Why FRC’s New “Religious Hostility” Report Is A Joke
August 22, 2012 3:21 pm ET by Carlos Maza
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201208220002
Anti-gay groups have for years attacked the advance of LGBT equality by depicting it as part of a growing effort in America to silence Christians and shut down religious freedom. Evidence for this claim has always been questionable, however, and a new report this week documenting so-called “religious hostility” over the past several years is no exception.
The Family Research Council (FRC) and Liberty Institute published a study on Tuesday alleging that threats to religious liberty in America have reached an “all-time high.” The report – titled “The Survey of Religious Hostility in America” – lists over six hundred examples of “attacks against people of faith” in the U.S. over the past several years. According to an “Open Letter to the American People” included in the report:
America today would be unrecognizable to our Founders. Our first freedom is facing a relentless onslaught from well-funded and aggressive groups and individuals who are using the courts, Congress, and the vast federal bureaucracy to suppress and limit religious freedom. This radicalized minority is driven by an anti- religious ideology that is turning the First Amendment upside down.
On Fox & Friends Tuesday morning, FRC president Tony Perkins touted the report, asserting that “our First Amendment has become a last priority for the courts.”
Looking over the report’s methodology, though, it’s hard to come to the conclusion that religious freedom is somehow under siege by gay activists (or anyone else, for that matter) in America.
1. “Attacks” Are Loosely Defined. It’s unclear what standard FRC used to define “attacks” on religious liberty, but the report seems to include any incident in which there was even a disagreement relating to a person’s religious beliefs.
According to FRC’s report, “attacks” on religious liberty included:
•The Post Office advising employees to greet customers by saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”
•The Air Force no longer requiring officers to encourage their subordinates to attend chapel
•A secular group criticizing UPS for issuing a Mother Teresa memorial stamp
•A group challenging a church’s non-profit status after it campaigned in favor of ousting pro-equality judges
FRC’s report includes cases in which no legal action was taken at all. According to the report, the mere existence of public criticism of a religious display or event – like a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation – was enough to constitute an “attack” on religious freedom.
2. “Attacks” Included Disputes That Were Resolved In Favor Of Religious Liberty. Another problem with the report is that it includes any legal dispute related to religious liberty, even if that dispute ended up being resolved in favor of protecting religions individuals or organizations. On just the first two pages of the report’s recorded “attacks,” for instance, over half of the legal disputes that reached adjudication were resolved in favor of the First Amendment and protecting religious liberty.
This over-inclusive definition of an “attack” seriously undermines the report’s credibility; a number of the “attacks” included in the report are actually examples of religious liberty being protected by American courts – the very courts Perkins was criticizing on Fox.
3. The Report’s Examples Date Back To 1980. Although the report claims to focus on “attacks” on religious liberty over the past decade, its examples actuallydate back to as early as 1980, like the case of Florey v. Sioux Falls. The report includes dozens of examples from the 80s and 90s, and several other examples are left entirely undated. That’s an average of less than twenty incidences a year in a country of roughly three hundred million people.
So, to recap the report’s findings: Over the past three decades, there have been around 600 recorded examples of someone doing something that FRC perceives as anti-religion, and a number of these incidences actually ended up reaffirming religious liberty.
FRC’s report is undoubtedly red meat for religious conservatives, who repeatedly accuse progressives – and especially LGBT activists – of attacking Christianity and religious freedom. As a piece of credible research, however, the report reveals very little about the actual state of religious liberty in the U.S.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
What does it mean - "The Buck Stops Here"?
Hello My Friends;
I'm sorry to have been so dry in my posting. Frankly, I just haven't had a lot to say - or, perhaps it would be better to say that I just haven't had a lot I know how to say. And, to a fair extent, I still don't. So, if you will forgive me, I'm going to think through some things with you here.
But first, I am excited to tell you that we had a great day with the rescue dogs today. I was a small part of it, but am proud to tell you that a very small part of our success today was I overcame my withdrawing behavior and stepped forward to people coming in and really try to sell the concept of adopting a wonderful dog. I was very proud to find it - at least in part - translate to a wider conversation with the professionals in the organization and adoption applications filled out!
I don't know what I classify myself as anymore. Do I believe in God? The Ultimate being? Yep. Do I classify myself as a Christian? ?
There is a certain degree of the incredible - not the good kind, either - with the way Christian groups are behaving lately. It reminds me of the phrase "Those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it". I now hear a lot of Pharisee wanna-be's. In fact, if one were to sit back and listen, their constant rants are quite ridiculous and hilarious - except that they seem to be influencing some who have far too much power. How is it that these men and women who claim to be loving, Christ-like people have become so judgemental, self-righteous bigots? Ironic as it may seem, those who believe in Christ and, by happenstance, are homosexual, are likely closer to the original Christians that these hate mongers who believe gays are the ruin of the world. Going further, that was also the saying about Christians then. Go figure, huh?
