House Judiciary Committee Investigating AG Holder for Perjury -–> Full Report

Barracuda Brigade: We’ll make it simple for ya all, yes he did; he’s Guilty of Perjury…

The House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) surveillance of reporters, an aide close to the matter told The Hill.

The panel is looking at a statement Holder made during a back and forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) about whether the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.

“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.

However, NBC News reported the following week that Holder personally approved a search warrant that labeled Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen a co-conspirator in a national security leaks case.

The panel is investigating whether NBC’s report contradicts Holder’s claim that he had not looked into or been involved with a possible prosecution of the press in a leaks case.

The May 15 Judiciary hearing was held after The Associated Press revealed Justice had secretly subpoenaed its phone records in a separate leaks investigation.

Justice did not return a request for comment, but Johnson on Tuesday defended Holder, arguing his statement was specific to Johnson’s line of questioning about the Espionage Act and not meant to pertain to other investigations.

“The attorney general’s statement that no journalists have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act during his tenure is accurate,” he told The Hill.

Johnson said he raised the Espionage Act issue because he believes the law could be misused to target reporters due to the way it was written. He argued it should be changed.

“Congress is responsible for protecting the press while giving law enforcement the tools to prosecute officials who leak classified information,” Johnson said. “I support considering amendments to the Espionage Act and passing the Free Flow of Information Act to refine this balance.”

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, told The Hill that Holder was “forthright” with the panel and that there was “no need to turn a policy disagreement into allegations of misconduct.”

But Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.), the second-ranking Judiciary Committee Republican, told The Hill that Holder should resign.

He accused the attorney general of misleading the panel during the investigation of the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking operation, and again when he claimed to not know about the AP probe.

“As we saw in Fast and Furious and are seeing now, Attorney General Holder refuses to hold himself accountable,” Sensenbrenner said. “He misled the Judiciary Committee under oath when he said he had not heard about Fast and Furious and he misled us again when he claimed to be unaware of the AP scandal. The head of DOJ should be someone the American people can trust. Attorney General Holder should resign.”

Justice’s probe into national security leaks is threatening to become the biggest controversy of Holder’s career.

President Obama last week said he was “troubled” by reports about the DOJ’s surveillance of reporters, and argued that journalists “should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.”

He ordered Holder to review his department’s guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters. The DOJ will present its findings to the president on July 12.

A report in The Daily Beast over the weekend suggested Holder felt a sense of personal remorse over the aggressive tactics used in targeting the Fox News reporter. Citing aides close to Holder, the article said the Attorney General knew Justice would be besieged by questions about the two probes as he read a Washington Post story about the investigation of Rosen.

The DOJ seized Rosen’s personal emails and used other surveillance methods to investigate whether he was complicit in a leak of classified information. It also examined Rosen’s phone records and tracked his visits to the State Department using security-badge data during the 2009 probe.

Justice filed legal papers saying Rosen may have acted as “an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” by getting materials from a government official also under investigation.

The investigation was primarily focused on rooting out Rosen’s alleged source, a State Department worker who is facing federal charges for disclosing classified national security information and could see a trial as soon as next year. The DOJ has said it never intended to prosecute Rosen.

Some Republican senators have said Holder should not be in charge of reviewing his own department.

Speaking on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) called Holder’s review a “conflict of interest.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said a special counsel or some other independent body should be appointed to conduct the review.

The DOJ has also faced criticism over its seizure of phone records belonging to the AP. The news wire was never a target of that investigation.

The House voted to find Holder in contempt over his refusal to turn over documents to lawmakers on “Fast and Furious,” an operation in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives purposely allowed guns to be illegally purchased in the United States and Mexico in the hope they could be tracked.

Technorati Tags: Eric Holder,perjury,Attorney General Holder,resign,Obamaland,DOJ,press-gate,James Rosen,scandals,cover-ups,House Judiciary Committee,first amendment,freedom of the press,AP,espionage,lied under oath,guilty

AG Holder Perjures Himself Under Oath On Press Surveillance Scandal

Joshua Pundit: Here's a smoking gun for you. Attorney General Holder is speaking to Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia of the oversight committee about the AP scandal...and at 5:00 Holder says clearly, under oath that he never had anything to do with signing off on spying on the press:

"In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy."

Today, it came out that it was Eric Holder who personally signed off on the warrant to spy on FOX News senior correspondent James Rosen... and who knows how many others. Not only that, but it was Holder's decision to keep the warrants secret for years. Can you say 'fishing expedition'? Can you say clear violation of the First Amendment?

Sure you can.

And who was the DOJ attorney who filed in district court to keep the illegal surveillance ongoing and secret for years even though they hadn't found anything? That would be U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen - the same attorney who was charged with deciding whether to pursue the House’s contempt citation against his boss, Eric Holder, over Fast and Furious. And - what a coincidence - he just happens to be leading the FBI investigation into the leak that involved the DOJ subpoenaing AP reporters’ phone records.

And who appointed him to that position? None other than James Cole, Holder's deputy, who took over after Holder recused himself.

Even more disgusting, President Obama acted socked, just shocked about all this and proclaimed yesterday in that faux sincere baritone of his that he had  ordered the Attorney General to review the DOJ’s guidelines for spying on reporters.

In other words, Eric Holder will be in charge of investigating what Eric Holder did. And in the areas where he recused himself , he has a couple of loyal, dependable  soldiers to take care of things.

Yet the fact remains that Holder committing perjury and likely obstruction of justice, and that particular cat is now out of the bag.

Technorati Tags: press-gate,purjury,Eric Holder,AP,Fox News,media,freedom of the press,Fast and Furious,scandal,cover-ups,lies,DOJ,James Rosen

Christmas Trees

“He who has not Christmas in his heart will never find it under a tree!” …Roy L. Smith

By Marion Algier – The War on Christmas verses the Spirit of Christmas Series at AskMarion – 9

Every December we celebrate Christmas and part of this is a Christmas tree. Let’s tackle the history of the Christmas Tree

Many historians and anthropologists agree that the history of Christmas trees begins in post-primeval times, just as agricultural societies were developing across the globe. Christmas did not exist. It was simply, in one culture or another, a pagan celebration of the winter solstice. The winter solstice marks the shortest day of the year which usually occurs on the 22nd or 23rd of December. The boughs of evergreen trees were brought indoors to protect inhabitants from the evil spirits that could cause starvation and illness.

