they must be exempt from treating all people equally under the law because to do so would infringe upon their “religious liberty.” 

Bruni’s searing and insightful piece also directly responds to a statement made by 2016 Presidential hopeful Jeb Bush who, reacting to the on-set of same-sex marriage in Florida, a state he was once governor of, attempted to walk a fine line between his party’s discriminatory views on same-sex marriage and the view held by a majority of Americans that same-sex couples are entitled to the freedom to marry. Said Bush,

"We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law. I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue – including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty."

What’s wrong with invoking religious liberty in a debate on same-sex marriage? Bruni explains:

"For starters, it perpetuates confusion, some of which is cynically engineered, about the consequences of marriage-equality laws. They do not pertain to religious services or what happens in a church, temple or mosque; no clergy member will be compelled to preside over gay nuptials. Civil weddings are covered. That’s it. 

But also, “religious liberty” sounds disturbingly like a dog whistle to the crowd that wants specified, codified exemption from anti-discrimination laws; it’s one of the phrases they lean on. If Bush didn’t know that, he should have. If he did, he just sided, for the moment, with religious extremists."

As James Esseks, a lawyer with the A.C.L.U. told Bruni, this new argument that places "religious liberty" at its heart "is the new wave, the new frame" that will be used to try and re-orient the national conversation on same-sex marriage by those hell-bent on stemming the tide of freedom and justice for same-sex couples. 

Read Bruni's full piece here.

Waking the sleeping beast of religious liberty

Something remarkable happened in the run up to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell. A movement was born. A potentially historic movement that does not yet know its name — but which may yet bring the light of hope to a darkening political landscape.

The Supreme Court ultimately threw out historic understandings of the right of individual conscience — what we generally call religious freedom — by extending the right of conscience for employers to claim broad exceptions from laws and regulations on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The decision magnified and encouraged the notion that among other things, religious exemptions from the law justify discrimination against LGBTQ people.

The best known of these exemptions have been bills introduced in state legislatures under the rubric of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Proposed RFRAs (pronounced rif-ruhs) in the past year have included provisions that would allow anyone to refuse to do business with, or provide services to, same-sex couples by citing religious beliefs.

Mike Huckabee Says Conservatives Shouldn’t Have to Accept ‘Ungodly’ Constitutional Laws

It’s hard to believe that once upon a time I thought Mike Huckabee was a fairly level-headed conservative. I’m not exactly sure of the year, but I remember using him as an example of a Republican who I didn’t think was all that bad.

Wow, how times have changed.

Now I’ll admit, I’ve never been the biggest Mike Huckabee follower. But I don’t ever remember him being this radical just a few years ago. Maybe he was and I just didn’t notice it – who knows.

Recently, while speaking with Vision America’s Rick Scarborough, Huckabee continued the usual right-wing nonsense about our Constitution being based on “godly” principles and how laws should be based on the Bible. 

He said, “We have people who say ‘well, the courts have ruled on abortion, we just have to live with it,’ or ‘the courts have ruled on same-sex marriage, we just have to live with it.’ And I would suggest, no we don’t! We shouldn’t just accept things that are ungodly and that will cause us to have to stand before God with bloody hands.”

Yes, that’s Mike Huckabee telling conservatives that if our justice system doesn’t side with their radical right-wing religious beliefs, they shouldn’t accept those rulings.

Whenever a conservative brings up the issue of Christianity and our Constitution, I just go back to the one fact they can’t dispute: The words “Christianity” or “Christian” don’t appear in our Constitution even once. 

These men were supposedly such devout Christians, so enamored with the idea of creating a Christian nation according to people like Mike Huckabee, yet they didn’t include any mention of Christianity in our Bill of Rights?

