June 24, 2017

“Religious” Tolerance? Nah, Normalizing Lunacy

Recently the Maine Legislature passed a bill that would permit a small cult that calls themselves Quakers to NOT wear the blaze orange that hunters have worn for years that has proven to save lives. According to the Quaker cult, their “religion” disallows them to wear “bright clothing.”  Therefore the Legislature, in their infinite wisdom, and God knows they are amply endowed, passed a bill that exempts them from wearing the orange in exchange for wearing “bright” red. This, of course, is insanity at its finest, but then again aren’t we now living in a post normal society where we have normalized lunacy? The reality is nobody recognizes the lunacy….because it is all “normal.”

Here’s further proof. A man in Arizona has been allowed to have his drivers license photo taken of him wearing a metal colander on his head. “This subjugated monotheistic religious minority believe a giant, omniscient spaghetti monster that lives in the sky created the universe and has complete control of its fate.”

Perhaps out of “respect” for these lunatics – and I’m also referring to the lunatics who pass bills and allow such nonsense – this “free” country should mandate that at least one day out of the year everyone wear “bright” red and a metal colander on their head.

I have two words for all of them…..but I won’t print it.

Share

Political Censorship Gives MDIFW Pause to Come Up With Definition of “Red”

This country is ruled by censorship and fear! It’s called political correctness and that involves something called “religion.” And because one tiny sub-sector, of a sub-sector, of a sub-sector of a group who prefer to call themselves “religious” and their “religion” prohibits them from wearing “flashy” clothes, they want the State of Maine to change the law that requires hunter orange mandates, for public safety reasons, in minimum amounts for hunting in the Maine woods, to satisfy their “religious” beliefs.

According to George Smith’s article, there appears to have been but two issues (or that’s all Mr. Smith chose to report) involved with the recommendation for or against this bill – safety and the definition of “red.”

I expressed my opinions about this subject last week.

It should be a no-brainer about safety. If outdoorsmen and safety experts, as has been done for over a decade now, subscribe to the promoted talking points of how much safer hunter orange (a minimum standard luminescent orange color highly visible even in questionable amounts of daylight) is over any other clothing, then the issue of its requirement should not become one of religion…should it? One can understand the government forcing people to murder unborn babies as a violation of a “religious” or moral belief, but to participate at the risk of endangering, not only the Amish, but the risk of causing confusion where years of training and adapting to hunter orange and “identifying a target” seems a bit silly to me. And where does the liability on the issue fall? One would rationally conclude that the wearing of “flashy” clothes might be something not permitted, for many of the same reasons Pagan worship practices many outrageous things include “flashy” statues, idols, clothing, etc., when an Amish person goes out in public, not into the woods to hunt.

One might even make argument that if one believes God gave man the dominion over animals and therefore hunting is allowed by a religious order, then perhaps there is something wrong with the religious order banning “flashy” clothing and not the law that has been crafted for public safety.

If my “religion” was so important to me that I can’t bring myself to wear hunter orange so that I can participate in hunting deer in Maine, I think I would give up hunting during the time I had to wear “flashy” clothing. Either it is that important or it’s not.

So now, to further this idiotic nonsense of political correctness and perpetuate the fear of some sort of reprisal from the “religions,” state law makers are now going to try to pass the buck (no pun intended) and come up with a definition of “red” in hopes they can use that as an escape goat.

So tell me! How much more absurd can our society become attempting to turn their backs on the one and only Creator of all things, in order to appease the Satanic worship and idiosyncrasies of a group choosing to call themselves “religious” in order to reap the benefits of political correctness’es preferred treatments and special privileges?

Perhaps the State of Maine should consider the below photograph as a great example of what they can require of Amish hunters, while at the same time appeasing the “rights” of many other groups and not running the risk of offending them.

*Update* – I forgot to mention when I wrote this an hour ago, that, according to Smith’s article, when asked about how wardens would enforce the Amish exception, he wrote: “if a warden did issue a summons for not wearing orange, the hunter would have to prove in court that his religion prohibited him from doing so.”

