THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Jory Micah, a feminist theologian with deeply concerning theology,
took to Twitter to promote another doctrine of hers that should give us
concern. She Tweeted, “Jesus’ words are our primary source. Paul’s
words are our secondary source. Secondary sources are great, but not as
great as primary ones.” At first, this sounds like the heresy of Red
Letter Christianity, which proclaims that the words not directly said by
Jesus are less inspired than those that were. Karen Swallow-Prior
rightly inquired about this ambiguous statement: Though inspired – Jory says – Paul and his writings were not
inerrant. One must question if she even understands what the word
“inspired” means. It refers to the fact that God was writing through
Paul (Or James, Jude, Luke, Moses, or any other Biblical human author).
If inspiration doesn’t necessitate inerrancy, then the Spirit who
inspired must not be infallible. As John Calvin said, “The highest proof
of Scripture is uniformly taken from the character of him whose Word it
is.” Any assault on the Bible is an attack on the character of He who
inspired it.
Jory continued to cite Jesus on the Sermon at the Mount saying, “You
have heard it has been said… but I say to you,” as evidence that the
Scriptures aren’t inerrant. What Jesus was not correcting was the
original meaning, but rather the distortion that had become the common
tradition of the Pharisees. At no point did Jesus speak against
something that the Holy Spirit inspired.
However, Jory did not stop at indirectly blaspheming God by attacking
His word. She continued to embrace the heresy of Modalism, which
confuses the persons of the Godhead by saying that they are all one
person. She said: It is likely because of her rejection of inerrancy that she was able
to embrace many of the heresies she does in the first place, including
this blatant apostasy. This line of Tweets reveals Jory as an Errantist, a Red Letter
Christian, and a Modalist. It puts her further at odds with the
Christian faith and shows that she is not a sound teacher, but rather
one who would attempt to secretly introduce destructive heresies. __________________________________________________ SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS: https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2016/10/jory-micahs-false-feminist-socialist.html https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2017/04/jory-micah-sarah-bessey-christian.html https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2017/08/with-help-of-christian-feminists.html
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The largest religious group in the world–the one that claims to be
the one true Church–the Roman Catholic Church, has historically stood in
staunch opposition to abortion. However, according to a British Social Attitudes poll
that was released, 61 percent of Roman Catholics now believe that a
woman should be able to decide the fate of her unborn child. This is up
from 39% in 2012. The report states,
Religious groups are less likely than people with no
religion to say that a woman should be allowed by law to have an
abortion if she does not wish to have the child. Nearly 4 out 5 (78%) of
people with no religion say abortions should be allowed in this
situation. One might expect Catholics to be most likely to disagree with
abortions in this situation given the Vatican’s continued opposition.
While this may be true historically, Catholics (61%) are now more likely
than ‘other’ Christian groups (57%) to think these abortions should be
allowed, and are not far behind Anglicans (67%). The increase in
approval of this type of abortion by those of religion in general
appears to have been driven in part by a change in views among Christian
groups, in particular Catholics, among whom there has been a 22
percentage point increase in the view that abortions should be allowed
if the woman does not wish to have the child (from 39% in 2012 to 61% in
2016). However, we need to treat these within-Christianity trends with
some caution as the sample sizes are small.
Of course, an apostate religion that holds an incorrect view of God,
man, and the gospel should not be expected to hold to any moral
standard, especially when the only objective standard of morality as
revealed in Scripture is rejected by the group as the only infallible
standard. Morality in the Roman Catholic Church then becomes mere
subjective opinions of men who influence the institutions official
positions, and repeatedly change and evolve over time. Any church,
including the liberal Protestant and Evangelical churches, that allow
these views in the pews to go undisciplined should be, at the very
least, apostate.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” –Mark 14:22-25
The
Eucharist is a ritual loosely based on and bearing some outward
resemblance to the Last Supper of Jesus and His Apostles in Scripture
which has been perverted into an idolatrous form of worship and the
object of worship becomes the bread and the wine itself. According to
Roman Catholic doctrine, a Catholic priest has the power to summon
Christ from his throne in Heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the
Majesty on High (Hebrews 1:3), and change the bread and the wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Himself.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1376 and 1413 respectively state,
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by
declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body
that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the
conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares
again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a
change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the
body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the
substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has
fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.
By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into
the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated
species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is
present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood,
with his soul and his divinity [cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651.].
