"Equality Act" Seeks Federal Persecution of Christians

[EmmaLee]

And yes, that includes Mormons; and yes, it's closer than we'd like to think. I wonder if our Church will speak out publicly against this heinous travesty?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... &vcid=8556

Tuesday, 26 March 2019
“Equality Act” Seeks Federal Persecution of Christians
Written by Alex Newman

Democrats in Congress are pushing “equality” legislation that critics say would criminalize Christianity, Islam, and Judaism by forcing virtually every institution in society — including religious institutions — to hire, serve, and promote homosexuals and individuals confused about their gender. A number of analysts have warned that by enshrining “sexual orientation” in the statute, even pedophilia and pederasty could be protected. In the House of Representatives, Democrats already have more than enough co-sponsors to pass the bill. And in the Senate, they are getting very close. But a massive coalition of critics from across the political spectrum and a broad array of religious traditions is rising up to stop it before it is too late.

Among other changes, the so-called Equality Act, also known as H.R. 5 in the House and S. 788 in the Senate, purports to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.” To do that, it would enshrine actual or perceived “sexual orientation and gender identity” into federal statutes. That would give homosexuality, transgenderism, and other perversions of human sexuality and gender the same protections as race or sex in employment, housing, public accommodations, and more. Incredibly, the legislation specifically states that religious freedom may not be used as a defense under the bill. And it applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more.

Christian adoption agencies will be shut down, too, if they refuse to place children with homosexuals or individuals confused about whether they are men or women. Churches, synagogues, and mosques will no longer be able to uphold marriage between men and women, or any moral standards on sexuality at all. Counselors of faith will be banned from helping people with unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusion. And Christians, Muslims, and Jews will no longer be allowed to seek out counselors to help them deal with those issues. Indeed, under the measure, everyone will have to affirm the LGBT agenda, or face persecution and destruction at the hands of the federal government. Churches will lose their tax-exempt status if they do not submit. Schools will lose their accreditation if they do not bow down to Caesar. And this is just the start.

The “gender” madness is breathtaking, too. Under the legislation, virtually everywhere across the United States, men who claim they “identify” as a women will be allowed to use women's restrooms, showers, changing areas, and even bunk with women on trips, including church trips. This is already happening in government schools and some radical businesses such as Target, which continues to face a massive boycott for putting women at risk. But under this bill, the policy would even be forced on churches, domestic abuse shelters, Christian schools, and much more.

The bill would also force the participation of men who claim to identify as women in women's sports, all but ensuring that no biological woman will ever win another sporting competition. And it would put young girls nationwide at risk, as any man in the country could simply walk into female facilities under this bill and claim to be a “transgender” who identifies as female. Numerous incidents have already occurred, and this would open up a Pandora's Box of mischief, critics warned.

In the House, the legislation has been co-sponsored by almost 239 members — more than enough to pass the bill. In the Senate, meanwhile, S. 788 already has close to 50 sponsors. And over 100 of America's richest and most powerful mega-corporations are lining up in support of the bill. Considering the growing outcry, it is highly unlikely that Trump would betray his base by signing the bill. However, that is not guaranteed, and despite the president's crucial support from evangelicals, the administration has emerged as very “LGBT-friendly” across a range of issues, including promoting the legalization of sodomy and homosexuality around the world.

The non-profit Christian legal group Liberty Counsel called the “wrongly named” Equality Act the “most extreme threat to religious freedom, free speech, privacy, and to women’s rights that has ever been proposed by Congress.” The controversial measure, the group warned, “will be used as a wrecking ball to churches, religious organizations, religious freedom, and free speech.”

Writing for Focus on the Family, a highly influential Christian ministry, Jeff Johnston warned that the legislation was “dangerous” and “would have serious harmful consequences for people of faith and families.” Christians, he said, believe what the Bible's Book of Genesis says clearly: God created two types of humans, male and female. Christians also believe what God taught about marriage, and that children ought to have a mother and a father. “We understand that Christian teaching about marriage has profound spiritual significance, as the husband and wife relationship reflects the relationship between Christ and His Church,” Johnston explained.

But under the Equality Act, the federal government “takes these basic biblical teachings and labels them 'discriminatory',” he continued. “It puts the full force and influence of the federal government behind enforcing this law and opposing Christian beliefs. The law is a powerful teacher, and the Equality Act would teach that Christian thinking about male-female differences, marriage, parenting, family and sexuality are rooted in prejudice — rather than in years of wisdom, reason and biblical exegesis.” The consequences of this have already proven disastrous at the state and local level. And if this bill gets passed, Christians across the nation would find themselves in the crosshairs of the U.S. government.

Another organization formed in response to the escalating LGBT onslaught against Christians and people of faith is the Gone 2 Far Movement. The interracial and interfaith body of clergy and laity committed to being true to biblical principles said it is “aghast” at the legislative agenda of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — and the LGBT “Equality” Act in particular. Dr. Randy Lancaster-Short, a black reverend who serves as the political chair for the movement, blasted the effort to equate sexual proclivities and gender confusion with the immutable characteristics such as race that were originally protected in the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, blasting the legislation as the “Pedophile Amnesty Act,” he and others have warned that the protections for “sexual orientation” may be extended even to “minor-attracted persons.”

