Dark Christianity
dark_christian
.::: .::..:.::.:.

May 2008
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

and the Famiry Research Concil begins the meltdown....

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]cheap_laugh)

from the InBox:



The New Jersey high court is known to be both political and liberal. Now it has set itself up as a “super-legislature,” mandating what lawmakers can and cannot do. However, with a Democratic majority in control in Trenton, and their charade of opposition intact, make no mistake-they will gladly move to do the court’s bidding. Yesterday, Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) said, “I look forward to the legislative process implementing the Court’s decision.” It’s painfully obvious that lawmakers are willing to take their marching orders not from the people but from unelected judges. The court ordered the legislature to act in 180 days, knowing full well that it would take the state far longer to strike back with a constitutional amendment that protects marriage. But strike back it must. As a first line of defense, the state must move forward to amend its constitution. Twenty states have already done so and eight more are prepared to join them November 7. The ruling should serve as a wake-up call for those who believe marriage does not need federal protection. We must have a U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That prospect is highly unlikely if the Democrats regain control of Congress. Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and the Democratic National Committee have vowed to fund and fight against marriage amendments on the state level. Imagine what they could do on a national scale, not only to the legislative process but also in its confirmation of judges, who could all wage similar wars on the values we hold dear. On the eve this election, candidates from both parties need to answer: will you stand up for traditional marriage or not?

Homosexual Marriage: Going to the Chapel?

By their decision to grant same-sex unions, the New Jersey State Supreme Court has succeeded in one thing-stoking the fires of conservatives who value marriage, family, and religious freedom. In its opinion, the court indicates that a confrontation with the church is near. “However the Legislature may act,” the majority writes, “same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship.” The court is already working to strip marriage of any meaning, and now it looks to foist its counterfeit on the church. Will we soon see this same “discrimination” as grounds to force homosexuality on our houses of worship? The church is already under attack-from those inside who want to advance an agenda of approval, and those outside, who hope to use the politics of intimidation to crush the freedom of religion. The ruling makes this much clear: the church must be prepared to defend its right of conscience and conviction.



Playing the Anti-Religion Card

The Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, with a nice assist from the Washington Post, is playing up an anti-religious theme in an unlikely place: a local zoning dispute involving the location of a massage therapy business. The story involves a 4-3 decision this week by the city council of Manassas, Virginia, to deny the application of a resident of its historic district for a permit to operate the massage business part-time in his home. The massage therapist is now alleging, with the ACLU’s help, that the permit was denied solely because he and his housemate are homosexual. Reporting on the story, the Washington Post asserted that many residents who testified against the proposal “were members of a local church, All Saints Catholic Church, who do not live in the neighborhood.” No basis for that information is cited in the story. As with other jurisdictions around the country, Manassas citizens who testify at public hearings provide names and addresses to establish residency and any taxpayer can speak on any topic. At least one person who attended the hearing on the permit says that neither the sexual orientation of the permit applicant nor the religious affiliations of the citizens who spoke on the topic, both pro and con, came up at the hearing. The ACLU is shameless, but the Post at least should be ashamed of succumbing to religion-baiting.

SEND US MONEY! SEND US MONEY! SEND US MONEY! SEND US MONEY! SEND US MONEY! is the underlying theme.

From:
Identity URL: 
Username:
Password:
Don't have an account? Create one now.
Subject:
No HTML allowed in subject
  
Message: