Saturday, July 29, 2023
Thursday, July 27, 2023
Old Testament Apocrypha, Biological Warfare, Climate Madness- 170 WUP Walter Veith&Martin Smith
To avoid listening to a superfluous dialog about the apocrypha, fast-forward to the timestamp 25:00:00 Minutes in the video.
Wednesday, July 26, 2023
Monday, July 24, 2023
Sunday, July 23, 2023
Saturday, July 22, 2023
Ownership of Churches: Congregation, Neighbors, or the City?
Christopher Lingle
Janna Lu
– July 22, 2023
Once a vibrant church with a storied past, West Park Presbyterian Church has found itself in a battle over property rights. Established in the Upper West Side of New York City in 1852, it supported the LGBT movement as it gained popularity in 1978, and delivered meals during the AIDS epidemic.
Now church attendance has dwindled to 12 members, and the church leaders and congregation want to sell the building and grounds. Neighbors, including some celebrities, oppose it on the grounds that the church gives value to the neighborhood and have voiced their opposition to the sale.
Since the church owns the entire property, its congregation and leadership think they should have a final say in what happens to the building. The NYC Landmark Preservation Commission, however, designated the church as a historical landmark in 2010, thereby blocking the wishes of the church leadership.
With such a small congregation they cannot afford to maintain and restore the property. As owners of the property, they want to reclaim their rights over it so they can legally trade or transfer the building.
A landmark designation “preserves and protects these properties from being demolished or significantly altered in a way that would detract from their historical or cultural value.” Built in the late 19th Century, the building has been described as “one of the best examples of a Romanesque Revival-style religious structure in New York City.”
When the Landmark Commission deliberated conferring landmark status to the church building in 2010, they believed the community would fund the needed renovations. But due to high estimates for renovation costs—the church leaders filed a petition to remove the landmark designation on hardship grounds in June 2022.
The church leadership was given an estimate for repair costs that exceed $50 million, including $17 million to repair the exterior. Over the past 7 years, the church has spent more than $1 million in repairs, funded by the sale of some assets, including a manse.
Once a vibrant church with a storied past, West Park Presbyterian Church has found itself in a battle over property rights. Established in the Upper West Side of New York City in 1852, it supported the LGBT movement as it gained popularity in 1978, and delivered meals during the AIDS epidemic.
Now church attendance has dwindled to 12 members, and the church leaders and congregation want to sell the building and grounds. Neighbors, including some celebrities, oppose it on the grounds that the church gives value to the neighborhood and have voiced their opposition to the sale.
Since the church owns the entire property, its congregation and leadership think they should have a final say in what happens to the building. The NYC Landmark Preservation Commission, however, designated the church as a historical landmark in 2010, thereby blocking the wishes of the church leadership.
With such a small congregation they cannot afford to maintain and restore the property. As owners of the property, they want to reclaim their rights over it so they can legally trade or transfer the building.
A landmark designation “preserves and protects these properties from being demolished or significantly altered in a way that would detract from their historical or cultural value.” Built in the late 19th Century, the building has been described as “one of the best examples of a Romanesque Revival-style religious structure in New York City.”
When the Landmark Commission deliberated conferring landmark status to the church building in 2010, they believed the community would fund the needed renovations. But due to high estimates for renovation costs—the church leaders filed a petition to remove the landmark designation on hardship grounds in June 2022.
The church leadership was given an estimate for repair costs that exceed $50 million, including $17 million to repair the exterior. Over the past 7 years, the church has spent more than $1 million in repairs, funded by the sale of some assets, including a manse.
Friday, July 21, 2023
Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist: ‘Climate Crisis Is a Hoax To Depopulate the Planet’
July 15, 2023
Sean Adl-Tabatabai
Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr. John Clauser has testified that the man-made climate change narrative is a “hoax” perpetrated by the elite “to depopulate the planet.”
Dr. John Clauser, the co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize and one the world’s leading authorities on quantum mechanics, slammed the green agenda push by WEF-controlled countries as a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr. John Clauser has testified that the man-made climate change narrative is a “hoax” perpetrated by the elite “to depopulate the planet.”
Dr. John Clauser, the co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize and one the world’s leading authorities on quantum mechanics, slammed the green agenda push by WEF-controlled countries as a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
Thursday, July 20, 2023
Wednesday, July 19, 2023
Monday, July 17, 2023
Sunday, July 16, 2023
Saturday, July 15, 2023
Friday, July 14, 2023
Tuesday, July 11, 2023
Monday, July 10, 2023
Sunday, July 09, 2023
US Supreme Court Issues Historic Ruling Strengthening Religious Accommodation Protections for Workers
US Supreme Court Issues Historic Ruling Strengthening Religious Accommodation Protections for Workers
BILL KNOTT, CAPITOL HILL LIAISON FOR THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
Decision in Groff v. DeJoy will impact workplace religious freedom of many in the U.S.