In a statement to The New American, Dr. Short, who is working to make black churches aware of the legislation, noted that the Equality Act “will criminalize the Christian faith and deny religious belief as a justification for not complying with the Gay Equality Act.” By re-introducing the Equality Act, Short said, the Democrats “resumed the long march of the Homosexual Political Complex to undermine the sacred traditional values of the American Republic; destroy civil and religious liberties; collectively libel, exploit, defraud and defame protected minorities; poison and glut our legal system with oxymoronic suits; diminish our faith-based charitable and philanthropic institutions; imposed frivolous and wasteful regulations on businesses; create havoc in families and schools; and crystallize unscientific sexuality theories that invent sexes other than male and female.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has also come out against the move, saying it would impose "sweeping regulations to the detriment of society as a whole." “The act’s definitions alone would remove women and girls from protected legal existence,” the Catholic leaders said, warning that the bill seeks to regulate thought, belief, and speech in an "unprecedented" departure from America's founding principles. “Furthermore, the act also fails to recognize the difference between the person — who has dignity and is entitled to recognition of it — and the actions of a person, which have ethical and social ramifications. Conflating the two will introduce a plethora of further legal complications.”

The bill is so radical and extreme that even some Democrats such as Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and homosexual activists such as Gregory Angelo, former leader of the homosexual “Log Cabin Republicans,” are opposed to it. “Don’t be fooled by the name: The Equality Act is legislation that would compromise American civil rights and religious liberty as we know it,” wrote Angelo in a piece for the Washington Examiner. “All reasonable Americans, especially gay Americans who support pluralism and tolerance, should oppose it.”

In Europe, pastors and evangelists are already being arrested and jailed — literally — for pointing out that the God of the Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful, and that God made people as male and female. In Sweden, authorities investigated the Bible under Swedish “hate speech” laws and determined that the Bible violates that government's speech codes, even though it is not “practical” to ban the Bible at this point. America may not be there yet, but the Equality Act would be a giant step in that direction.

In the end, the Equality Act is unconstitutional on its face. The federal government has no power to force anyone — much less everyone — to bow down to its radical anti-Christian ideology. And in fact, multiple provisions of the Constitution, including the First Amendment and the 10th Amendment, specifically prohibit the sort of lunacy envisioned in this legislation. Americans who value liberty and Christian civilization must recognize that everything they cherish is on the line. It is time to speak out, or be crushed by the oncoming freight train.

Go to the link above to watch a pertinent video.

[mes5464]

This is egregious but not unexpected. Looks like I will be tested soon to see if I have the faith to forsake evil.

Doctrine and Covenants 98

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

11 And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.

12 For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.

13 And whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my name’s sake, shall find it again, even life eternal.

14 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.

15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.

[EmmaLee]

Looks like I will be tested soon to see if I have the faith to forsake evil.

We all will be. Hope we're ready.

[markharr]

See the danger in allowing Congress to pass gun control legislation that is now seen as taking precedence over the second amendment in the constitution? It's a slippery slope. Now they have seen that they can get away with it on one amendment they push to override other amendments using the same method.

The only constitutional way of changing the bill of rights is with another constitutional amendment. This bill is unconstitutional and if it is passed into law it will be unconstitutional.

[EmmaLee]

EXACTLY, markharr; well said.

[EmmaLee]

An extremely mild example here compared to what is shortly coming, but it should be noted, nonetheless. All evil generally starts out small or low-key and builds from there.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... &vcid=8556

27 March 2019
Chick-fil-A Banned From San Antonio Airport for Supporting Christian Groups
Written by Michael Tennant

The San Antonio city council voted 6-4 Thursday to exclude restaurant chain Chick-fil-A from the city’s airport because the company, in keeping with its founder’s and current CEO’s faith, has had the audacity to donate to Christian organizations.

The council was debating a seven-year contract for concessions at San Antonio International Airport. Chick-fil-A had initially been included in the agreement, but Councilman Roberto Treviño moved that the restaurant be removed from the contract. Five other councilmen concurred, and Treviño’s amendment passed. Chick-fil-A is banned from the airport for the foreseeable future.

“With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion,” Treviño said in a statement, apparently oblivious to the irony of excluding Chick-fil-A to demonstrate his commitment to “inclusion.”

“San Antonio is a city full of compassion,” he added, “and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.” [See this thread on the false god of false "compassion" we worship in today's society - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51122 ]

Treviño was likely referring to a report issued the previous day by the left-wing website ThinkProgress. In its report, ThinkProgress alleged that Chick-fil-A “gave more than $1.8 million to a trio of groups with a record of anti-LGBTQ discrimination” in 2017.

Of course, what Chick-fil-A, which was founded and is still run by Southern Baptists, actually did was donate to Christian organizations: the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the Paul Anderson Youth Home, and the Salvation Army. These groups, taking the Bible seriously, naturally oppose homosexual behavior, same-sex “marriage,” and special legal privileges for LGBTQ persons.

That is why the supposedly tolerant and inclusive Left cannot abide them and seeks to destroy anyone who supports them. In their minds, no matter how many corporations give to pro-LGBTQ causes, if even one fails to bend the knee, it must be hounded out of existence. Chick-fil-A knows this all too well, having been targeted by, among others, the Pittsburgh city council, various universities including New Jersey’s Rider University, and New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio. Thus far, the company has thrived despite these efforts; in fact, New York City is now home to the world’s largest Chick-fil-A.

Chick-fil-A said it was blindsided by the San Antonio decision. The company told USA Today it first learned of the amendment and subsequent vote from Treviño’s press release.

“We wish we had the opportunity to clarify misperceptions about our company prior to the vote. We agree with the council member that everyone should feel welcome at Chick-fil-A,” the company said. “In fact, we have welcomed everyone in San Antonio into our 32 local stores for more than 40 years.”

Chick-fil-A added that it “would welcome the opportunity to have a thoughtful dialogue with the city council and we invite all of them into our local stores to interact with the more than 2,000 team members who are serving the people of San Antonio.”