Information available here is very lacking. But suppose such an Amish Exception becomes law. Do the Amish then have a preferred privilege over someone who might belong to another “religious” sect that also prohibits “flashy” clothing? Will the Amish, if caught wearing “red” instead of what’s required by law, have to also go to court, at their expense, to prove their innocence? The other question of importance is when does it become necessary that every citizen is presumed guilty until they can go to court and prove their innocence – which is exactly what such a statement establishes?

Share

Eli Lilly Shareholders to Management: Religious Liberty Matters

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:
Religious Liberty Matters

Shareholder Resolution Urges Pharmaceutical Giant to Be Respectful of ALL Groups, Including Religious Americans and Those Who Respect the First Amendment

Company Questioned at Shareholder Meeting for Doing Business Where Homosexuality is Illegal While Posing as An Ally with Gay, Lesbian and Gender Identity Activist Groups in the United States

 

Indianapolis, IN / Washington, D.C.  – At today’s annual meeting of Eli Lilly shareholders in Indianapolis, Indiana, the National Center for Public Policy Research presented a liberty-based shareholder resolution in response to the company’s activism against state-level religious freedom laws.

“Eli Lilly is acting with extreme duplicity. The pharmaceutical giant has joined with the leftist mob that falsely claims that religious freedom laws are avenues for discrimination of homosexuals. Yet, while it bemoans state religious freedom laws here in America, it has done business with nations that actively discriminate against homosexuals, women and just about every conceivable minority group,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Today, our shareholder proposal called out the company’s hypocrisy.”

Speaking on behalf of the National Center’s proposal, Danhof stated, in part:

Corporations and the mainstream media have expressed concern that religious freedom laws will lead to discrimination, in part, against homosexuals. There is zero evidence for this concern. These laws only require the government to avoid interfering with religious freedom if it can do so while still achieving important government goals – one of which, in every state of the union, is outlawing discrimination. The company’s spokesman stated: “One of our long-held values is respect for people, and that value factors strongly into our position. We want all our current and future employees to feel welcome where they live.”

Our proposal takes Lilly up on this. Eli Lilly has operated in many nations where homosexuality is outlawed. In some of those countries, homosexual acts are punishable by death. Women have almost no rights in some of these places. And try getting a fair trial in many of these nations.

The full text of Danhof’s remarks at the Eli Lilly meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

“As the national debate over religious freedom laws began last year in Indiana – and Lilly is one of the biggest companies in the Hoosier State – it deserves a fair share of the blame for the anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping the nation,” added Danhof. “When Georgia recently tried to pass a similar law, that state’s governor made the spineless decision to veto it after many corporations including Coca-Cola and the National Football League complained.”

“I find it very curious that many leftist politicians, organizations and commentators in the media have spent the better part of the past six years bemoaning corporate involvement in political activity. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC (which simply affirmed that corporations and unions have First Amendment free speech rights), to hear liberal talking heads tell it, the world would stop spinning due to corporate involvement in political activities. But when corporations such as Eli Lilly and Coca-Cola use their bully pulpits to spew invectives regarding religious freedom laws, the left cheers corporate involvement in the political process,” said Danhof. “This is the hallmark of a movement that lacks basic principles.”

“Liberal shareholder activists have filed hundreds of shareholder resolutions over the past few years and spent untold sums to denounce corporate involvement in any political or policy activity that might be considered conservative,” said Danhof. “But they have no problem with corporations using their power to advance far-left agendas.”

“Eli Lilly is violating a basic principle of business,” added Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Don’t disrespect your customers, lest they disrespect you in return. Eli Lilly might claim its activism on lesbian and gay rights and gender identity issues was done to be inclusive, but the path Eli Lilly chose unnecessarily excluded others. The religious protections Eli Lilly opposed have been around for years. Everyone’s rights and freedoms could have been respected.”