Ancient peoples also scattered evergreen boughs over their floors, doors and around the windows. In fact, the tradition of hanging an evergreen garland comes from the tradition of hanging evergreens over the mantelpiece to keep witches, ghosts and spirits from traveling down the chimney and into the house.

Evergreen boughs were also used to keep away illness. Scents such as pine, juniper and balsam are still used by aromatherapists today to fend off illness and winter depression.

Even the ancient Egyptians were thought to play a role in the history of Christmas trees. Of course there were no evergreen forests in ancient Egypt but during the solstice they filled their homes with palm rushes to protect themselves from evil and celebrate the return of their Sun God Ra.

European and Mediterranean cultures also have episodes in the long saga that is part of the history of Christmas trees. On the solstice, known as Saturnalia, the Romans decorated their homes with evergreen boughs. This honored the God Saturn whose domain was agriculture. Further north, the Celtic Druids used evergreens on the darkest day of the year to symbolize eternal life. These trees were not decorated as we know them today. They were not much more decorative than the famous Charlie brown Christmas tree. This is because the function of these evergreen boughs was more protective than celebratory.

By the 12th century indoor trees were brought inside. Nobody is sure why but originally Christmas trees were hung upside-down from ceilings at Christmastime. This was a popular custom in Central Europe. The upside down tree was seen as both as a symbol of Christianity and a pagan symbol. At that point Christianity was not wide spread and the tree may have been a nod to both pagan and Christian traditions.

It is widely believed that the history of the Christmas tree as we know it began in Germany in the sixteenth century. However few people realize that the tree was not brought inside and that in fact, the first decorated Christmas tree was a pyramid made of wood. These German indoor pyramids were decorated with boughs and candles. Often jars of pickles were set on the steps. The pyramid shape was not a direct inspiration from ancient Egypt but rather, the triangular shape was thought to represent the three points of the Holy Trinity – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The next big development in the history of Christmas trees was tinsel. Tinsel was invented in Germany around 1610. At that time, tinsel was made of real silver and it tarnished easily thanks to the smoke from the Christmas tree candles. Silver was used for tinsel right up to the mid-20th century when it was replaced by aluminum.

The history of Christmas trees was non-existent in America until about the 1840s. They were sometimes displayed as curios in traveling sideshows. The Christmas tree decorating ritual was considered sacrilegious for most of the 17th and 18th century. It was seen as a mockery of the sober celebration of the birth of Christ. In fact in 1659, people were fined for hanging decorations. This law continued until the 19th century when the tradition was brought more into common practice by German and Irish immigrants to the United States. The practice was also made more acceptable when Queen Victoria decided to make a right side up floor-to-ceiling Xmas tree part of her décor in 1846.

One difference between European customs and American customs seemed to be that Europeans were more inclined to decorate their trees with food, cookies and candies (and even pickles!) whereas Americans were more into glitzy decorations. Also the European Christmas trees tended to be shorter (three to four feet in height) while the Americans preferred their trees to be sky-high. Both cultures however enjoyed decorating their trees with garlands of popcorns and electric lights.

In the 1950s America saw the advent of the first artificial Christmas trees. This event was celebrated by Charles M. Schulz famous fable about the Charlie brown Christmas tree. In this fable Charlie Brown is told by Linus, Lucy and Shroeder to go out and find the biggest flashiest aluminum tree to use as a decoration for their Christmas play. Instead Brown falls in love with the most pathetic tree ever and finds the true meaning of Christmas. You can buy a replica of this type of tree which is often called the “pathetic Charlie brown Christmas tree” online. True to the original cartoon, the tree boasts just one red Christmas ball ornament on a single bare limb.

The argument about which is better – a fake Christmas tree or a real Christmas tree still rages on today. The most recent development in the history of Christmas trees is the return of the upside down Christmas tree, which is disapproved by the church just as it was in the sixteenth century. If history keeps repeating itself the next trend we will see in Christmas trees is the ancient wooden pyramids that served as artificial trees in pagan times.

h/t: Bukisa

Christmas Trees ‘Round the World

The Capitol Christmas tree in Washington, D.C., is decorated with 3,000 ornaments that are the handiwork of U.S. schoolchildren. Encircling evergreens in the ‘Pathway of Peace’ represent the 50 U.S. states.

The world’s largest Christmas tree display rises up the slopes of Monte Ingino outside of Gubbio, in Italy’s Umbria region. Composed of about 500 lights connected by 40,000 feet of wire, the ‘tree’ is a modern marvel for an ancient city

A Christmas tree befitting Tokyo’s nighttime neon display is projected onto the exterior of the Grand Prince Hotel Akasaka.

Illuminating the Gothic facades of Prague’s Old Town Square, and casting its glow over the manger display of the famous Christmas market, is a grand tree cut in the Sumava mountains in the southern Czech Republic.

Venice ‘s Murano Island renowned throughout the world for its quality glasswork is home to the tallest glass tree in the world. Sculpted by master glass blower Simone Cenedese, the artistic Christmas tree is a modern reflection of the holiday season.

Moscow celebrates Christmas according to the Russian Orthodox calendar on Jan. 7. For weeks beforehand, the city is alive with festivities in anticipation of Father Frost’s arrival on his magical troika with the Snow Maiden. He and his helper deliver gifts under the New Year tree, or yolka, which is traditionally a fir.

The largest Christmas tree in Europe (more than 230 feet tall) can be found in the Praco Comarcio in Lisbon, Portugal. Thousands of lights adorn the tree, adding to the special enchantment of the city during the holiday season.

‘Oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree’: Even in its humblest attire, aglow beside a tiny chapel in Germany’s Karwendel mountains, a Christmas tree is a wondrous sight.