5 Examples Showing the Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives on “Religious Freedom:” Part 2

3. Birth Control

Liberals: This kind of ties in with the abortion issue. See, most liberals (as I said earlier) aren’t pro-abortion. And the best way to lower abortion rates is to increase the accessibility and availability of birth control. Even if some liberals might oppose some methods of birth control, they don’t mandate that other people must be restricted from using them. Again, liberals support the right for Americans to choose for themselves. And being that for many women birth control is an actual health issue, not just a way to help prevent unplanned pregnancies, it’s vital that health care plans offer access to these contraceptives. For liberals it’s about people having the choice to choose for themselves. If people want to use them, great, they have the freedom to do so. If some people object to contraceptives, that’s fine too, they don’t have to use them.

Conservatives: Many conservatives oppose birth control. They believe it’s against their religion. If it were up to many of them they’d do as much as they could to limit and restrict access to all forms of contraceptives. Even in the Hobby Lobby case, one business owner argued that their business should have the right to deny thousands of women the choice of birth control methods based on their religious beliefs. By winning that case, one person’s religious beliefs are now being forced on thousands of women who might not share them.

4. Prayer in School

Liberals: This one is pretty simple – keep religion out of public school. If some students want to personally pray while they’re in class, they’re more than free to do so silently to themselves. I know I did. But guess what, nobody ever knew. Because I kept it to myself. Religion has no place in a place of public education. No one is saying people can’t pray to themselves in class, we’re just saying public schools shouldn’t promote or organize religious prayers or events. That way nobody is forced to observe the religious practices of religions in which they do not believe.

Conservatives: Many conservatives believe that public school should include religion. Heck, many believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution. They also often support organized prayer in school (Christian of course). If conservatives had their way millions of American students in public school would be forced to observe religious practices that they do not follow. The right to freedom from religion for those students (and parents) who don’t want themselves or their children subjected to religions that they don’t follow or believe in would be violated.

5. Freedom of Religion in General

Liberals: For liberals, it’s pretty simple. If you want to believe in a particular religion, you’re free to do so – privately. People can go to church 7 days a week if they want to and read the Bible every single day. People can believe in whatever religion they want. If people chose to not believe in any kind of religion at all, that’s perfectly alright too. The issue is that every American is free to live their personal lives as religiously, or as detached from religion, as they want. If someone believes that all homosexuals are going against God, that’s their right to personally feel that way. Just don’t try to tell others they have to share that particular view. In the liberal world, every American gets to choose for themselves. In the liberal world every single religion is viewed equally and not one single American would be forced to follow laws based on a religion in which they do not believe.

Conservatives: Many believe that this country was founded, and should be based on, Christianity. They want laws to written from scripture. To them our First Amendment only applies to Christian Americans and not Americans who follow other religions or don’t follow any religion at all. Many conservatives believe that denying them their right to impose their religion on others violates their rights – yet they don’t seem to believe that others who don’t share their same religious views should be given any kind of religious rights. Under their ideology, one religion would rule over 330 million people.

Notice the difference? When it comes to “religious freedoms” and conservatives, it’s all about them forcing their views on others. When it comes to liberals, it’s all about keeping religion private and out of government so that not one single American is forced to adhere to laws based on a religion they don’t follow.

So, while conservatives go on and on about “religious freedom” what they really mean is their “right” to have one religion ruling over 330 million Americans. When it comes to liberals, it’s about actual freedom. It’s about letting every American decided for themselves what religion (if any) that they’ll follow.

Because true “religious freedom” is about letting every individual decide for themselves whether or not they’ll follow a particular religion. It’s not about telling millions of Americans that they must adhere to the rules set by a certain religion whether they believe in it or not.

5 Examples Showing the Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives on “Religious Freedom:” Part 1

I’ll give conservatives this much – when they latch onto a piece of propaganda, they sure as heck dedicate themselves to it. For years they’ve been trying to violate our First Amendment by interjecting religion into our laws. And on some levels they’ve been successful.

But generally they’ve been defeated because our First Amendment is pretty clear that laws cannot be based on religion.

Though the newest “trick” Republicans have tried to employ is the argument they call “religious freedom.” Essentially it’s their way to try to discriminate against people, or deny others their rights, based on the argument that not allowing them to discriminate against certain individuals based on their religious beliefs is somehow a violation of their “religious freedom.”