Of
course, as with all traditions of men and doctrines of demons found
within Romanism, this too finds its origins not in Christianity, but in
Paganism. Theophagy, or the practice of eating the flesh and blood of
one’s god through a sacramental meal, was a practice that was highly
prevalent in the prominent religion known as Mithraism throughout Rome
in the first few centuries A.D. and is interesting to note that the
practice is nearly identical to the Roman Catholic doctrine of
Transubstantiation. The meal was sacramental in that the god, Osiris,
would grant salvation upon the ingestion of the transubstantiated bread
that was believed to be a reborn presence of the Roman god.
This practice, upon the “Christianization” of Rome under
Emperor Constantine then began to slowly work its way into the Roman
Catholic Church and was contested by many bishops and priests. However,
in 1215 at the Fourth Council of the Lateran, transubstantiation became
official Roman Catholic doctrine and a mandatory practice of the Church.
Today, the practice is largely unquestioned by Roman Catholics and
accepted as dogmatic, and attempts have been made to validate the Pagan
ritual eisegetically with Scripture. No sane person without pre-conceived notions on the practice and
supposed authority of the Roman Catholic Church could read any passage
in Scripture in reference to the Last Supper, including the one above,
and walk away with the doctrine of transubstantiation. It simply does
not happen. The context of these passages is clear that Christ is
speaking of this ordinance as symbolic of the true sacrifice He was
making on the cross. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (ESV) sheds further light on the context, Paul states,
For I received from the Lord what I
also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was
betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and
said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying,
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you
drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and
drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Clearly, he was speaking of the Lord’s Supper as a way to remember
the true sacrifice in a corporate setting and as a way to make a
corporate proclamation of Christ’s death. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church
does not view Christ’s sacrificial death as a historical event that
happened and accomplished its purpose. It is viewed as perpetual and in
need of perpetual offering to God for efficacy. Paragraph 1382 of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the
sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated
and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. But
the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward
the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To
receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself
for us.
This false doctrine clearly contradicts Scripture since Jesus has
been raised from the dead and now sits at the right hand of the
Father who is interceding for the saints (Romans 8:34).
Jesus cannot be both dead in the Eucharist and alive in Heaven. John
Wycliffe, the first to translate the Bible into English, writes
regarding the doctrine of Transubstantiation in Patriot and Reformer, 1884, p. 162,
I maintain that among all the heresies which have ever
appeared in the Church, there never was one which was more cunningly
smuggled in by hypocrites than this, or which in more ways deceives the
people; for it plunders the people, leads them astray into idolatry,
denies the teaching of Scripture, and by this unbelief provokes the
Truth Himself oftentimes to anger.
Finally, the Eucharist is to be worshiped and adored as Christ
Himself. Literally, the wafer and the wine are to be bowed to and
worshiped as if it were itself, Jesus. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church in paragraph 1878 states,
Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the
Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the
species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing
deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has
always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the
cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it,
reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to
the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.”
The Roman Catholic Eucharist ritual is idolatrous in that worship is
offered not to Christ Himself, but to the ordinance given to His people
as an act of worship to remember Him by. In other words, the act of
worship itself is being worshiped. These traditions of men and doctrines
of demons are not products of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but
of the fallible and errant wisdom of men. Romans 1 calls Roman Catholics and adherents to other false religions and forms of false worship fools, it says,
Claiming to be wise, they became fools,and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,because
they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served
the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. –Romans 1:22-25 (ESV) ________________________________________________
To those who count themselves as Roman Catholics,
I fear for your eternities. Though you use the moniker “Roman
Catholic”, I am concerned that you are all Roman and no catholic. Your
rules of doctrine have made you susceptible to all kinds of destructive
heresies by placing your own traditions and the Vatican above Scripture.
In your denial of the Word of God, you have embraced the Papacy. This
Papacy – which Christians have been calling the Antichrist since A.D. 1120 – blasphemes God by claiming to be the “Vicar of Christ“,
which means “substitute for Christ”. By elevating the Pope to that
level, you take part in that blasphemy. Though you appeal to history to
defend this, even history is against you when you go as far back as the 6th Canon of Nicaea.
Your elevation of tradition is equally disturbing. Do you not know
that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith? Do you not know
that by your traditions, you have made void the word of God? Did you not
know that all Scripture is given so that man might be complete and
trained for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)?
