AND THE THIRD ANGEL FOLLOWED THEM, SAYING WITH A LOUD VOICE, IF ANY MAN WORSHIP THE BEAST AND HIS IMAGE, AND RECEIVE HIS MARK IN HIS FOREHEAD, OR IN HIS HAND.
*** REVELATION 14:9
Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts
Updated: 12/13/2011 11:22 AM ET.
By Jeff Schnepper
If shacking up goes against your morals, you can blame Uncle Sam for tempting you to sin. Unmarried couples who live together often benefit under the tax code.
1. Bracket breakdown
Say two single individuals lived together in 2011, each with a taxable income of $83,600. They each would pay federal income tax of $17,025, for a total of $34,050. If they got married, their total taxable income would be $167,200, with a tax of $34,886, an increase of $836.
This "marriage penalty" is the result of our progressive tax system. As your income increases, additional dollars are taxed at increasingly higher rates. When two people get married and file jointly, the income of the second spouse is taxed at the highest rate of the first spouse. In the example above, the first dollar earned by the second spouse would be taxed at a marginal rate of 25%. The second spouse has no income taxed at the lower 10% and 15% rates.
More on the marriage penalty
The hit gets more painful as your income increases. Two single individuals, each with a taxable 2011 income of $379,150, would pay tax of $110,016.50 apiece, for a total of $220,033. If they married, the tax cost would become $235,277, a marriage penalty slam of $15,244 -- each year!
2. Medical meltdown
Your medical expense deduction must be reduced by 7.5% of your income (adjusted gross). If your potential spouse earns $100,000, filing jointly would cut your medical expense deduction by $7,500. In the 28% bracket, that would suck an additional $2,800 out of your pockets each year.
Jeff Schnepper
That's why it may be better in certain circumstances for even a married couple with large out-of-pocket medical bills to file as married individuals filing separate returns.
3. Miscellaneous madness
Your miscellaneous itemized deductions, such as employee business expenses, job search costs, investment expenses, and tax planning and preparation fees are also subject to a floor before they can be allowed. The total of your miscellaneous itemized deductions has to be reduced by 2% of your income (adjusted gross). If your potential spouse has $100,000 in income, that will slice $2,000 from your total deduction a year.
4. Social Security slam
As your income increases, more of your Social Security payments becomes subject to tax. Add a second income to the pot and as much as 85% of your Social Security receipts are potentially taxable. If you're getting $2,000 a month -- or $24,000 a year -- that's an additional $20,400 in taxable income. In a 28% marginal bracket, that's an additional tax of $5,712 gone missing from your bank account.
5. AMT terror
The alternative minimum tax is the result of an alternative procedure for computing your tax liability. The AMT is based on your income before deductions for personal exemptions, and adds back certain deductions allowed under the normal tax computation but not under the AMT, such as taxes and miscellaneous itemized deductions. Your income plus these "preference items" is reduced by an exemption amount, and the net result is subject to a flat 26% or 28% rate. You pay the higher of your regular tax or the AMT.
Here's where marriage hurts: First, the 2011 AMT exclusion for two unmarried individuals is $48,450 each, for a total of $96,900. A married couple gets an exemption of only $74,450, a $22,450 difference. At the lower 26% AMT rate, that's a potential $5,837 increase in tax. At 28%, that's a $6,286 hit.
6. Bush benefits Before 2010, and scheduled to return in 2013, we had reductions in deductions for both a) total itemized deductions and b) personal exemptions, as your total adjusted gross income increases. Marry an individual with substantial income and potentially all of your personal exemptions disappear. In addition, as much as 3% of your income (over a floor amount that changes annually) comes off your total itemized deductions.
Lose two 2011 personal exemptions of $3,700 each and your taxable income is up by $7,400. With a marginal tax rate of 28%, that's an additional $2,072 in tax to be paid.
7. Social Security slam II
This tax benefit keeps a whole lot of seniors living in sin. Depending on the numbers, in many cases two unmarried individuals receive more in Social Security benefits than they would if they were married. Don't look for logic and reason in governmental regulations. It's like finding an honest politician -- they're out there, but they usually don't last long.
Marriage doesn't always result in higher taxes, but it usually does when both spouses are working and earning substantial dollars. On the other hand, if one spouse doesn't work, there will be a marriage bonus (lower taxes) instead of a marriage penalty.
There are, of course, other tax benefits to being married. For example, there's an unlimited marital deduction under the gift and estate tax for gifts and bequests to a spouse. When I told my wife, Barbara, that I was writing a column on the benefits of living in sin, she suggested that she personally was looking forward to enjoying her unlimited estate-tax deduction.
Jeff Schnepper is the author of the best-selling book "How to Pay Zero Taxes," which is in its 29th edition. He is a former professor of taxation, accounting and finance. Schnepper now has a full-time tax planning and legal practice in Cherry Hill, N.J.
Posted by Shane Vander Hart at 7:00 pm. Nov 15 2011.
Caffeinated Thoughts contributor Emmett McGroarty & Jane Robbins both of whom work for American Principles Project remind readers in a recent op/ed for The Public Discourse how the religious freedom of individuals have been violated in order to defer to the homosexual agenda:
The denigration of religious freedom extends to areas of purely private, commercial conduct. Governments increasingly apply nondiscrimination statutes to force private individuals and businesses to participate in conduct that violates their religious beliefs. So far, defenses based on the First Amendment have been unavailing. Some examples:
•The New Mexico Human Rights Commission found that a small photography business unlawfully discriminated against a same-sex couple by declining, because of the owners’ religious beliefs, to photograph the couple’s commitment ceremony (Willock v. Elane Photography).
•The California Supreme Court ruled that doctors violated the state nondiscrimination statute by refusing, on religious grounds, to artificially inseminate a woman who was in a lesbian relationship (North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. San Diego County Superior Court).
•A federal court in California found that administrators of an Arizona adoption-facilitation website were subject to California’s statute banning discrimination in public accommodations because they refused to post profiles of same-sex couples as potential parents (Butler v. Adoption Media).