“Eli Lilly does business in places where people have no basic civil rights,” Ridenour continued, “including the right to practice the religion of their choice. In that light, I suppose it is not odd that the company is standing against the continuation of long-held religious protection laws here in America. It appears likely that religious freedom is not its thing. Standing up for it certainly isn’t.”

The National Center’s complete shareholder resolution, and Eli Lilly’s response to it, can be found on pages 56 and 57 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for download here.

Eli Lilly petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, seeking to block the National Center’s proposal. However, the National Center’s legal team, also led by Danhof, prevailed in convincing the SEC that its proposal was so significant that the company’s shareholders should have a say on the matter.

The entire legal exchange between Eli Lilly and the National Center, along with the SEC’s decision, can be downloaded here.

After Danhof presented a similar proposal ton General Electric’s investors last week, he also made these observations about the current state of the national debate over religious freedom laws:

“Religious freedom laws in the United States, whether federal or state, simply set a high bar for government action that might interfere with an individual’s deeply held religious beliefs. To pass such an infringing law, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and if the government can reach that compelling interest by other means, the courts will direct it to use those other means. That’s all these laws do. The public debate over these laws are often void of these very basic facts.”

“Furthermore, the left’s newest attack on religious liberty has all the trappings of a fundraising ploy. Many liberal organizations spent years raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the fight to legalize gay marriage. Perhaps winning that battle too quickly left a hole in the movement and the pockets of pro-gay marriage leaders. In that light, it is easy to understand why they concocted this fake outrage over basic religious freedom that has been a non-controversial issue in American jurisprudence for hundreds of years and a matter of state and federal law since the early 1990s.”

Earlier this year, Danhof presented a similar proposal to Apple. For more information about those meetings and shareholder resolutions, see here, here and here.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In 2014-15, National Center representatives participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Eli Lilly meeting marks its seventh shareholder meeting of 2016.

 The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

Share

Harbinger Man: ‘The time is now to prepare’

Author and Bible teacher Jonathan Cahn says he has been so swamped with questions and concerns about the looming end of the Shemitah year on Sept. 13 that he can’t answer them all.“We have been deluged with people calling, emailing, asking questions from all over […]

Source: Harbinger Man: ‘The time is now to prepare’

Share

Sen. Baldwin: 1st Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Individuals

1st Amendment’s free exercise of religion protections don’t apply to individuals – just institutions – Sen. Baldwin (D-WI) believes.

Source: Sen. Baldwin: 1st Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Individuals

Share

Bill would allow Maine Amish hunters to wear red instead of orange

*Editor’s Note* – Let’s forget about the “religious” aspect of the whats and whys of the Amish request to be exempt from wearing blaze orange when they hunt. That is a day-long debate with no end in sight. Consider what we have been told when the government forced hunters to wear blaze orange. And now consider what we are being told in regard to why a proposed exemption for the Amish bill should be passed.

The idea of blaze orange, we were told and everyone believes, was to be “safely” spotted by other hunters in the woods during deer season. It wasn’t just good enough that hunters HAD to wear an article of bright orange, it had to meet certain luminous minimum standards and cover head and a major portion of the torso. In addition to this forced requirement on the people, the law was changed that basically said a hunter was 100% responsible for any decision to pull the trigger and what happens to the bullet once it leaves the breech.

If all of this government intrusion is so important to the safety of everyone, why then should there be any exemption from participating in a government-mandated program?

If we look at the article, linked to below, read what lawmakers and others are telling us now about how there shouldn’t be any concern if Amish hunters hit the woods in red instead of hunter orange.

1. The Amish faith prohibits the use of bright colors
2. Amish hunters are forced to use the bright, fluorescent hunter orange to comply with safety regulations
3. the requirement to wear orange clearly conflicts with the Amish’s religious beliefs.
4. We should all be free to stick to our religious convictions
5. They just want to have the same opportunities as other hunters in Maine. (They do already.)
6. remedy the situation in the Legislature “while at the same time maintaining high hunting safety standards in Maine.”
7. The senate president said he did not believe safety would be an issue.(emboldening added).
8. “With all of the current laws and the hunter safety classes, we are past the time when people just point a gun at anything that moves and shoot it,”(emboldening added).