Ooh la la Galeries Lafayette! In Paris, even the Christmas trees are chic. With its monumental, baroque dome, plus 10 stories of lights and high fashion, it’s no surprise this show-stopping department store draws more visitors than the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower

In addition to the Vatican’s heavenly evergreen, St. Peter’s Square in Rome hosts a larger-than-life nativity scene in front of the obelisk.

The Christmas tree that greets revelers at the Puerta del Sol is dressed for a party. Madrid’s two-week celebration makes millionaires along with merrymakers. On Dec. 22, a lucky citizen will win El Gordo (the fat one), the world’s biggest lottery.

A token of gratitude for Britain’s aid during World War II, the Christmas tree in London’s Trafalgar Square has been the annual gift of the people of Norway since 1947.

Drink a glass of gluhwein from the holiday market at the Romer Frankfurt’s city hall since 1405 and enjoy a taste of Christmas past.

Against a backdrop of tall, shadowy firs, a rainbow trio of Christmas trees lights up the night (location unknown).

Senior Citizens Protest After Apartment Manager Bans Christmas Trees: ‘Where’s Our Freedom?’

Photo Credit: Andy Holzman/Daily News Staff Photographer

(Blaze) Residents at The Willows, a senior adult apartment complex in Newhall, California, are outraged after management banned the presence of Christmas trees and menorahs from communal areas within the building.

A memorandum was issued to residents by B Partners Group, demanding that the Christmas tree already present in one of the shared spaces be removed, as it is considered a religious symbol. Rather than backing down and complying, two dozen residents responded with a protest rally (featuring coffee and doughnuts). The group placed a sign on the tree that reads, “Please Save Our Tree.”

“We’re all angry. We want that tree,” Fern Sheel, a resident at The Willows, told the Los Angeles Daily News. “Where’s our freedom? This is ridiculous.”

“We could put out Easter baskets, have turkey for Thanksgiving but no tree for Christmas because it has Christ’s name in the beginning of Christmas,” added Edna Johnson, another outraged resident.

Another resident, Max Green is, is so frustrated that he’s considering witholding his rent.

“I’ve got grandkids and they come here and now they’ll ask, ‘Grandpa, where’s the Christmas tree?,’” he told the Daily News. “Then I’ll have to explain that someone said we couldn’t have one. What kind of message is that sending to the kids?”

This is the first time that the company, which has owned the building for four years, has issued such a directive. So far, B Partners Group has not responded to the furor.

(H/T: Todd Starns’ Fox News)

O’Reilly Jokes About ‘Obama Is a Muslim’ Truthers: President’s Christmas Trees Are ‘All Facing Mecca’

'Wicked': Farrakhan decries Santa and the Christmas tree

Additional War on Christmas Rages... stories from the Blaze:

- Ellen Degeneres’ Christmas Ad Sparks Conservative Protest:  ‘Christians Must Now Vote With Their Wallets’

- See These People Fail Miserably at a Basic Christmas Quiz: ‘Where Was Jesus Born?’

- Christians find live nativity "loophole" following atheist-led ban

- Church cancels Charlie Brown Christmas show after atheist angst

A Charlie Brown Christmas [Blu-ray]

- Jon Stewart: There's no War on Christmas

- TX teacher: Santa is fake

- Atheists push mock pasta-decorated Christmas tree

- How should Christians respond to the War on Christmas?

Related:

Hanukkah, Hanukah, Chanukah

European Markets or Christkindlmarkts Capture the Christmas Spirit

St. Nickolas Day

So Where Is the War on Christmas Coming From? – A Worthwhile Read!

Best Holiday Movie Classics – A Merry Christmas From Hollywood

God Rest Ye Merry Merchants – Christmas: An American Holiday and Tradition to Love and Preserve

Advent – The Season of Anticipation and Hope

The War on Christmas verses the Spirit of Christmas Series at AskMarion – with comments from Ben Stein

Red Kettles & Bell Ringers

Atheists intimidate Santa Monica into eliminating Nativity… And So the War on Christmas and Freedom of Religion Continues – Churches Thwart Nativity Ban By Putting Up Living Displays In Santa Monica

Black Friday Holiday Shopping Kick-off Overshadows True Meaning of Christmas

What Movies in History Best Captures the Spirit of Thanksgiving?

“Holidays Are Great and Fun To Share With Our Pets, As Long As We Avoid the No-No Foods”

Christianity & Gun Owners in the Crosshairs: Chilling Tactic Exposed

A great read: Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity

Technorati Tags: Christmas Trees,Seniors,First Amendment,American Traditions,American values,Charity,Christkindlmarkt,Christmas,Germany,holidays,Spirit of Christmas,The War on… The War on Christmas,war on Christianity,War on Christmas,War on Religion

Atheists intimidate Santa Monica into eliminating Nativity… And So the War on Christmas and Freedom of Religion Continues

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Damon Vix didn't have to go to court to push Christmas out of the city of Santa Monica. He just joined the festivities.

The atheist's anti-God message alongside a life-sized nativity display in a park overlooking the beach ignited a debate that burned brighter than any Christmas candle.

Santa Monica officials snuffed the city's holiday tradition this year rather than referee the religious rumble, prompting churches that have set up a 14-scene Christian diorama for decades to sue over freedom of speech violations. Their attorney will ask a federal judge Monday to resurrect the depiction of Jesus' birth, while the city aims to eject the case.

"It's a sad, sad commentary on the attitudes of the day that a nearly 60-year-old Christmas tradition is now having to hunt for a home, something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested," said Hunter Jameson, head of the nonprofit Santa Monica Nativity Scene Committee that is suing.

Missing from the courtroom drama will be Vix and his fellow atheists, who are not parties to the case. Their role outside court highlights a tactical shift as atheists evolve into a vocal minority eager to get their non-beliefs into the public square as never before.

National atheist groups earlier this year took out full-page newspaper ads and hundreds of TV spots in response to the Catholic bishops' activism around women's health care issues and are gearing up to battle for their own space alongside public Christmas displays in small towns across America this season.