•A New Jersey agency found probable cause to believe that a church violated a public-accommodations statute by declining to rent its pavilion for a same-sex wedding (a different agency, enforcing nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, revoked the tax exemption the church had enjoyed under a statute promoting the use of private property as green space) (Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Ass’n of United Methodist Church v. Vespa-Papaleo). •A federal appeals court found that an employer’s denial of insurance coverage to an employee’s same-sex partner constituted illegal sex discrimination (In Re Levenson).
In none of these cases did the religious defendants discriminate against homosexuals just because of their orientation—i.e., they did not refuse to serve them in a restaurant or work on their cars or give them standard medical care. Rather, they declined to participate in an endeavor, such as same-sex marriage or adoption, which was inconsistent with their religious beliefs. But the courts and agencies found that nondiscrimination trumps religious values. The courts will not protect a for-profit business that wants to operate according to biblical principles.
This further demonstrates why we must have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Iowa (among other states).
Originally posted at American Principles in Action
A former “Teacher of the Year” in Mount Dora, Fla. has been suspended and could lose his job after he voiced his objection to gay marriage on his personal Facebook page.
Jerry Buell, a veteran American history teacher at Mount Dora High School, was removed from his teaching duties this week as school officials in Lake County investigate allegations that what he posted was biased towards homosexuals.
“We took the allegations seriously,” said Chris Patton, a communication officer with Lake County Schools. “All teachers are bound by a code of special ethics (and) this is a code ethics violation investigation.”
Patton said the school system received a complaint on Tuesday about something Buell had written last July when New York legalized same sex unions. On Wednesday, he was temporarily suspended from the classroom and reassigned.
Patton said Buell has taught in the school system for 22 years and has a spotless record. Last year, he was selected as the high school’s “Teacher of the Year.”
But now his job is on the line because of what some have called anti-gay and homophobic comments.
Buell told Fox News Radio that he was stunned by the accusations. “It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” he said.
The school system declined to comment on the specific Facebook messages that led to their investigation, but Buell provided Fox News Radio with a copy of the two Facebook messages that he said landed him in trouble.
The first was posted on July 25 at 5:43 p.m. as he was eating dinner and watching the evening news.
“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”
Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment: “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”
According to the school system, what Buell wrote on his private account was disturbing. They were especially concerned that gay students at the school might be frightened or intimidated walking into his classroom. Patton also disputed the notion that Buell’s Facebook account is private.
“He has (more than) 700 friends,” he said. “How private is that – really? Social media can be troubling if you don’t respect it and know that just because you think you are in a private realm – it’s not private.”
Buell’s attorney strongly disagreed and accused the school system of violating his First Amendment rights.
“The school district is being anti-straight, anti-First Amendment and anti-personal liberty,” said Horatio Mihet, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “The idea that public servants have to whole-heartedly endorse homosexual marriage is repugnant to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” Mihet told Fox News Radio.
“All he did was speak out on an issue of national importance and because his comments did not fit a particular mold, he is now being investigated and could possibly lose his job. What have we come to?”
Buell said he does not know the individual who filed the complaint, but the past week has caused his family “heartache.”
“To try and say you could lose your job over speaking about something in the venue that I did in the manner that I did is not just a knee-jerk reaction,” he said. “It’s a violent reaction to one person making a complaint.”
But Patton said the school system has an obligation to take the comments seriously. He said Buell will not be allowed back in the classroom “until we do all the interviews and do a thorough job of looking at everything – past or previous writings.”
To accomplish that, he said people have been sending the school system screenshots of Buell’s Facebook page.
“Just because you think it’s private, other people are viewing it,” Patton said, noting that the teacher’s Facebook page also contained numerous Bible passages.
Mihet said he was livid.
“These are not fringe ideas that Mr. Buell espoused on his personal Facebook page,” he told Fox News Radio. “They are mainstream textbook opposition to homosexual unions – and now he’s been deemed unfit to teach children because he opposes gay marriage? My goodness.” Buell believes the school system is trying to send a message to Christian teachers.
“There is an intimidation factor if you are a Christian or if you make a statement against it (gay marriage) you are a bigot, a homophobe, you’re a creep, you’re intolerant,” he said. “We should have the right to express our opinions and talk about things.”
But some legal experts believe that school teachers could be held to a different standard when it comes to using social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.
“This teacher is right on the cusp of going over the line,” said Miami attorney Justin Leto. “If he is ‘friends’ with his students on Facebook, then I think he should not be surprised by the school’s actions. However, if he has a private page and restricts student access, then he should be free to say what he wishes.”
Leto said teachers should have the right to make statements about their own personal beliefs without fear of retribution from their employer. “This assumes that the comments are not hateful, racist or malicious,” he said.
“It’s a little bit more complicated with a school teacher,” said Brad Jacob, a law professor at Regent University. “The first question you have to ask, did this context communicate that the teacher was speaking on behalf of the government?”
But what about on social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter? “School teachers generally have free speech rights, and the government may not censor the private speech on public school teachers,” he said.
However, if Buell had communicated his opinion on gay marriage in the classroom, Jacob said the teacher would have been on shaky legal ground. “If he communicated those views in the classroom, I think the state could have grounds to punish or fire him,” he said.
Reaction in Central Florida has been mixed.
Brett Winters, a former Mount Dora student, told the Orlando Sentinel he was disappointed about Buell’s comments. “This type of hateful language is dangerous not only to gay students, but also to anti-gay students,” Winters told the newspaper.
Michael Slaymaker, president of the Orlando Youth Alliance, told the newspaper that gay students might feel uncomfortable in Buell’s class.
“I would hope a teacher would be there to help them and not hurt them,” he told the Orlando Sentinel.
Meanwhile, hundreds of people have joined at least two Facebook groups calling for the school system to reinstate the popular teacher. “He’s developed a reputation as being one of the most caring teachers in the school,” Mihet said.
Buell said the most disappointing part of the investigation is that he may not be in his classroom on Monday – the first day of the school year.
“This is the place where you will receive the most respect out of any place you’ll be all day. I love my kids. I take my job very seriously.”
First Posted: 7/20/11 05:30 PM ETUpdated: 7/21/11 02:51 PM ET
By Adelle M. Banks c. 2011 Religion News Service
(RNS) Campus Crusade for Christ is out. "Cru" is in.