When news of Treviño’s amendment was first reported, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called the amendment “ridiculous.” Once it had passed and Chick-fil-A was officially banned from the airport, Cruz followed up with this tweet: “The details of this story are even worse. San Antonio City Council voted to ban @ChickfilA from the airport bc the company gave to ... the Fellowship of Christian Athletes & the Salvation Army?!? That’s ridiculous. And not Texas. #LeftistIntolerance”

Cruz is correct about the intolerance of the Left, which seeks to silence anyone that dissents from the progressive agenda du jour. Leftists are, it seems, also incapable of recognizing this fact.

“Everyone has a place here,” Treviño said in his press release, “and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport.” Everyone, that is, except Chick-fil-A.

[EmmaLee]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/black-pro ... 270%20days

MARCH 27, 2019
Black pro-life speaker: Ivy League student group disinvited me from abortion talk over my 'biblical sexuality' stance

Jannique Stewart also said she was told that allowing her to speak would be like 'allowing a racist to speak who held pro-slavery and pro-Holocaust views'

A black pro-life speaker said a Cornell University student group disinvited her from an abortion talk because her "biblical sexuality" stance would offend students — and that she was told that letting her speak would be like "allowing a racist to speak who held pro-slavery and pro-Holocaust views."

What happened?

Jannique Stewart wrote in a Saturday Facebook post that the Cornell Political Union in January invited her to speak at the Ivy League school in April "regarding the fact that abortion is a moral wrong" — until organizers got a look at her bio weeks later.

More from her post:

"I received a shocking phone call in which I was told that I was being DISINVITED. Why? I was being DISINVITED because of my outspoken beliefs regarding biblical sexuality. Specifically, because of two main beliefs: 1. Sexual activity should be reserved for marriage 2. Natural marriage defined by God as the Union of one man and one woman. YES, it was made very clear to me that I was being DISINVITED invited because of my views. That is VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION. It was explained to me that having someone on campus who believed the way I did was tantamount to allowing a racist to speak who held pro-slavery and pro- holocaust views!!! I was also told that their concern was that many of the students would be offended by my beliefs and would not be able to focus or listen to my speech."

Stewart told PJ Media in an email that her ministry, Love Protects, "addresses a range of issues dealing with biblical sexuality: abstinence until marriage, pro-life, anti-pornography, to issues regarding the traditional and biblical view on marriage and LGBTQ issues."

She added in her Facebook post that the group initially said rather than disinviting her it would be better if another speaker took her place, and Stewart told the group she wasn't bowing out. Then she said the final "no" came and for the same reasons.

"More and more universities are censoring conservative Christian voices in an effort to silence dissent and spare any possible offense," Stewart added in her post. "Unbelievable! The First Amendment supports freedom of speech not freedom from speech."

What did a noted Princeton professor have to say?

Robert P. George, a well-known Princeton University professor, criticized Stewart's disinvitation in a scathing Facebook post of his own:

"So here we are. Evidently, no Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, Eastern Orthodox Christian, Orthodox Jew, or Muslim, [or Mormon??] who believes what his or her tradition of faith teaches about sex and marriage is permitted to engage in debate at the Cornell Political Union. Even someone who, following thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Musonius Rufus, Xenophanes, and Plutarch, holds to traditional morality on philosophical grounds without the benefit of scriptural revelation, is ineligible to be a debater. If Plato or Aristotle were around today, they would be barred. Think about that for a second.

"Among the most appalling practices of the contemporary left is its attempt to secure its position on sex and marriage by stigmatizing anyone who dissents from it as a "bigot' or "hater"--the equivalent of a racist--and thus excluding them and shutting down all debate. We're seeing this all over the country. It is a sin against the House of Intellect. The bullies who commit it need to be stood up to. Their victims need to refuse to be intimidated. And all men and women of goodwill need to stand with them."

[Lizzy60]

Equality Utah is seeking the same protections. Of course their main target is the LDS Church, since the state's non-discrimination laws have a religious exemption. Speaking of the church policy of having children of gay parents wait until age 18 to be baptized, one person said, in a public post, "These are very sick people who use God to abuse children. There's nothing worse."

I'm not sure if she was referring to Church leaders or the members of the Church in general, but you get an idea of the intolerance some of them have to religious conservatism.

https://www.equalityutah.org

[EmmaLee]

I doubt anything substantive will come of it, but it's good to see that not all are blind to this ramping up of persecution of Christians.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/chick-fil ... 270%20days

MARCH 28, 2019
Texas AG is investigating San Antonio for religious discrimination against Chick-fil-A

Did the city violate the chicken restaurant's constitutional rights? [YES]

The attorney general for Texas is investigating whether the city of San Antonio violated the constitutional rights of Chick-fil-A when they refused to allow them to open a restaurant at their airport.

The city council voted to keep the chicken burger chain out of the San Antonio International Airport over the conservative and Christian values that the founder espouses.

"We do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior," said councilman Roberto Trevino.

"Everyone has a place here," he added, "and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport." [Translation: everyone EXCEPT Christians]

Attorney General Ken Paxton responded by opening an investigation into whether the ban violates the First Amendment.

"The Constitution's protection of religious liberty is somehow even better than Chick-fil-A's chicken," Paxton wrote in a letter to the San Antonio city council.

"Unfortunately," he added, "I have serious concerns that both are under assault at the San Antonio airport."

Texas Governor Greg Abbott tweeted in support of the move by the attorney general.

"Texas Attorney General will investigate San Antonio's ban on Chick-fil-A at their airport," tweeted Abbott. "The ban has the stench of religious discrimination against Chick-fil-A."

"Ironically, the City's efforts to be 'inclusive' resulted in the exclusion of Chick-fil-A based on its religious beliefs," said Paxton in a letter to Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao asking her to probe whether San Antonio violated any regulation as a recipient of federal funding.

