U.S. SUPREME COURT - The First Monday in October

"Supreme Court resumes in-person arguments with abortion, guns, religious freedom on agenda" PBS NewsHour 10/4/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court returned to the courtroom Monday morning to hear its first oral arguments of the new term in-person.  The cases set for argument this term could make it one of the most contentious in many years.  Marcia Coyle, chief Washington [DC] correspondent for The National Law Journal, was one of the two dozen reporters in the courtroom and joins John Yang with more.

AMERICA AT STAKE - Slow March to theocracy

Theocracy, Noun (countable and uncountable, plural theocracies)
Government under the control of a state-sponsored religion.
Like using State law to force others to follow a religious belief like 'human life begins at conception.'

"Is the Supreme Court looking to overturn Roe v Wade?  Here’s what one expert thinks" PBS NewsHour 5/17/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear arguments in a major abortion case that could roll back limits on abortion laws cemented by the landmark reproductive rights case Roe v Wade.  In its term beginning October, the court will consider a Mississippi state law banning abortions after 15 weeks.  John Yang discusses the matter with Mary Zieglar from Florida State University College of Law.

SUPREME COURT - Decision, Threat of Theocracy

"What new decisions say about the Supreme Court’s view of religious freedom" PBS NewsHour 7/8/2020

Another decision that supports the change of America from a Democracy to a Christian Theocracy.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Trump administration rules that limit birth control coverage under Obamacare -- the third time justices have considered whether some employers could opt out of that coverage based on their beliefs.  As the court wraps up its final week of the current session, Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal joins John Yang for a closer look.

CHINA: POWER AND POSTERITY - Their 'People' Spying System and More

"How China’s high-tech ‘eyes’ monitor behavior and dissent" PBS NewsHour 9/30/2019

Right out of George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four"

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Technology is transforming China, helping improve life in some ways, but also collecting big data.  The government is beginning to convert that data and surveillance footage into social credit scores, which critics say can be used to penalize those who criticize the Communist Party.  Nick Schifrin reports as part of "China: Power and Prosperity," with support from the Pulitzer Center.

"Chinese tech makes cities ‘smart,’ but critics say it spreads authoritarianism" PBS NewsHour 10/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Chinese 5G technology is designed to transmit huge amounts of data instantly, and deploy vast networks of surveillance cameras and facial recognition software.  While dozens of countries around the world plan to adopt the innovation, human rights advocates and the U.S. are sounding the alarm.  Nick Schifrin reports as part of "China: Power and Prosperity," with support from the Pulitzer Center.

"How China is driving the future of electric cars" PBS NewsHour 10/2/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, putting more electric vehicles on the road is critical.  Determined to become a world leader in the market, that nation has imposed a requirement that’s compelling international manufacturers to go more green.  Special correspondent Katrina Yu reports as part of "China: Power and Prosperity," with support from the Pulitzer Center.

"Why China’s art market is evolving from knockoffs to new works" PBS NewsHour 10/3/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the past, China was better known for producing 75 percent of the world’s art knockoffs than for its own creative innovation.  Today, that is changing, as Chinese artists are reviving what they call the country’s “cultural aristocracy” by producing original art.  Special correspondent Katrina Yu reports on the artistic, cultural and political implications of China’s creative resurgence.

"China calls it re-education, but Uighur Muslims say it’s ‘unbearable brutality’" PBS NewsHour 10/4/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Uighurs are Muslims who trace their roots back thousands of years in Central Asia, most currently living in the Chinese province Xinjiang.  The group represents less than 1 percent of China's population, but they have endured what the U.S. calls one of the worst human rights crises of modern times.  Nick Schifrin reports on how Communist China has persecuted this religious and cultural minority.

MARCH TO THEOCRACY - More Religions Exemptions

Theocracy = Bible over our Constitution, law by fundamentalist religion.  Forget your personal religious rights, and if you are a women you do not control your own body.

"Trump aims to expand religious and philosophical exemptions for health workers" PBS NewsHour 5/3/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump intends to expand rules that allow health care workers to opt out of participating in certain services on religious or moral grounds.  While conservatives celebrated what they call “conscience protections,” LGBTQ and women’s advocates warned the change would reduce services and cause patients harm.  Amna Nawaz talks to The New York Times' Margot Sanger-Katz for analysis.