If the Maine Senate president and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee’s “some concern for safety,” are right, then why is there a requirement by the government to make anybody wear hunter orange? This makes no sense at all.

One might even ask if a “religion” prohibits wearing bright colors but allows for killing wild animals, what kind of “religion” is that? In addition, it would seem to me that if hunting is so important to certain members of the Amish faith, then the Amish “religion” needs to draw up their own exemptions to laws. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to ask of another something they are not willing to do?

If the Maine Legislature agrees to pass legislation exempting the Amish from wearing hunter orange, then one of two things, or both should also happen: 1. Wearing of blaze orange should become optional for everyone, and 2. Hunters who might accidentally shoot an Amish hunter, not wearing orange, will not be held responsible for “accidentally” shooting someone.

Mind you these suggestions are based on what we have been told about hunter safety, the effects of being forced to wear hunter orange clothing and what we are being told now about safety should not be an issue if the Amish don’t wear orange. Evidently we have moved beyond that requirement.

Hunting is a privilege and is deeply ingrained into the fabric of Maine’s heritage. Everyone, of legal status, has the right to purchase a license and hunt…legally, and all participants must abide by the laws that regulate hunting…this includes the wearing of blaze orange. A person chooses their religion. If providing an exemption to the Amish to not wear bright colors is good enough for the Amish, then it should be good enough for everybody.

I suggest that if the Amish provide their own exemptions to allow their followers to hunt.

AUGUSTA, Maine — Emergency legislation was submitted Tuesday to allow Amish hunters to wear red items of clothing instead of the standard orange during hunting season. The Amish faith prohibits the use of bright colors, but Amish hunters are forced to use the bright, fluorescent hunter orange to comply with […]

Source: Bill would allow Maine Amish hunters to wear red instead of orange — Politics — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

Share

CEO Confronted for Hypocrisy and Inaccuracy on Religion and Gay Rights

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Leading Good Governance Group Blasts Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson for Calling Religious Liberty Law “Madness”

National Center for Public Policy Research Confronts Marriott CEO for Comments Against Freedom of Faith at Annual Meeting of Marriott Investors

Hypocrisy Abounds: Sorenson and other Corporate Leaders Such as Apple’s Tim Cook Blast Indiana’s Religious Freedom Efforts While Making Money in Countries Criminalizing Homosexuality

Corporate Leaders Join With Liberal Media in Creating False Discrimination Hysteria – Religious Freedom Laws CAN and DO Exist in Harmony with Civil and Human Rights Protections for Gay Americans

Washington, DC – At today’s annual meeting of Marriott shareholders in Washington, D.C., the National Center for Public Policy Research blasted the hotel giant’s CEO, Arne Sorenson, for comments he recently made disparaging Indiana’s religious freedom restoration law and, by extension, all Americans of faith.

“Sorenson did apologize and assured me that is was not his intent to impinge upon anyone’s religious liberties,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “But that’s the problem, intent aside, his words added to the growing storm of anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping the nation.”

At the Marriott meeting, Danhof stated:

According to the Washington Post, our CEO thinks that religious freedom has no value in our country. Referring to Indiana’s religious freedom law, Mr. Sorenson called it “madness” and “idiocy.” Mr. Sorenson joined an echo chamber – led by the leftist media – in distorting what Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) are all about. He should be embarrassed.

The federal government and 31 states have RFRAs and none of them legalize discrimination against anyone. What Mr. Sorenson and the media have done is to distort common sense laws to attack Americans of faith. You show me a gay couple who can’t find someone willing to bake them a wedding cake and I will show you liars. What the left has done, in the words of esteemed law professor Richard Epstein, is to give the law its “broadest possible construction and then give a parade of horribles, none of which have ever occurred.”