[EmmaLee]

Another U.S. city jumps on the "let's hate on Christians" bandwagon.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/buffalo-a ... 270%20days

MARCH 30, 2019
Another major city bans Chick-fil-A from opening restaurant in airport

Yet another airport has banned Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant due to the Christian company's alleged "anti-LGBTQ" views.

The development comes just one week after San Antonio, Texas, made national headlines for a similar decision. The San Antonio City Council blocked Chick-fil-A from operating at its airport, claiming the city does "not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior."

What are the details?

On Thursday, Delaware North, the hospitality company that manages food operations at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport, and the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority approved tentative plans to allow a Chick-fil-A restaurant to open at the airport, according to New York Upstate.

But the plan was met with immediate opposition from progressive lawmakers who claim Chick-fil-A is a discriminatory organization, despite the company's continual re-affirmation that it, in fact, does not discriminate against any customer, even those who identify with the LGBT community.

After NFTA's decision, New York Assemblyman Sean Ryan (D) released a statement blasting the NTFA for doing business "with corporations who fund hateful and divisive groups."

Ryan said:

I don't believe the leadership of the NFTA intends to help spread hate and discrimination, but allowing a corporation like Chick-fil-A to do business at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport will help to fund continued divisive anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. New York is a welcoming state that celebrates diversity.

The views of Chick-fil-A do not represent our state or the Western New York community, and businesses that support discrimination have no place operating in taxpayer-funded public facilities.

On Friday, Ryan announced via Twitter that Chick-fil-A would not be allowed to operate a location at the Buffalo airport.

"I applaud the decision that has been made to remove Chick-fil-A from plans for the Buffalo Niagara International Airport," he said. "We hope in the future the NFTA will make every effort to contract with businesses that adhere to anti-discrimination policies."

The NFTA confirmed the development to local media outlet WKBW-TV. The Chick-fil-A was slated to open in the fall of 2019.

What did Chick-fil-A say?

The company told WKBW: "Recent coverage about Chick-fil-A continues to drive an inaccurate narrative about our brand. We do not have a political or social agenda or discriminate against any group. More than 145,000 people from different backgrounds and beliefs represent the Chick-fil-A brand. We embrace all people, regardless of religion, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity." [Don't cower to these hate-filled, anti-Christ government goons, CFA - sit back and let them reap what they sow.]

[EmmaLee]

And with our friends to the north....

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... &vcid=8556

Monday, 01 April 2019
Canadian Court Fines Christian for Publishing Truth About Transgender Activist
Written by Michael Tennant

A provincial tribunal has ordered a Canadian Christian man to pay $55,000 to a transgender activist for the offense of distributing a flyer stating, accurately, that the transgender activist, who claims to be a woman, is a “biological male” who “will always be male.” [But.... science...]

In a 104-page ruling, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found Bill Whatcott, 52, guilty of violating the province’s human rights code, which prohibits the publishing of material that “indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or group of persons, or is likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt” [except Christians, of course - in their case, hate away!] on the basis of certain politically protected characteristics, among them “gender identity or expression.”

The court ordered Whatcott to pay the activist, Morgane (born Ronan) Oger, $35,000 in compensation for injury to his “dignity, feelings and self-respect” plus $20,000 — the largest such award in 20 years — for his “improper conduct” before and during the hearings, most of which consisted of treating the tribunal, which Whatcott repeatedly called a “kangaroo court,” with the contempt it deserved.

Whatcott, who has a history of run-ins with the Canadian speech police, discovered in 2017 that Oger was running for local office on the New Democratic Party (NDP) ticket. He claims that after praying for direction regarding the election, he began researching various candidates and discovered that Oger, who had lobbied to have “gender identity or expression” added to the code and was promoting lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, was being referred to as a woman despite the fact that Oger had been born male.

Whatcott subsequently printed and distributed a flyer with a picture of Oger, describing Oger as “a biological male” who “embraced a transvestite lifestyle.”

"The truth is there are only two genders, male and female[,] and they are God[-]given and unchangeable,” he wrote. “Ronan may have government ID that refers to him by the French female name ‘Morgane’ and the media, NDP, and everyone in the riding [district] might try to pretend Ronan is a woman. But the truth is Ronan’s DNA will always be male, he will never have a uterus, and no amount of cosmetic surgery, fake hormones, or media propaganda is going to be able to change these facts.”

Transgenderism, Whatcott declared, “is an impossibility” that has both physical and spiritual consequences. Citing Bible verses, Whatcott urged the reader to turn to Christ for forgiveness of sins and not to vote for Oger.

Oger, in response, hauled Whatcott before the tribunal, claiming his flyer had amounted to discrimination and caused Oger to fear for his safety. Whatcott argued that his rights to free speech and freedom of religion, as expressed in Canada’s constitution, permitted him to publish his flyer.

As Whatcott correctly deduced, the tribunal was stacked against him from day one, as even a cursory reading of the decision reveals.

Great deference is given to protecting transgenders’ feelings and legal privileges. The court referred to the “disadvantage, prejudice, stereotyping and vulnerability” of transgendered persons, calling them “among the most marginalized in our society.” The court further declared “in the strongest possible terms” that transgenderism is not even a matter for public debate because it is “as valuable to ongoing public debate as whether one race is superior to another.”

By contrast, the court dismissed Whatcott’s arguments out of hand. To buttress his flyer’s assertions, Whatcott sought to introduce expert testimony regarding Oger’s maleness but was denied the opportunity to do so. “There is no defense of ‘truth’ in respect of hate speech,” wrote the court. Furthermore, any infringements on Whatcott’s liberty brought about by the hate-speech law and the lawsuit are “minor,” said the court. Whatcott “is free to hold his religious beliefs and communicate them privately. He is only prohibited from practicing his religion in a way that violates the human rights of other people.”