Though I find it amazing how these people have convinced themselves that attempting to restrict the freedoms of others is somehow “defending liberty and freedom.”

So I thought I’d give 5 examples showing the differences between how liberals and conservatives view “religious freedom.”

1. Abortion

Liberals: Tend to support the right for a woman to decide for herself whether or not she will have an abortion. Even many Christian liberals are pro-choice. Though I’ve rarely met anyone who’s “pro-abortion.” There’s a difference between supporting someone’s right to have control over their own body and liking the decision they make. I’m pro-choice yet anti-abortion. Being pro-choice means that every single American woman has the right to decide for herself what she should do with her own body. If you want to have an abortion, go for it. If you don’t, then you don’t have to. But the point is, liberals support the right for every woman to have the freedom to choose for themselves. If a woman objected to abortions based on her religion she wouldn’t have to have one. But that would be her choice, someone else wouldn’t be making that choice for her.

Conservatives: Under their system of beliefs, abortion would be completely banned. No woman would have the right to have control over her own body. The moment she became pregnant she would lose almost all control she has over what happens to her body over the following 9 months. Under their belief system, every single American woman would be forced to adhere to the religious beliefs of a certain percentage of the population whether they shared those views or not. A woman who didn’t believe in any kind of god whatsoever would be forced to abide by laws restricting the control she has over her body based on a God in which she didn’t believe. Where under the liberal pro-choice banner every woman has the right to choose for herself, if conservatives had their way every woman in the United States would lose the freedom to choose for themselves.

2. Same-sex Marriage

Liberals: Most liberals support same-sex marriage. Under liberal beliefs every American (gay or straight) would have the freedom to marry whomever they love, as long as it was another consenting adult. Americans would have the freedom to choose for themselves who to marry. It’s pretty simple: If you don’t support gay marriage, that’s great, nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same-sex. But at the end of the day, nobody’s right to marry another consenting adult is restricted – and no church’s right to perform those marriages is restricted either.

Conservatives: Most conservatives believe same-sex marriage is against what the Bible defines marriage as. If conservatives had their way, millions of gay Americans would lose their right to marry whomever they love based on the religious views of other people. Under this situation (as we still see in many states right now) rights of Americans are restricted based on the views of others. So even if a Christian church wants to marry a gay couple, if the state still doesn’t allow gay marriage, that church’s “religious freedom” is restricted because a few other churches don’t believe that they should have that right. Under conservative beliefs on marriage, millions of gay Americans would be denied their rights to marry the person they loved.

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM TOME RAMPS UP FEAR OF CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION

Ramping the fear-mongering up a notch, anti-gay litigation group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has produced a 44-page tome that attempts to convince churches that laws preventing businesses from discriminating against gay customers are actually part of a wider aim to “compel Christians to accept, endorse, and even promote an ideology and behavior that violates their faith.”

ADF is one of a number of organizations and individuals involved in promoting harmful anti-gay laws abroad, as exposed by Human Rights Campaign’s Export of Hate report.

According to ADF, the new book Protecting Your Ministry aims to help churches prepare “for the legal intrusions and onslaughts that have already engulfed some of your fellow believers and Christian leaders around the country.”

It argues that “those advocating for homosexual behavior and transgender ideology will eventually target anyone who blocks the path of their political progress – including you and your ministry.”

Helpfully, it also provides a step-by-step “action plan” on how to deal with “marriage counterfeits and those advocating for complete sexual license.”

The book then goes on to profile a number of cases in which anti-gay business owners faced litigation for refusing to work with same-sex couples, including Robert and Cynthia Gifford, the owners of Liberty Ridge Farm in New York.

To make it clear that ADF doesn’t really hate gay people, the book concludes with a message of hope and inclusion:

“Preparing yourselves legally will give your group or institution greater freedom to continue presenting the Gospel clearly and effectively to your community – and that freedom may well make an eternal difference for lost and hurting souls all around you.”

ADF just wants to help you to see the error of your ways.

