Constitutional Venting and some Political Humor

John R. Houk
© July 31, 2009

Leftists have been trying for years to remove symbols of Christianity from public display for years. The lame reason given for this outrage is the Leftist interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Cornell University Law School)

The Left has rewritten the meaning of the clause that is written as: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

This disestablishmentarian clause has married to a concept NO WHERE found in the U.S. Constitution; i.e. the concept of Church and State in the sense the government funds (public money) cannot be associated with religion (to the Left this means Christianity). By extension that would mean anything to do with Christian phraseology is prohibited to be part of anything that is publicly funded by taxes (e.g. Court Houses, Public Schools, City Councils and you get the idea).

The Founding Fathers intention by the disestablishmentarian clause is to ensure the government did not establish a State Church in which American citizens were forced to pay taxes to finance that State Church. The intention was NEVER to prevent religion (specifically the Christian religion) from influencing the government.

The judicial fiat that has interpreted the disestablishmentarian clause as “separation of Church and State” ignores the rest of the First Amendment; viz. (Congress shall make no law) “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (i.e. religion, especially Christianity). The next clause that can be read as (Congress shall make no law) “abridging the freedom of speech” also includes religion; ergo Christian phraseology at public meetings or public works or public buildings cannot be abridged.

“Abridge” according to thefreedictionary.com is defined:

tr.v. a•bridged, a•bridg•ing, a•bridg•es
1. To reduce the length of (a written text); condense.
2. To cut short; curtail.

[Middle English abregen, from Old French abregier, from Late Latin abbrevi re, to shorten; see abbreviate.]

Verb [abridging, abridged] to shorten a written work by taking out parts [Late Latin abbreviare]

Thesaurus-abridge:
Verb 1. abridge - reduce in scope while retaining essential elements; "The manuscript must be shortened"

abbreviate, foreshorten, shorten, contract, reduce, cut
bowdlerise, bowdlerize, expurgate, castrate, shorten - edit by omitting or modifying parts considered indelicate; "bowdlerize a novel"

Verb 2. lessen, diminish, or curtail; "the new law might abridge our freedom of expression"
curtail, restrict, curb, cut back - place restrictions on; "curtail drinking in school"

Abridging the exercise of free speech as it pertains to religion (particularly Christianity) should not be shortened or diminished. So whereas the government cannot interfere in religion, the free exercise and expression of religion cannot be prevented for individuals either in government or individuals utilizing government programs (e.g. schools).

I am certain the Leftist Constitutional law experts will cry stare decisis has led to the ever tightening noose on Christian rights; however I have to believe the first case that began the “separation of Church and State” ideology should be reversed. Strict construction interpretation and American history of the use of religion in public should be the actual rule of thumb about interpreting the disestablishmentarian clause.

Now that I got that off my change I found some political humor at The Patriot Update which must have a connection to Townhall.com for the email I received used Townhall mail as its delivery system.

The Patriot Update uses the Ten Commandments of the Bible and rewrites them humorously as “The Ten Commandments According to Obama.”

Now in case you haven’t been to Sunday school in awhile here is a refresher course on the real Ten Commandments:

1. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s."

The Patriot Update surmises this must be President Barack Hussein Obama’s version of the Ten Commandments:

JRH 7/31/09
***********************************
The Ten Commandments According to Obama

By Patriot Update
Email Sent: July 31, 2009 7:50 AM

After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.

I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE

III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE

IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE

V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE

VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE

VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE

IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE

X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE

© 2009 The Patriot Update. Feel free to circulate this article, but please link / give credit to The Patriot Update.

Islam: Religion or Ideology

If you have been reading my posts on Islam/Mohammedanism you may be aware I have been working out a stand concerning the religion founded by Mohammed (e.g. Here and Here).

The decision is between banning Mohammedanism in America or considering Mohammedanism a religion protected by Free of Religion and Free Speech ala the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Cornell University Law School)

There are three points that need to be examined pertaining to Islam:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

2. (Congress shall make no law) prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. religion).

3. (Congress shall make no law) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

A few other points could well be addressed pertaining to Islam however without an understanding of these three points the later is irrelevant or relevant depending on the conclusions of those points.

The first point about the Law and the establishment of religion is one of my pet peeves because Leftists over the last sixty years or so have extrapolated ex nihilo that this means a wall of separation exists between the government (Federal, State and Local) and religion.

This extrapolation has zero to do with the Constitution or with those attributed to reasoning out the meaning of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Rather it comes from a letter (A LETTER!) to the Danbury Baptists in which President Jefferson trying to calm the fears of Baptists about the traditional concept of Christian nations establishing a State Church.

Baptists had never been privy in any nation as a State Church. In those days part of taxation was to support the State Church. Many of the Thirteen Colonies and then the Thirteen States of the United States of America initially had State Churches on the State level.