Danhof then asked:

Despite Sorenson’s outlandish attacks on Indiana’s law, Marriott does business in many countries where homosexuality is outlawed and homosexuals are imprisoned and even killed.

So my question is this: will Marriott cease all business operations in countries where homosexuality is illegal and will it also cease business with the U.S. federal government and close its hotels in the 31 states because of their religious freedom laws?

To read Danhof’s entire question, as prepared for delivery, click here.

“Sorenson basically told me that he wanted to ensure that Indiana’s law was written in a way that would allow the state to continue to attract commerce and where folks would be welcome. This just shows his profound ignorance regarding the issue. Nothing in the law would legalize discrimination,” said Danhof. “Furthermore, he told me that is was clear that we weren’t going to agree on the issue. There is nothing to disagree about. I am correct about the legal realities of religious freedom laws. Sorenson is spewing claptrap.”

“It is clear to me that Sorenson does not understand what religious freedom laws are all about. This shows the danger of a CEO, whose expertise is likely in business operations and finance, commenting on a legal and policy issues outside of their comfort zone. His comments did tremendous damage to Marriott’s brand,” added Danhof. “Sorenson is not a Constitutional scholar, and relying on the liberal media to tell the truth is a fool’s errand.”

“The federal government’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been the law of the land for more than 20, years and 31 states have similar laws protecting religious freedom. In that entire time, has anyone been denied a hotel room because of their sexual identity?” said Danhof. “The liberal cry of anti-gay discrimination is hollow. Religious freedom laws do not legalize discrimination. The liberal media is simply lying about this issue. It is shameful that corporate America has joined in this echo chamber of misinformation.”

“In fact, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was co-authored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, a liberal icon, and signed into law in 1993 by another liberal hero, then-President Bill Clinton. I don’t recall the leftist media ever attacking Kennedy or Clinton for creating a federal law to discriminate against homosexuals. RFRA laws simply make the government show a compelling reason if it takes an action that restricts someone’s religious freedom. That’s it. Any suggestion that these laws endorse discrimination is a lie,” added Danhof.

“With his outburst about Indiana, Sorenson joined with corporate leaders such as Apple CEO Tim Cook in declaring war on Americans of faith. By specifically attacking religious freedom restorations laws, they are implying that the federal and state governments should have more power to restrict religious practices and beliefs,” said Danhof. “It is a very scary proposition that we have powerful corporate leaders urging our government to wield more control over American lives. It is especially scary when it burdens something so sacrosanct as the American ideal of freedom of religion.”

“It certainly strange that Sorenson feels so strongly about Indiana yet he would say silent about persecution of homosexuals in certain countries where Marriott does business. Surely Marriott’s management has thought about the persecution and lack of basic human rights in various countries in which they do business, and, no doubt, pay taxes, and if they have thought about it, why wouldn’t they share their thinking when asked for it at a shareholder meeting? And if Marriott’s management has not thought about the immense persecution that exists in certain countries in which the company does business, then why was the company’s CEO concerned about a religious freedom law in Indiana that does not cause any persecution at all?”

Mr. Sorenson’s comments to Danhof were lengthy and Danhof did not have access to recording equipment to capture them in full. Marriott, however, says it plans to upload the full audio of the shareholder meeting to its website at some unspecified future time.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder meetings and big business. So far in 2014-15, National Center representatives have participated in 67 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

Share

Who? Religious Extremistists

ChristiansMuslims

Share

Obama as Anti-Biblical

“So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Bill Maher: Cherry Picking Defensible Rights

Maybe the “rights” Maher enjoys, i.e. his right to “free speech”, making jokes and pissing on people’s feet, hit a bit too close to home with Charlie Hebdo. False anger and bravado doesn’t mean squat when you only have the bravery to defend pet rights while dissing others.

“We have to stop saying ‘We shouldn’t insult a great religion.’ First of all, there are no great religions, they’re all stupid and dangerous. And we should insult them, and we should be able to insult whatever we want. That is what free speech is like.”<<<Read More>>>

Share