Whatcott told LifeSiteNews he has no intention of paying the fines levied by the tribunal, which he can’t afford anyway, or of curtailing his activism. He also said he hasn’t yet decided whether to appeal the decision.

“Jesus Christ is still Lord and he will come again,” he said. “I put my hope into that.”

[Sunain]

In a 104-page ruling, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found Bill Whatcott, 52, guilty of violating the province’s human rights code, which prohibits the publishing of material that “indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or group of persons, or is likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt” [except Christians, of course - in their case, hate away!] on the basis of certain politically protected characteristics, among them “gender identity or expression.”

Only a matter of time till religious freedom exemption is removed. They are already trying to here. When it becomes illegal to preach the gospel on the promised land, I'm heading to my bunker! With the conservatives currently in the lead in the polls, and seemingly Trump winning his second term, 4 more years for each country would get us to 7 years of prosperity. The mid 2020's are looking like they will be a disaster for North America.

[EmmaLee]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... &vcid=8556

Friday, 05 April 2019
Yale Law School Ends Financial Support of Students Working for Anti-LGBT Groups
Written by Michael Tennant

Yale Law School, the number-one law school in the United States and alma mater of many political leaders, is tightening the screws on conservative and religious students by refusing to support them financially if they take summer internships or accept employment with organizations that dissent from the LGBT creed.

On March 25, Yale Law announced via email that it would no longer fund summer public-interest fellowships, postgraduate public-interest fellowships, or loan forgiveness for public-interest careers for students who choose to work for organizations that discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.”

The money involved is significant. According to the Washington Examiner, “In the summer of 2018, Yale spent $1.8 million on its Summer Public Internship Fellowship program, helping financially support dozens of Yale students ‘working in public interest, government, and not-for-profit organizations.’ In just 2017, Yale provided $5.2 million in educational loan payment assistance to hundreds of graduates ‘who choose lower paying positions.’”

Yale Law’s Public Interest Committee unanimously decided to stop offering such assistance to students who opt for work with groups opposed to the LGBT agenda. Dean Heather Gerken, in an e-mail explaining the new policy, explicitly thanked a campus LGBT advocacy group called the Outlaws for bringing the matter to the committee’s attention. “We reaffirm our commitment that these students, faculty, and staff should not experience discrimination inside or outside of this Law School,” she wrote.

Although tensions between the school’s liberal and conservative students have been mounting since last summer’s confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, things seem to have come to a head in the last couple of months, culminating in the policy change. Third-year Yale Law student Aaron Haviland recalled:

After the Yale Federalist Society invited an attorney from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a prominent Christian legal group, to speak about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case [in February], conservative students faced backlash. Outlaws … demanded that Yale Law School “clarify” its admissions policies for students who support ADF’s positions. Additionally, Outlaws insisted that students who work for religious or conservative public interest organizations such as ADF during their summers should not receive financial support from the law school.

For now, according to Haviland, Yale officials are saying privately that the new policy applies only to organizations that discriminate against LGBT people in their hiring, not those that simply oppose the LGBT agenda. That still rules out many conservative organizations, especially those with religious underpinnings. What’s more, since the text of the policy is vague, its application could easily be broadened to exclude more groups in the future.

Of course, the school insists that while it is no longer financially supporting students, it is not actually preventing them from working for groups with which it disagrees. However, as Haviland observed, “Without naming ADF, Yale has found a roundabout way to functionally blacklist them and other organizations that do not adhere to Yale’s progressive understanding of gender identity.”

In short, hewing to the ever-changing LGBT line is quickly becoming a litmus test for Yale Law students. “While the law governing nondiscrimination against LGBTQ people is subject to contestation,” the school declared in announcing the policy change, “the Law School’s commitment to LGBTQ equality is not.” At present, the school only penalizes students for working for conservative organizations. But how long will it be before non-LGBT-affirming students are simply denied admission, as the Outlaws suggested?

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is not waiting around to find out. On Thursday, he sent a letter to Gerken notifying her that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, which he chairs, is opening an investigation into Yale’s “transparently discriminatory policy.” Cruz reminded Gerken that as a recipient of federal funds, Yale is bound to comply with federal civil-rights laws banning discrimination on the basis of religion. He also pointed out that the school’s stipend policy runs counter to Yale’s own antidiscrimination policy.

Whether anything will come of Cruz’s investigation remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the fact that the Left has so captured academia that the top-ranked law school in the land now demands fidelity to the LGBT agenda should seriously concern every lover of liberty and morality.

[EmmaLee]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... &vcid=8556

Sunday, 07 April 2019
Godless America? Faith Could Kill Liberalism, but Liberalism Is Killing Faith
Written by Selwyn Duke

“The only foundation for ... a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty,” warned Founding Father Benjamin Rush. We’re losing that foundation, however, with yet another survey showing that irreligiosity has been burgeoning in America — especially in recent years. Yet with church attendance being one of the best predictors of voting patterns, what does this portend for our nation’s political and cultural future? And how can the atheistic descent be halted if few understand its actual causes?

The latest data was provided by the General Social Survey, which “has tracked a broad swath of American trends since 1972,” informs the Daily Mail. Summarizing the study’s recent findings, the paper writes:

• The number of people who have no religion has risen 266 per cent — one third of the population — in three decades

• People with no religion accounted for 23.1% of the U.S. population in 2018

• By comparison, Catholics make up 23% and Evangelicals account for 22.5%

• The three are now statistically tied as the largest religious groups in America

• Meanwhile, mainline Protestant Christianity has seen a 62.5% decline in believers since 1982, to now account for just 10.8% of the U.S. population

Other research has, unsurprisingly, shown similar results. For example, a 2018 Pew Research Center survey found that America’s “pagans” now actually outnumber her Presbyterians.