ONE ON ONE - Offensive Speech and Gurbir Grewal

"In exclusive interview, N.J. Attorney General reacts to ‘hateful’ ridicule by radio hosts" PBS NewsHour 7/26/2018

NOTE:  Gurbir Grewal is a Sikh-American (not an Arab, aka not everyone who wares a turban is Muslim)

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A pair of longtime New Jersey radio hosts, Dennis Malloy and Judi Franco, were kicked off the [talk radio] air Thursday after repeatedly referring to Gurbir Grewal, the country's first Sikh attorney general, as "turban man."  In an exclusive interview, Grewal joins Amna Nawaz to speak out against discrimination and stand up for those who can’t.

LOST MORALS - Evangelicals and Trump

aka "Selling Their Souls to the Devil"

"Evangelicals keep faith in Trump to advance religious agenda" PBS NewsHour 5/3/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Support for President Trump among Evangelicals is at an all-time high.  On the National Day of Prayer, William Brangham talks with Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference about why he says it’s a balancing act and where they differ.

TRUMP AGENDA - First Step to American Theocracy

"Trump vows to scrap rule on religious groups and campaign politics" PBS NewsHour 2/2/2017

COMMENT:  I have longed believed that our Founding Fathers meant the freedom of religion to be a right of an individual, NOT a right of a group.  That it means we cannot have laws that allow, or encourage, a religious belief to be enshrined in law and thereby FORCING everyone to practice the religious belief of others.  That would turn our America into a theocracy like Iran, where the religious leaders have veto over any law passed by the legislator.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump used the annual National Prayer Breakfast to reignite an old campaign promise, to change the tax code to allow churches and other tax-exempt groups to openly campaign for political candidates.  John Yang reports on that and more.

JOHN YANG (NewsHour):  Today, President Trump revved up his new administration with a visit from Harley-Davidson executives and workers.

DONALD TRUMP:  Boy, would you like to see me fall off these things?  Would that be a story?

JOHN YANG:  And used the annual National Prayer Breakfast to reignite a campaign promise, vowing to change the tax code to allow churches and other tax-exempt groups to openly campaign for political candidates.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:  I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.  I will do that.  Remember.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

JOHN YANG:  The provision wasn't controversial when then-senator Lyndon Johnson introduced it and President Dwight Eisenhower signed it into law in 1954.  Now some religious leaders, especially conservative Christians, say it violates their freedom of speech.

Speaking at the breakfast, Mr.  Trump also defended his immigration order against critics who say it's a ban on Muslims.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:  In the coming days, we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty, and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination.

We want people to come into our nation, but we want people to love us and to love our values, not to hate us and to hate our values.

JOHN YANG:  There were also lighter moments, as when the President suggested divine intervention for the current incarnation of his TV show, “The Apprentice.”

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:  They hired a big, big movie star, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to take my place.  And we know how that turned out.  The ratings went right down the tubes.  It's been a total disaster.  I want to just pray for Arnold, if we can, for those ratings, OK?

(LAUGHTER)

JOHN YANG:  Schwarzenegger responded on the President's favorite forum with a Twitter video.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Former California Governor:  Hey, Donald, I have a great idea.

Why don't we switch jobs?  You take over TV, because you're such an expert in ratings, and I take over your job.  And then people can finally sleep comfortably again.

BIRTH CONTROL BATTLE - U.S. Supreme Court

"Supreme Court hears birth control battle brought by religious nonprofits" PBS NewsHour 3/23/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court heard its fourth challenge to the Affordable Care Act, this one from religious nonprofits demanding exemption from the requirement to provide insurance coverage for birth control, claiming the mandate violates federal laws protecting religious freedoms.  Gwen Ifill talks to Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal for more details on the case.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  But, first, we turn to the Supreme Court, where the clash between religious freedom and women’s access to birth control played out once again today.

PROTESTERS:  Hands off my birth control!

GWEN IFILL:  Today marked the fourth time the high court has heard a challenge to the president’s signature health care law.

At the center of today’s case, the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate.  Just two years ago, arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby challenged that mandate, and won.  Justices ruled that family-owned companies run on religious principles could refuse to pay for their employees’ birth control.