Read the book, if you can stand it,

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM FIGHTS FOR RIGHT TO TURN AWAY GAYS IN US, BUT AIMS TO PUT THEM IN JAIL OVERSEAS

The Alliance Defending Freedom is perhaps best known in the US today for its work defending the right of businesses to discriminate against LGBT people under the guise of "religious liberty." But Media Matters reports that despite ADF's frequent characterization in the media as a mainstream Christian legal group, it is actively promoting a far more extreme agenda overseas: namely, putting gay people in jail.

ADF's support for the criminalization of homosexual activity dates back to the early 2000s, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision striking anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. The ADF submitted a 30-page amicus brief in that case, writing:

"The issue under rational-basis review is not whether Texas should be concerned about opposite-sex sodomy, but whether it is reasonable to believe that same-sex sodomy is a distinct public health problem. It clearly is."

In fact, ADF believes that the legalization of homosexual activity in the US has paved the way for same-sex marriage — which is presumably why the group is now working so hard to defend anti- sodomy laws in places like Jamaica, Belize and India, Media Matters reports:

ADF has given up on promoting anti-sodomy laws in the U.S. after Lawrence, but the group still aggressively supports imprisoning gay people around the world for having sex. It's an ugly truth about one of the right's highest-profile legal organizations. Failing to note ADF's support for anti-sodomy laws — which places it firmly on the fringe of even conservative circles — paints a grossly misleading picture of the extremism that motivates the group's anti-gay legal work.

Indeed, spotlighting ADF's efforts to criminalize sodomy overseas seems more important than ever. While the National Organization for Marriage reported a 50 percent decline in donations in 2013, ADF reported an increase of $2.5 million — for a total of $39 million, according to Towleroad's analysis of newly released IRS reports. And thanks to the prevalence of anti-gay bakeries and "license to discriminate" legislation, it's likely that amount will only go up.

Top Methodist Court Officially Reinstates Pastor Defrocked For Officiating Son’s Gay Wedding

Frank Schaefer, the United Methodist Church (UMC) minister who was defrocked by church leaders and subsequently reinstated for officiating the wedding of his gay son, has been fully restored to his position as a pastor today following an official ruling from the church’s highest court.

Schaefer, who has become a prominent figure in the Methodist LGBT rights movement, was reinstated as a pastor — complete with back-pay and benefits — in June when a lower-level appeals court within the church reversed his defrocking on a technicality. The court ruled that the original decision to strip Schaefer of his ministerial credentials unfairly penalized him for things he might do in the future (such as perform another same-sex marriage), and inappropriately “mix[ed] and match[ed]” punishments. However, the lower court’s decision was appealed to the Judicial Council, the church’s highest juridical body, which heard oral arguments on the case last week. Today the Council upheld the lower court’s ruling, finding “no errors in the application of the church law and judicial decisions.”

“Today, we are witnessing a small, but significant step toward taking another look at the exclusionary policies of The United Methodist Church,” Schaefer said in a press release from Reconciling Ministries Network, which advocates for LGBT rights within the Methodist church. “ Full story here via Think Progress!

A Contradiction in Terms: The Ignorant Conservative Defense of ‘Religious Freedom’

A term that’s become extremely popular among conservative Christians here lately is “religious freedom.” But every time I see conservatives say this, a famous line from the movie The Princess Bride pops into my mind: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Which shouldn’t be surprising considering conservatives are often big fans of repeating words or sayings that might sound good, they just don’t make a whole lot of sense.

And the term “religious freedom” is a great example of that.

By its very nature, religion is the exact opposite of freedom. Religion is a belief based on faith in something you cannot prove. It’s a set of rules, guidelines and requirements which highly restrict the freedoms of those who claim to follow whichever particular religion to which they subscribe.

A Christian, if they were to follow the Bible word for word, wouldn’t be allowed to do many of the things a lot of us do in our day to day lives.

While it’s popular for Christian conservatives to go off on rants about abortion or gay marriage, I see plenty of them with tattoos, eating shellfish or wearing blended fabrics.

All things that are taboo according to the Bible.

