|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
| HOME PAGE | ARTICLES | NEWS | RESOURCES | CONTACT US | PERSONALITIES | ARCHIVES |
|
LINKS:   Trinity Worship Christian Fellowship |
News And Commentary Hypocrisy of Religious Freedom School districts were pressured to incorporate guidelines by President Clinton called "Presidential Guidelines" which were originally drafted as "Religion In The Public Schools: A Joint Statement Of Current Law" issued by groups including the American Muslim Council, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU which holds the copyright. President Clinton's guidelines claimed to support religious groups, yet failed to disclose that these "religious groups" are all described by the ACLU as committed to separation of church and state. "Students generally do not have a Federal right to be excused from lessons that may be inconsistent with their religious beliefs or practices." Claimed Clinton. These guidelines would allow state education institutions to present religion in their view and by their opinion while being allowed to infect religious views of those sincerely believing the doctrine they were brought up learning. This action allows Humanistic faith, Atheists faith, and even the Muslim faith to be expressed while discriminating against the Christian and Jewish faith. It appears that the ACLU is given power to interpret religion as they see fit and extinguish the beliefs they don't feel compatible with. When the ACLU represents someone not wanting to hear a certain religious expression, they claim that the First Amendment not only protects free speech, but that it also protects a person from not having to hear a certain belief. Now they are saying that a peson hearing a doctrine in public education not consistant with their religious beliefs do NOT have the right to be excused from a lesson. Sounds like a double standard. No, only "hypocritical, intolerant, close-minded, subjective thinking." Artist Strips to Test Religious Tolerance An Argentine artist, Luizo Vega, plans to strip nude in front of all churches, temples and mosques in his country to test their tolerance. He quotes, "I want to test all religions and see their level of tolerance. I will go to each and every place of worship. He states he has a "special kind of bond with the spiritual world." He fails to realize which spirit he has bonded with. Hewlett-Packard Supports Religious-Bias Case The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Hewlett-Packard Co. did not violate nondiscrimination law by firing a worker for posting anti-gay passages from the Bible, such as Leviticus 20:13, which states, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be put upon them. Richard Peterson alleged the company discriminated against him because of his religious beliefs by asking him to remove the messages, but not asking other employees to remove other religious symbols and pro-diversity messages. However, the court said HP fired Peterson "because he violated the company's harassment policy by attempting to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment. It can be argued that Richard's posting of those specific scriptures might raise a certain hostile level in the workplace and he should have been a bit more discreet about such controversial statements. For a time God did demand that homosexuality be suffered with death, however, Jesus came to bring a bit more tolerable level of confronting the issue. Though it still violates God's law and will, all are sinners and have the same access to gain forgiveness for sin when repenting (turning from the sin). In defense of Richard, companies and the government cannot make us accept a certain lifestyle that violates a sincerely-held religious belief. By posting diversity posters, and demanding people to take classes in "tolerance" they force a person to accept something they claim is immoral. They attempt to say that no one has the right to claim moral definitions, but those making others accept an action are making moral definitions, and are like-wise trying to enforce them. Worst President In History Democrat supporters are claiming that Bush is the worst President we had in a long time. They consider his "Iraqi Freedom" program and his attack on terrorists to be a flaw and hinderance to peace. "What did they ever do to us, anyway?" We all can understand that there are at least two parties competing with one another and that they cannot unite or cooperate for fear of supporting the other. But Democratics are just as guilty at lying and hiding things as they claim Republicans are. Democrats do the same things as Republicans, though they will point fingers at their opponent when they're not in power. For instance, Bush is being blasted for the unemployment rate. Yet, since August of last year, there have been 366,000 new jobs created. Bush is criticized for an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent when it is well below the average rate of the 70s, 80s and even the 90s when Clinton was President. Democrats use the numbers to deceive the public into believing it should be lower and not comparing it with rates of past Administrations before the public test the facts and actually realize the truth. Democrats try to label Republicans as war mongers and state that Republican Presidents are always for war. However, looking at the past you will find that Democratic Presidents go to war just the same or even more, as even Democratic President Clinton used our troops for war in Bosnia and other places. It's an election year, so they are stating that President Bush is the worst President in history. Did they forget about a lying adulterous deceiving double-talking unethical perjurer named President Clinton? The criteria they consider for greatness supports those things Clinton stood for. In that aspect, Mother Theresa and the Catholic Pope would not be considered model citizens. |