Saying all this, the majority of America’s ruling elite from the Revolutionary War days considered the rule of law and morality based on Christian principles. My conclusion (though admittedly an opinion) is that the First Amendment did not prohibit religion from being involved in the State; rather it prohibited the State from being involved in religion. The religions of the day were the varieties of Christianity in the new USA with a smattering of Judaism. The Courts of the day would not even consider extrapolating ex nihilo a law prohibiting the involvement of religion in the government apparatus.

The second point is that Congress shall make NO laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This opened the door for religions other than Christianity to practice freely in principle; however you have to be aware the populace in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s would look with prejudice upon a non-Christian religion such as Islam/Mohammedanism. Nonetheless the letter of the law in the Constitution is very concrete. The specific word “religion” was used rather something such as the “religion of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Although Christianity would have been considered the faith of America in post Revolutionary War days, an extrapolation of diverse religious worship is free to occur.

An uncorrupt Court would have to rule to prevent public or private harassment of non-Christian religions in America because Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

There are over a billion people who consider Mohammedanism a religion. At this point one has to realize my quandary about banning Mohammedanism. I’ll back to this thought in a moment.

The third point is that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. This takes care of America’s atheists who choose to live by a philosophy, philosophical principle or merely not care about the existence of religion/deity one way or the other. It is the freedom of conscience without fear of retribution.

Even today ideologies such as Communism or Nazism are allowed freedom of expression in America as long as the expression does not lead to breaking the law via murder, assault, theft, incitement to riot disturbing the public welfare and so on.

Thus today fringe Leftist and fringe Rightist groups test how close they can get to the line of the rule of law without crossing it. Prosecution followed Communists in what was known as the McCarthy Era and today White Supremacists are prosecuted for arms violations and the breaking of other citizens’ civil rights.

It is the THIRD POINT I believe that Mohammedanism crosses the line.

Mohammedanism as a religion simply has too many tenets in their revered books or traditions that cross the line of the rule of law according to the American Constitution. Mohammedanism is a warrior religion that its revered books call to establish the ideological-religion globally first by peace. If peace does not work then war is forced on unbelievers of Mohammedanism until there is Mohammedan conversion or submission to second class citizenship forced to not do anything anti-Islamic or death in a heinous way.

So even though there is a theological nature of otherworldliness to Mohammedanism, the political nature of Mohammedanism in practice in this world tends toward an ideology of political world domination. This world domination mentality has the ferocity inspired by Adolf Hitler’s Nazis on the German population of a superior race. In the same way the German Nazis sought to exterminate human beings (not just Jews) considered as subhuman as not worthy of life. Those outside the Nazi vision of the Germanic Aryan nation not deemed subhuman would be second class citizens serving the Nazi German State.

The Mohammedan ideology of the days of Mohammed in which one can label as radical Islam today is really a Reformation movement on the scale that Protestantism was a movement to reform the Catholic Church to a return of the perception of the Early Church and Patristic Church.

Ali Sina has an awesome essay that points out that “reform” is a movement to go back to the way it was rather than a transformation to another a better way of thinking. The appellation of “Progressive” Churches is a case in point. Progressive Churches are not reforming Christianity; rather they are inserting Leftist humanism to eliminate what is perceived as archaic and of no value in today’s society.

Ali Sina thus stipulates Mohammedanism is not able to be reformed. If there is any reformation occurring in Mohammedanism it is the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi and Shi’ite aims to bring Mohammedanism back to a closer vision of the Prophet Mohammed.

The implication is that Mohammedanism would have progressive thinking added to it to bring it back to a religion that is otherworldly seeking inner peace in this life and the life to come. For this to happen a progressive Mohammedanism would have to deny Mohammed’s revelation from Allah pertaining to convert or die, sex slavery, honor killing and intolerance of everything non-Islamic.

Part of Sina’s point is to not trust Mohammedans that claim to be reform minded. Sina does not specifically point to a website called Muslims Against Sharia but implies that one should not trust Muslims who say they wish to reform Islam. The link for Muslims Against Sharia does not have its name in it, rather the link is http://www.reformislam.org/.

Sina implies there is a religion that is a progressive version of Mohammedanism. That religion is known as Bahá’í.

The Bahá'í's believe in an essential unity of the great religions of the world. However, this does not mean they believe the various religious creeds and doctrines are identical. Rather, they view all religions as having sprung from the same spiritual source. The social and outer forms of different religions vary due to the circumstances at the time that they were founded. Other differences in doctrine and belief can be attributed to later accretions, after the death of the founder.