It’s an irony I pointed out to someone who once strongly defended Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson to me. His son has tattoos, they all have long hair and their company sells plenty of blended fabrics.

But I just find it humorous how so many of these conservative Christians go on and on about “religious freedom” when what they’re really talking about is restricting the rights of others.

See, they want the freedom to follow whatever set of rules they choose. They just don’t want people who disagree with them to be able to follow the rules of their choosing.

Because when these people say “religious freedom,” what they’re really defending is their right to tell someone else what is or isn’t acceptable based on their religion.

Which is partially what our Founding Fathers were escaping. It’s why they gave us the freedom of religion in our First Amendment. So that no American could be forced to follow the rules (aka control) of another based on religious views that they do not share.

Essentially that’s what the entire Hobby Lobby case was about. A law that stated health care had to cover specific methods of contraceptives and a right-wing Christian stating that their beliefs on contraceptives should matter more than the thousands of employees who work for them. One person’s beliefs ruling over thousands.

That’s not freedom. That’s theocratic rule.

It’s the same thing with gay marriage. It’s still illegal in many states for two homosexuals to get married based on the religious beliefs of others.

Two American citizens, in love, wanting to get married who are unable to do so based on religious beliefs that they do not share.

Again, how exactly is that “freedom”?

Here in Texas (and other places as well) I can’t buy liquor on a Sunday. Heck, I can’t even buy beer or wine until after noon on Sundays. Some counties don’t sell alcohol at all. Is it because I support these laws? Nope.

And where do these laws come from? Religion. 

So even when it comes to something as menial as being able to buy a bottle of whiskey on a Sunday in Texas, I’m not allowed to do it based off beliefs I don’t support.

Where’s my “religious freedom”?

But religion has nothing to do with freedom. In fact, religion is almost the exact opposite of freedom. It’s a set of rules that people are supposed to follow otherwise their souls will be sent to some horrific place upon death.

Baker Who Wouldn't Serve Lesbians Bursts Into Tears Over Gay Marriage

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple's civil rights, Fox News' Todd Starnes reported earlier this year.

At the Value Voters Summit, though, the couple was anything but bitter. In fact, Melissa Klein broke down in tears on a gay-marriage panel, while she and her husband, Aaron, defended their right not to serve same-sex couples. Watch her emotional session:

And you're the only one stopping you from continuing to do that. Just do it for everyone!

Christian Groups Beg Public Universities to Subsidize Their Anti-Gay Discrimination

Based on the hysterical conservative response to this move—which suggests that being a Christian at Cal State now resembles being a missionary in a country that bans Christianity—this “de-recognition” is fairly minor. InterVarsity will not be banned from campuses, nor will students be discouraged from joining. The group can preach on campus and distribute evangelical literature. Actually, this “catastrophic” threat to religious liberty will mean only one thing for InterVarsity: No longer will the group be permitted to receive benefits (namely, funding) from the public school system.The catalyst for this latest outcry comes from California, where an evangelical Christian student group called InterVarsity Christian Fellowship was recently “de-recognized” by California State University. Under California law, any student group that receives funds from a public university is forbidden from excluding LGBTQ students. Because InterVarsity insisted on refusing membership to all gay students, Cal State was legally compelled to revoke its recognition as an official student group.

Supporters of the campaign to rebrand anti-gay discrimination as “religious liberty”claim they are merely trying to protect religious people from government interference. This assertion always seemed dubious, given the crusade’s disregard for actual infringements on religious freedom that don’t fit their persecution complex. But its latest battle is even more egregiously hypocritical: Not only do some conservative Christians want a special right to discriminate against gay people; they also want the state to fund that discrimination.

A law that forbids public funds from supporting a club that openly discriminates against gay people might seem like a reasonable compromise: Anti-gay Christian groups can continue to exclude gays, while taxpayers can rest easy knowing their money isn’t supporting discrimination. But in 2010, the Christian Legal Society argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that, in fact, evangelical clubs at public universities have a First Amendment right to discriminate against gays. The justices didn’t buy it, ruling that a policy requiring clubs to accept all interested students—even the gay ones—is “reasonable” and “viewpoint neutral.” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately to emphasize how discrimination policies at universities inhibit “vibrant dialogue.”