"In recent years, the tactic of many in the atheist community has been, if you can't beat them, join them," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center and director of the Newseum's Religious Freedom Education Project in Washington. "If these church groups insist that these public spaces are going to be dominated by a Christian message, we'll just get in the game - and that changes everything."

In the past, atheists primarily fought to uphold the separation of church and state through the courts. The change underscores the conviction held by many nonbelievers that their views are gaining a foothold, especially among young adults.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a study last month that found 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years. Atheists took heart from the report, although Pew researchers stressed that the category also encompassed majorities of people who said they believed in God but had no ties with organized religion and people who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious."

"We're at the bottom of the totem pole socially, but we have muscle and we're flexing it," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation. "Ignore our numbers at your peril."

The trouble in Santa Monica began three years ago, when Vix applied for and was granted a booth in Palisades Park alongside the story of Jesus Christ's birth, from Mary's visit from the Angel Gabriel to the traditional crèche.

Vix hung a simple sign that quoted Thomas Jefferson: "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies." The other side read "Happy Solstice." He repeated the display the following year but then upped the stakes significantly.

In 2011, Vix recruited 10 others to inundate the city with applications for tongue-in-cheek displays such as a homage to the "Pastafarian religion," which would include an artistic representation of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. The two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

The atheists used half their spaces, displaying signs such as one that showed pictures of Poseidon, Jesus, Santa Claus and the devil and said: "37 million Americans know myths when they see them. What myths do you see?"

Most of the signs were vandalized and in the ensuing uproar, the city effectively ended a tradition that began in 1953 and earned Santa Monica one of its nicknames, the City of the Christmas Story.

The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee argues in its lawsuit that atheists have the right to protest, but that freedom doesn't trump the Christians' right to free speech.

"If they want to hold an opposing viewpoint about the celebration of Christmas, they're free to do that - but they can't interfere with our right to engage in religious speech in a traditional public forum," said William Becker, attorney for the committee. "Our goal is to preserve the tradition in Santa Monica and to keep Christmas alive."

The city doesn't prohibit churches from caroling in the park, handing out literature or even staging a play about the birth of Jesus and churches can always set up a nativity on private land, Deputy City Attorney Jeanette Schachtner said in an email.

The decision to ban the displays also saves the city, which had administered the cumbersome lottery process used to award booths, both time and money while preserving the park's aesthetics, she said.

For his part, Vix is surprised - and slightly amused - at the legal battle spawned by his solitary act but doesn't plan anything further.

"That was such a unique and blatant example of the violation of the First Amendment that I felt I had to act," said the 44-year-old set builder. "If I had another goal, it would be to remove the `under God' phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance - but that's a little too big for me to take on for right now."

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but also states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That has been interpreted by courts as providing for separation of church and state, barring government bodies from promoting, endorsing or funding religion or religious institutions.

Related:

Court sides with Christian publishing house

Did You Know… the Founding Fathers and God

Ben Stein on Christmas

God Rest Ye Merry Merchants

Losing Our Religion

For Fourth Straight Year, Obama’s Thanksgiving Message Doesn’t Thank God

A National Crisis in Character… So Let Us Recapture The Culture!

Technorati Tags: War on Christmas,War on Religion,Progressivism,Freedom of Religion,holidays,individual freedoms,Constitution,First Amendment,California,Santa Monica. Christmas,War on Christianity,stand-up America,Stand-up Christians,Stand-up Constitutionalists,Christianity under attack,liberalism,the tail wagging the dog,Atheists,Thomas Jefferson,Nativity Scene,God,Bill of Rights

Forum – Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

JoshuaPundit on Oct 29 2012 at 12:36 am - The Council Forum

Last week, the New York State Appeals Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

The ruling itself was based on a very narrow criteria, since there was a plaintiff that obviously suffered financial damages because of a spousal deduction she would otherwise have received on the estate tax on her deceased partner’s estate as a result. But with the Supreme Court set to rule on the Constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, this week the Council addresses the question: Is DOMA unconstitutional? How will the recent ruling affect coming Supreme Court ruling on Same Sex Marriage?:

The Independent Sentinel: I don’t want the federal government involved in this at all. I prefer it be a states rights issue. I feel the same way about abortion. I am opposed to big government and I am against changing the constitution for social issues.

I think DOMA will be found unconstitutional but I think it should be found Constitutional on the basis of states rights and the right of people to choose.

I will become concerned about this issue if it begins to affect freedom of religion. Religions that only marry one man and one woman must be allowed to do so or I don’t think we can call ourselves free any longer.

I believe the only civil rights issue in this country is the abuse of African-Americans through slavery and decades of oppression. No other issue, not even an important social choice issue, should take away from that.

The Colossus of Rhodey: It seems the main problem the recent court ruling against DOMA has is with the law’s Section 3 which defines marriage *federally* as between a man and a woman. The ruling invoked “equal protection;” if the SCOTUS rules as the circuit court did, it will enshrine a right to collect benefits (from the feds) for legally married gay couples. BUT — it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the rest of DOMA would be stricken. The Act allows states to decide whether they want to recognize gay marriages (and those performed in other states), and a cursory reading of the Constitution’s Article IV shows that this part of the law *should be* constitutional re: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Clause notes that “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” In other words, those in favor of striking the entire law would have to demonstrate how Congress does *not* have the right to prescribe how its laws are enacted, or, in this case, why another state would *not* have the right to refuse to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state.

It will be difficult to guess what the SCOTUS will rule. If the states still get to decide the question of marriage, then could a gay couple still be able to collect federal benefits from a non-gay marriage state (if they were “married,” in a state which allowed such, but they didn’t actually *reside* in such a state)? If so, how and why? Or, can only those who were [gay] married in a state which allowed such unions be permitted to collect such benefits?