Published on: 06-29-2023
In a unanimous decision issued on Thursday, June 29, the United States Supreme Court has discarded decades-long precedent by strengthening legal protections for workers whose religious beliefs conflict with their job obligations. The ruling in Groff v. DeJoy is expected to have a significant impact on job opportunities for Americans of various faiths who have frequently faced challenges due to their Sabbath-keeping practices. The Court’s decision will reshape how businesses offer religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case centered on Gerald Groff, a devout Christian whose faith prompts him to keep a 24-hour Sabbath on Sunday. Groff worked for the United States Postal Service (USPS) but faced ongoing difficulties in obtaining religious accommodation from his employer. Though initially accommodated by the USPS, Groff’s repeated appeals for continued freedom to not work on his day of rest and worship were ultimately denied when the USPS signed contracts with Amazon, the massive retail and distribution company, for Sunday deliveries.
Despite Groff’s repeated requests to be exempted from working on Sundays, the USPS denied his requests, citing the precedent from Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) that only required employers to suffer minimal hardship. This low threshold, referred to as a “de minumus standard,” was often used to justify denying religious accommodations.
The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, specifically addressed the de minimus standard and insisted on a much more substantial reading of “undue hardship.” Alito wrote: “We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
The legal team representing Groff included Adventist attorney Alan Reinach, who serves as director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. During the appeals process, First Liberty, a prominent religious freedom advocacy group, joined the litigation team and recruited appellate counsel Aaron Streett from the law firm Baker Botts, LLP. The case was argued before the Court on April 18, 2023.
Speaking for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and its North American Division, Todd McFarland, Deputy General Counsel, who also wrote the amicus brief filed by the church, said, “We are very pleased this morning that the Supreme Court took an important step towards protecting people of faith in the workplace. No one should have to choose between their job and their faith. Today’s decision reaffirms that employers cannot use an employee’s religious belief as an excuse to terminate them.”
A diverse group of faith-based and religious liberty organizations filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court supporting Groff, including the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The American Center for Law And Justice, The Sikh Coalition, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the American Hindu Coalition, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Baptist Joint Commission.
Organizations opposing Groff’s petition to the Court included the AFL-CIO, the American Postal Workers Union, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the Center for Inquiry and American Atheists.
“Drawing on the 1977 case, employers only had to suffer a bare minimum amount of hardship to justify denying religious accommodation to an employee,” Reinach said. “This standard neutered the law and led to the termination of employment for literally thousands of Americans of all faiths. Seventh-day Adventists were especially harmed in that hourly wage workers are frequently assigned shift schedules including Sabbath hours.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Groff v. DeJoy not only acknowledged the unfair burden placed on workers with religious conflicts but also highlighted the need for a more robust approach to religious accommodation.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for workers across the country. By raising the standard for employers to justify denying religious accommodation, the Court’s decision provides greater protection for employees with sincerely held religious beliefs. It sends a clear message that employers must make reasonable efforts to accommodate their employees’ religious practices, even if it requires some degree of hardship.
The decision in Groff v. DeJoy is seen as a significant victory for religious freedom advocates who have long argued for stronger legal protections. It marks a shift toward a more equitable approach that recognizes the importance of accommodating the diverse religious practices of American workers. As a result of this ruling, employees who face conflicts between their job requirements and their religious beliefs can expect increased opportunities to obtain reasonable accommodations from their employers.
Attorney Mitch Tyner, retired associate general counsel for the church and also a former Capitol Hill liaison, was both pleased and cautious about the Court’s decision. “First, kudos to Todd McFarland and team who finally got the court to right a wrong from fifty years ago,” Tyner said. “I spent more than 40 years working toward that end, and they were able to get the job done. That said, note that the opinion leaves lots of wiggle room for lower courts to decide what constitutes a substantial cost increase in each case. The Court has changed the recipe to be used to arrive at a correct decision. But remember, the ultimate proof is in the pudding, not in the recipe.” As the ruling sets a new precedent for religious accommodation, it remains to be seen how rapidly employers will adapt their policies and practices. Further litigation to clarify the Supreme Court’s new thresholds is anticipated. It is clear, however, that this decision marks a significant milestone in protecting the rights of workers with religious conflicts.
Decision in Groff v. DeJoy will impact workplace religious freedom of many in the U.S.