…

Bahá'í beliefs promoted major social changes when they were first circulated in the 19th century: they supported gender and race equality; world government; freedom of expression and assembly; world peace; religious tolerance, and religious cooperation. In many ways, they were a century or more ahead of many other faiths. Their followers are heavily involved in promoting these concepts today. Also, unlike many other religions, Bahá'ís view scientific inquiry as essential to expand human knowledge and to deepen their members' faith. They feel that science needs to be guided by spiritual principles so that its applications are beneficial to all humanity. (Excerpted from Bahá'í Faith: Beliefs and Practices)

I have come around to the conclusion that if Mohammedanism wishes to evolve into a true religion of peace (Note as a Christian I did not say the true religion) then Muslims would embrace Baha’ism which is an actual root from Mohammedanism.

So now I am pretty much in the “Ban Islam” crowd even though it is not completely etched into stone in my thoughts. It is entirely reasonable to view Mohammedanism as a Theo-Political cult with the emphasis on political ideology. The inherent political ideology of Islam definitely crosses the line of American Constitutionalism and the rule of law to protect citizens from harm.

Thus to ban Islam could be viewed as terminating an ideology which would harm the Constitution of the United States of America.

Leftist Diversity Criminalizes Christianity

The Left that is currently in power in Congress has been trying to redefine America’s First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of religion for some time. Since the fringe Leftist Dems indeed controls both Houses of Congress, this is a scary proposition.

I have written before about how the Dems wish to make Hate Crimes applicable to diminish Freedom of Speech, particularly to criminalize Biblical Christians for preaching Biblical Morality or point the differences between Christianity and other religions. Yes, the “other religions” is mostly a reference to Mohammedanism (Islam) which is slowly seeping into the West utilizing the Western tolerant legal system to allow violent Mohammedanism to practice above the rule of law of the West.

If the current legislation known as David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act becomes law, then look for fringe Dems and a the Leftist activist Judiciary to stifle Free Speech of Christians as part of the Secular Humanistic Agenda to make diversity rather than E Pluribus Unum (Out of the many, ONE) the cultural norm in America. To accomplish this agenda the biggest obstacle must be silenced; i.e. those vilified Biblical Christians that are often portrayed as clinging to myths and as poor backward people.

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) has been keeping up with the Dem push to alter America’s traditions and dilute the Constitution. A few days ago they published a piece about Nancy Pelosi trying to soften the language of the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act in order to use smoke and mirrors to trick the opposition to snooze and join Dems in passing this legislation.

Read the CADC’s call for Americans (especially Christian Americans) to wake-up and stand against this heinous act to dilute Free Speech and Religious Freedom.

JRH 3/18/09

Continued Attack on Christianity

The “Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Prevention Act” of 2007 was designed to prevent hate crimes against homosexuals. The reality of the Act would have infringed on First Amendment Free Speech rights by making it a crime to communicate Biblical Morality. The reason being Biblical Morality denounces homosexuality; ergo it would be a hate crime.

The Act sailed through the House and the Senate. The Senate made the fortunate mistake of attaching its version to an omnibus DoD spending Bill. A veto threat by G.W. caused the Act attachment to be withdrawn from the DoD Bill effectively killing the infringement of Free Speech Act in late 2007.

Of course I was very much against this Bill in the first place. You can one of the most comprehensive posts for rejecting this Act HERE.

You can guess that homosexual rights/agenda organizations went medievally gay because this tool to silence Christians became unavailable to them.

Here we are now and it is 2009. Now there is Bill with the appellation of David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 256). This so-called ‘Hate Crime’ legislation expands beyond enabling homosexuality as a government protected debauchery. This Bill if passed will affect Free Speech concerning opinions also dealing with illegal immigration issues and religion (meaning if a Christian Biblically tells or writes his opinion in the negative of another religion – it would be a hate crime). If passed written and/or verbal opinions publicly aired concerning illegal immigrants, religions and homosexual (let’s include transgender issues as well) could get one thrown in the slammer. Considering the money behind the homosexual agenda and Wahhabist Muslim agenda in America, you can count on Christianity to be a target.

Incredulously pro-Christian Ministries, Churches and organization that promote Biblical morality have become the target of those that would support David Ray Hate Crimes Act.

One of those organizations is called the Southern Poverty Law Center. One of the goals of the SPLC is to label Hate Groups. It is shocking that many organizations that stand for walking the Word of God of Christ Jesus a placed in a ‘Hate Group’ category.

The SPLC and the likes of the Hate Crimes legislation being forced on America are similar to the filtered Freedom of Speech in Europe and Canada.

One Christian organization has an awesome article defending their Christian beliefs (and by association then other such organizations) in the face of the SPLC including them as a hate organization. Read what the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) has to say about being labeled a hate group as well as the pending Hate Crimes legislation.