The Glittering Eye: There are two ways of answering that question. The answer in law is absolutely, positively not. But the practical answer is different. The practical answer is that whatever the currently sitting Supreme Court justices say is unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

I’m guessing that, considering that there’s a majority of sexual libertarians on the court,the present Court will strike down the DOMA.

The Noisy Room: Yes, DOMA is unconstitutional for the simple reason that its foundation premise, that government has any business moderating marriage, is fundamentally broken. DOMA falls into that broader fascist category of “good ideas enforced at gun point.” If a constitutional foundation can be found and established for the concept that government is somehow the appropriate arbiter of the act of marriage at all, then a case can be made for DOMA because to the degree that government brokers marriage, government must then define it. However, the constitution offers no support for what was at the time a cultural and religious construct which more modernly, has been annexed as one of the “proper functions” of government.

I don’t see any constitutional support for it and in fact, it plays into the concept that government can replace religion. And this is one of the greasier slopes on which one can embark. This goes further to a broader premise that government somehow owns “citizens,” or as the British prefer to call them, “subjects.” As the premise broadens, it encroaches on education (all your kids are belong to us) and “health and welfare.” We have to keep you healthy so you are productive, our revenue depends on it. This, then, “logically” flows into mandated morality, and while actual crime is a province of government, what you eat for breakfast, how you iron your shirts and with whom you spend your nights is not. See Atlas Shrugged.

So, although this is a blatant attempt to pander to the gay community by Obama, DOMA is not constitutional in my viewpoint. Marriage is a personal (or religious) act, not a government province.

Bookworm Room: Yes, I do believe that DOMA is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not contemplate marriage at a federal level. For that reason, it is a matter that, technically speaking, should be left to the states. Having said that, let’s get to the modern wrinkles. When the Constitution was ratified, the Founders could not have imagined same-sex marriage. It did not exist at the time. Had the notion existed, the Founders might have chosen to address marriage in the Constitution for one very specific reason: The full faith and credit clause, which obligates each state to recognize the duly passed laws of the other states. The problem with laws that provide fundamentally different definitions of marriage (such as those allowing polygamy or same sex marriage) is that, as people move from one state to another, they may be legally married in State A, but not in State B. Any subsequent property, child custody, or third party contract disputes become a nightmare.

With new definitions of marriage never imagined by the Founders, the correct way to deal with the issue is through a Constitutional amendment. If I could draft the amendment, I would remove “marriage” from government control and leave it solely to religious institutions to “marry” people. Government should have power over “civil unions,” and that power should be exercised in whatever way is most beneficial to advance state goals of economic stability, generational property transfers, and the overall best situation for children. Civil unions could certainly encompass same sex couples. I would be loath to extend civil unions to polygamy, though, because of the problems with economic stability and generational property transfers. (England, which legally recognizes polygamous marriages from Muslim countries, demonstrates that, in a Western culture, it’s hard for a single man to support multiple women. These polygamous families end up using welfare disproportionately.)

I’m deeply concerned that, if same sex “marriage” becomes a constitutional right, we’ll have a major constitutional clash between church and state, one that makes the current fight over funding abortion look like a kindergarten party. Think of it: In the Catholic faith, marriage is a sacrament. Can you imagine what will happen to the First Amendment freedom of religion if it crashes headlong into some new amendment mandating gay “marriage.” If, however, the state passes an amendment recognizing civil unions, churches can continue to marry whomever their doctrine recognizes.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Technorati Tags: DOMA,New York,Defense of Marriage Act,unconstitutional,law,marriage,Watcher's Council,bloggers,blogosphere,watch the other hand,educate yourself,alternative media,news,news nuggets,US Constitution,same sex marriage,Founding Fathers,states rights,you be the judge,First Amendment

NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About

I would also take the time to watch this short video from one of the co-counsels on the case as to exactly what the government is arguing in court. Not a word from the mainstream media on the most important court case in American history. One that will decide the fate of a law that will effectively dismantle at least a third of The Bill of Rights.

Video:  CO-Counsel speaks after #NDAA hearing

NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About

Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA. In case you don’t remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial. At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won’t use it. Thanks pal!

In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May. The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others. While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, I believe the real target is the 1st Amendment. By having a law on the books that allows the government to arbitrarily lock anyone up and throw away the key, the government is actually trying to instill enough fear in people that they self-censor speech and become too afraid to criticize the criminal political and economic ruling and elite oligarchy… both here in the United States (Progressive politicians and media) and globally including members of groups like  the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateralists, International Bankers, etc.

Tangerine Bolen is one the lead plaintiffs in the suit against the government and she penned a powerful piece for the UK’s Guardian. Here are some key quotes:

I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.

In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.

Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an “associated force”, and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

This past week’s hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction.

Full article here.

Please share this with everyone that cares about Liberty and The Republic.

Related:

Doug Hagmann: Obama Re-election Insurrection Imminent – Updated – A Must Read

Judge Strikes Down NDAA, Rules Obama Must Obey Constitution

HR 347 Just Passed Without Notice – US "Trespass Bill" will make protest illegal

OWS and the planned “endgame” for the U.S.

Video: NDAA Floor Speech Jan 18 2012

Obama’s Possible October Surprise: Will He Use the Military To Sway the Electorate?

Technorati Tags: NDAA,NDAA lawsuit,unconstitutional,detention,unlawful detention,National Defense Authorization Act,wake-up America,Bill of Rights,Dismantling the Constitution,First Amendment,martial law,ruling elites,watch the other hand

Bishop Jenky: Obama like Hitler, Stalin

Video:  Bishop Jenky: Obama like Hitler, Stalin

 

Faith Under Fire – The Global Threat to Religious Freedom

Faith Under Fire

Please join us for this eye-opening Chicago-area conference on the worldwide crisis in religious freedom. We will examine the plight of persecuted religious minorities in Islamic countries as representatives of these communities offer riveting testimony. Key members of the U.S. Congress will discuss the latest legislation and actions intended to prevent genocide. Recognized international and national experts will offer insightful analysis of policy issues and the global threat to religious freedom.

Register now!