The problem I'm having, though, is that now I am having real problems thinking about myself as a Christian. I find the word shameful. I feel beaten up, degraded, defiled and reviled by these people, and I find the concept of Christ difficult to believe when the concept of Christian has become so shallow, judgemental and hating. Who do they believe they are? Who do they think gave them power to judge me?
I'm sorry to have been so dry in my posting. Frankly, I just haven't had a lot to say - or, perhaps it would be better to say that I just haven't had a lot I know how to say. And, to a fair extent, I still don't. So, if you will forgive me, I'm going to think through some things with you here.
~
For the majority of my life, I've considered myself a Christian. I was raised in the Lutheran faith, and when my life's troubles came too much I found myself praying to find relief and understanding, to even have someone who I could cry out to and believe they listened and cared. Why is it that I had a tendency to only pray when I was in trouble? Such is life. We seem to think that we can do anything right up to the point when life laughs in our face. Then, we really really need someone who is more powerful than life to cry to and who will make it all better. Fortunate people have a Dad who is that all-powerful being when they are little children. It's sort of like that.
Somewhere deep inside, where little randy still lives, is that small voice that tells me that one day someone very high up, if you get my drift, will tell such "Get away from me. You never knew me." That someday, the end - at least for some - will come and they will be face to face with that one who they've been "representing" for so long and be told quite clearly - enough!
Monday, August 6, 2012
The dark road...
Hello Friends;
I was just over to Milkboys. I saw Greyson Chance sing (LINK)and followed a link to see Troye Sivan sing (LINK). Loved both songs. The comments, though.... how incredible they were! People picking apart these kids like they were some sort of Simon Cowell clones, with often little regard to the youngsters being criticized. Who are these people to be so negative....
.... but, isn't it the way we do things far too often? I am so weak in that area. All too often, I've been so very cruel behind someone's back. Oh, I'd never say it to their face; I wouldn't want to hurt someone's feelings. Yet, the world isn't so very large that what one says about another, especially an associate, wouldn't make it back to him. I'm trying to change that... easier said than done.
I don't always feel so good about myself. I've had a number of people in my life telling me I'm not worth much, and that guy in the mirror has said it far too often as well. It makes me feel a bit better about myself sometimes to know that I'm doing better in some fashion than someone else. Sometimes...
And then, I realize that I'm doing the same to that person that others have done to me. I'm picking on some small fault and missing the beautiful person behind the flaw. Who am I to be such a critic? Who am I to infect others with my negativity?
So, my challenge to myself some time back was to simply not do this. I've tried to be positive to even the most difficult of people, lift them up, be nice. I don't have to take them to dinner, just be polite. I don't have to blow sunshine up their ass, just smile and say hello. I don't have to support their every move, but I don't have to talk trash about them behind their back either.
I was just over to Milkboys. I saw Greyson Chance sing (LINK)and followed a link to see Troye Sivan sing (LINK). Loved both songs. The comments, though.... how incredible they were! People picking apart these kids like they were some sort of Simon Cowell clones, with often little regard to the youngsters being criticized. Who are these people to be so negative....
.... but, isn't it the way we do things far too often? I am so weak in that area. All too often, I've been so very cruel behind someone's back. Oh, I'd never say it to their face; I wouldn't want to hurt someone's feelings. Yet, the world isn't so very large that what one says about another, especially an associate, wouldn't make it back to him. I'm trying to change that... easier said than done.
I don't always feel so good about myself. I've had a number of people in my life telling me I'm not worth much, and that guy in the mirror has said it far too often as well. It makes me feel a bit better about myself sometimes to know that I'm doing better in some fashion than someone else. Sometimes...
And then, I realize that I'm doing the same to that person that others have done to me. I'm picking on some small fault and missing the beautiful person behind the flaw. Who am I to be such a critic? Who am I to infect others with my negativity?
So, my challenge to myself some time back was to simply not do this. I've tried to be positive to even the most difficult of people, lift them up, be nice. I don't have to take them to dinner, just be polite. I don't have to blow sunshine up their ass, just smile and say hello. I don't have to support their every move, but I don't have to talk trash about them behind their back either.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
What if....
Hi Everyone.
This is a strange post, so you may want to get comfortable. As I sit to write this, I realize that I have no idea where this post will go. I guess I'm inviting you for the ride with me. Maybe we can discuss this and find some better direction for ourselves?
First, let me introduce you to a site I bumbled upon. http://boyboxrebellion.blogspot.com/ I find some things here humorous, some thought provoking, and there are others not quite up my alley. That's ok... that's life! One post this blog author posted spoke about how a culture will seek to understand the very things that most defy understanding. Some create a belief system, a religion. And, for the people and the time, it works - perhaps. The blog author went on in quoting others that just because that belief system worked for that people group does not necessarily mean it works for others. Further, being "true" in one people's eyes doesn't make it "true" in another's.