Today’s case shifted the focus from private companies to the potential burden for religious nonprofits.  The challenge comes in part from an order of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor.  Along with six other plaintiffs, they argue the law forces them to either violate their beliefs or pay a substantial fine.

MOTHER LORAINE MAGUIRE, Little Sisters of the Poor:  We find ourselves in a situation where the government is requiring us to make changes in our health care, our religious health care plan to include services that really violate our deepest-held religious beliefs as Little Sisters.

GWEN IFILL:  The National Women’s Law Center sided with the Obama administration, saying coverage alternatives for these groups already exist.

GRETCHEN BORCHELT, National Women’s Law Center:  Women deserve insurance coverage for birth control no matter where they work.  These employers want to take that benefit away from their employees.  The alternatives that they proposed in court today are unworkable and, frankly, insulting.

GWEN IFILL:  A ruling is expected by June.

SUPREME COURT - Gay Marriage

IMHO:  As my readers may ascertain from past post on this subject...

• Same-sex (gay) marriage is a Human Right, the right of personal relationships between any consenting adults
• It IS a matter of Equal Rights under the law
• Protection from having ANY religious-based belief being imposed on others by using the law of the land

"Supreme Court considers whether it’s time for nationwide same-sex marriage" PBS NewsHour 4/28/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Today the Supreme Court tackled a highly anticipated and historic case that could set the definition of marriage in the U.S.  The justices heard arguments on whether all states must allow same-sex marriage, and if not, whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.  Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what happened in court.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  It was a historic day at the Supreme Court, at stake, the definition of marriage.

Justices split the issue into two questions:  Must every state permit same-sex marriage?  And, if not, do states have to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere?

Protesters from both sides of the debate crowded outside the court building in Washington this morning.

Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal was there and she joins us now.

MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal:  Hi, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So, Marcia, big day at the court. Knowing that, what is it, 36 of the states…

MARCIA COYLE:  Plus the District of Columbia.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  … already declare same-sex marriage legal, what were the petitioners today asking the court to decide?

MARCIA COYLE:  Well, basically, they’re laying claim to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law.

They’re saying that the court has recognized that there is a fundamental right to marry, and under the 14th Amendment, they have been — they deserve to be part and to participate in that fundamental right.

The states that still do ban same-sex marriage, they claim, are excluding them from that fundamental right to marry.  It was a packed courtroom, Judy, and the arguments were fast-paced and intense.  And I hope anybody who is interested will listen to the full audio and read the transcript.

(Full Audio and Transcripts) Obergefell v. Hodges; Docket Number: 14-556-Question-1, Docket Number: 14-556-Question-2

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 1/3/2015

"Shields and Brooks on making a deal with Iran, religious freedom and the marketplace" PBS NewsHour 4/3/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s top news, including the newly reached agreement framework for Iran’s nuclear program and the controversy over Religious Freedom laws and discrimination.

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  (on Iran Agreement) I think the unprecedented, unrestricted inspections are very, very positive.  I am very supportive of what I know about the deal so far.

I — the reaction right now and the resistance, which has been quite outspoken in this country, reminds me of a second-term President who negotiated with a brutal regime that had enslaved hundreds of millions of people and killed millions of people.  And he had an agreement to cut our nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles by 50 percent unilaterally.

And he came back, Ronald Reagan, from dealing with Mikhail Gorbachev and said — George Will, the great conservative commentator, said this is the day America lost the Cold War.  William Buckley’s “National Review” called it Ronald Reagan’s suicide pact.   It was roundly roasted.

I happen to believe that you negotiate with your enemies, with your adversaries.  And I think — I think, from everything I know at this point, it’s positive.  There’s great resistance in this country.  Make no mistake about it.  Republican candidates for 2016, by emphasizing their opposition to President Obama on anything, but certainly on this, help themselves.

Mark Kirk, the Republican senator from Illinois, has already retired the classless demagoguery award for 2015 and maybe for 2016 as well, when he said, without having even looked at the terms, that this — that Neville Chamberlain got more out of — from Hitler out of Munich than we did.

I am cautiously optimistic and hopeful.  I don’t know what the option is, what the alternative is.  I think, to bring them in, it’s always better to deal with people than to isolate them.  And I don’t do it with my eyes in any way closed to Iran’s evil acts.