GROUP PRICING: If you are interested in purchasing tickets in bulk at a discounted rate, please contact the Center for Security Policy at 202-835-9077 and we will be happy to process your order by phone.

Presented by the Center for Security Policy  - h/t to TMH at the NoisyRoom

Religious Liberty: Obamacare's First Casualty

Video:  Religious Liberty: Obamacare's First Casualty

Related:

War On:  Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth!!

BECK GOES GLOBAL, MEETS WITH CATHOLIC CLERGY & INTERNATIONAL TEA PARTY LEADERS IN ROME

For those who watch GBTV, you know that Beck was off for a few days on assignment.

The political discourse has been dominated by the religious liberty debate that continues to intensify between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration – an issue that Glenn Beck has tackled quite frequently on his radio and television programs. This weekend, The Blaze has confirmed that Beck flew from Miami to Rome, where he had meetings with prominent Catholic Church leaders. In addition to holding discussions with them about important religious freedom issues, Beck also met with individuals from various countries to discuss the creation of an international Tea Party movement.

During his dialogue with Cardinals, Monsignors, Archbishops and other Catholic leaders, the popular host pledged support for the church, while also discussing ways in which members of various faith communities can join in solidarity against secular attacks against religion. As evidenced through his work, Beck has long encouraged people of all faiths to stand together — distinct and separate in their beliefs — but united in their support of everyone to practice those ideals without persecution.

Photo: Glenn Beck with Cardinal Dolan

Additionally, Beck met with Tea Party leaders from Rome, Serbia, Milan, Germany, Austria, and London, among other localities, to begin discussing an international coalition that is being headed by FreedomWorks. Reflecting the ideals held by peace and freedom proponents in America, the persons involved discussed their goals for an integrated global effort to champion Tea Party ideals.

Be sure to listen to his radio show on Monday, as Beck will be sharing all of the details surrounding his meetings with church leaders and international Tea Party groups, while also delving into his vision for a multi-faith coalition that stands in support of religious liberty. Additionally, throughout the upcoming week, The Blaze will provide ongoing information and follow-up reports that further explain what’s to come.

These meetings with Catholic leaders are the latest in a series of discussions that Beck has had with numerous faith leaders, including evangelical pastors and rabbis, among others. His efforts to connect with these theologically diverse individuals reflect his desire to bring adherents from various faith traditions together to support religious liberty here in America and abroad.

“We are not battling for the next election, we’re battling for the very soul of each of us and of our nation,” he recently proclaimed on GBTV.

Religious liberty is becoming an issue of great importance across the globe, as Christians, Jews, Muslims and other faith traditions grapple with an increasingly hostile clash with the atheist and “freethinking” community. Additionally, governmental policies are, in many ways, beginning to mirror secularist ideals that tend, in the views of many religious peoples and institutions, to threaten spiritual expression.

Beck and his wife, Tania, walk in Vatican City

The examples are limitless. Earlier this month, England’s high court found prayer before local council meetings to be unlawful, and last week Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, a Muslim who is also a British Cabinet member, maintained that Europe is being threatened by militant secularism. Considering New York City churches’ battle for the right to rent public school buildings, incessant attacks on Ten Commandment displays, and secularists’ never-ending efforts to force churches to violate their consciences, Beck’s coalition is coming at an appropriate time.

In addition to holding these meetings, Beck went to Greece in preparation for a special project he will soon be announcing. Tune in to GlennBeck.com, GBTV and The Blaze for more on these important announcements.

Via: The Blaze, by Billy Hallowell  -  h/t to Congressman Tom Tancredo

Related articles

• Beck Announces ‘We Are All Catholics Now’ Movement to Stand Up for Religious Freedom (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Beck To O’Reilly: Obama’s ‘War On Faith’ Is To Spark ‘Confrontation’ On The Streets (mediaite.com)
• Glenn Beck Launches ‘We Are All Catholics Now’ Movement (mediaite.com)
• War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom (askmarion.wordpress.com/)
• Video: What is the HHS Mandate Really About? (web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=20096331)
• Catholic Church in Italy Loses Tax Exempt Status (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Only Mad Dogs And Glenn Beck’s Men Go Out In The Midday Sun (thecampofthesaints.org)
• Glenn Beck continues his attacks on people of faith (mydd.com)
• Obama’s Catholic Church Gambit: Lessons from American Communists (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Obama Picks Fight With Catholic Church in an Election Year: Game On (w/videos) (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
• Santorum: Obama believes in ‘phony theology’ not based on Bible (firstread.msnbc.msn.com)
• Enough Of The Fake Outrage Over Contraception (angrydd.wordpress.com)
• David Barton Tells Pat and Stu About the ‘We are all Catholics’ Movement (theblaze.com)

Recommended Reading: Indivisible and Being George Washington

War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius answered questions in Congress this week about the left framed ‘contraception compromise’ or the ‘first amendment un-compromise’ as framed by the right.

Sibelius essentially said that the decision has been made and this mandate along with many other surprises for those who did not follow the ObamaCare fight on in August 2013… PERIOD!  The decision has been made and will go into affect regardless of the Constitution, religious freedom or what the American people want. 

Remember what Nancy Pelosi said… “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in the bill!”  Well, you are beginning to find out.

So why is this so important to progressives? Rush Limbaugh keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book "Women and the New Race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.

Now it should all start making sense to everyone. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics, which also explains Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin, based on her ideology and history. She was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.

America just celebrated 54 million abortions, a ‘choice’ everyone in the Obama administration supports. On the other side, the Priests for Life Group Just Sued the U.S. Government over the Birth Control Mandate. Sebelius admitted to Senator Orin Hatch during the hearings that she didn't consult bishops over contraception rule and also admitted that she/they did not consult with the Justice Department as to the constitutionality.

President Obama himself said that he had done the same thing when he was a community organizer.  He got leftist priests and nuns in Chicago to compromise the values of the church.

The backlash over Sibelius' interpretation of the mandate built to a crescendo last week. Obama went to the podium and announced a "compromise." It was no compromise at all ...  In reality, Obama’s contraception mandate tramples religious freedom.