If you won’t trust me, trust Hippolytus, who your own religion
venerates on August 13th. He is a part of your tradition and he
proclaimed, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain
from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source.” (Against Heresies, emphasis added)
Furthermore, in your veneration of saints, you have actually begun to
worship them. Though you distinguish between worship and veneration,
that has truly become a distinction without a difference. You pray to
them for mediation, even though there is but one mediator between
God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).
Neither Mary nor the saints can mediate for you. Even if you see this
as merely asking them to pray for you, how is this not necromancy? How
are you not one who inquires of the dead (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)?
The Bible says that no one who blasphemes Him will be held guiltless (Exodus 20:7), all idolaters will have their portion in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8) and that your necromancy is an abomination (Deuteronomy 18:12). These are not the only places in which you stand condemned. All liars will also have their part in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8). If you are greedy, you will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Though you may not have committed murder, those who hate are murderers, and no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:15). You may not have committed adultery, but anyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery of the heart (Matthew 5:27-28).
Though you may appeal to penance, indulgences, purgatory, or
confession, know that none of this is Biblical. You already stand
condemned by your wicked works, and no good works can save you. All of
your works are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6),
entirely unable to clean you and totally repulsive in the sight of God.
By the works of the law, no one will be declared righteous in God’s
sight (Romans 3:20). To one who works, his wages are not a gift but his due (Romans 4:4), and our due for sin is death (Romans 3:23).
The law can only condemn, and trying to be justified by obeying the law
through penance and confession will only further sever you from
Christ (Galatians 5:4).
There is good news. We do not have to keep the law, as there was One
who perfectly kept the law. God the Son came down to Earth in the person
of Jesus Christ. He was fully God and fully man, and He lived a perfect
life that never violated God’s law at any point. We are not able to
perfectly keep even the smallest jot of the law, but Jesus perfectly
obeyed the law for His entire life. At the end of this life, Jesus
voluntarily went to the cross and died on our behalf. His righteousness
was accredited to us and our sin was placed upon Him. He who knew no sin
became sin that we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 2:51). He bore our sins upon that cross (1 Peter 2:24). Three days after He died, Jesus rose from the grave, being eternally victorious over sin and death.
It is by having faith in His accomplished work that we might be
saved. For it is by grace we have been saved, through faith. It is not
your own doing; it is the gift of God and not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9). A man will not be justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ (Galatians 2:16). We must be justified by faith apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28). Just note what John Chrysostom, who your religion venerates on September 13th, has to say about Ephesians 2:10.
He claimed, “What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works
but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul
says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and
benevolence of God may become apparent.” Even your own tradition should
steer you towards this idea of salvation by faith alone (as it should
the idea of Sola Scriptura).
I do not write this to you out of anger or malice but sincerely hope
that you will heed my words. I pray that you may repent and put your
faith in Christ alone – not in your works – for your salvation. The
Roman Catholic Church has no power to save, but if you turn from it and
place your faith in Christ you will be pardoned, not because of your
works but because of Christ’s works on your behalf.
In Christ with love, hope, and concern,
Brandon C. Hines
Dr. Russell Moore,8th President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention Dr. John M. Perkins, Civil Rights Leader & Founder of the John and Vera Mae Perkins Foundation-Jackson, MS Noel Castellanos, CEO of the Christian Community Development Association
RUSSELL MOORE TO SPEAK AT CONFERENCE PROMOTING WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The “Courageous Conversations Conference”
will be held by the World Tabernacle Church in Rocky Mount, North
Carolina, this weekend. Speaking along with Moore will be “civil rights
leader,” John Perkins of the Perkins Foundation and Noel Castellanos of the Christian Community Development Association. The Christian Community Development Association (CCDA) is – according
to its website – committed to the “3 R’s” of the previously mentioned
John Perkins, “Relocation, Reconciliation and Redistribution.” The
“redistribution” that forms its commitment – you guessed it – wealth
redistribution. And, clicking the hyperlinks above will allow you to
quickly research the organizations and see that they are radical,
Marxist (Cultural and Economic) organizations.
As the Tennessee Star reports, “The focus of the one-day conference is
on race, but an emphasis on economic redistribution is interwoven with
the activists’ teachings.” As published in the liberal “Christian”
publication, Sojourners, Perkins first called for wealth redistribution
as a means for Christian racial reconciliation in an article from 1976 (source link – but you will have to pay for the full article).