SATIRE - Dear Patrons

"I am a Christian business owner in Indiana" by stophurtingamericaFollow, Daily KOS 3/29/2015

Not really.  But If I were, this is the sign I would put in my door.

"Dear Valued Patrons.

Due to my sincerely held religious beliefs, and in light of the RFRA, recently signed by our Dear Leader Pence, I will no longer be doing business with the following persons; nor permitting them in my establishment:

1.  Divorcees.  Matthew 19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

2.  Anyone who has ever read their horoscope or called a psychic hotline.  Leviticus 20:6: "As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."

3.   Anyone with a tattoo.   Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."

4.  Anyone born illegitimately.  Also, anyone who, back to ten generations, is descended from someone born illegitimately.   If you can not PROVE, using appropriate church sources, that ten generations of your family were born in wedlock, I will have to err on the side of caution and not serve you.  Deuteronomy 23:2 "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD."

5.  Anyone who makes a practice of praying aloud, or in public.  Matthew 6:5-6 "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men.  Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.  But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

6.  Any woman with braided hair or gold jewelry.  Just to be on the safe side, NO jewelry at all.  Timothy 2:9 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."

7.  Any man who has ever, by accident or not, had his genitals damaged.  (Current interpretation of this scripture is under debate, so just to be safe, if you've had a vasectomy, or testicular cancer, I can't serve you.  I apologize for the inconvenience but I am worried for my soul.)   Deuteronomy 23:1 "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."

8.  Please don't bring your kids in if they have a bowl cut.   Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."

For those of you complaining that some of these scriptures are from the Old Testament, and that Jesus came to redeem us from these laws, I refer you to Matthew 5:17-19, where Our Savior himself says:  "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.  18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.  19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"

Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience.  It's nothing personal, "love the sinner but hate the sin," and all, but I simply can't serve anyone who would blatantly disregard God's sacred law in such a fashion.

Of course this would never happen.  People don't not serve gays because they find it against God's Law.   They do it, by and large, because "the gays are icky."   Jesus had dinner with prostitutes and tax collectors.  Get over yourselves.

SUPREME COURT - Affordable Care Act and Corporate Religious Rights?

"Can corporations exercise religious rights?  Supreme Court hears case on contraception coverage" PBS NewsHour 3/25/2014

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  The hotly contested — or debated issues of contraception, religious freedom, and the president’s health care law took center stage today at the U.S. Supreme Court.

We start with a look at the people involved in the case.

It comes from Tim O’Brien, who filed this report for the PBS program “Religion & Ethics Newsweekly.”

TIM O’BRIEN, Correspondent, Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly:  The challenge is from the Conestoga Furniture Company in East Earl, Pennsylvania and by Hobby Lobby, a national chain of craft stores with some 28,000 employees.

Both companies are run by devoutly religious families who say requiring them to include certain contraceptives in their health insurance violates their religious convictions.  The Obamacare contraception mandate requires companies to provide coverage for 20 government-approved methods of contraception.

The plaintiffs object to only four of them, those they say work like abortifacients, such as the morning-after pill.

STEVE GREEN, President, Hobby Lobby, Inc.:  This is an issue of life.  We cannot be a part of taking life.  And so to be in a situation where our government is telling us that we have to be is incredible.

DAVID GREEN, CEO, Hobby Lobby, Inc.:  And there’s no way we’re taking anybody’s rights away.  It’s our rights that are being infringed upon to require us to do something that’s against our conscience.

TIM O’BRIEN:  In deciding these cases, the Supreme Court will not be writing on a blank slate.  Rather, it will be drawing on two of its most controversial decisions in recent memory.

In 1990, the court ruled Native American Indians could be punished for ingesting the hallucinogenic drug peyote, even though it was part of their religious rituals.  More important, the court held that laws that apply equally to everyone do not have to make exceptions for religion.

RELIGION - No Complaint on ACA Birth Control Requirement?

"US argues nuns have no complaint over birth control requirement" by Maggle Fox, NBC News 1/3/2014

A group of Colorado nuns don't have any reason to appeal the birth control mandate in the health care law because they don't have to provide contraception anyway, the U.S. government argued on Friday.

It’s an early skirmish in a year expected to be full of battles over the so-called contraceptive mandate in the Obamacare law.