The 60-year-old evangelical ministry announced its new name at a staff conference in Fort Collins, Colo., on Tuesday (July 19), saying the old name had become problematic.
"We've been having issues with two words in the name -- campus and crusade," said Steve Sellers, a vice president who oversees the ministry's U.S. operations, in an interview.
Though the Orlando, Fla.-based organization began on campuses in 1951, it has expanded to more than two dozen ministries focused on topics such as families, athletes, the military and inner cities.
When Campus Crusade was founded by the late Bill Bright and his wife Vonette, the word "crusade" typically referred to the large, stadium events held by evangelists like Billy Graham.
"In today's culture it carries more weight in terms of its historic meaning," Sellers said, with people thinking "more to the days of the Crusaders and dealing with the Middle East as opposed to a positive use of the word."
Cru isn't the only religious organization that has moved away from "crusade." Wheaton College, Graham's alma mater in Illinois, changed its mascot from Crusaders to Thunder in 2000. Graham's son Franklin leads "festivals" instead of crusades, and his grandson Will holds "celebrations."
Most recently, Crusader Lutheran Church in Rockville, Md., changed its name to Living Faith Lutheran Church out of concern that the old name had "militaristic" and "non-Christian" overtones.
Sellers said the Crusade-to-Cru change is part of that trend.
"We don't want the words that we use to get in the way of the message that we have," he said.
In a Frequently Asked Questions feature on its website, the ministry explained why leaders also opted to take the word "Christ"out of its title.
"Cru enables us to have discussions about Christ with people who might initially be turned off by a more overtly Christian name," the response read. "We believe that our interaction and our communication with the world will be what ultimately honors and glorifies Christ."
During the extensive renaming process, Sellers said researchers found that 9 percent of Christians, and 20 percent of non-Christians, were turned off by the original name. A total of 1,600 alternatives were considered.
The name Cru -- already used on many U.S. college campuses -- will be used throughout the United States. Most of the international ministries affiliated with Cru use a name other than Campus Crusade for Christ. Its Canadian affiliate is called Power to Change and European ministries use the name Agape.
Sellers said the name of the umbrella organization, Campus Crusade for Christ International, will still be used for now. The global organization includes more than 25,000 full-time and part-time people in 191 countries.
"From the beginning, Bill (Bright) was open to changing our name. He never felt it was set in stone. In fact, he actually considered changing the name 20 or 25 years ago," said Vonette Bright said in a statement. "We want to remove any obstacle to people hearing about the most important person who ever lived -- Jesus Christ."
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of ten books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran (Regnery), and he is coauthor (with Pamela Geller) of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon and Schuster).
---
The Obama administration is set to begin formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house.”
This news came in a Reuters report Wednesday, quoting a “senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.” Why this official felt it necessary to speak on condition of anonymity is a mystery, given the fact that Barack Obama has never made a secret of his solicitude for the Muslim Brotherhood. Even though the Brotherhood was still outlawed in Egypt at that time, he made a point of inviting leaders of the group to attend his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo on June 4, 2009.
July Fourth Parades Might Turn Your Kids Into Republicans
by Zeke Miller Jul. 1, 2011, 11:23 AM
Children who attend Fourth of July parades are more likely to become Republicans, according to a new Harvard University study.
A single rain-less parade before the age of 18 increases the likelihood of a child becoming a Republican at 40 by 2 percent, and of voting for a Republican presidential ticket by 4 percent, researchers found.
Parade attendance was also linked to an increased likelihood of making political contributions (3 percent), and voter turnout (0.9 percent).
There was no correlation between attendance at the parades and voting for Democrats.
The Christian Post > U.S.Fri, Jul. 01 2011 10:02 AM EDT
By Audrey Barrick Christian Post Reporter
Amid ongoing "gay pride" celebrations and the continual push for gay marriage across the states, influential evangelical John Piper wants to put it all in perspective for the church.
(Photo: SBC via The Christian Post) In this file photo, John Piper speaks to hundreds of pastors at the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention's Pastor Conference in Phoenix, Ariz., June 13, 2011.
"My sense is that we do not realize what a calamity is happening around us," Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, wrote in a commentary on Thursday. "Christians, more clearly than others, can see the tidal wave of pain that is on the way. Sin carries in it its own misery."
It's been nearly a week now since marriage for gay and lesbian couples was legalized in New York and since hundreds of thousands of Americans celebrated homosexuality with gay pride parades, not only in New York but also in Piper's home state of Minnesota.
Homosexuality and its celebration are nothing new, the Reformed pastor clarified.
"[Homosexuality] has been here since we were all broken in the fall of man," he wrote. "What’s new is not even the celebration of homosexual sin. Homosexual behavior has been exploited, and reveled in, and celebrated in art, for millennia."
"What’s new," he underscored, "is normalization and institutionalization. This is the new calamity."
America, and the rest of the world for that matter, is moving toward the institutionalization of homosexuality, the 65-year-old pastor lamented.
The Bible makes it clear, he indicated, that homosexual behavior is sin.
And, "alongside its clearest explanation of the sin of homosexual intercourse (Romans 1:24-27) stands the indictment of the celebration of it," the respected pastor stated.
"Though people know intuitively that homosexual acts (along with gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness) are sin, 'they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them' (Romans 1:29-32).’I tell you even with tears, that many glory in their shame' (Philippians 3:18–19)."
This is where much of America stands today. A Gallup poll last month revealed that for the first time since it began tracking the issue of same-sex marriage in 1996, a majority of Americans (53 percent) believe marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by law as valid.
Moreover, 56 percent of Americans say gay or lesbian relations is morally acceptable, another Gallup poll found in May. Only 39 percent perceive homosexual relations as morally wrong.
The Christian Post tried to reach Piper for comment in the days following the gay marriage passage in New York but was told he does not comment on news stories. Thursday's commentary by Piper was the first time since last week's event that the Minneapolis pastor directly addressed the issue.
He stressed that his purpose for writing on the controversial issue is "not to mount a political counter-assault."
He doesn't believe that is the calling of the church.