John Perkins writes…
The final result is
[of our plan] is redistribution. If the blood of injustice is
economics, we must as Christians seek justice by coming up with means of
redistributing goods and wealth to those in need….It’s at the point of
redistribution that I begin to see a possibility for structural change
to take place. What we need is a change, created by Jesus Christ, in our
institutional behavior equal to the change that can occur in the life
of an individual. And as we commit ourselves to just redistribution in
terms of creating a new economics in broken communities, we can see how
Jesus, through us, offers himself. The body of Christ becomes the
corporate model through which we can live out creative alternatives that
can break the cycles of wealth and poverty that oppress people. When
this happens, the quiet revolution is winning the battle for the
community.
[Wayne] Gordon [the first president of
the CCDA] and Perkins explain, “Redistribution means sharing talents and
resources with the poor, but it also means observable changes in public
policy and voting habits. Public policy would need to be accompanied by
a Christ-shaped willingness to offer one’s skills and knowledge as
gifts to others.” Gordon and Perkins go on to assert that the heart for
justice is best expressed through redistribution (source link).
The CCDA is regularly promoted by liberal professed Christians like Tony Compolo. One of these days, Southern Baptists will wake up and realize that
they’re giving 4 million dollars a year to a former Democratic staffer
to promote leftist identity politics and cultural Marxism throughout the
country. May God help us all.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Theoerosism is a heresy named from two words in Greek, θεός and ἔρως, meaning God and love. ἔρως, however, is often used to describe an erotic type of love, and so Theoerosism is mean to mean “erotic love for God.”
Although Theoerosism is not new in terms of world religion and was
common place among the Greeks and other pagan traditions, Theoerosism is
relatively new among purported Christians. Theoerosists view or speak
of God in terms of sensuality or eroticism, and is contained
historically to the 20th and 21st Century.
Theoerosism is popularized in much of sub-Christian media, in worship
songs that speak of God romantically or in literature that discusses
God with erotic styling. Modern adherents of Theoerosism include most prominently Ann Voskamp, whose book One Thousand Gifts speaks
repeatedly of God in a sensual fashion, including repeatedly using the
term (or variant of the term) “make love to God.” Books like Making Love to God by Tina Louise Spalding and Making Love with God by Aubrey Craft Davis (and many other less-sensationally named books) explore and promote the heresy of Theoerosism.
Hillsong takes the gross, self-infatuated, romantic love for God to a
new level in a recently released single, “Where You Are.” You can watch
the video below, or if you want to avoid having to floss your brain
afterward and risk a potentially blasphemous ear-worm, the lyrics are
also provided below.
I lived Heart on a wire Hand in the fire for so long But You’ve shown me better A new kind of love It’s ever the one I want… I never knew a love like this before The kind of life that I cannot find on my own I’ve seen the world but I have never been so sure That I want Your heart God, I just want to be where You are Where You are I just want to be where You are Your love, like nothing I’ve seen My wildest of dreams don’t come close Life never no better than living like this I cannot resist You Lord
Charisma Mag describes the song as “A love song to God.” Gross.
Those confused with a “romantic” song to God is not a good thing,
probably misunderstand the bride-groom relationship metaphor provided us
in the Scripture in places like John 3:29, Matthew 9:15, and Revelation 22:17. While there certainly is a God-designed correlation between the Church and Jesus (this is also seen in Ephesians 5), there are several problems with getting romantic with God, as follows:
It is gross. Stop it. Jesus is not your boyfriend. And if you’re a guy, Jesus is not gay.
The marriage metaphor does not imply “romance,” as that kind of love
is the invention of Greco-Roman culture, foreign to the understanding
of marriage in Hebrew-Jewish culture. This is not the “agape” as spoken
of in the Holy Scriptures.
The Church (as a whole and collectively) is the singular Bride of
Christ. You are not individually a bride of Christ. Jesus is not a
polygamist. He has one bride (the church), not a bunch of girlfriends.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
500 years ago, Martin Luther famously nailed his 95 Theses to the
door of the church in Wittenberg. This was the spark that led to the
Reformation of the 1500-year-old visible church. The Roman Catholic
Church, which (falsely) claims Apostolic succession beginning with the
Apostle Peter, slowly began to apostatize from the true apostolic faith
in the first few centuries A.D.
One of the prevailing reasons (among many) that Luther began his
protest against the Roman Catholic Church was the idea that one could
work or earn their salvation, namely through the sale of indulgences.