This is not an issue that will go away and may haunt the president through the 2012 Election cycle.  It is a huge power grab and the first of many frightening realities of the what is really in the ObamaCare Bill.  It should be a flag to all concerned Americans that each us needs to read that bill and insist that our Congressman and Senators read it immediately… and act.  It should also be a flag to all Americans about the ideology of the President and his team and what is in our future if Obama survives this and is re-elected.

Socialized Medicine, which ObamaCare is, is he crown jewel of socialism… progressivism.  It gives the government the control over one sixth of the U.S. Economy and decisions over who get care and who doesn’t, who lives and who dies, and this fight in addition to being a fight over religious freedom and the first amendment, not contraception, is also a fight over what the government can make each of us buy and pay for from here on out.

One of the best explanations of this fight I’ve heard is:

If you are against murder and someone says, “Okay, you don’t have to kill anyone yourself. We will hire someone to kill them for you.”, there is no resolution to the issue. It goes against your values, against God and against everything you stand for. That is exactly what is happening with the birth control mandate being forced on the Catholic Church by the administration and ObamaCare.

Beck Announces ‘We Are All Catholics Now’ Movement to Stand Up for Religious Freedom

The controversy over the Obama administration’s contraception mandate is at a boiling point, as many Catholic leaders continue to view the president’s so-called “accommodation” as a failure to protect religious liberty.

Now, Glenn Beck is coming forward with a new movement called “We Are All Catholics Now.” The main goal of the initiative is to ask Americans to reach out to Congressional leaders (at the moment, Senators) to encourage the passage of legislation that would protect religious groups’ conscience rights.

Watch Beck discuss the effort on his radio show this morning:

Video:  Glenn Beck Announces 'We Are All Catholics Now' Campaign

The main push, Beck says, is to support the highway transportation bill, which will likely be voted upon this week. It will include an amendment – Blunt Conscience Protection Amendment – from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would protect religious conscience rights. In the House, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) is working on companion legislation, though it may not be voted on for a few weeks.

Beck is encouraging individuals to get involved by calling their Senators and letting them know that “we are all Catholics now.” The issue at hand is not about contraception as it has been framed by many media outlets, he says. Instead, it is a religious freedom issue that hinges upon the separation of church and state’s mandate that the government not force churches to violate their values and principles.

Here are his directions for getting involved and making an impact:

Call the Capitol and speak with your Senator. The numbers are: 202.224.3121; 202.225.3121; the toll free numbers for the Capitol Switchboard include: 1-866-220-0044 1-877-851-6437, 1-800-833-6354, 1-888-355-3588, 1-866-808-0065, 1-877-762-8762, 1-800-862-5530.

Call the switchboard, ask to be connected to a Senator from your specific state (it will take two calls, one for each Senator).

Whoever answers:

1. Tell them that you want to tell the Senator to vote for the Blunt conscience protection amendment.
2. Ask them if they know how the Senator will vote on that amendment
3. Tell them you want to be contacted back about how he voted (be sure to ask for accountability — they hate it, but it makes them call you back).
4. When you call, be sure to tell them “We are all Catholics now”. This key phrase will let them know you are part of a larger, organized movement working in support of religious freedom.

You can read more about the movement at GlennBeck.com.

Sitting in yesterday at GBTV was the co-author for Indivisible talking about the importance of his book as well as Glenn’s book Being George Washington during this pivotal times.

He spoke on the importance of uniting and turning back to God for divine intervention was our only chance to turn our country around.

This is the time to stand-up and choose your side.

Governor Palin appeared on On the Record calling this mandate an ‘Un-American Act’

Add this fight to the expected rise in unemployment (even with the job number game) and possible $5 gas prices at the pump… and this might end up being Obama’s Waterloo!  Some believe the timing of this fight is an answer to the prayers for intervention being said daily by many Americans.

This is not a fight over contraception and who will pay for it.  It is a fight over religious freedom vs. secularism, a fight over the Constitution vs. Progressivism, a fight over limiting the powers of the commerce clause vs. the government being able to force us to purchase and pay for anything they choose, and the fight over the ideology that will control this country.  This is not a fight that anyone can afford to sit out.

Ask Marion~

Related:

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle… But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

Beck Delivers Emotional Christmas Message: ‘God is Crying Out to Us’

War on Christmas and Traditions“It’s hard to believe we’re twelve days away from Christmas,” said Glenn Beck Tuesday night on GBTV. It was an entire show devoted to Christmas. A show in which he defended the “Christmas” tree as well as talked about the “transformative power” of Jesus.

“Maybe it’s just me, but Christmas doesn’t feel the same as it did when I was a kid,” he began.

“Maybe it’s because of the Black Friday shoppers that we showed you, worse than ever before,” Beck said in reference to recent viral videos of shoppers scuffling during retailer’s biggest sale day. “A video of people fighting over a waffle iron, toasters. ‘Give it to me! It’s mine!’”

He continued:

Maybe it’s the story after story about teen mobs that are selling their souls for literally a candy bar or an energy drink or a bag of chips. And others committing threatening and horrible acts of violence on our streets.

Maybe Christmas doesn’t feel the same because, in spite of the fact that the economy is already suffering–and there are no real signs of it improving, globally especially–as I walked up the streets this weekend here in New York City, it was lined with shoppers waiting in line to just go buy more stuff.

And I–I found myself, almost gridlocked in a sea of people this weekend. And I just wanted to grab people and say, “What’s wrong with you?”

“Maybe, maybe I’ve just reached my boiling point on how many years I can tolerate this,” said Beck pointing to an image of Christmas tree, “being called a ‘Holiday tree.’ It’s not a ‘Holiday tree.’ It’s a Christmas tree. That’s just what it is. I don’t mean any offense, that just is a Christmas tree. The lights on it symbolize that Jesus Christ is the way and the truth and the light. That’s what it means,” Beck explained.

“It’s not ‘happy winter everybody!’ It’s Christmas.”

