Better Not Read the Bible During "Read to Yourself Time" in Second Grade

A second grader is alleging that her teacher took away her bible during the classroom "read to yourself time".  After all why would you want a child reading something as dangerous as a bible?  She may learn a few things about values.  We wouldn't want that now would we?  

One parent feels it was the right thing to do.  After all it is "pushing" religion on her child.  Really, how so?  This is quite time.  The little girl pulls her bible out of her backpack, sits quietly at her own desk and reads it.  How is this pushing this onto someone else?  Now if her child was forced to read it against their will, then an argument can be made, but that isn't what happened.  

The parents have decided to not be identified and went to The Liberty Council to address the issue with the school system.  It is very possible that they should have gone to the principal first before involving an outside organization, but sadly many people are attacked for their religious views in this country and called bigots and haters for espousing biblical based beliefs, such as traditional marriage.  

In any event no teacher has the right to tell a child that during a free reading time that the bible isn't appropriate reading material.  That is something for a parent to decide.  

Sorry I am unable to embed video, but you can see the news report here.  

The Arizona Bill Doesn’t Say What You or the Media Thinks It Says

Not that it should be a surprise, but the media is calling Arizona's 1062 Bill "Anti-Gay", discrimination, a return back to Jim Crow and other such nonsense.  The bill isn't any such thing.  The legislation that passed does one thing and one thing only.  It expands who gets covered under religious liberty claims under the law in terms of lawsuits.

Today the law in Arizona the law only covers you if somehow the government is involved in the preceding.  This expands it so if a private business or a church gets sued they can claim they are exercising their religious free will.

Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes regulates who can claim religious freedom or exercise thereof as a defense in a lawsuit.

Senate bill 1062 revises that law by expanding the definition of who is a person to "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity", and allows for religious-freedom lawsuits "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

Nowhere in this legislation does it say that you can hang a sign in your storefront refusing service.  It simply allows a business owner or a church to claim that they are exercising their right to their religious beliefs and a judge can't throw that out as a non-defense.  It will be allowed to be heard by a jury and they get to decide if that defense has merit or not.

People behave as if somehow the rights of one person automatically trumps the rights of another.  They don't.  Rights are given to all people.  There is no doubt that gay marriage is a topic that is virtually impossible to bridge the deep divides.  But lets say for instance a person who is divorced by no desire of their own.  Their spouse packed up and left after deciding they didn't want to be married anymore.  Most states today have no fault divorces so it is very likely that can just file and be divorced in relatively short order.  The spouse that was left is a practicing Catholic.  Over time they rebuild their lives and meet someone new.  They decide they want to get married again.  By Catholic doctrine they cannot be married in the church.  Should they be able to sue under the grounds they are being discriminated against because they are divorced?  Shouldn't the Catholic Church be able to walk into a courtroom and say this goes against their teaching and doctrines without being labeled bigot?

I, for the life of me, can't figure out why a couple would want to force a business to work with them when they don't want to.  Especially for something as important as a wedding.  This is a day that to a Christian is a sacrosanct covenant with God.  You are not just making that vow to each other, but you are making that vow to God himself.  You can disagree with that premise all you like.  It doesn't make it less relevant or real to a person who takes that seriously.

We have already seen a business taken to court for not wanting to participate in something they view as sinful.  A lawsuit is being filed in England right now to force the Church of England to perform Gay Marriages even the law has put in protections to guard that from happening.  We all know all too clearly what happens when a person speaks up about their religious beliefs that gay marriage is sinful.  They get called a bigot.  It never occurs to the person doing that name calling that they may be the ones who are bigots.  That they are the ones forcing another to go against deeply held beliefs and trying to force them to accept their choice to get married to someone of the same-sex.  No it is just the other way around.  It is just the Christian who is the bigot.  It is never anyone else.