This protest has been at the core of the Protestant faith ever since,
leading to the core doctrines, known as the “Five Solas,” of salvation
by Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone according to the Scriptures Alone to the Glory of God Alone.
Of course, this reformation didn’t go over well with the Vatican and a
massive counter-reformation effort was launched. In 1545, the Council
of Trent was launched which affirmed and made dogmatic several key
doctrines that opposed the Reformed biblical faith, including salvation
by grace plus works. Carefully worded doctrines were outlined which made
it clear that any who opposed the Roman Catholic idea of grace plus
works soteriology was not only in error but in danger of excommunication
and eternal damnation.
According to a recent Pew Research study,
however, it appears that the Roman Catholic counter-reformation has
made massive inroads into the Protestant faith. Through the softening
stance of Protestant and Evangelical leaders against Roman Catholicism
and the ecumenical movement which is intent on reversing the doctrinal
divide between Protestants and gospel-deficient Roman Catholics, many
Christians now see Roman Catholicism as just merely another
“denomination” of the Christian faith. The study shows that 52 percent of U.S. Protestants affirm that good
deeds are required for salvation as opposed to 46 percent who affirm the
biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone. Other troubling
statistics show that 52 percent of Protestants also believe that the
Church is on equal authority with Scripture when it comes to official
teachings of the Christian faith.
Just as Infowars and Alex Jones have been saying for years, Radical
Islamic terror is now being used to vastly grow the police state and in
the newest example, give reason for martial law in London.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan Tells Public
'Get Used To' Islamic Attacks
Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, has told the public in his town to get used
to Islamic terror attacks because he believes more will occur in the
near future and doesn't plan on combating the extremists.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
LANSING, Mich. — A federal judge has
granted an injunction to a Michigan farmer who was banned from selling
at a local farmer’s market for operating his business in accordance with
his beliefs on marriage. “The City of East Lansing must grant Country Mill Farms any
necessary license and allow Country Mill Farms to sell its goods at the
East Lansing Farmer’s Market for the remainder of the 2017 season,” ordered
U.S. District Court Judge Paul Maloney on Friday. “The City of East
Lansing may enforce the vendor guidelines against Country Mill Farms,
with the exception that Country Mill Farms may not be found in violation
of the guidelines for declining to host same-sex wedding ceremonies at
the Country Mill Farms.”
“On the evidence before this court, the City amended its
vendor guidelines and then used the changes to deny Country Mill’s
vendor application,” he wrote. “There exists a substantial likelihood
that Plaintiffs will be able to prevail on the merits of their claims
for speech retaliation and for free exercise of religion.”
ADVERTISING
As previously reported, Steve
Tennes, a Roman Catholic, operates Country Mill Farms, a fruit orchard
in Charlotte, Michigan. The 120-acre farm is open to the public, and
also sells pies, caramel apples, donuts and other goods that may be
enjoyed on-site. Each fall, hay rides, a petting zoo and other
activities are offered, and Tennes also allows his back yard and farm to
be used for weddings.
While he has employed homosexuals at his farm, Tennes
believes it would be a violation of his faith to participate in or allow
a same-sex ceremony to be conducted on his property.
Therefore, in 2014, when he was contacted by two lesbians
who wanted to be “wed” in an orchard, he referred the women to another
farm that does not share his convictions. Last year, two years following
the incident, one of the women wrote on Country Mill Farms’ Facebook
page, urging customers to stop patronizing Tennes’ business because he
wouldn’t let her use his property for her ceremony.
Some customers consequently inquired about the matter and
Tennes’ convictions, to which he responded that “[d]ue to [his] personal
religious beliefs,” he would refer any such requests to another farm
nearby.
However, when officials with the East Lansing Farmer’s
Market—who had invited Tennes to participate in the market for the past
six years and had publicly praised his business—learned of the matter,
they asked him not to attend. Officials stated that they had received
complaints and feared that there would be protests.
Tennes decided to discontinue hosting weddings of any kind
on his property until he gave further consideration to the issue. He
advised the City that he would be present that weekend at the farmer’s
market.
There were no protests or comments from customers, and he continued to sell at the market for the rest of the season.
In December, Tennes announced that he would resume hosting weddings at his home and farm.