Published on: 06-29-2023
In a unanimous decision issued on Thursday, June 29, the United States Supreme Court has discarded decades-long precedent by strengthening legal protections for workers whose religious beliefs conflict with their job obligations. The ruling in Groff v. DeJoy is expected to have a significant impact on job opportunities for Americans of various faiths who have frequently faced challenges due to their Sabbath-keeping practices. The Court’s decision will reshape how businesses offer religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case centered on Gerald Groff, a devout Christian whose faith prompts him to keep a 24-hour Sabbath on Sunday. Groff worked for the United States Postal Service (USPS) but faced ongoing difficulties in obtaining religious accommodation from his employer. Though initially accommodated by the USPS, Groff’s repeated appeals for continued freedom to not work on his day of rest and worship were ultimately denied when the USPS signed contracts with Amazon, the massive retail and distribution company, for Sunday deliveries.
Despite Groff’s repeated requests to be exempted from working on Sundays, the USPS denied his requests, citing the precedent from Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) that only required employers to suffer minimal hardship. This low threshold, referred to as a “de minumus standard,” was often used to justify denying religious accommodations.
The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, specifically addressed the de minimus standard and insisted on a much more substantial reading of “undue hardship.” Alito wrote: “We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
The legal team representing Groff included Adventist attorney Alan Reinach, who serves as director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. During the appeals process, First Liberty, a prominent religious freedom advocacy group, joined the litigation team and recruited appellate counsel Aaron Streett from the law firm Baker Botts, LLP. The case was argued before the Court on April 18, 2023.
Speaking for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and its North American Division, Todd McFarland, Deputy General Counsel, who also wrote the amicus brief filed by the church, said, “We are very pleased this morning that the Supreme Court took an important step towards protecting people of faith in the workplace. No one should have to choose between their job and their faith. Today’s decision reaffirms that employers cannot use an employee’s religious belief as an excuse to terminate them.”
A diverse group of faith-based and religious liberty organizations filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court supporting Groff, including the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The American Center for Law And Justice, The Sikh Coalition, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the American Hindu Coalition, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Baptist Joint Commission.
Organizations opposing Groff’s petition to the Court included the AFL-CIO, the American Postal Workers Union, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the Center for Inquiry and American Atheists.
“Drawing on the 1977 case, employers only had to suffer a bare minimum amount of hardship to justify denying religious accommodation to an employee,” Reinach said. “This standard neutered the law and led to the termination of employment for literally thousands of Americans of all faiths. Seventh-day Adventists were especially harmed in that hourly wage workers are frequently assigned shift schedules including Sabbath hours.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Groff v. DeJoy not only acknowledged the unfair burden placed on workers with religious conflicts but also highlighted the need for a more robust approach to religious accommodation.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for workers across the country. By raising the standard for employers to justify denying religious accommodation, the Court’s decision provides greater protection for employees with sincerely held religious beliefs. It sends a clear message that employers must make reasonable efforts to accommodate their employees’ religious practices, even if it requires some degree of hardship.
The decision in Groff v. DeJoy is seen as a significant victory for religious freedom advocates who have long argued for stronger legal protections. It marks a shift toward a more equitable approach that recognizes the importance of accommodating the diverse religious practices of American workers. As a result of this ruling, employees who face conflicts between their job requirements and their religious beliefs can expect increased opportunities to obtain reasonable accommodations from their employers.
Attorney Mitch Tyner, retired associate general counsel for the church and also a former Capitol Hill liaison, was both pleased and cautious about the Court’s decision. “First, kudos to Todd McFarland and team who finally got the court to right a wrong from fifty years ago,” Tyner said. “I spent more than 40 years working toward that end, and they were able to get the job done. That said, note that the opinion leaves lots of wiggle room for lower courts to decide what constitutes a substantial cost increase in each case. The Court has changed the recipe to be used to arrive at a correct decision. But remember, the ultimate proof is in the pudding, not in the recipe.” As the ruling sets a new precedent for religious accommodation, it remains to be seen how rapidly employers will adapt their policies and practices. Further litigation to clarify the Supreme Court’s new thresholds is anticipated. It is clear, however, that this decision marks a significant milestone in protecting the rights of workers with religious conflicts.
Saturday, July 08, 2023
Wednesday, July 05, 2023
Tuesday, July 04, 2023
Monday, July 03, 2023
What Actually Is Shadowbanning, Anyway?
And have the “Twitter Files” proved a right-wing conspiracy about it?
BY NITISH PAHWA
DEC 10, 202211:27 AM
Stefano Pollio/Unsplash
Depending on whom you ask, the “Twitter Files” have been either a total flop or a vindication. Nowhere is that more true than in the debate over “shadow banning.”