The administration says the group is already exempt from the law, because their insurance is provided by Christian Brothers Services.  As a church organization, it’s excused from the law’s requirements.  The nuns have said they don't want to sign a waiver asking for an exemption.

"They need only self-certify that they are non-profit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services," the Department of Justice wrote in its response.

As of New Year’s Day, all new insurance plans, including those provided by employers, must provide free birth control as part of a list of essential benefits, including vaccinations and cancer screenings.

When some religious groups objected, the Obama administration provided exemptions.  And an older law, the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, exempts church plans from regulation anyway.

The Denver chapter of the Little Sisters of the Poor says it cannot even sign a waiver asking for an exemption.  Supreme Court justice Sandra Sotomayor, who has responsibility for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals where the group filed its latest appeal, granted a last-minute injunction on New Year’s Eve.

She gave the administration until Friday morning to respond.

“The question here is in order to receive that exemption, they have to fill out a form,” says Ian Millhiser, senior constitutional policy analyst at the Center For American Progress.  “That form announces to the government that they have a religious exemption.  Employees can use that form to get (birth control) from their insurer.”  The Little Sisters say that the act of filling out the form makes them complicit to birth control, which they believe is sinful.

But no one who works for Little Sisters can get birth control under their plan, anyway, the DoJ argues.  "Given these circumstances, applicants' concern that they are 'authorizing others' to provide coverage lacks any foundation in the facts or the law," the DoJ said in its filing to the Supreme Court.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represents the Little Sisters.  It’s the same law firm helping Hobby Lobby, other for-profit businesses and some colleges and universities that are also challenging the contraceptive mandate.

The Little Sisters case is separate from these cases, in which the owners object to birth control and argue they shouldn’t have to provide it.  The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Hobby Lobby's case in March.  More than 80 suits have been filed against the mandate.

Right now, the Supreme Court’s involvement in the Little Sisters case is minimal.  Sotomayor can send it back to the federal courts or she can ask her colleagues to consider it as a full court.

Brigitte Amiri of the American Civil Liberties Union, which supports the mandate, says she is not concerned by Sotomayor’s action.

“Justice Sotomayor wants to make a thoughtful decision,” she told NBC News.  “I think this temporary holding pattern isn’t a cause for concern at this point.  It allows for all briefs to be filled out.”

“It was like, ‘let’s take a deep breath’,” agreed Judy Waxman of the National Women’s Law Center.

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, notes that the White House has extended more than a few deadlines for people trying to buy health insurance on the troubled exchanges.  “I understand that legal issues in these cases will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court,” Kurtz wrote in a letter to Obama.

“In the meantime, however, many religious employers have not obtained the temporary relief they need in time to avoid being subjected to the HHS mandate beginning January 1.  I urge you, therefore, to consider offering temporary relief from this mandate, as you have for so many other individuals and groups facing other requirements under the ACA.”

IMHO:  If the legal statements in this article are correct, what the nuns fail to understand is the INSURER  (Christian Brothers Services), being a religious service, does not have to provide birth control even if a client requests it.

RELIGION - Tracking Religious Persecution Around the World

"How Promotion of Religious Freedom Can Help Prevent Extreme Violence" PBS Newshour 9/30/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Are recent waves of religiously-motivated or sectarian violence part of a larger worldwide trend?  Gwen Ifill talks to Suzan Johnson Cook, U.S. ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom, about the importance of promoting religious freedom around the world.

IMHO:  Fat chance.  The religious fanatics of the world are not going to even hear arguments for religious freedom.  They are hell-bent in making the entire world conform to their interpretation of their religion.

ABORTION - The New Arena for the Debate Over Abortion

IMO: T his is just more of unconstitutional imposition of a religious based belief, by using the law of the land, on ALL citizens of the U.S., which opposite allowing the free practice of religion by individuals.  Not to mention the effect on women's right to decide what to do with her own body.

"States Become Central Battleground in Fight Over Access to Abortion Services" PBS Newshour 4/30/2013

Excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour):  The central battleground in the debate over abortion rights has shifted in recent years to the states.  In just the past two months, five states, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, North Dakota and Virginia, approved more stringent restrictions in abortion.

In North Dakota, for example, the new law prohibits abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be soon as soon as six weeks.