“The Country Mill engages in expressing its purpose and
beliefs through the operation of its business and it intentionally
communicates messages that promote its owners’ beliefs and declines to
communicate messages that violate those beliefs,” he wrote, in part, on
Facebook.
“It remains our deeply held religious belief that marriage
is the union of one man and one woman and Country Mill has the First
Amendment Right to express and act upon its beliefs.”
As a result, East Lansing officials required all vendors at
the farmer’s market to sign an agreement that they will comply with the
City’s “public policy against discrimination … while at the [market] and
as a general business practice.” The City also allegedly instructed the
Market Planning Committee not to invite The Country Mill for 2017.
Tennes sent in an application after not being invited, and was denied.
“It was brought to our attention that The Country Mill’s
general business practices do not comply with East Lansing’s civil
rights ordinances and public policy against discrimination,” the City
wrote. “… [A]s such, The Country Mill’s presence as a vendor is
prohibited by the City’s Farmer’s Market vendor guidelines.”
Tennes sent the City an email requesting clarification, and
officials responded with a copy of his Facebook post and the new vendor
guidelines.
Therefore, Tennes filed suit in June out of his belief that
in the City’s quest to prohibit discrimination, it was rather
discriminating against him.
On Friday, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction,
stating that it is apparent that the City changed its policies to
target Tennes and his religious beliefs.
“The context in which the vendor guidelines were amended and
then applied to Country Mill supports Plaintiffs’ claim that their
religious beliefs or their religiously-motivated conduct was the target
of the City’s actions,” Maloney wrote.
“A factfinder could infer that the change in the vendor
guidelines was motivated by Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs or their
religiously-motivated conduct. And, the City’s hostility to Plaintiffs’
religion or religious conduct was then manifested when the City used its
facially neutral and generally applicable ordinance to deny Plaintiffs’
vendor application,” he reiterated.
Maloney said that the City has not proven that its actions are justified in light of Tennes’ right to free exercise of religion.
“For this motion, the City has not asserted that the change
the vendor guidelines and the ordinance are justified by a compelling
interest or that the vendor guidelines and the ordinance are narrowly
tailored to advance that interest,” he wrote. “Elsewhere, the City has
argued that sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws are valid. That
proposition, by itself, does not accomplish what the City must show to
undermine Plaintiffs’ free exercise claim.”
The religious liberties group Alliance Defending Freedom
(ADF), which represented Tennes in court, cheered the outcome of the
first round of the legal battle.
“Just like all Americans, a farmer should be free to live
and speak according to his deeply held religious beliefs without fear of
government punishment,” Legal Counsel Kate Anderson said in a
statement. “As the court found, East Lansing officials changed their
market policy to shut out Steve because they don’t like his … beliefs
regarding marriage. The court was right to issue this order, which will
allow Steve to return to the 2017 farmer’s market while his case moves
forward.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
With Mayor Patrick Wojahn breaking the council’s original 4-4 tie,
the city council of College Park, Maryland, on September 12 approved by a
4-3 vote a measure to allow resident non-citizens, presumably including
illegal immigrants, to vote in local elections. College Park is home to the University of Maryland campus, and the
charter amendment as passed will allow foreign students attending the
university on education visas to vote in city elections, provided they
have met College Park’s residency requirements for voting.
The vote took place after four hours of debate, during which both sides vigorously defended their position.
One councilman, Fazlul Kabir, who is a naturalized U.S. citizen and
University of Maryland instructor, proposed putting the question up for
voter consideration in November’s election. After his call for a
referendum was voted down, Kabir proposed amending the city charter to
allow only noncitizens who are permanent residents — informally known as
“green card” holders — to register to vote. That amendment was rejected
after Wojahn broke the council’s 4-4 tie.
Kabir abstained from the final vote. The Diamondback, the student newspaper for the University of
Maryland, reported that one city resident supporting the change to give
noncitizens the vote said opponents were “white supremacists”
exhibiting “xenophobia.”
However, Beth Debrovsky, a resident who voted against the change,
argued that only citizens should be allowed to vote as it is
“constitutional.”
“Although you come up here and you say that there are hundreds of
citizens and residents of College Park that are for this charter, I can
tell you that there are thousands against it,” she said, according to
Fox 5 DC. “Voting is a right of the citizens. It’s plain and clear. It’s
constitutional. It's also written at the state level and it also
belongs at the local level.”