Rather, Piper expressed his desire to "help the church feel the sorrow of these days. And the magnitude of the assault on God and his image in man."
He didn't pin the sin of sexual immorality on homosexuals alone, however. Heterosexuals are just as guilty.
Piper emphasized that Jesus died for both heterosexual and homosexual sinners so that they might be saved. Jesus, he stressed, offers "astonishing mercy."
But rather than embracing that salvation, thousands celebrated sin last weekend, he lamented.
"Christians know what is coming, not only because we see it in the Bible, but because we have tasted the sorrowful fruit of our own sins. We do not escape the truth that we reap what we sow. Our marriages, our children, our churches, our institutions – they are all troubled because of our sins," he wrote.
"The difference is: We weep over our sins. We don’t celebrate them. We turn to Jesus for forgiveness and help. We cry to Jesus, 'who delivers us from the wrath to come (1 Thessalonians 1:10).'"
"And in our best moments, we weep for the world."
The win in New York for gay rights activists is expected to propel the gay marriage movement forward. Already, they are working to push similar legislation in Maine and to defeat a measure amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman in Minnesota.
Amid the movement to redefine marriage, Piper made it clear that Jesus created sexuality and "has a clear will for how it is to be experienced in holiness and joy."
"His will is that a man might leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and that the two become one flesh (Mark 10:6-9). In this union, sexuality finds its God-appointed meaning, whether in personal-physical unification, symbolic representation, sensual jubilation, or fruitful procreation."
Nevertheless, there are no signs of the gay marriage movement slowing down. With that, Piper left Christians with this concluding note:
"This is what I am writing for. Not political action, but love for the name of God and compassion for the city of destruction. 'My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law.' (Psalm 119:136)."
The "Lord" occurs a whopping 7970 times in the KJB -- more than any other noun. Of the 8,000-plus different words used in the KJB, the "Lord" ranks 14th among the most occurrences (number 13 is the single letter "a"). Only helper words such as "the"; "of"; "in"; "to"; et. al. occur more often.
The Mess contains the "Lord" only 71 times! The "Lord" ranks 1087th among words in The Mess. It appears the same number of times as words like "question" or "reputation."
In the New Testament, (ironically, the Testament of the "Lord" Jesus Christ) the "Lord" appears a skimpy 23 times in The Mess. The Mess NEVER directly honors Jesus Christ as Lord. The "Lord Jesus" occurs 118 times in the King James Bible. The "Lord Jesus Christ" occurs 84 times in the King James Bible. The phrase "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Lord Jesus" is not in The Mess! The outright denial of the "Lord" Jesus has never occurred in ANY translation.
Let us clarify something . . . the total amputation of the "Lord Jesus" is no accident. It is not an issue of translation or Greek manuscripts. It is not a matter of updating archaic words or making it easier to understand. It was a deliberate and intentional doctrinal decision to remove the "Lord Jesus."
And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord. . . John 20:13
It is interesting that Judas Iscariot never calls Jesus "Lord."
The Bible states 13 times Judas "betrayed" the Lord Jesus; Judas was possessed of Satan (Luke 22:3); Jesus Christ calls Judas "a devil" (John 6:70); Jesus calls Judas the "son of perdition" (John 17:12 – which is also the title of the antichrist in 2 Thess. 2:3). The Bible describes hell as Judas’ "own place" (Acts 1:25).
Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I?. . . Matthew 26:25, KJB
Judas always addressed Jesus as "Master" -- never "Lord." Following the footsteps of Judas the "betrayer," the Mess also "betrays" the Lord, always calling Jesus "Master" – never "Lord"!
Another partner in the "Master Jesus" plan is the New Age religion. The root of the New Age Movement (NAM) teaches during various "ages," teachers or guides arise called "Masters." Helena Blavatsky, the guru of the modern-day New Age Movement, wrote extensively of these enlightened "masters." In the 1980’s, the book Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow by Constance Cumbey, exposed the New Age Movement. Mrs. Cumbey defines the mystic new age as:
A vast organizational network today, the New Age Movement received its modern start in 1875 with the founding of the Theosophical Society by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. . . Strongly propounding the theory of evolution, they also believed in the existence of ‘masters’ who were either spirit beings or fortunate men more highly ‘evolved’ than the common herd. (Cumbey, Constance, Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, p. 44)
In his best selling book, A Crash Course on the New Age Movement, author Elliot Miller describes the new age Jesus as:
The New Age Jesus became ‘the Christ’ only after purifying himself of ‘bad karma’ through many incarnations, and even now (as many New Agers believe) he is only one of several ‘masters’. . . (Miller, Elliot. A Crash Course on the New Age Movement, p. 30)
Second only to Blavatasky in the New Age hierarchy, is Alice Bailey. Author Constance Cumbey says Bailey, ". . . did more than anyone, except perhaps H. P. Blavatsky, to build the foundations for the ‘New Age’." (Cumbey, Constance, Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, p. 49) In 1922 Alice Bailey formed Lucifer Trust Publishing, which was later renamed to the subtle Lucis Trust Publishing. Bailey wrote extensively on the "Master Jesus." The following quote are but one of the hundreds of references to the New Age "Master Jesus":
"There is a growing and developing belief that Christ is in us, as He was in the Master Jesus. . ." (Bailey, Alice, The Externalization of the Hierarchy, p. 592) New age researchers quickly discover the Jesus of the New Age is not the "Lord" Jesus but "Master" Jesus:
Jesus to the New Age is a man who ascended to be a Master. . . (Understanding the New Age, Watchman Fellowship Inc.)
A basic tenet of the New Age thinking is that of the Master Jesus. . . (Yungen, Ray. A Time of Departing, p. 112)
It is done. President Obama has signed the "DADT" repeal act of 2010 into law.
Washington Post:
Casting the repeal in terms of past civil rights struggles, Obama said he was proud to sign a law that "will strengthen our national security and uphold the ideals that our fighting men and women risk their lives to defend."
He added: "No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie."
The signing does not immediately implement the repeal but instead begins the process of ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
The law will not actually change until the Pentagon certifies to Congress that the military has met several conditions, including education and training programs for the troops.