Ryan Burge, an Eastern Illinois University political science professor who analyzed the recent data, told the Mail that one reason for the higher “nones” (people without religion) figure could be that — with irreligiosity in vogue and the stigma attached to it now gone — people are less afraid to openly embrace it.

This may be a factor, of course. Yet the basic question is: Why would irreligiosity’s stigma have diminished drastically unless religiosity has diminished proportionately? Stigmas are corollaries of values. For when certain things are valued, their opposites are devalued; and when those certain things are valued less, their opposites are devalued less.

In reality, studies and personal experience both make evident that religion has waned worrisomely in the West. While there are a number of reasons for this, the main one is little known. As I explained last year, the rejection of Christianity is wholly logical ... given our descent into moral relativism. I often cite a Barna Group study showing that, in 2002 already, only six percent of teenagers believed in Truth (absolute by definition) and that they were most likely to make “moral” decisions based on feelings.

How is this relevant? Moral relativism holds that what we call “morality” is determined by the man; what this actually means, however, is that morality (properly defined) doesn’t really exist — only man’s preference does.

This strikes at Christianity’s very heart because it renders the sacrifice on the cross incomprehensible. After all, if there’s no Truth and all is preference, there is no sin. If there’s no sin, there was no reason for Jesus to die for us. This means there is no need for salvation and, hence, no need for Christianity.

So given the relativism the young have been marinated in, their behavior is entirely rational. Why, if I believed all was preference, just a flavor of the day, why would I constrain my impulses with the Christian moral standard or any other? I should rather be a hedonist.

This is the matter’s crux. People sacrifice for principles, not preferences.

Burge also mentions that many Americans are rejecting traditional Christianity because of its teaching prohibiting homosexual behavior. He’s correct, and this brings us to the effect (planned?) of our Great Sexual Heresy in general and the homosexuality agenda in particular.

Think about what the sexual devolutionaries do, which is to portray rejection of homosexual behavior as bigotry. Insofar as people believe the church’s teaching is analogous to rejection based solely on skin color — if “homophobia”=“racism” — authentic Christianity=the KKK. Of course, I don’t believe this, but it is how people imbued with homosexuality doctrine will view it.

This explains why this tactic is ideal not just for homosexuality activists but all anti-Christian agitators. The more you can cast the church as a fire-and-brimstone purveyor of our newly minted bigotry, the more you push it into the hate-group category in modernists’ minds (note that overseas “hate speech” laws often prohibit criticism of homosexuality). And since the church cannot bend on definitive teaching, it can do nothing to extricate itself from this category. It’s brilliantly devious — some would say devilish.

Another faith-killing force, a devilishly seductive one, is the desire for eternal absolution. The disobedient child inside man doesn’t like being told “No!” He doesn’t like all the thou-shalt-nots. Christianity does one thing religion is supposed to do: It upholds a non-negotiable standard of behavior, reflecting the Truth, informing that sin really is real and that we really are wrong when indulging it.

Thus, the more people are married to sin, the more they’ll have to justify — and the more, then, that they’ll have an emotional vested interest in attacking what condemns that sin: Christianity.

Given this, a sure way to get people to divorce the church is to wed them to sin, is to seduce them into it. Interestingly, this is precisely what our society does.

Far from developing in children what Greek philosopher Plato called an “erotic” (meaning not sexual, but passionate) attachment to virtue, we stoke their passions with vice, via sexual messages in entertainment, the media, and elsewhere; inappropriate sex education in schools; sexual-liberation “philosophy”; co-ed dorms and lewd sexuality classes in college; and the sexual devolutionary agenda in general. In fact, if you wanted a paradigm for destroying faith, the modern West would be it.

The good news, from the Everything You Know Isn’t So file, is that faith is only declining in the West; in fact, religiosity is projected to increase worldwide during the next few decades. As an example, these 2016 statistics show that Catholicism’s adherents are increasing at a rate slightly greater than that of population growth.

The bad news is that with church attendance being one of the best predictors of voting patterns, with regular service-goers breaking widely for the GOP and atheists being largely Democrat, our declining religiosity explains leftism’s rise — and why American Christianity’s death would portend a dark political future.

After all, to paraphrase Belgian poet Émile Cammaerts, “When people cease believing in God, it’s not that they start to believe in nothing. It’s that they’ll believe in anything” — even, and especially in our time and place, socialism.

[EmmaLee]

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/commenta ... 270%20days

APRIL 08, 2019
Commentary: Pete Buttigieg, Mike Pence, and the danger of Christianity that distances itself from the Bible

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is using his elevated political platform to promote a version of Christianity that makes the Word of God as revealed in the Bible secondary to personal preference.

The current mayor of South Bend, Indiana, a professing Christian and an openly gay man, has targeted another Christian, Vice President Mike Pence, attacking his faith for its adherence to biblical beliefs that have fallen out of popularity in society.

Buttigieg has gone on the offensive with a clear message: Any Christianity that does not affirm homosexuality as right is not valid.

Here's what Buttigieg said Sunday during a speech at the LGBTQ Victory Fund National Champagne Brunch:

"My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man. And yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God."

"You may be religious, and you may not. But, if you are, and you are also queer, and you have come through the other side of a period of wishing you weren't, then you know that that message, that this idea that there is something wrong with you, is a message that puts you at war, not only with yourself, but with your maker. And, speaking only for myself, I can tell you that if me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade.

And that's the thing I wish the Mike Pence's of the world would understand. That if you got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator."

The Bible says what the Bible says

People who are not Christians are expected to reject what the Bible says about sexuality, or anything else for that matter. But for a Christian, the Bible is essential as a foundation for what he or she believes.

The biblical stance of sexuality is that the only righteous expression of sex is between a man and a woman within the covenantal relationship we call marriage.