Christian clubs like to complain that, if they aren’t allowed to discriminate, allreligious college groups might be overrun by atheists. At oral argument in the Christian Legal Society case, Justice Samuel Alito and his fellow conservatives expanded upon the hostile takeover hypothetical, suggesting that a nondiscrimination policy would allow Islamophobic students to sabotage a Muslim student group:

But these agitated speculations are really too fanciful to take seriously. Not a single religious group at a U.S. university has experienced the kind of takeover that Alito so fears. Quite the contrary: The vast majority of Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, and mainline Protestant groups at universities across the country have happily complied with nondiscrimination policies. Some chapters of Hillel have even elected non-Jewish students to the board—and contrary to Alito’s fears, none of these gentiles have yet to sneak pork into the latkes at a Hillel Hanukkah party.

The truth, of course, is that all these thought experiments are just a distraction. There’s only one issue truly in play here: whether anti-gay student groups can force public universities to subsidize their discriminatory behavior. The answer today is the same one the Supreme Court gave in 2010: Absolutely not. Advocates of religious liberty profess to support freedom of religion from government interference. But groups like InterVarsity aren’t asking for less government involvement—they’re asking for more. If these groups simply disentangled themselves from the state, they’d find shelter under the First Amendment. But so long as Christian clubs demand money from the government, they’re going to have to play by some of the government’s rules.

In 2014, a Virginia Town Is Still Battling Witchcraft, Magic, And ‘Gypsies’

As the rest of the world focuses on homelessness, immigration reform, terrorism, and other important topics (for better or worse), one Virginia town is keeping its sighs squarely on what truly matters: the threat posed by witches, gypsies, and fortune tellers.

For decades, the small town of Front Royal has had a code that prohibits fortune telling and the practice of magic arts — but questions regarding the legality of the restriction and the use of offensive terms like “gypsies” has caused the ban to be the subject of a heated debate.

More than fifty residents had nothing better to do last week than show up at a hearing to voice their concerns for or against the ban after a local tarot card reader was told to stop practicing her art because it is in violation of the archaic law.

Councilman Bret Hrbek said he was “outraged by the whole conversation.” He said that the code contains language that is “pejorative and insulting.” He also criticized the law for claiming that fortune tellers are “pretending” to read the future.

“You and I, as Christians, may not agree with that practice,” Hrbek said. “But for us to write in the law to say … these are the facts, that is disturbing to me and it should be disturbing to every American who believes that we have liberty.”

“I feel like we’re in the movie Footloose, but reversed where kids wanted to dance, but the state said they couldn’t and here we are, the folks in the community saying ‘please impose our moral viewpoint on everyone else,’” Hrbek said.

One resident, Elizabeth Poel, asked why town council would act in a manner that benefits Pagans, who make up a small percentage of the population.

According to NVDaily,

In One Sentence, Michele Bachmann Proves How Ignorant Republicans are about the Constitution

I often comment about how hypocritical Republicans are when it comes to our Constitution. They’re usually the first to stand on a pedestal and speak about the importance of “Constitutional values,” yet they seem unable to even grasp the basic fundamentals of what that even means.

And while most people with common sense already know this, Michele Bachmann perfectly showcased Republican ignorance about our Constitution in one sentence.

While speaking with conservative host Lars Larson, Bachmann said that gay people have “so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere. Well, not with the Constitution you don’t.”

Though almost perfect, her next sentence really showcased true Republican ignorance about the Constitution.

“If you want take away my religious liberties,” she continued, “you can advocate for that but you do it through the constitutional process and you don’t intimidate and no politician should give away my religious liberties or yours.”

And that’s the sentence that shows the true ignorance Republicans have about our Constitution.

Advocating for equal rights for homosexuals isn’t “bullying” or “taking away” anyones religious liberties. It’s simply saying that it’s unconstitutional to discriminate against homosexuals based on religion - because that’s what our First Amendment says! 