REP. BETTE GRANDE, R-N.D.:  North Dakota believes in the life of the unborn child, believes that the heartbeat is life.

JEFFREY BROWN:  Such laws are aimed at undermining the standards set out in the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe vs. Wade.  That decision gave women the right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, about 24 weeks into pregnancy.

Speaking last Friday at a Planned Parenthood conference, President Obama took aim at measures designed to limit abortion rights.  He told the crowd such policies would -- quote -- "roll back basic rights" when it comes to women's health.

NORTH CAROLINA - Tea Party Republicans to TRY Adopting a State Religion

"Establish a Religion - Nullify - Secede -- 'There They Go Again'" by Cliff Wilson, Cliff's Notes 4/5/2013

A group of radical right-wing Tea Party Republicans in the North Carolina legislature has decided to move directly to dismantle the Union known as the United States of America.  They have proposed to adopt a state religion in contravention of the constitution of the United States and the traditions of liberty of conscience so strongly defended by Patrick Henry when he successfully fought the Virginia practice of taxing citizens to pay only Anglican (Episcopal) ministers.  Many of our ancestors came to the colonies to escape persecution in England and Europe because of their religious convictions. Pilgrims, Puritans, Catholics, French Huguenots, Pennsylvania Dutch, Jews and later American Baptists and Methodists became strong advocates of freedom of conscience and the right of the individual to seek and worship God in his or her own way.

When the constitution was adopted in 1787/89 for the purpose of forming a more perfect union, than the one begun in 1781 with the Articles of Confederation, two states withheld their approval and others conditioned theirs on the subsequent introduction of amendments that would constitute a federal bill of rights.  As most of those rights were already enshrined in the post Revolution state constitutions the need was felt to restrict the federal government as the states already were.  The 1st Amendment to the Constitution and the first of the Bill of Rights proposed and adopted in 1789/91 began with the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  Now these neo-politicians seize on the word Congress and say well we can establish a religion because we are a state.

These same radical right wing Tea Party Republicans will tell you that states can’t adopt gun control nor can municipalities because of the 2nd Amendment.  So you see their way of reading the Constitution is when we want it to apply to the states or to the federal government it will and when we don’t it won’t.

After the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted between 1866 and 1868.  The Supreme Court has held consistently since the adoption of that Amendment that the first section of that amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the state and local governments (unless their constitutions expand the rights even further).  The neo-polls of North Carolina should read Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment - “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.”

The North Carolina gang, of what Andrew Jackson would have called “Traitors”, seek to declare the right of the state to nullify any federal law they so desire to do and prevent it’s enforcement in that state.   In 1832 South Carolina tried this and when President Jackson threatened to hang them they backed down.  Nullification quickly was replaced by Secession as the only way to stop the federal government from operating within a state.   In 1814 the Federalists of New England tried advocating Secession and their party imploded and disappeared.  And, in 1861 when some states, including North Carolina (which by the way had joined the Union only when the Bill of Rights was going to be adopted) seceded, the United States led by then President Abraham Lincoln fought a great Civil War.  Over 600,000 men and boys, on both sides of the conflict, died in that war.  It was fought for two reasons; first, and primarily because this nation could not endure half slave and half free and, second because the vast majority of Americans believed in the Union and the One Nation it embodied.

When Americans died in the trenches of Europe during the First World War and when they landed and died on the beaches of Normandy they didn’t give their lives for North Carolina or Pennsylvania or Wyoming.  They died for their families, their freedoms and their country - the United States of America.  As long ago as the time of the American Revolution that great Virginia patriot Patrick Henry declaimed “We are not Massachusetts men, nor Yorkers nor Virginians we are Americans.”

We have a political system that allows those who would change laws and constitutions to do so peacefully by persuading the majority.  Those who would undermine that system as some tried in 1814 and again in 1832 and again in 1861 show no faith in the democratic system and total disdain for the principles of liberty that our Declaration of Independence so skillfully articulated.  They may not be committing treason in the legal sense against this government but they are committing treason against our democratic values our principles of freedom and liberty and equality.  Foremost among those has been the freedom to practice or not practice a religion of one’s choice.  Our country has been free from the sectarian strife that has so bloodied other parts of the world.  Except for a brief war with Mormons in Missouri in 1838 the people of the United States have respected each other's religious freedom.  No one is forced to financially support a religion unless done voluntarily.  No one is required to attend a church unless they choose to do so of their own free will.