This view is established in Genesis ("That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." Genesis 2:24) and affirmed by Jesus in the New Testament ("Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate" Matthew 19:4-6).

Further clarity on this issue is found in the Law of Moses ("You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" Leviticus 18:22) and in the letters of the Apostle Paul ("Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Corinthians 6:9b-10).

Christians who ascribe to what the Bible says about sexuality do not have a "quarrel" with God; rather, it is the Christians who reject what the Bible says about an issue who have a quarrel with their creator, if they believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Sexuality does not make a person good or bad

Buttigieg talks about how his husband makes him a better, more compassionate person, and uses that as a basis for his stance that God could not possibly oppose gay marriage.

It's important to understand what the Bible does not say about sexuality. It does not say that homosexuality is some kind of super-sin that automatically makes a person worse in the eyes of God than a heterosexual person. It does not say that a gay person can't be decent, kind, charitable or a productive member of society. It does not say that a Christian cannot like, be friends with, or be kind to gay people.

The idea that Christians are called by God to hate and shun gay people because of their sexuality is a falsehood that comes not from the Bible, but from people who have wrongly used Christianity over the years as a cover for their own sinful and hateful ways of treating others. And that idea is used today to brand Bible-believing Christians as hate-mongers.

The Bible doesn't classify people as good and bad the way we do. The Bible says everyone is separated from God by their sin, whether that's homosexuality or any other kind of sin, and that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for those sins for all who believe in and follow Him.

After Paul lists homosexuality along with adultery and idolatry and greed and others, he doesn't go on to hammer harder on homosexuality. He gets to the important point: "Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11).

Good politics doesn't mean good Christianity

Buttigieg's shots at Mike Pence might be good political posturing. And his vague presentation of Christianity which doesn't deal specifically with what the Bible says might be appealing to a liberal electorate.

But it doesn't make for good Christianity. A Christianity that is detached from the Bible can easily become anything any person wants it to be, putting personal opinion in the seat of authority instead of God.

The Bible says what it says. Any Christian who decides it's alright to disregard any of it, tempting as that might be, risks bringing their own faith to ruin by removing the foundation on which it is built.

[EmmaLee]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... &vcid=8556

09 May 2019
Global Persecution of Christians Nearing Genocidal Levels, British Report Finds
Written by Dave Bohon

A study commissioned by the U.K. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has found that the persecution of Christians around the world is nearing near genocidal levels, and political correctness has kept the issue from being addressed.

The study, led by Anglican Bishop Philip Mounstephen, found that approximately one in three individuals suffer from religious persecution, with Christians being the most persecuted religious group in the world. “Persecution on grounds of religious faith is a global phenomenon that is growing in scale and intensity,” reads the report’s overview. “Though it is impossible to know the exact numbers of people persecuted for their faith, based on reports from different NGOs, it is estimated that one third of the world’s population suffers from religious persecution in some form, with Christians being the most persecuted group.”

The overview goes on to note that evidence suggests “acts of violence and other intimidation against Christians are becoming more widespread,” with concerted efforts by some groups in parts of the Middle East and Africa to “eradicate” the Christian faith in their areas.

The report cites a Pew Research Center study showing that in 2016 Christians were targeted in a total of 144 countries, up from 125 just a year earlier. The Pew study found that “Christians have been harassed in more countries than any other religious group and have suffered harassment in many of the heavily Muslim countries of the Middle East and North Africa.”

The U.K. report goes on to state that in some regions of the world, “the level and nature of persecution is arguably coming close to meeting the international definition of genocide.... The eradication of Christians and other minorities on pain of ‘the sword’ or other violent means was revealed to be the specific and stated objective of extremist groups in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria, and the Philippines.”

That “intent to erase all evidence of the Christian presence,” continued the report, “was made plain by the removal of crosses, the destruction of Church buildings and other Church symbols. The killing and abduction of clergy represented a direct attack on the Church’s structure and leadership. Where these and other incidents meet the tests of genocide, governments will be required to bring perpetrators to justice, aid victims and take preventative measures for the future.”

The BBC quoted Foreign Secretary Hunt as saying that he thought “political correctness” was, in part, responsible for a lack of response among Western nations to the rising problem of Christian persecution. Hearkening back to Britain’s history of global conquest, Hunt observed, “I think there is a misplaced worry that it is somehow colonialist to talk about a religion that was associated with colonial powers rather than the countries that we marched into as colonizers. That has perhaps created an awkwardness in talking about this issue — the role of missionaries was always a controversial one and that has, I think, also led some people to shy away from this topic.” He added that “what we have forgotten in that atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are some of the poorest people on the planet.”

Juliana Taimoorazy of the Iraqi Christian Relief Council concurred with the notion that political correctness has prompted many to ignore religious persecution, especially of Christians. “I believe the death of most people suffering today is truly because of political correctness,” she said, “because the world turns a blind eye to this, and when we are politically correct, we are sympathizing with those terrorists that are destroying communities and erasing history.”

The U.K. report noted that the Christian population in Palestine is now below 1.5 percent, and in Syria, where ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups have held sway, the number of Christians has dropped from 1.7 million in 2011 to below 450,000 today. Similarly, in Iraq, the Christian population has fallen from 1.5 million before 2003 (when the second Gulf War began) to fewer than 120,000 today.

“The main impact of such genocidal acts against Christians is exodus,” the report stated. “Christianity now faces the possibility of being wiped out in parts of the Middle East where its roots go back furthest…. Christianity is at risk of disappearing.”

