religious freedom

Wendy Long for US Senate!

This ad will be running on Fox News cable in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk, as well as on NY1 in New York City and on YNN. It is scheduled to run for two weeks.

In case you still aren't convinced...

...that our freedoms are under attack and that we're in imminent danger of losing them.  

At Lifesite News, via The Line in the Sand:

After a fiery homily last weekend urging the faithful to oppose President Obama’s “radical pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda” at the ballot box in November, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria has been hit with an IRS complaint from a national secularist lobby group...


...On Thursday, the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State claimed the homily violated federal law by taking sides in a political campaign...

Read the whole thing.

By the way, 

In [Americans United (For Separation Of Church And State)] AU's estimation, conservative congregations are the primary offenders who violate the prohibition against electioneering in the sanctuary:
 
“Every weekend, millions of Americans attend houses of worship to hear sermons, study scripture and participate in other religious activities. If some politicians and Religious Right activists have their way, however, people in the pews might soon be doing other things during services -- listening to partisan political speeches, being solicited for campaign contributions and getting instructions about whom to vote for on Election Day.”
 
...AU has condemned the Christian Coalition “Voter’s Guides” that are distributed to churches during election seasons. In an October 2001 letter addressed to nearly 300,000 houses of worship nationwide, Barry Lynn warned churches that they “should be extremely wary of distributing voter guides” lest they lose their tax-exempt status...
 
AU responds very differently, however, when restrictions against church electioneering are violated by leftists. For instance, the organization chose not to file a complaint with the IRS after presidential candidate Barack Obama had given a speech at the United Church of Christ’s (UCC) 2007 national convention. In fact, when the IRS eventually announced that it would be investigating the UCC, Americans United protested the decision. “We saw no evidence of UCC officials seeking to appear to endorse his candidacy,” said Barry Lynn.
 
Nor did AU complain that candidate Obama had spoken to congregants at Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago, or that TUCC pastor Jeremiah Wright had aggressively supported Obama's candidacy from the pulpit...
What does the first clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution say?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
How does AU interpret that?
...“religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both,” a meaning that bears little resemblance to the actual wording of the First Amendment.
 

Seeing double

The fishwrap of record accepted one of these ads and rejected the other (click on the images to embiggen).  Care to guess which is which?

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






Wee bit of a double standard at the Grey Lady?

If you'd like to read an actual "open letter," try United for Religious Freedom from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

...we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings...
 

...So what is it about?

An unwarranted government definition of religion...

A mandate to act against our teachings...

A violation of personal civil rights...

The masks are starting to slip

Last spring, we spent a fair number of bits on the NY-26 race in which Dem Kathy Hochul won and replaced Republican Chris Lee who had resigned because of—well, never mind.

Hochul seemed surprised at the pushback from her constituents yesterday.  Oh my:

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

This claim from Hochul is categorically false:


“We’re not gonna agree on this one. I’m gonna tell you that I will stand for our religious freedoms. But I don’t see a conflict here. Now that there’s been an accommodation that says religious institutions do not have to provide these services. So we’re just going to have to disagree on that.”
 
They still have to provide insurance to their employees that includes free contraception and abortifacients.  Who pays for the insurance?  The religious organizations that get forced to facilitate those transactions, since they can no longer opt out of offering the insurance and must pay a large part of the premiums — and in some cases, the religious organizations self-insure, which means the money comes directly out of their pockets rather than indirectly.  Either way, they most certainly still do have to “provide these services.”  Hochul either is woefully misinformed or willfully lying to her constituents.
Beware.  People like Kathy Hochul are not your grandma's Democrats.
 
Subscribe to religious freedom