I thought this profound and it truly caused me to return to this line of thought over and over again.
The small blog post went on to this substantial truth of a creator, a God; the reality of this Being is likely to be beyond the understanding of those He creates.
I've considered some of the differing religions of our current world. Granted, I know very few - and very little about those! So, I'm bound to make some mistakes here...
Question: How do we know what we know to be true is, in fact, true? In Christianity - and I'll use this religion the most as it is one I've studied a bit - we are taught that all scripture is by inspiration of God and good to use for teaching, preaching and reproof. Now, basically, what we are saying here is that person X says 'God told me to write this' and it is therefore true. I am going beyond the simple historical rendering of an event or time or people, but to say that line for line, scripture is true because this person X said 'God told me to write this'. What that requires is that little thing called Faith.
Have you ever heard that song by Allanis Morrisette http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7VgncbDw8M that goes 'what if God was one of us? Just a stranger on the bus?...' Well, that is the point. What if? We believe what we believe much due to what we were taught. There are some who study, dig, seek.... and make decisions and believe by faith. But, many of us believe what we believe because we are taught that this is true.
Well, what makes one religion true and another false? Quite simply, if one religion is true - then the other, by definition, must be false. Right? So, is it by popular vote? Is it by area covered? If my mother and father didn't teach me what they did, would it still be true? Is it true because the country that believed it overcame the country that thought their religion the truth? Is religion true only by the sake of conquest? "My God is stronger than your God". Here is a frightening thought: what if it was only a small group of people who knew the real God, the real Truth, and they were swarmed over and destroyed by a Mongol Horde, the Romans, the Plague, taken up to Haley's Comet..... what if?
Then, there are those who believe in no God. But yet, what if they are wrong?
In our world today, we have wars, struggles, etc. all based on what we believe to be true of our beliefs or untrue of another's. Some Christians believe those who are gay are worthy of death. What is the basis for this? A vague reference in a book taken out of a contextual environment and inference thousands of years ago. Is it true? Well, they believe that those words were the very words of God, so they must be fact. Of course, there are others words in that book that they'd just rather let go on by. Not culturally relevant, don't you know. But that? Yep, that's the true and relevant part.
There are some others in our world who believe that if you don't believe the very things this group believes then you are to be put to death. You are horrible and worthy of death at any cost. Why? Well, roughly 2000 years ago this person was given a revelation, he said. So, there are now those who believe his revelation true, and there-in, all that he said the very words of God....
But, I'm drawn back to that song. What if God was one of us? What if what we believed was not untrue, but just the very best we could understand of what we see as true? What if that person who doesn't believe what we believe is just as likely to be correct as we are since no one can really be sure. What if the best we can do is look to our neighbor and know that if there is a God, a Creator, He or She... or It?... created that person just as much as we were created, or for that matter, not created for those who believe in no creator... and so we are all equally bound?
Well, I guess here is where this particular ride ends for the moment. What do you think?
hugs;
randy
This is a strange post, so you may want to get comfortable. As I sit to write this, I realize that I have no idea where this post will go. I guess I'm inviting you for the ride with me. Maybe we can discuss this and find some better direction for ourselves?
First, let me introduce you to a site I bumbled upon. http://boyboxrebellion.blogspot.com/ I find some things here humorous, some thought provoking, and there are others not quite up my alley. That's ok... that's life! One post this blog author posted spoke about how a culture will seek to understand the very things that most defy understanding. Some create a belief system, a religion. And, for the people and the time, it works - perhaps. The blog author went on in quoting others that just because that belief system worked for that people group does not necessarily mean it works for others. Further, being "true" in one people's eyes doesn't make it "true" in another's.
I thought this profound and it truly caused me to return to this line of thought over and over again.
The small blog post went on to this substantial truth of a creator, a God; the reality of this Being is likely to be beyond the understanding of those He creates.
I've considered some of the differing religions of our current world. Granted, I know very few - and very little about those! So, I'm bound to make some mistakes here...
Question: How do we know what we know to be true is, in fact, true? In Christianity - and I'll use this religion the most as it is one I've studied a bit - we are taught that all scripture is by inspiration of God and good to use for teaching, preaching and reproof. Now, basically, what we are saying here is that person X says 'God told me to write this' and it is therefore true. I am going beyond the simple historical rendering of an event or time or people, but to say that line for line, scripture is true because this person X said 'God told me to write this'. What that requires is that little thing called Faith.