"In the coming days, we will begin the process laid out in the law" to implement the repeal, Obama said. Meanwhile, he cautioned, "the old policy remains in place." But he pledged that all the service chiefs are "committed to implementing this change swiftly and efficiently," and he vowed, "We are not going to be dragging our feet to get this done."
Since some of you have been asking, yes, I was sent an invitation to attend the signing as a guest, but because of holiday travel plans I have this afternoon I was not able to make the trip to D.C. I do find it encouraging that the White House reached out to bloggers and activists to attend this historic moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, thank you, thank you. (Laughter.)
You know, I am just overwhelmed. This is a very good day. (Applause.) And I want to thank all of you, especially the people on this stage, but each and every one of you who have been working so hard on this, members of my staff who worked so hard on this. I couldn’t be prouder.
Sixty-six years ago, in the dense, snow-covered forests of Western Europe, Allied Forces were beating back a massive assault in what would become known as the Battle of the Bulge. And in the final days of fighting, a regiment in the 80th Division of Patton’s Third Army came under fire. The men were traveling along a narrow trail. They were exposed and they were vulnerable. Hundreds of soldiers were cut down by the enemy.
And during the firefight, a private named Lloyd Corwin tumbled 40 feet down the deep side of a ravine. And dazed and trapped, he was as good as dead. But one soldier, a friend, turned back. And with shells landing around him, amid smoke and chaos and the screams of wounded men, this soldier, this friend, scaled down the icy slope, risking his own life to bring Private Corwin to safer ground.
For the rest of his years, Lloyd credited this soldier, this friend, named Andy Lee, with saving his life, knowing he would never have made it out alone. It was a full four decades after the war, when the two friends reunited in their golden years, that Lloyd learned that the man who saved his life, his friend Andy, was gay. He had no idea. And he didn’t much care. Lloyd knew what mattered. He knew what had kept him alive; what made it possible for him to come home and start a family and live the rest of his life. It was his friend.
And Lloyd’s son is with us today. And he knew that valor and sacrifice are no more limited by sexual orientation than they are by race or by gender or by religion or by creed; that what made it possible for him to survive the battlefields of Europe is the reason that we are here today. (Applause.) That's the reason we are here today. (Applause.)
So this morning, I am proud to sign a law that will bring an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” (Applause.) It is a law -- this law I’m about to sign will strengthen our national security and uphold the ideals that our fighting men and women risk their lives to defend.
No longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans who were forced to leave the military -– regardless of their skills, no matter their bravery or their zeal, no matter their years of exemplary performance -– because they happen to be gay. No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder, in order to serve the country that they love. (Applause.)
As Admiral Mike Mullen has said, “Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.” (Applause.)
That’s why I believe this is the right thing to do for our military. That’s why I believe it is the right thing to do, period.
Now, many fought long and hard to reach this day. I want to thank the Democrats and Republicans who put conviction ahead of politics to get this done together. (Applause. I want to recognize Nancy Pelosi -- (applause) -- Steny Hoyer -- (applause) -- and Harry Reid. (Applause.)
Today we’re marking an historic milestone, but also the culmination of two of the most productive years in the history of Congress, in no small part because of their leadership. And so we are very grateful to them. (Applause.)
I want to thank Joe Lieberman -- (applause) -- and Susan Collins. (Applause.) And I think Carl Levin is still working -- (laughter) -- but I want to add Carl Levin. (Applause.) They held their shoulders to the wheel in the Senate. I am so proud of Susan Davis, who’s on the stage. (Applause.) And a guy you might know -- Barney Frank. (Applause.) They kept up the fight in the House. And I’ve got to acknowledge Patrick Murphy, a veteran himself, who helped lead the way in Congress. (Applause.)
I also want to commend our military leadership. Ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a topic in my first meeting with Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and the Joint Chiefs. (Applause.) We talked about how to end this policy. We talked about how success in both passing and implementing this change depended on working closely with the Pentagon. And that’s what we did.
And two years later, I’m confident that history will remember well the courage and the vision of Secretary Gates -- (applause) -- of Admiral Mike Mullen, who spoke from the heart and said what he believed was right -- (applause) -- of General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and Deputy Secretary William Lynn, who is here. (Applause.) Also, the authors of the Pentagon’s review, Jeh Johnson and General Carter Ham, who did outstanding and meticulous work -- (applause) -- and all those who laid the groundwork for this transition.
And finally, I want to express my gratitude to the men and women in this room who have worn the uniform of the United States Armed Services. (Applause.) I want to thank all the patriots who are here today, all of them who were forced to hang up their uniforms as a result of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” -- but who never stopped fighting for this country, and who rallied and who marched and fought for change. I want to thank everyone here who stood with them in that fight.
Because of these efforts, in the coming days we will begin the process laid out by this law. Now, the old policy remains in effect until Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and I certify the military’s readiness to implement the repeal. And it’s especially important for service members to remember that. But I have spoken to every one of the service chiefs and they are all committed to implementing this change swiftly and efficiently. We are not going to be dragging our feet to get this done. (Applause.)
Now, with any change, there’s some apprehension. That’s natural. But as Commander-in-Chief, I am certain that we can effect this transition in a way that only strengthens our military readiness; that people will look back on this moment and wonder why it was ever a source of controversy in the first place.
I have every confidence in the professionalism and patriotism of our service members. Just as they have adapted and grown stronger with each of the other changes, I know they will do so again. I know that Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, as well as the vast majority of service members themselves, share this view. And they share it based on their own experiences, including the experience of serving with dedicated, duty-bound service members who were also gay.
As one special operations warfighter said during the Pentagon’s review -- this was one of my favorites -- it echoes the experience of Lloyd Corwin decades earlier: “We have a gay guy in the unit. He’s big, he’s mean, he kills lots of bad guys.” (Laughter.) “No one cared that he was gay.” (Laughter.) And I think that sums up perfectly the situation. (Applause.)
Finally, I want to speak directly to the gay men and women currently serving in our military. For a long time your service has demanded a particular kind of sacrifice. You’ve been asked to carry the added burden of secrecy and isolation. And all the while, you’ve put your lives on the line for the freedoms and privileges of citizenship that are not fully granted to you.