In a statement, Bishop Mounstephen said that through his previous experience with the global church in Asia and Africa, “I was aware of the terrible reality of persecution, but to be honest in preparing this report I’ve been truly shocked by the severity, scale, and scope of the problem. It forces us in the West to ask ourselves some hard questions, not the least of which is this: why have we been so blind to this situation for so long? It is essential we now recognize that religion is a massive vulnerability marker for many communities worldwide. The oft-cited Western mantra that we attend to ‘need not creed’ disguises this fundamental fact. Put simply your creed might put you in much greater need — and we cannot be blind to that.”

He added that it “is also ironic that many western secularists, Islamic extremists, and authoritarian regimes share a common erroneous assumption: that the Christian faith is primarily an expression of white western privilege. In fact, Christianity is primarily a phenomenon of the global south and the global poor.”

[EmmaLee]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... &vcid=8556

Tuesday, 02 July 2019
Calif. Assembly Approves Resolution That Calls for Church Acceptance of LGBTQ
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

The California State Assembly voted 9-2 to send to the state senate a resolution calling on “religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy.”

While no one would argue with the aim of being more loving and more compassionate in our counsel of our fellow man, the people’s representatives do not possess any authority in the arena of religious practice.

Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution reads, in relevant part: “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Regardless of those restrictions, lawmakers in the California Assembly have chosen to ignore their state’s constitution and to introduce a measure that, should it ever become binding law, would drastically shrink the scope of religious liberty in the Golden State.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 99 authored by Assemblyman Evan Low seems to sidestep the state constitution’s guarantee of “free exercise and enjoyment of religion.”

Perhaps legislators in California would rather lose religious liberty than lose the votes of the so-called LGBTQ community.

Facts and fidelity to constitutional oaths (don’t forget that state legislators are required by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution to support that document) are so far from the fantasy world inhabited by these lawmakers, that the text of ACR 99 all but places blame on religious groups for suicide rates among those people identified as LGBTQ. The resolution declares: “The stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals.”

That’s right. Representatives in California point to the pulpit and the pastors that preach from them as the causes of depression and suicide among those tortured souls who feel compelled — for one reason or another — to fight against the genetic verities of their gender.

In the next paragraph of the resolution, the madness marches on: “In a pluralistic society, people differing along spectrums of political and religious perspectives share a common responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of all children and vulnerable communities.”

Here’s a question: Wouldn’t a pluralistic society by definition disagree on what their respective responsibilities would be toward “vulnerable communities?” In fact, wouldn’t the many members of such a society likely disagree as to what would qualify as “vulnerable?”

The answer to anyone committed to reason would be “Yes.” But to those who believe themselves on the cusp of controlling churches and outlawing disagreement with the decadent, there is no commitment to reason, there is only a rush to regulate religion — religion that doesn’t meet their multicultural muster — out of existence, a least on the Left Coast.

The faithful, thankfully, are not sitting idly by while their most basic liberties are under barrage by the irreligious and irrational members of the state assembly.

"Everyone deserves respect in this discussion and dialogue about what kind of counseling should be allowed in California. But to join in a document … that really slanders the church and slanders good counselors and good patients. It's unexplainable and it's really inexcusable,” said Roger Gannam, vice president of legal affairs for Liberty Counsel, as reported by CBN News.

"We have a track record," said Gannam. "We have actual patients and clients who have benefitted from therapy to help them with their unwanted attractions. We've helped them change their lives. We've helped them to live heterosexual lifestyles with strong and healthy marriages and so it's really a slander against them to say that this practice is somehow unethical and harmful.”

As to the harm or help brought about by so-called conversion therapy, that is a matter for those more educated in those matters than I.

What I can say with certainty, however, is that conversion therapy involving minors has been illegal in California since 2012!

With that fact in mind, it doesn’t take Sherlockian insight to see what is the real reason for this latest attack on Christianity. It’s just that: an attack on Christianity.

As Nicole Russell writes in the Washington Examiner, “Since conversion therapy is already banned, it’s clear this resolution is meant to pave the way for penalizing religious communities in California, for standing up for what they believe in, a direct violation of their First Amendment rights.”

Russell’s recognition of the state assembly’s obvious animosity toward the church and those who believe in that institution’s ability to assist them in living better lives is echoed by more than two dozen counselors, Christian leaders, and laymen who report being brought happiness through adherence to the tenets taught at church. The group wrote a letter condemning the resolution, which they insist denies Californians of their constitutionally protected freedom of conscience. The parties who penned the letter wrote:

Religious freedom is an inalienable right recognized within the context of America’s religious heritage; it rests upon the insight that human beings of every kind are endowed with equal worth because each and every one of us bears the glorious image of Nature’s God. Every person in California, therefore, is entitled to the freedom to develop their own sense of identity whether traditionally unto God or not. Religious leaders have the Constitutionally protected right to teach religious doctrine in accordance with their faith, and politicians have no right to tell clergy what is moral, dictate the content of their sermons, or instruct them in religious counseling.

Were the 64 assemblymen currently signed on as cosponsors of ACR 99 genuinely interested in protecting a pluralistic society, wouldn’t they logically avoid any effort — even nonbinding ones — to squelch opposing viewpoints? Logically, yes, but as the text of this resolution makes crystal clear, the authors and sponsors of this measure aren’t given to behaving logically.

It should be restated that in its current form, the resolution has no legal teeth. Should the state senate follow the example of their colleagues in the state assembly and approve ACR 99, the measure could, after completion of certain parliamentary procedures, metastasize into a bill that could become law and change forever the fate of the faithful in California.

While this is unlikely to happen, it will be much less likely if men and women of faith in California communicate their opposition to this resolution and any additional — more legally binding — attempts to mandate the message preached, professed, and practiced by believers.

I’ll give the last word, as I always try to do, to one of our Founding Fathers. In this case, it’s counsel Thomas Jefferson included in his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom written in 1779: “That to suffer the civil Magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty; because he being of course Judge of that tendency will make his own opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with, or differ from his own.”