LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kalibex)

Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment of a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY jaded_journeys)

I posted this in my journal, but figured I'd mention it here in a somewhat more civilized manner. OK, at least it has fewer naughty words than the post in my journal.

I know y'all might be sick of hearing about South Dakota's abortion ban, but I find this transcript of a news report on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer sickening. I'm only including a few quotes in this entry, but the whole thing is an interesting read. ( I'm cutting this for possible rape triggers. It's mild, but it might be there. )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

When Would Jesus Bolt?

Long, but interesting article.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY multiclassgeek)

State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion

OK, once I recovered from the "WTF" moment, I did some research, and it *seems* (bear in mind, this is how it looks to a Brit who's not au fait with US legal process) that the actual content of the bill is a Resolution (rather than a law), and seems to be mainly concerned with the "Prayer in Public Schools" debate. But still, it seems like the sort of thing that gets flagged around here, especially since I'd be interested to hear what the implications of this sort of thing are viz. The Constitution (etc)

Also... Does this have Dominionist involvement? It sounds like their sort of scheme, but I can't find any links/connections to any of The Usual Suspects...

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY dkmnow)

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=490355&content_id={7EDF676E-13F5-4261-B0F9-4FDF5CDAC824}¬oc=1

Missouri Resolution Endorsing Christianity Divisive And Un-American

(Washington, DC) – In response to the Missouri State Legislature’s Resolution (HCR 13) endorsing Christianity as the state’s official religion, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of The Interfaith Alliance released the following statement:

“This Resolution is not about religion. It’s about politics. In grade school, we are taught that in matters of faith, government must not take sides. This seems to have been lost on the sponsors of this Resolution. Surely those who have read their history know that government’s endorsement of religion is a death knell to religious liberty. They are doing no service to Christianity or to the inter-religious community of this nation.

“When reading the Missouri State Legislature Resolution endorsing Christianity as the state’s official religion, it’s hard to suppress the images and feelings I once knew growing up in the segregated South. The Civil Rights movement began because this country had sent a message to those who were different, that they didn’t belong. Decades earlier, our country did the same thing in denying women the right to vote. Today, Missouri legislators are denying equal rights and opportunities to their own residents whose religious beliefs and practices are different from those of the majority. No citizen’s rights or opportunities should ever depend on their, or anyone else’s, religious beliefs or practices, period.

“When will we finally heed history’s lessons that denying Americans their basic rights, because they are considered different is un-American? Missouri is the ‘Show Me’ state and for the sake of present and future generations, I urge the residents of this great state to show the rest of the country they will not tolerate such blatant prejudice on the part of those they chose to represent them. Tell the Christian Right, ‘You’re not going to steal our government; you do not speak for me.’ At the end of the day, if there is not freedom from the imposition of religion, there is no religious freedom.”

LINK TO RESOLUTION
http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm
Date: 3/8/2006

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY eiredrake)

Can someone explain the significance of swearing in when testifying before the senate? I realize that doesn't precisely fit into the realm of Dark_christian but this group contains a lot of well educated folks and I figure someone knows. I've been doing net searches but coming up with nothing definitive.

There reason I ask is that the Senate comittee heads that are investigating seem to be tossing that aside quite often lately. For example when the oil execs were hauled before the senate the chairmen refused to swear in the guys.

Are they trying to use this as a tactic to protect them somehow?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY lihan161051)

While browsing around for links on "bibliolatry", I found this one, which linked to another one that contains the following quote:

In the early decades of this century, conservative evangelicals took a strong stand favoring prohibition. This issue was so important to them that they violated their own doctrine of separation of church and state to lend their full weight to the ratification of the 18th amendment. This too was done based on clear scriptural authority (Rom 14:21, 1 Cor 6:9-10, Eph 5:18), while ignoring scripture to the contrary (1 Tim 5:23, John 2:1-11). In standing for prohibition, the church participated unwittingly in laying the foundations of organized crime in the United States. The structures and alliances which developed during prohibition for distribution of moonshine are now used to distribute drugs. As a result, prohibition may well have been the most socially destructive event in our nations history.

If there's a better argument for keeping in mind the law of unintended consequences, I can't think of it at the moment. And this is a very good example of what can go horribly wrong with moral legalism in general ..

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nycscribbler)

Democrat for Senate: Death penalty for practicing 'gays'

"Just like we have laws against murder, we have laws against stealing, we have laws against taking drugs – we should have laws against immoral conduct," Keiser told WTOL-TV in Toledo.

Keiser, 61, says he's running as a Democrat because that's how he was registered the last time he voted.

The trucker, who hails from Fremont, Ohio, says there needs to be more adherence to biblical values in government, business and education – something he claims DeWine is not promoting.

"I believe that the United States has been moved in a Godless direction by the courts," he told the Sandusky Register. "To get good men on the court, we need good senators."


And I looked up the site, just to see if it was some bizarre prank. Then I Googled for a confirmation. Either it's a very elaborate prank or he's on the up-and-up.

This article gives his address, if you want to TP his house or toss the flaming object of your choice.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY matraia)

A while back my father gave me his personal bible. It's one that I hadn't ran into before, the Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition. Apparently, the main translator/commentator, Charles Ryrie, is one of the big theological bigwigs in the dispensationalist premilleniarian movement. Essentially appears to be the King James Version, with much commentary and annotation. Any of y'all know much about this guy, or any other theological scholars who are informing Dominionist-type theologies?