I am not saying that the whole "agree to disagree" is something that is simple.  But it isn't as complicated as some make it sound when it comes to a baker, a photographer, a florist, or any other vendor that someone may use to celebrate their wedding day.  It is going to be a rare case indeed that another vendor that is more than happy to work with the couple isn't available and the only option is the one that feels this strongly about it.  Why would want to give your money to someone who is being forced to work with you?  Have you ever thought about what they could put in that cake?  I say that jokingly of course, but it could happen.

A business in a free market society should be allowed to decide for themselves who they work with and who they don't.  The consumers can then make their choices and decide if they want to give their money to a business who adheres to certain practices.  I certainly would never go to restaurant that hung a sign saying they wouldn't do business with a group of people for reasons such as skin color, religious background, or heritage.  I will take my money elsewhere.  That is the power that I possess.  Nor is that even a relevant issue when it comes to this piece of legislation.

A jury will get decide.  This law doesn't guarantee they will win, only that they will be heard.  One would think that gay activists would be happy to put this into a court of law.  They have done so many, many times over the past decade to force their will onto others.  Why are they upset about this?  This piece of legislation just took a page out of their playbook.  

Activism Alert - Stand up For Religious Freedom Rally

I have been under the weather all week.  So I apologize that I have not gotten this up earlier.  The second rally for religious freedom will be held tomorrow.  


Here is the website to give you locations.  Unless otherwise noted they will be held at noon.  


The DC event this time around will be held at Upper Senate Park.  

Rush Changing the Narrative

There are many on the right who are very unhappy, to say the least, about Rush Limbaugh issuing an apology for calling Sandra Fluke a slut.  They shouldn't be.  The anger should be directed at him using the word in the first place.  Above and beyond how derogatory the word is towards women, it changed the conversation; and not in a good way.

I understand what Rush was trying to do.  He was pointing out the irony of her claim.  But the truth is we know nothing about this woman's sex life.  If you are thinking to yourself that you do, then when is the last time she performed a sexual act?  How many partners has she had in the past six months?  Is she heterosexual or homosexual?  Chances are you know none of the answers to these questions because she never discussed her sex life and what type of birth control (if any) that she uses.  She discusses the topic in a more generic conversation and talked about countless "others" who tell her their stories of woe.

What Rush and everyone else needs to be concentrating on is the first amendment.  The government trying to dictate to a church what is and what isn't protected by the constitution, not her sex life.  Seriously, are you all that interested in her sex life?  I am not.  I could care less what she does in her bedroom. As long as it done by consenting adults, it is none of my concern.  What is my concern is how she is trying to push her will and her view-point onto the Catholic Church and Georgetown University.  She chose that school for a reason.  She went there specifically to try to force them to change their policy on birth control.  She did this before Obamacare and the mandates were even an issue.  She has been working on this for almost three years.

Look, birth control isn't the issue.  I have used birth control in my life (which I paid for myself) and I can guarantee you no one will be accusing me of being a slut.  Newsflash; not all conservative women are virgins when the get married and therefore use birth control.  Newsflash;, not all conservative women are looking to have large families; so they use birth control.  The issue is does the federal government have the right to force a religious institution to go against the doctrines and teachings of the church that has been around for thousands of years?  These church teachings have been in existence long before the U.S. was ever formed.

The left set the trap and we conservatives walked right into it.  This isn't about sex, it isn't about birth control, it is about liberty.  We need to do ourselves a favor and stop talking about this woman's sex life and deal with the fact that she is trying to push her will onto the rest of the country; regardless of the constitutional protections that are in place.  We need to stop playing their game.  They wanted to paint conservatives as a bunch of people who think anyone who uses birth control is some sort of sexual deviant who needs us to tell them how to live their lives and what drugs they can and cannot put into their bodies.  That is a battle we cannot, should not  and will not win.  Americans don't want the right telling them how to live their lives anymore than they want left doing it.  What Americans want is their freedoms and liberties to be protected.  Our job is to tell them that they are being ebbed away by an over-reaching, ever more powerful federal government in the guise of discussion on birth control.  If we keep the discussion on birth control and Ms. Fluke's sex life they don't see that they are giving away their liberties willingly in exchange for a $9 pack of generic birth control pills.