You’re not the first to have carried this burden, for while today marks the end of a particular struggle that has lasted almost two decades, this is a moment more than two centuries in the making.
There will never be a full accounting of the heroism demonstrated by gay Americans in service to this country; their service has been obscured in history. It’s been lost to prejudices that have waned in our own lifetimes. But at every turn, every crossroads in our past, we know gay Americans fought just as hard, gave just as much to protect this nation and the ideals for which it stands.
There can be little doubt there were gay soldiers who fought for American independence, who consecrated the ground at Gettysburg, who manned the trenches along the Western Front, who stormed the beaches of Iwo Jima. Their names are etched into the walls of our memorials. Their headstones dot the grounds at Arlington.
And so, as the first generation to serve openly in our Armed Forces, you will stand for all those who came before you, and you will serve as role models to all who come after. And I know that you will fulfill this responsibility with integrity and honor, just as you have every other mission with which you’ve been charged.
And you need to look no further than the servicemen and women in this room -- distinguished officers like former Navy Commander Zoe Dunning. (Applause.) Marines like Eric Alva, one of the first Americans to be injured in Iraq. (Applause.) Leaders like Captain Jonathan Hopkins, who led a platoon into northern Iraq during the initial invasion, quelling an ethnic riot, earning a Bronze Star with valor. (Applause.) He was discharged, only to receive emails and letters from his soldiers saying they had known he was gay all along -- (laughter) -- and thought that he was the best commander they ever had. (Applause.)
There are a lot of stories like these -- stories that only underscore the importance of enlisting the service of all who are willing to fight for this country. That’s why I hope those soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who have been discharged under this discriminatory policy will seek to reenlist once the repeal is implemented. (Applause.)
That is why I say to all Americans, gay or straight, who want nothing more than to defend this country in uniform: Your country needs you, your country wants you, and we will be honored to welcome you into the ranks of the finest military the world has ever known. (Applause.)
Some of you remembered I visited Afghanistan just a few weeks ago. And while I was walking along the rope line -- it was a big crowd, about 3,000 -- a young woman in uniform was shaking my hand and other people were grabbing and taking pictures. And she pulled me into a hug and she whispered in my ear, “Get ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ done.” (Laughter and applause.) And I said to her, “I promise you I will.” (Applause.)
For we are not a nation that says, “don’t ask, don’t tell.” We are a nation that says, “Out of many, we are one.” (Applause.) We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot. We are a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal. (Applause.) Those are the ideals that generations have fought for. Those are the ideals that we uphold today. And now, it is my honor to sign this bill into law. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. President!
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We're here, Mr. President. Enlist us now. (Laughter.)
KSBW.com updated less than 1 minute ago 2010-11-15T23:15:17 DENAIR, Calif. — KSBW.com
A 13-year-old Stanislaus County boy at the center of a flag controversy got a big show of support Monday as many people rallied to his side.
Cody Alicea was earlier told by Denair Middle School officials that he could not ride to school with a U.S. flag on his bike. The story has gained national attention, from Rush Limbaugh to the Drudge Report.
The school changed its mind, and now Alicea can display the stars and stripes.
When he rode from his home to school on Monday, he was followed by a parade of people on motorcycles. A military jet flyover was also expected.
"I'd just like to say thanks for the support," Alicea said before his ride.
Officials at the school told Alicea not to display the flag, citing safety concerns. Some students had complained about the display.
Denair Unified School District Superintendent Edward Parraz said the campus recently experienced some racial tension. He said some students got out of hand on Cinco de Mayo. He said some students displayed the Mexican flag, while others displayed American flags.
Parraz said he got calls from halfway around the world about the flag controversy. Some soldiers in Afghanistan called to complain.
Alicea said he was surprised at the attention.
"This is big," Alicea said. "I didn't think it'd get this big."
Family members of Pfc. Aaron Nemelka recognize his service on the memorial stone during a memorial service recognizing victims and families of those fallen on the one year anniversary of the Ft. Hood attacks. (Ben Sklar/Getty Images)
The Fort Hood shooting anniversary is being marked at the Texas army base today. An awards presentation and Remembrance Ceremony are being held on the base where 13 people were killed last Nov. 5.
An editorial in the base newsletter honored the soldiers without mentioning their killer, a fellow soldier.
"This tragic event brought the surrounding communities and the Great Place together as one," Command Sgt. Maj. Archie L. Davis Jr. wrote.
"There was an outpouring of support from everywhere and everyone, and this is why we want to honor and remember our fallen heroes and celebrate their service and sacrifice Friday and Saturday as we observe the one-year anniversary of the tragic shootings at the Soldier Readiness Processing Center.”
Davis ended his editorial with a quote from doctor and author Rachel Naomi Remen: “Only other wounded people can understand what is needed, for the healing of suffering is compassion, not expertise.”
On Saturday, the remembrance will turn festive with “Rock the Hood,” races, children’s events as well as music for soldiers, veterans, and families.
.
.P
P.S.
Denial (The Nile) is not just a river in Egypt. Pirates, are the new bad guys. hah?
Would this be an appropriate time to go on vacation in rememberance of the event?
A North Carolina pastor was relieved of his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer by invoking the name of Jesus.
“I got fired,” said Ron Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. He had been invited to lead prayer for an entire week but his tenure was cut short when he refused to remove the name Jesus from his invocation.
Baity’s troubles began during the week of May 31. He said a House clerk asked to see his prayer. The invocation including prayers for our military, state lawmakers and a petition to God asking him to bless North Carolina.”
“When I handed it to the lady, I watched her eyes and they immediately went right to the bottom of the page and the word Jesus,” he told FOX News Radio. “She said ‘We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.’”
When Baity protested, she brought the matter to the attention of House Speaker Joe Hackney.
The McChrystal Rolling Stone article was written by a freelance reporter who ended up in an impromptu 'embed' with McChrystal because of the Iceland volcano.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal works aboard a C-130 over Afghanistan in this photo used in the McChrystal Rolling Stone article. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Mark O’Donald/NATO/Rolling Stone/AP
The Rolling Stone McChrystal article might never have exploded in Washington Wednesday if the Eyjafjallajokull volcano hadn’t erupted in Iceland this spring.