Watch Glenn Beck explain the real reason we celebrate Christmas and why now, more than ever, we should take time to reflect on this precious and holy day (via GBTV):

Video:  GBTV: On a holiday special, Glenn discusses the true meaning of Christmas

Related:

Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays

Public School Defends Posting Nativity Scene Despite Potential Church-State Challenges

Ben Stein on Christmas

Atheists Up in Arms Over NJ Town’s ‘Keep Christ in Christmas’ Sign

Christians, Jews Banned from Temple Mount in Jerusalem - 'It seems freedom of religion in Israel is only for Muslims now' 

Rabbi: Tebow Super Bowl Win Would Lead Christians to Burn Mosques & Banish Immigrants – Really??

Say Merry Christmas – American Christian Life United (ACLU) – Vocal by Carrie Rinderer

God Rest Ye Merry Merchants

Principal Banning All Fall Holidays at School… Columbus Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving… and Christmas Has Already Been

Adopt a Pet This Christmas… Or Give Someone a New Friend for Christmas (or Hanukah)!

Merry Christmas! : Celebrating America’s Greatest Holiday

A great book on Losing Our Religion by aethiest S. E. Cupp, who says she is he perfect person for this book because she has no dog in the hunt, takes on the all too often avoided question and discussion of religion in America…

The Battle for Christmas

 The Snow Angel

DOJ: Feds Can Tell Church WHO Its Ministers Will Be - Frightening!!

The all powerful your majesty - now that he's announced himself as God...

President Barack Obama's Justice Department asked the Supreme Court last week to give the federal government the power to TELL a church who its MINISTERS will be. This is a STUNNING attack on freedom of religion. 'LIKE' if you agree, and read more.

In yet another stunning attack on freedom of religion, President Barack Obama's Justice Department asked the Supreme Court last week to give the federal government the power to tell a church who its ministers will be.

The case involves a former teacher at Lutheran school, who along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is pushing a claim that a Lutheran congregation should be forced to restore her ministry position.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and American Atheists, Inc. have filed briefs siding with the Obama administration against the church.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, and the American Center for Law and Justice are among those who have filed briefs supporting the Lutherans.

In 1999, the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., hired Cheryl Perich to be a lay teacher on a one-year contract in its kindergarten.

The next year, Perich became a "called" teacher at the school after she became a commissioned minister in the church.
"To receive a call, a candidate must be selected by a local church congregation," said a brief the church submitted to the Supreme Court that was prepared by lawyers at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty and Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School.

"At Hosanna-Tabor, the school board typically presents a choice of candidates to the congregation, and after prayerfully considering the candidates, the congregation extends a call via congregational vote," the brief said. "Once the call has been accepted, the candidate is installed in office via the public rite of 'commissioning,' and is recognized as a 'Minister of Religion, Commissioned' — also known as a 'commissioned minister.'"

As a minister in the school, Perich taught religious classes, led students in prayer and performed other religious tasks. She was also expected to integrate the teaching of the Lutheran faith into all so-called "secular" classes, including math, science, social studies and art.

In 2004, Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy and was unable to teach the fall semester. In January 2005, when she could not return, the school hired another teacher to take her place during the spring.

Later that month, according to a brief filed by the Justice Department's Office of the Solicitor General, Perich informed the school's principal, Stacey Hoeft, via email that she would be able to return to work the following month.

The principal informed her they had already hired a replacement teacher for the rest of the year.
The congregation then voted to ask Perich for a "peaceful release from her call."

"'Peaceful release' is a religious act by which a congregation and a called minister agree to release one another from the mutual obligations of the call," says the brief submitted by the church.

"Peaceful releases are common, and they leave the called minister in good standing and eligible for a new call."

Perich declined to be peacefully released. In late February, she showed up at the school and met with Principal Hoeft.

"Later that day, Perich told Hoeft that if she were not reinstated, she would sue the church," said the church's brief. "Hoeft immediately asked Perich if that were what she really meant, because a lawsuit would clearly violate the church's conflict resolution policy applicable to called employees. Perich repeated the threat."

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod explained this teaching in its own brief: "St. Paul teaches in his first letter to the Corinthians that Christians should generally resolve their disputes internally without going to the secular courts for relief." For this reason, the church has developed procedures for settling internal disputes.

A few weeks after the meeting between Perich and Hoeft, the Hosanna-Tabor congregation voted to "rescind Perich's call" because she had threatened to sue the church contrary to the church's teaching.

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint against the church under the Americans With Disabilities Act, alleging a single count of retaliation," says the church's brief. "Perich intervened, alleging the same retaliation claim and adding a retaliation claim under state law. Neither complaint alleges disability discrimination. Both complaints request an order reinstating Perich to her former position as a commissioned minister, together with back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief ordering new 'policies, practices, and programs' at the church."

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod told the court in its brief that its views on the ministry and the settlement of disputes may not be "widely shared" or "widely understood." "But," the church said, "they have been the views of orthodox Lutherans for centuries."

Acting Deputy Solicitor General Leondra Kruger told the court, during oral arguments, that the federal government should be able to trump the church on these decisions.

"Their submission is that the hiring and firing decisions with respect to parochial school teachers and with respect to priests is categorically off limits," said Kruger. "And we think that that is a rule that is insufficiently attentive to the relative public and private interests at stake, interests that this court has repeatedly recognized are important in determining freedom of association claims."

Kruger contended this did not mean the government could order the Catholic Church to ordain female priests. But, even then, according to her argument, it would be a matter of the government weighing "the relative public and private interests at stake."

What is at stake is the First Amendment and the religious freedom of all Americans.

Source:  CNSnews.com h/t to Jean Stoner

Related:

Well… We All Knew This Was Coming:  EXECUTIVE DICTATORSHIP POWERS

Jesse Jackson Jr. Calls for Obama to Take ‘Extraordinary Constitutional’ Action on Unemployment

Solar Energy Lobby Calls for Extending Obama’s Stimulus Grants for Solar Power

Why Aren’t All Four of These Stories Above in the Headlines???