First Amendment:

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

Notice the whole part about not establishing religion? That means it’s unconstitutional (be it on a state or federal level) to pass laws that are derived from religious beliefs.

End of story.

So, there’s no need to “advocate” to take away her religious liberties on a Constitutional level because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution already does that for us. 

What these “activist judges” and “lawless President Obama” are doing is simply adhering to the Constitution which says laws cannot be based on religion.

It’s also ironic that these judges, who are making rulings based on the Constitution (which the Supreme Court sided with when they overturned DOMA), are actually using the “constitutional process” for which Bachmann seems to be advocating.

But the real problem is conservatives like Bachmann just don’t like how reality is proving time and time again that their values don’t seem to be Constitutional. They long for a version of our Constitution that exists in their minds, just not in reality.

How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions

It seems like this election season "religious liberty" is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.

I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it "How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions." Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.

B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.

B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.

B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.

B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.

B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.

B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.

B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.

B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.

B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.

B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

In closing, no matter what soundbites you hear this election year, remember this: Religious liberty is never secured by a campaign of religious superiority. The only way to ensure your own religious liberty remains strong is by advocating for the religious liberty of all, including those with whom you may passionately disagree. Because they deserve the same rights as you. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The Religious Right’s Campaign to Strip All Citizens of Religious Freedom

Turn on any cable news show and you’ll hear conservatives, particularly from the Religious Right, giving long tirades about religious freedom and how the Left is seeking to strip it away from good God-fearing Americans. But if you watch how the Religious Right works in court, you know that it’s actually the other way around.

Religious freedom has been a strongly-held belief in America since the very beginning. All three branches of government have worked hard to preserve the rights of Americans to choose for themselves whether they wished to be Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, or an atheist. It’s a fundamental part of the system that our country built itself on: the right to believe as you will, and to change your mind about it.

Legislative bodies and the courts have centered those rights around the individual—allowing the individual to choose for themselves how they would or would not believe in a god, rather than imbuing an institution with the right to choose for them.

But how is this actually playing out in the courts and in the legislatures?If you were to believe the talking points of conservative punditryland, you might think that the right to believe (or not) as you will is under attack from the Left, and that no-good liberals (particular the gays) are trying to force Americans to accept their wicked ways and deny those good God-fearing citizens their right to worship in peace.

Hobby Lobby

In the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby case before the U.S. Supreme Court right now, the owners of the private for-profit corporation Hobby Lobby chain are seeking an exemption from a provision within the Affordable Care Act that requires that the health insurance their employees receive include coverage for birth control methods such as morning after pills and IUDs. Hobby Lobby’s owners, the Green family (who happen to be evangelical Christians) say that they consider such birth control methods to be abortifacients—despite the medical and scientific community pointing out that they are not—and as such their company should be exempted from the Affordable Care Act because providing their employees with insurance coverage for such methods is a violation of their religious freedom.

Nebraska Senate Nominee Says Religious Beliefs Can Justify Breaking Any Law

“[O]ur right to the free exercise of religion is co-equal to our right to life,” according to the campaign website of Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican who won his party’s nomination to the United States Senate on Tuesday. Nebraska is a solid red state that preferred Romney to Obama by a massive 21 point margin in 2012, so Sasse is now all but certain to succeed retiring Sen. Mike Johanns (R) this November. If he does, Sasse promises to promote an almost anarchistic vision of religious liberty as a member of the Senate. According to Sasse’s website, “[g]overnment cannot force citizens to violate their religious beliefs under any circumstances.”

Here’s a screenshot of the relevant part of Sasse’s website:

The question of when religious belief exempts believers from following the law is at the forefront of our national debate right now, with the Supreme Court poised to decide whether religious business owners can refuse to offer birth control coverage as part of their employer-provided health plans, even when doing so would violate federal law. Yet, even the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court acknowledge that religious liberty is not an absolute right to violate any law at any time. As the crafting chain Hobby Lobby says in its brief to the justices, the government may limit religious believers actions when it uses “‘the least restrictive means of furthering’ a ‘compelling governmental interest.’” This is the standard set by federal law, although there is some uncertainty about how the justices will interpret this legal standard in its Hobby Lobby decision.