At least, that’s how Rolling Stone correspondent Michael Hastings has explained how his two-day stint with Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Paris turned into nearly a month-long “embed” with the US military officer who was, until Wednesday, in charge of the war in Afghanistan. Stranded in Europe, they traveled to Berlin together – and then later to Kabul and Washington.
Mr. Hastings, a salty Vermonter who earned his chops covering the Iraq war, was reached Wednesday by a number of US news outlets in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar, a Taliban stronghold. He is reporting on the ramp-up to an offensive that has been billed as key to McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy, which the more diplomatic Gen. David Petraeus will now oversee.
The comments McChrystal and his staff made to Hastings have many in Washington shaking their heads over how a top commander could let down his guard with what one outlet characterized as “an antiwar reporter from an antiwar magazine.”
By all accounts McChrystal crossed a red line by disparaging senior members of the Obama administration, and allowing his aides to do so as well – something that even McChrystal acknowledges he, and he alone, is responsible for.
But this was not a case of failing to hold one’s tongue during a one-hour, cross-legged interview in soft lamplight.
The Rolling Stone profile was sussed out over weeks in which Hastings, who in the past had prided himself on getting sources “drunk and singing,” followed McChrystal’s band from Parisian hotel rooms to dusty Afghan outposts with a tape recorder and notebook in hand “three-quarters of the time.”
The result was a not only controversial but rich portrait of McChrystal – from editor of a West Point literary magazine to a dad who doesn’t mind his son’s blue mohawk, to a (possibly unwitting) player in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire.
In interviews published by Newsweek and the Burlington Free Press in Vermont, where he went to high school, Hastings was quoted Wednesday as saying he was very surprised by the impact of his Rolling Stone profile.
But Hastings is not a naïve reporter, if only 30 years old. A veteran of Baghdad, where his girlfriend was killed after coming to join him, Hastings has – in his own words – spent time around Catholic school, county jail, rehab, and the presidential candidates of 2008.
His mission on the campaign trail, he wrote in a 2008 GQ piece, was “basically: Ride the buses and planes with the candidates, have big lunches and dinners on the expense account, get sources drunk and singing, then report back the behind-the-scenes story.”
Deriding Rudy Giuliani for making light of the war in Iraq, where he had a brother fighting, and curious about John McCain’s purported womanizing, Hastings said he had trouble being objective. But he was not apologetic.
"Objectivity is a fallacy,” he wrote.
He talked about the game in which “you try to be friendly and nonthreatening” with politicians’ aides to “build trust” – but dismissed the trust as an illusion. In the same GQ article, Hastings described trying to get presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in an unguarded moment – “swearing, or bringing in a hooker, or breaking out in spontaneous prayer.”
Hastings doesn’t try to come off as a saint, but on The Hastings Report, his blog that has 142 followers as of Wednesday, he says he greatly respects writers “who live their lives with integrity and without compromise.”
Richard Handler The Coulter visit: What would St. Ignatius say? Last Updated: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 2:50 PM ET By Richard Handler CBC News
With a toss of her long blond hair, Ann Coulter, the American mistress of bombast, came to Canada and departed.
She certainly attracted much attention, indeed, much more than she gets in her own country these days, as more than one commentator observed.
It's a nice, small country, she told the CBC's Evan Solomon, standing outside in the Calgary sunshine in her dark sunglasses.
"It isn't so small." Solomon said. Oh well, how would she know?
Coulter had just flown in from Ottawa, where she had been booked to give a speech she never gave, above the heads apparently of the "whiny" liberals and the "crybabies" who lived down below.
As Neil Macdonald so correctly pointed out, Coulter is not so much a pundit as an entertainer. She's part of what conservative commentator David Frum calls America's right-wing entertainment industry.
Though perhaps entertainment complex is a better term because it works on so many levels.
As Frum told Peter Mansbridge on The National, this industry is fueled by anger. Talk jocks like Coulter or Rush Limbaugh realize that anger sells, so they do what they can to keep the fires burning.
No safe place The truckloads of commentary surrounding Coulter's visit and her cancelled speech at the University of Ottawa centered on the role of free speech in Canada and in universities in particular.
Protestors outside the Calgar venue where Ann Coulter gave a talk on political correctness, media bias and freedom of speech in March 2010. (Larry MacDougal/Canadian Press)
The upshot was all the usual talk about how there's not enough here, at least when compared to the U.S., where they seem to make a fetish of saying nasty things about each other.
The headlines in the National Post last Thursday blared "Mob rule 1, free speech 0." While the Globe and Mail's lead editorial proclaimed "a university fails in its mission."
This was followed with a commentary by Ian Hunter, a professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, proclaiming: "Universities are bastions of free speech? Not in Canada."
You can imagine the whole country nodding their heads in agreement. Even Coulter's "whiny" liberals would probably agree with these sentiments.
But in the midst of all this happy piling on, one comment by an anti-Coulter protester, which was noted in the Globe editorial, caught my attention.
She was a second-year student of sociology and women's studies at the University of Ottawa and reportedly said she was worried that what Coulter might say "would make students feel unsafe and very uncomfortable."
"We promise our students here at the university of Ottawa a safe, positive place," this young woman said. To which the Globe noted sarcastically that this was "a new standard" for Canadian universities.
In fact, this standard has been in place for some time, with speech codes at universities insisting on nothing hurtful reaching the ears of their students. Queen's University even tried to put minders in the dorms at one point to gently correct untoward comments by students.
But notice the "we" in the quote above.
Our young woman uses "we" not as a faculty member or an administrator, but as a student who is part of a shared collective and appears to be expecting from her university a degree of protection and security, even, you might say, consolation.
Consolation prize The notion that universities should be "safe places" — emotional cocoons, if you will — never seems to make it into the polemics of free-speech punditry.
Maybe that's because, as a society, "we" ourselves are divided.
We say we want free speech. But as good, tolerant people, we also want a good, tolerant environment for our not quite grown-up children.
For some time now, we have let universities become the places for lifestyle experiments, where students can inhabit the grey zone between childhood and full-blown maturity.
