CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS POLITICAL NEWSLETTER
On September 5, the City Council of San Antonio, Texas, will vote on a proposed ordinance. If passed, it will be a dramatic step toward the exclusion of Christians from participation -- both political and economic -- in the public forum.
In essence, the proposed ordinance allows the City Council to exclude individuals from sitting on the council, being appointed to a government position by the City Council, or doing business with any entity the City Council controls (namely, the city government of San Antonio). And what will be the crime demanding such a drastic remedy? Simply having an opinion that differs from that of the members of the City Council.
No, this is not a fiction from George Orwell or a sci-fi movie about some distant American future you've found on late-night TV. This is real. And it's happening now.
Here's what the ordinance actually proposes (capitals and italics are mine): "No person shall be appointed to a position if the City Council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by WORD or deed, against any person, group, or organization, on the basis of race, color, RELIGION, national origin, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, veteran status, age or disability."
That just about touches (or potentially criminalizes) all the bases doesn't it? And it allows the City Council to act on anything it finds displeasing from ANY point in your life up to the moment of your appointment or hiring. I'm surprised there's not a clause that allows them to disqualify a person for having a THOUGHT that "demonstrates a bias" against a politically "protected" category. Once the technology to discern the intents of the heart is available, I suppose the San Antonio City Council will be first in line to acquire it. That will allow them to better protect the city from the "enemies of humanity."
Ken Klukowski of the Family Research Council says, "If it's passed, any person who has either expressed any belief in favor of traditional marriage or in terms of Judeo-Christian morality regarding sexuality in general, verbally or in writing, could be barred from participating in public life on that city council."
Frankly, I'm flabbergasted that a group of popularly elected public officials have the temerity to even consider this thoroughly anti-American legislation. This is the kind of thing we expect from bureaucrats or lifelong civil servants, not from "representatives of the people."
Not only does it obviously take direct aim at anyone who believes and speaks out in support of the Biblical view of marriage and sexuality, but also anyone who has expressed distrust when Muslims insist that Islam is purely a religion of peace and peaceful coexistence. And its authors even had the gall to throw in "veteran status" and "disability" to make its opponents appear heartless and ungrateful.
This is precisely why Constitutional protections of our rights to hold an opinion and express that opinion with impunity are so important. The Founding Fathers realized that these rights could not and should not be entrusted to the whims of those in power at the moment.
However, all of the political and Constitutional issues aside, this proposed ordinance perfectly and alarmingly illustrates one thing: the march of "political correctness" toward the goal of silencing Christians is both relentless and imminent. This is happening now. The vote to make this insidious and devious device of persecution the law in San Antonio is scheduled to take place next month!
Folks, this is prophecy unfolding today, not sometime in the hazy future.
I think it won't be too long before Christians will begin having to answer to the government for the things we believe. Maybe next month in San Antonio! Jesus Himself said that there will come a time when we will be hated and even persecuted for His name's sake. And like I said last week, there's nothing the PCers hate more than the name and claims of Jesus.
This week, I'm going to continue my look at the New Testament warning to the Hebrew believers when they tried to hide from the prying eyes of the religious authorities. I'm also going to discuss with you how you can begin building up your "combat faith" for the challenges that lie ahead.
Don't miss this week's Report on TBN, Daystar, CPM Network, The Word Network, various local stations, www.hallindsey.com or www.hischannel.com. Please check your local listings.
God Bless,
Hal Lindsey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY RESPONSE ON THE LEGALITY OF THIS ORDINANCE THEY WISH TO PASS, WHICH WOULD VIOLATE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CHRISTIAN'S IN KEEPING WITH THEIR "CORE VALUES."
The proposal in Texas would not fly, they will be sued and they realize this. No government office can violate Christian's civil rights, as religion has "protected class status," on a Federal level. Also, the Federal Supreme Court ruled the "core values," ruling showing that religious groups and individuals are allowed to follow the rules of their religious "core values," or Romans chap 1 on the issue of homosexuality.
There have been news laws passed protected the Christian's civil rights, and one prevents churches from being sued for discrimination.
The Federal Supreme Court also overturned the unconstitutional Bible censorship in the Obama-Pelosi Hate Crimes legislation, which violated Christian's civil rights attempting to bring in religious censorhip, which would have created the first religious prisoner in the US. The hate speech laws violated sep of church and state in keeping the state out of church, in stopping Bible or religious tenant censorship, stopping censorship of church doctrines, and freedom of the church to adhere to "core values," in leadership and all church activities. The Federal Supreme Court upheld our "legal right to debate the issue,"
As far as religious individual taking office, the constitution states that no one must have to pass a "religious test," in order to qualify for a job.
The homoexuals do not have protected class status on a federal level, and the American Medical Association stated that there is nopoof that they are born gay, and that there is no gay gene, no clump of gay genes, and no epi genetic markers cutting on gay genes, therefore it is not a "civil right," and they do not have protected class status. Prop 8 was dropped down to a high state court due to the Federal Supreme Court refusing to hear the case, knowing the AMA was going to bring in the facts that there is no proof that they are born gay. The Federal Supreme Court was not "siding for the homosexuals," in cases that they have heard, as they are not "born gay." The media wanted the US public to believe that the Federal Supreme Court was really defending the gay movement, however, the was in fact the opposite. Only one part of DOMA was overturned, and it was same sex benefits on a federal level, not state and local, as due to state laws, in most states homosexuality is not legal, and gay marriage is not legal. Of The states that put gay marriage on the ballets, an overwhelming average of 90% in each state voted NO on gay marriage.
Carrie Geren Scoggins Political Newsletter
- MY LETTER IN RESPONSE TO THIS HAL LINDSEY REPORT ON ATTEMPTS BY SAN ANTONIO TEXAS TO VIOLATE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CHRISTIANS BY PASSING AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN BELIEF SYSTEM, THE "CORE VALUES," OF CHRISTIANS ON ISSUES SUCH AS HOMOSEXUALITY:
- HERE IS THE HAL LINDSEY REPORT ON THIS TOPIC, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE IS MY LETTER ON THIS ISSUE, SHOWING WHY THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE OVER TURNED IN THE COURT SYSTEM DUE TO THE LEGALITY, AND CONSTITUTIONALITY, OF ANTI -CHRISTIAN BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE, OR IN GOVERNMENT JOBS.
On September 5, the City Council of San Antonio, Texas, will vote on a proposed ordinance. If passed, it will be a dramatic step toward the exclusion of Christians from participation -- both political and economic -- in the public forum.
In essence, the proposed ordinance allows the City Council to exclude individuals from sitting on the council, being appointed to a government position by the City Council, or doing business with any entity the City Council controls (namely, the city government of San Antonio). And what will be the crime demanding such a drastic remedy? Simply having an opinion that differs from that of the members of the City Council.
No, this is not a fiction from George Orwell or a sci-fi movie about some distant American future you've found on late-night TV. This is real. And it's happening now.
Here's what the ordinance actually proposes (capitals and italics are mine): "No person shall be appointed to a position if the City Council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by WORD or deed, against any person, group, or organization, on the basis of race, color, RELIGION, national origin, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, veteran status, age or disability."
That just about touches (or potentially criminalizes) all the bases doesn't it? And it allows the City Council to act on anything it finds displeasing from ANY point in your life up to the moment of your appointment or hiring. I'm surprised there's not a clause that allows them to disqualify a person for having a THOUGHT that "demonstrates a bias" against a politically "protected" category. Once the technology to discern the intents of the heart is available, I suppose the San Antonio City Council will be first in line to acquire it. That will allow them to better protect the city from the "enemies of humanity."
Ken Klukowski of the Family Research Council says, "If it's passed, any person who has either expressed any belief in favor of traditional marriage or in terms of Judeo-Christian morality regarding sexuality in general, verbally or in writing, could be barred from participating in public life on that city council."
Frankly, I'm flabbergasted that a group of popularly elected public officials have the temerity to even consider this thoroughly anti-American legislation. This is the kind of thing we expect from bureaucrats or lifelong civil servants, not from "representatives of the people."
Not only does it obviously take direct aim at anyone who believes and speaks out in support of the Biblical view of marriage and sexuality, but also anyone who has expressed distrust when Muslims insist that Islam is purely a religion of peace and peaceful coexistence. And its authors even had the gall to throw in "veteran status" and "disability" to make its opponents appear heartless and ungrateful.
This is precisely why Constitutional protections of our rights to hold an opinion and express that opinion with impunity are so important. The Founding Fathers realized that these rights could not and should not be entrusted to the whims of those in power at the moment.
However, all of the political and Constitutional issues aside, this proposed ordinance perfectly and alarmingly illustrates one thing: the march of "political correctness" toward the goal of silencing Christians is both relentless and imminent. This is happening now. The vote to make this insidious and devious device of persecution the law in San Antonio is scheduled to take place next month!
Folks, this is prophecy unfolding today, not sometime in the hazy future.
I think it won't be too long before Christians will begin having to answer to the government for the things we believe. Maybe next month in San Antonio! Jesus Himself said that there will come a time when we will be hated and even persecuted for His name's sake. And like I said last week, there's nothing the PCers hate more than the name and claims of Jesus.
This week, I'm going to continue my look at the New Testament warning to the Hebrew believers when they tried to hide from the prying eyes of the religious authorities. I'm also going to discuss with you how you can begin building up your "combat faith" for the challenges that lie ahead.
Don't miss this week's Report on TBN, Daystar, CPM Network, The Word Network, various local stations, www.hallindsey.com or www.hischannel.com. Please check your local listings.
God Bless,
Hal Lindsey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY RESPONSE ON THE LEGALITY OF THIS ORDINANCE THEY WISH TO PASS, WHICH WOULD VIOLATE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CHRISTIAN'S IN KEEPING WITH THEIR "CORE VALUES."
The proposal in Texas would not fly, they will be sued and they realize this. No government office can violate Christian's civil rights, as religion has "protected class status," on a Federal level. Also, the Federal Supreme Court ruled the "core values," ruling showing that religious groups and individuals are allowed to follow the rules of their religious "core values," or Romans chap 1 on the issue of homosexuality.
There have been news laws passed protected the Christian's civil rights, and one prevents churches from being sued for discrimination.
The Federal Supreme Court also overturned the unconstitutional Bible censorship in the Obama-Pelosi Hate Crimes legislation, which violated Christian's civil rights attempting to bring in religious censorhip, which would have created the first religious prisoner in the US. The hate speech laws violated sep of church and state in keeping the state out of church, in stopping Bible or religious tenant censorship, stopping censorship of church doctrines, and freedom of the church to adhere to "core values," in leadership and all church activities. The Federal Supreme Court upheld our "legal right to debate the issue,"
As far as religious individual taking office, the constitution states that no one must have to pass a "religious test," in order to qualify for a job.
The homoexuals do not have protected class status on a federal level, and the American Medical Association stated that there is nopoof that they are born gay, and that there is no gay gene, no clump of gay genes, and no epi genetic markers cutting on gay genes, therefore it is not a "civil right," and they do not have protected class status. Prop 8 was dropped down to a high state court due to the Federal Supreme Court refusing to hear the case, knowing the AMA was going to bring in the facts that there is no proof that they are born gay. The Federal Supreme Court was not "siding for the homosexuals," in cases that they have heard, as they are not "born gay." The media wanted the US public to believe that the Federal Supreme Court was really defending the gay movement, however, the was in fact the opposite. Only one part of DOMA was overturned, and it was same sex benefits on a federal level, not state and local, as due to state laws, in most states homosexuality is not legal, and gay marriage is not legal. Of The states that put gay marriage on the ballets, an overwhelming average of 90% in each state voted NO on gay marriage.
Carrie Geren Scoggins Political Newsletter
No comments:
Post a Comment