Right-wingers have long alleged that Twitter (and other social media) suppresses conservative voices and runs interference for the libs. So now, Elon Musk, in his new capacity as Chief Twit, is granting internal peeks at network systems and communications to prominent right-leaning writers in his personal circle. As such, Substack stars Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss have been tweeting out screenshots that demonstrate how the bird app became a liberal propaganda arm in collusion with the Democratic Party.
Except, not really. Taibbi’s first and second Twitter Files drops mainly clarified that the company had time and again followed its own rules: in halting the spread of Hunter Biden revenge porn, and in taking the prospect of banning politicians’ dangerous rhetoric rather seriously. Bari Weiss’ Thursday evening “report,” meanwhile, claimed to validate a long-held conservative belief: that right wingers were being “shadow banned.” Taibbi promises even more shocking Twitter shadow-banning revelations to come.
But what, really, is “shadow banning”? And have the Twitter Files actually proved conservatives right all along?
If you, like me, were a Redditor during the early 2010s, you likely remember drama about “shadowbanning” (as one word) within various subreddits; on those forums, a word that started as a brief, throwaway Something Awful joke became a manner of serious import. As the Verge defined it 10 years ago, shadowbanning on Reddit entailed “an admin-enforced measure which lets the user post and browse the site normally but hides them from other users.” Basically, a shadowbanned Reddit account could use the site as normal, commenting where they please, but other Redditors wouldn’t see those comments for, usually, a few days at a time. The directive for this came from employed administrators at the top of the Reddit chain; individual subreddit moderators could not deploy such a measure (and could, in fact, get shadowbanned themselves). Most often, shadowbans were deployed to deal with spammers, but their use was later expanded to discipline Redditors who broke other important sitewide rules.
All this naturally became controversial, as it became difficult to tell whether or why someone may have been shadowbanned, and to figure out how to appeal the restriction. It often could appear as though admins were doling out such bans incorrectly or arbitrarily, to the detriment of the Reddit experience. And the prospect of being shadowbanned without notice was unsettling. If a Redditor’s posts weren’t getting voted up or down, they couldn’t tell whether their comments were simply boring or not appearing for others. By late 2015, there was enough frustration across the forums that Reddit did away with shadowbanning altogether, opting to punish misbehaving users through account suspensions instead.
The term experienced a resurgence just a couple of years later, when Twitter users began alleging that it was happening there. In 2017, BuzzFeed News reported that the company was “throttling” the reach of accounts that had engaged in abusive behavior. Other outlets began to call that shadowbanning—even though 1) limiting an account’s reach was quite different from making sure no one could see it at all, and 2) the affected tweeters were notified by the platform.
The following year, a Vice article claimed that Twitter was shadowbanning famous Republicans like Donald Trump Jr. by preventing their account names from autopopulating within the website’s search bar. This also was not a shadowban as it had been known in previous times: The Republican accounts themselves still appeared in Twitter search results, and it turned out the search-population measure was deployed in a manner that affected leftist accounts as well. Still, the controversy was pronounced enough that Twitter’s official account shared a blog post about how it did not, in fact, engage in shadowbanning (and the company later removed the offending search code). In the blog, two former Twitter executives reference “the best definition” of shadowbanning they could find, which was: “deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster.”
Sunday, July 02, 2023
The President of SDA Kinship: Celebrating Pride Month
30JUNE2023
The President of SDA Kinship: Celebrating Pride Month
by Floyd Pönitz | 30 June 2023 |
As PRIDE month—a time to celebrate equal rights for LGBTQ individuals—comes to a close, I want to celebrate our accomplishments as humans over the past 54 years since the June 29, 1969, Stonewall riots in New York City.
As a 10-year-old Adventist who already knew that he was different, I remember hearing about Stonewall and somehow identifying with what was happening there without really having the vocabulary to connect with it.
That was also the year that I got baptized and became an official member of the Adventist church. I had no idea what magical things would happen when I was dunked under the water, but that unexplained and unmentionable feeling that would later be identified as “gay” did not get washed away.
It was an innocent time—and I would become increasingly confused as the years went by and I learned the church would condemn me for just having these feelings.
Fast forward
Fast forward to today. The church’s stance and refusal to openly talk about my feelings and those of millions of Adventists is as confusing today as it was to my 10-year-old self. I thank God for SDA Kinship; it was a major influence that has saved my life and got me to where I am in life today, and has helped me to not only exist, but to thrive.
(Kinship has released many videos from people from all walks of life expressing what Kinship means to them. They can be viewed on the Kinship YouTube channel here.)
Many of our members participated in Pride Events around the world, and some Adventist churches made space for the queer members of the church to celebrate with their friends at the church. I am very proud of these church communities.
Saturday, July 01, 2023
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)