Have you ever heard that song by Allanis Morrisette http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7VgncbDw8M that goes 'what if God was one of us? Just a stranger on the bus?...' Well, that is the point. What if? We believe what we believe much due to what we were taught. There are some who study, dig, seek.... and make decisions and believe by faith. But, many of us believe what we believe because we are taught that this is true.
Well, what makes one religion true and another false? Quite simply, if one religion is true - then the other, by definition, must be false. Right? So, is it by popular vote? Is it by area covered? If my mother and father didn't teach me what they did, would it still be true? Is it true because the country that believed it overcame the country that thought their religion the truth? Is religion true only by the sake of conquest? "My God is stronger than your God". Here is a frightening thought: what if it was only a small group of people who knew the real God, the real Truth, and they were swarmed over and destroyed by a Mongol Horde, the Romans, the Plague, taken up to Haley's Comet..... what if?
Then, there are those who believe in no God. But yet, what if they are wrong?
In our world today, we have wars, struggles, etc. all based on what we believe to be true of our beliefs or untrue of another's. Some Christians believe those who are gay are worthy of death. What is the basis for this? A vague reference in a book taken out of a contextual environment and inference thousands of years ago. Is it true? Well, they believe that those words were the very words of God, so they must be fact. Of course, there are others words in that book that they'd just rather let go on by. Not culturally relevant, don't you know. But that? Yep, that's the true and relevant part.
There are some others in our world who believe that if you don't believe the very things this group believes then you are to be put to death. You are horrible and worthy of death at any cost. Why? Well, roughly 2000 years ago this person was given a revelation, he said. So, there are now those who believe his revelation true, and there-in, all that he said the very words of God....
But, I'm drawn back to that song. What if God was one of us? What if what we believed was not untrue, but just the very best we could understand of what we see as true? What if that person who doesn't believe what we believe is just as likely to be correct as we are since no one can really be sure. What if the best we can do is look to our neighbor and know that if there is a God, a Creator, He or She... or It?... created that person just as much as we were created, or for that matter, not created for those who believe in no creator... and so we are all equally bound?
Well, I guess here is where this particular ride ends for the moment. What do you think?
hugs;
randy
Evidently, it's not only acceptable to lie, but to now coerce and employ others to lie for you if you are a Catholic leader.
Here is my thought on that: ---->
"Peter", the Catholic Church, seems to have not learned from Christ. Can you imagine the story changing had Jesus simply said to the authority 'I never said that'. Or, if He had sent someone else to say it for him?
Integrity in religion? What a concept.
http://boyboxrebellion.blogspot.com/2012/07/catholic-diocese-email-oops-shows-real.html
Email can be tricky, as one Catholic Diocese in Massachusetts is learning.
The diocese was apparently trying to come up with some legal reason it refuses to sell a 44-bedroom mansion in Worcester to a gay couple who wanted to renovate it. But the back-and-forth over email was still appended to the bottom of the bogus explanation that eventually made its way to the couple, according to Worcester Telegram columnist Dianne Williamson.
"If you're going to discriminate, you should cover your tracks," Williamson wrote in jest in a column today, noting that what actually unfolded could be illegal.
A real estate broker for the diocese said in an email she sent to the couple, James Fairbanks and Alain Beret, that it had suddenly found "other plans" for the property.
But at the bottom of the email was this note from Monsignor Thomas Sullivan:
“I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop,” Sullivan wrote to the broker, according to the Telegram. “Because of the potentiality of gay marriages there, something you shared with us yesterday, we are not interested in going forward with these buyers. I think they're shaky anyway. So, just tell them that we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language.”
 |
| Tell them what you think! |
Here is my thought on that: ---->
"Peter", the Catholic Church, seems to have not learned from Christ. Can you imagine the story changing had Jesus simply said to the authority 'I never said that'. Or, if He had sent someone else to say it for him?
Integrity in religion? What a concept.
http://boyboxrebellion.blogspot.com/2012/07/catholic-diocese-email-oops-shows-real.html
Email can be tricky, as one Catholic Diocese in Massachusetts is learning.
The diocese was apparently trying to come up with some legal reason it refuses to sell a 44-bedroom mansion in Worcester to a gay couple who wanted to renovate it. But the back-and-forth over email was still appended to the bottom of the bogus explanation that eventually made its way to the couple, according to Worcester Telegram columnist Dianne Williamson.
"If you're going to discriminate, you should cover your tracks," Williamson wrote in jest in a column today, noting that what actually unfolded could be illegal.
A real estate broker for the diocese said in an email she sent to the couple, James Fairbanks and Alain Beret, that it had suddenly found "other plans" for the property.
But at the bottom of the email was this note from Monsignor Thomas Sullivan:
“I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop,” Sullivan wrote to the broker, according to the Telegram. “Because of the potentiality of gay marriages there, something you shared with us yesterday, we are not interested in going forward with these buyers. I think they're shaky anyway. So, just tell them that we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)