The radical right wing Tea Party Republicans, sometime masquerading as Libertarians (which is the ultimate irony), have an agenda.  They wish to impose their own morality on all the citizenry.  They oppose marriage equality for LGBT citizens; they support restrictions on access to the franchise to discourage minorities and poor and elderly folks from voting; they enact restrictions on women’s access to reproductive health care; they would make a mockery of the words on the Statue of Liberty and if they could would restrict access to citizenship; they proclaim the 2nd amendment as a guarantee that citizens can combat a government that tries to infringe on their rights and then they attempt to infringe on all the other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I do not believe they will succeed.  I believe Americans will rally around the Bill of Rights and the Union as they did one hundred and fifty years ago.  I believe with Lincoln that they will take back this government from both the radical ideologue extremists and the moneyed interests and again restore a government of the people to the people.   I believe the American people will reject this radical right wing attempt to either breakdown the federal government in Washington DC, and end the many people helping programs adopted over the past two hundred years, or failing that to break down this Union.  The federal government, by the 14th Amendments’ application of the Bill of Rights to the individual states, will, as it has since the Jeffersonians defeated the Federalists, preserve and protect the liberties of the American people.  Lest these radical right wing Republicans forget it let me remind them that we are "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

AMERICA - Religion and the Law, Gay Marriage

Religious practice or belief is an INDIVIDUAL's Constitutionally protected right.  It is NOT a right of ANY religious group to use the law to impose their beliefs on any other citizen.

"Faith and Morality Play Major Roles in Debate on Gay Marriage" PBS Newshour 3/28/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Aspects of religion and morality have been used as the basis for arguments by both sides of the debate on same-sex marriage.  Ray Suarez talks with Michael Schuenemeyer, minister for the United Church of Christ, and Richard Langer, a minister with the Evangelical Free Church of America, to learn how they've approached the topic.

COMMENT:  The anti-gay side presented by Richard Langer in the context of Civil Rights is wrong.

There is no law that REQUIRES marriage to be preformed by any religion.  Religious organizations can continue to not perform gay marriages.

But religious organizations CANNOT prevent a state from performing gay marriages.

AT MY CORE - Political Beliefs

This post is about my core political beliefs.

1. Totalitarian vs Free society

In a totalitarian society (government) you CANNOT do anything that is NOT APPROVED by the government.

In a free society, anyone (citizens, local government, state government, federal government) can DO ANYTHING that is NOT FORBIDDEN BY LAW; especially the national constitution. Also, the citizens have a say on the laws, directly or by representation.

2. U.S. Democratic Republic

We are a free society, with the U.S. Constitution the OVERRIDING law-of-the-land.

Citizens and local/state/federal governments can do anything that is NOT forbidden by the U.S. Constitution or law. And our Constitution gives specific powers to the federal government as well as imposing restrictions. And we (citizens) have a say on the law by direct vote or election of our representatives to government legislative bodies.

3. U.S. Society

Our society has a pact, enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, to obey the law-of-the-land. Which means we cannot just to anything we want. We are agreeing to restrict TOTAL freedom for the sake of our society.

You cannot have a society without restrictions. ALL societies of ANY type have restrictions on its members. This is why the 'states rights' group is wrong in believing that state laws override federal law.
___________________

These reasons are why, as an example, I believe that laws like California's Prop-8 anti-gay marriage law ARE unconstitutional. This law is the imposition of a one sects religious belief on all citizens of California which is unconstitutional because it violates separation of church-state (using law to impose a religious belief), equal treatment under the law, and human rights.

Note that Prop-8 is ONLY unconstitutional because it makes no provision for gay marriage under another name (such as Civil Unions) that would give gays the equal rights and privileges that other citizens enjoy.

ITALY - A Win For Sepration of Church and State

"In Italy, Gay Marriage Efforts Met With Strong Vatican Opposition" PBS Newshour 6/19/2012

Excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Finally tonight, the effort to legalize gay marriage in Italy has been met with opposition, specifically from the Vatican, but a recent Supreme Court ruling has given supporters hope.

Fabiana Formica reports for our partner GlobalPost.