One small example: We parents, for the most part, pay their bills but we are not allowed to see their grades for reasons of privacy. So all of us, parents and students are tossed into an arena of dependence and confusing adult role models.
Yes, we want our university-bound children to learn the right things, like critical inquiry, but we also want them to learn to be co-operative.
In most cases, it seems as if teamwork is more important than needless intellectuality. Team workers, after all, are more employable.
Besides learning stuff they'll hardly ever need, students go to university to learn to play the angles, which is a viable political skill, perhaps the most important they'll ever learn.
And if we promise them emotional and even intellectual comfort, they seem to be holding us to that promise.
Why should they have to hear a woman like Coulter say unpleasant things about angry Muslims, whiny liberals and people who may be their friends?
Church of the safe haven Some time ago, when I was a producer on a CBC Radio arts show, we interviewed a poet who was known to have said a few contentious things in her time.
But when she was asked about them, she was offended. She had wanted the interview to be a safe place and was astonished by these tough questions.
She didn't want free speech. She was someone else who wanted to be affirmed in her stance and who was seeking consolation from the institution that she was dealing with.
You can see the role of consolation in many institutions. Indeed, it probably comes out of a religious, missionary spirit.
For the Jesuits, for example, the role of consolation was crucial, particularly in terms of personal struggle.
Consolation brings you closer to God where "we feel more alive and connected to others," according to the order's founder, St. Ignatius of Loyola.
On the other hand, desolation, the spiritual opposite, is said to be an experience of the soul in heavy darkness and turmoil, banished from the sight of God.
So why do I smuggle in St. Ignatius in a column about Ann Coulter?
Because when you replay his spiritual exercises in an updated, non-religious light, you end up with the modern feel-good university as a kind of secular church — a place where only goodness should shine while evil is banished. Including, apparently Ann Coulter.
Is it possible that we don't think our children resilient enough to suffer the slings and arrows of rough talk? If so, whose fault is that? Not the university's.
Isn't this what the Ottawa university provost thought when he wrote his warning to Coulter before her visit?
Wasn't he telling her that we guardians of the academy must keep our children safe from physical and emotional trauma? Better we spare them the desolation of critical inquiry and offensive speech than to hurt their feelings. . . Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/30/f-vp-handler.html .
Facts: One man stands accused of murdering 13 people and wounding 30 others. He is a U.S. Army officer and a Muslim. Tragic for the families -- but still murder.
After 9-11, did American Muslim leaders speak out against this destruction and murder of thousands by Muslims? Mostly silence.
The twisted rope of political correctness is unraveling when truth and facts enter into events and can no longer be ignored. In past wars with other nations, American Japanese and Germans fought gallantly alongside their compatriots -- for America.
Muslims are an exception. All facets and layers of the U.S. government have accommodated political correctness in eliminating "Islam" and "Muslim" from terrorist connections. Yet we all know they are Muslims.
Politically correct blindness may be involved in this case if the Army would send a Muslim Army officer, who resisted such assignment, to fight in a Muslim country. Should we be surprised by this Muslim's actions?
Fact: Some in the American Muslim community practice their own religious law -- Sharia -- which is not according to U.S. law. Two cases in point -- two Muslim families, two daughters. The fathers of both seek death for their daughters because they have besmirched the family honor by becoming "too Westernized." One father, in Peoria, Ariz., is accused of killing his daughter in a vehicular homicide. The other daughter, Rifqa Bary of Ohio, has so far avoided returning to her family and to her death. In America!
This is not the America we once thought of as a melting pot. We are now a multicultural and pluralistic society where the U.S. law and Constitution have been declared null and void. Islam's Sharia law may be America's future legal system.
I can't help but think that a time is coming when a letter stating facts will be considered hate speech and a crime. In America!
Bonnie Alba
Aiken, S.C.
From the Saturday, November 14, 2009 edition of the Augusta Chronicle
The so-called “defamation of religions” U.N. resolutions, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, would create a “global blasphemy law,” the chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom warned on Wednesday.
Leonard A. Leo testified to Members of Congress on the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission that though the resolutions sounded “tolerant and progressive,” in reality they would “exacerbate” religious persecution and discrimination around the world.
“Although the ‘defamation’ resolutions purport to protect religions generally, the only religion and religious adherents that are specifically mentioned are Islam and Muslims,” pointed out Leo, who noted USCIRF has been closely monitoring the resolutions for several years. “Aside from Islam, the resolutions do not specify which religions are deserving of protection, or explain how or by whom this would be determined.”
Out of concern that the resolutions would be abused to oppress religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries, Christian as well as secular human rights groups had launched several campaigns this year to alert U.N. members on the danger of such proposals.
Open Doors, a ministry that works with persecuted Christians, launched an advocacy campaign earlier this month aimed at preventing the resolutions from passing at the United Nations. The ministry is lobbying key countries, which will vote on the resolutions, and organizing a petition drive against the proposal.
And back in March, more than 180 non-government organizations from around the world signed a petition urging the U.N. Human Rights Council to not adopt the resolutions. Despite their efforts, however, the resolutions passed. The NGOs participating in the petition voiced concern that the resolutions would be manipulated to justify anti-blasphemy laws and intimidate human rights activists and religious dissenters.
Since 1999, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has annually sponsored the "defamation of religions" resolutions in the U.N. Human Rights Council, its predecessor, and, since 2005, in the General Assembly.
The resolutions are currently non-binding, but OIC has publicly stated that its goal is for the U.N. to adopt a binding international covenant against the “defamation of religions.”
USCIRF Chair Leonard Leo denounced the resolutions as a “poorly veiled attempt to export the repressive blasphemy laws found in some OIC countries to the international level.”
“Under these laws, criminal charges can be levied against individuals for defaming, denigrating, insulting, offending, disparaging, and blaspheming Islam, often resulting in gross human rights violations,” said the religious freedom expert.
USCIRF is among the many groups that have spoken against the resolutions. Other groups include The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Freedom House, U.N. Watch, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, and Open Doors USA.
The “defamation of religions” resolutions are expected to be formally proposed for renewal by OIC next month or later this year.