Fox 5 DC also quoted a statement from a supporter of the change, Todd
Larson, who campaigned for the proposal and is co-director of the Green
America group. “The reality is allowing all people to vote in municipal
elections is going to make College Park more inclusive, and that has
been the history of voting rights expansion in the United States and
what has happened in our neighbors in Maryland who have expanded voting
rights to non-U.S. citizens,” he maintained. The Washington Times reported that College Park holds
municipal elections in odd-numbered years in November, and they are
conducted by city officials separate from county, state, and federal
races, for which voters must be U.S. citizens. The charter amendment
will go into effect in the November 2019 election.
The decision to allow non-citizens (and even those who are in this
country illegally) breaks a long-standing principle that with rights
come responsibilities. Voting has long been considered a right afforded
only to citizens who have accepted all of the responsibilities that come
with citizenship, such as serving on juries when summoned.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Before a crowd of left-wing politicians, interest groups, and labor
unions, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unveiled legislation to create a
national single-payer healthcare system Wednesday. “Today, we begin the long and difficult struggle to end the
international embarrassment of the United States being the only major
country on earth not to guarantee health care to all its people,” said the self-described socialist senator. Sanders’ Medicare for All Act would, over a four-year period, move
all U.S. residents from their current public or private insurance
programs to a single federal program with comprehensive coverage and no
copayments except in the case of prescription drugs. Such a program
would go far beyond Medicare, making Uncle Sam the sole source of health
insurance in the nation — private insurance would be outlawed —
therefore giving Washington total control over the healthcare system.
Not for nothing did The Atlantic dub Sanders’ plan “the U.K.’s [National Health Service] on steroids.”
Sixteen senators — a full third of the upper chamber’s Democratic
contingent — introduced the bill along with Sanders. Several are rumored
to be considering a run for the White House in 2020, including
Minnesota’s Al Franken, California’s Kamala Harris, and Massachusetts’
Elizabeth Warren.
In a press release, Sanders intimated that his bill would usher in a nirvana of healthcare unconstrained by the laws of economics:
The Medicare for All Act of 2017 would
ensure that Americans will no longer have to delay or avoid going to the
doctor because they can’t afford it; that a hospital stay will not
bankrupt you or leave you deeply in debt; that you will be able to get
the prescription drugs you need at a price you can afford; that middle
class families will never have to spend 20 or 30 percent of their
incomes on health care; and, that Americans will save billions of
dollars a year in medical administrative costs.
This, of course, ignores the history of single-payer healthcare
systems in other countries. In Canada or the U.K., for instance, a
person may not avoid or delay going to the doctor because it costs him too much, but he may still end up with a long wait or denial of care because the system is overwhelmed by people seeking “free” care and the government
can’t afford to pay for every procedure every person wants or needs. In
fact, hospitals may even euthanize him to cut costs — and be rewarded
for doing so. Moreover, despite Sanders’ contention that his plan would
give Americans more control over their own healthcare, by ceding
control of healthcare financing, people also cede control of their
healthcare choices and even their very lives, as Charlie Gard’s parents recently discovered to their horror.
On top of that, the notion that Medicare should be expanded is based
on a false perception of that program’s success. “Medicare can’t even
ensure [low-cost, high-quality care] for the people who are currently
eligible for the program,” wrote
David Hogberg, senior fellow for healthcare policy at the National
Center for Public Policy Research. “Expanding it to cover all Americans
would only exacerbate its shortcomings for patients.” The program has
distorted the healthcare market, caused over- and undertreatment of
patients, burdened doctors with massive amounts of paperwork, and seen
its budget balloon far beyond initial projections — to the point that it
now has $58 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
With numbers like that, it’s no wonder Sanders has been cagey about
the expected cost of his bill — and even more so about how to pay for
it. A version of the plan he released during his 2016 presidential
campaign was estimated to cost $1.4 trillion per year; this one will
almost certainly be even more expensive. Sanders isn’t saying where the
government will get the money for all this, but he has suggested, not
surprisingly, significantly higher taxes on everyone, especially the
rich.
Sanders’ bill isn’t likely to get very far in a Congress run by Republicans; but as The Atlantic
observed, “It’s now a rallying point, one its creators and sponsors aim
to make the center of Democratic policy making for years to come.” Given
that Democrats have won practically every healthcare battle of the last
half-century, Americans ought to be very worried indeed.
(For more about about Medicare-for-all, read "Does Single-payer Signal a Solution?")
______________________________________________________