TENNESSEE PASSES BILL ALLOWING THE BULLYING OF LGBT STUDENTS IN THE NAME OF ‘RELIGIOUS FREEDOM’

Tennessee governor Bill Haslam has just received a bill that allows and encourages anti-gay bullying in the name of “religious freedom.”

The Tennessee “Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act” allows students to use religion in any manner they choose, and protects their use of religion.The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, “crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students’ personal religious viewpoints on other students.”

“Should this pass, students with a range of religious beliefs, as well as non-believers, would likely routinely be required to listen to religious messages or participate in religious exercises that conflict with their own beliefs,” the ACLU adds. “Conversely, if a student of a minority religious faith (e.g., a Buddhist, a Wiccan, etc.) or a non-believer were to obtain a ‘position of honor,’ as defined under this bill, that student would be permitted to subject all classmates to prayer and proselytizing specific to his or her faith tradition in connection with school events. In both cases, parents would have no recourse to ensure that their children were not coerced into such religious exercise.”

According to TheNewCivilRightsMovement:

At a basic level, a student could merely write “God” on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking to where water comes from. A student could also stand in class and say their religion says that gay people are sinners and going to hell, and that speech would be legally protected. The bill states “a student may express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. A student would not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of the student’s work.”

Creationists of course will love the bill.

But the more sinister part of the bill forces all students to be subjected to the religious beliefs of the popular kids.

Tennessee’s “Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act” actually mandates that schools allow students the use of public school facilities — including the school’s public address system, classrooms and school assemblies — and makes schools “[p]rovide the forum in a manner that does not discriminate against a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint.”

An evangelical student, or example, could preach the gospel during a science class, or “witness” during English. Attacks on LGBT people and same-sex marriage are automatically protected under this bill, offering anti-gay students a state-sposored license to bully. And of course, a student could claim they worship Satan and subject their classmates to that “religious viewpoint” as well.

The bill, of course, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but that rarely stops conservative lawmakers on a religious mission.

Republican governor Bill Haslam hopefully will show moral courage and veto this bill. If he signs it, he’ll be forcing all Tennessee students to be subjected to the religious beliefs of their classmates, and forcing Tennessee into a costly battle in court.

But given that the Tennessee senate passed the bill yesterday on a 32-0 vote, and the House passed it 90-2, any veto Haslam considers likely will be overridden.

Campaign in Support of Oregon's Anti-gay ‘Religious Freedom’ Ballot Measure Suspended

The anti-gay Oregon Family Council along with Friends of Religious Freedom have announced they will not be moving forward with IP 52 – the proposed ballot measure that would allow businesses in the state to turn away LGBT people as an “exercise of religion.” 

The AP reports:

The Oregon Supreme Court approved the ballot language on Thursday. The campaign suspended its efforts 24 hours later, saying the ballot language as written by the office of the Oregon attorney general was unacceptable. 

The campaign sought to portray the issue as one that frees business owners from having to violate their religious beliefs by abiding by Oregon law. 

“But the certified ballot title does not acceptably state this,” Friends of Religious Freedom said in the release issued late Friday afternoon. “Indeed, it states it as intolerant instead of protecting equal rights of conscience.” 

The ballot language approved said a "Yes" vote "creates 'religious belief' exceptions to anti-discrimination laws," language the measure's supporters said unfairly prejudiced voters against them.

Mike Marshall, campaign manager for Oregon United Against Discrimination, released the following statement:

“Thanks to the incredible outpouring of early opposition to this measure—more 462 organizations and leaders, including 190 businesses and 167 faith leaders have joined the Oregon United Against Discrimination coalition—Oregonians have realized that this measure would allow businesses to discriminate against people because of who they are and whom they love. And discrimination is just wrong.” 

“We are thrilled that the Oregon Family Council has suspended their IP 52 effort, likely realizing Oregonians wouldn’t support a measure that would allow discrimination.”