JRH 3/13/09

Choose One: Free Speech for All or Hate Speech for All

If you pay any attention in the blogosphere it is not news that Geert Wilders is being prosecuted in his own nation of the Netherlands (i.e. the Dutch boys and girls) for incitement of hatred. The accused crime is producing a movie short called Fitna that compares the present day actions of Islamic terrorists to the very words of the Quran.

It is not surprising to me that the Left of Wilders’ Europe and of America equate this not to Free Speech but to the equivalent to falsely yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. The metaphor being if people are trampled to death, the yelling perpetrator is a murderer.

The problem with the Leftist mindset is this: yelling FIRE falsely is indeed a crime that can evolve into a heinous if death occurs. Yet yelling FIRE when there is a fire and people panic and trampling and deaths occur is not a crime. That is a failure of organization and planning for a potential hazardous situation.

Geert Wilders is yelling FIRE! Islam is not fit for Western Culture. The essence of the Theo-political cult is incitement to violence for everything not submitting to Islamic Supremacism. The societal danger is not in the warning of the danger it is in the NOT preparing for what the danger is able to conflagrate in society.

Now that takes care of the Left.

Here is some Free Speech nonsense from a combination of Left and Right:

“Whether Mr. Wilders has deliberately insulted Muslim people is for the judges to decide. But for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich.” – Ian Buruma – NYT.

Or this:

“However, Wilders himself does not deserve to be called an icon of free speech, since he explicitly wants to ban the Koran and make Islam illegal in Europe; in other words, he wants to take away other people’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and that is simply wrong. Book banning is what totalitarians do, not believers in free speech.” – Charles Johnson – LGF.

I found these quotes at Jihad Watch.

Do you see what these guys are saying? Banning the Quran or inhibiting the practice of violent Islam is an infringement of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion; thus defending Wilders’ Free Speech is agreeing to dampen or eradicate the Free Speech and Freedom of Religion of Muslims (or anyone for that matter).

These guys have abandoned the FIRE approach to an obfuscation sure to tip the emotions of Americans centered on the right to freely practice religion or freely not to practice religion.

The Jihad Watch poster to which these quotes were found I believe is Robert Spencer. Spencer does a marvelous job of showing the fallacy of applying freedom of religion to stifle Geert Wilders.

Spencer basically demonstrates that which good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words if the rule of law applies a hate speech or incitement for one person or group of like minded people, the rule of law should also apply to the offended person or group of like minded people.

If Wilders is inciting Muslims, are not Muslims inciting non-Muslims (defined as kafir by Muslim Supremacists) with their Theo-Political writings such as the Quran, Hadith and Sira?

The key word of application for Spencer is CONSISTENCY.

Check out the Jihad Watch post entitled, “Is Geert Wilders inconsistent in calling for banning the Qur'an and defending free speech?”

JRH 2/11/09

Patrick Comment to: ‘Homosexuals Persecuting Christians and Mormons’

Patrick Comment to: ‘Homosexuals Persecuting Christians and Mormons’
Email Sent: Wed 11/19/2008 11:10 PM

Your statements about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are inaccurate and offensive.

You do not know enough about the Church to make an informed assessment. Your statemenst [sic] that we are not Christian and are a cult is wrong. We agree on the santity [sic] of marriage. We stand together in firm solidarity with anyone who believes that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman. It is extremely bad taste to mix criticism of the LDS Church into your story about persecution of Christians by homosexuals. I am having trouble with being a fan or your!

Patrick
********************************************
Patrick I humbly apologize if you found my insight on the “LDS Church” to be offensive; however it is my opinion that they were not inaccurate.

If you are Mormon I can understand that you believe my statements were inaccurate and offensive for they certainly were not complimentary.; however I am not a Mormon.

I am a Charismatic/Pentecostal involved in the Word of Faith movement with leanings toward the prophetic and Renewal movements. If check out these links it won’t take long to discover I hang with a group of Believers that a huge amount of Christian believers believe are heretical movements.

I am fairly certain the official Mormon theology places the LDS as the one true Church of Jesus Christ and would view the Christian path I have chosen as a walk toward deception. Believe me there would have been a time that I would get my ire up hearing that from a Mormon.

Here is the reality of my situation: Those whom I consider to be Christians do not afford me the same graciousness. Many Mainline Protestant Churches and Roman Catholics would consider me a heretic. Ironically there is many of my Christian journey who considers those Churches to be in error and have the hubris to condemn their theological stance as a path to hell. I am not like that.

My thoughts of a true Christian are actually very simple and are backed up by the Bible (again my perception).

True Christians are those that believe Jesus was crucified and buried in death. After three days in the tomb the Resurrection power of God raised Christ from the dead to life in a physical body. Although the Bible does not specifically say the word trinity, there are plenty of (four) Gospel evidence of God being a unity of three person in one deity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Also the Gospels point out that Jesus as the second person of the unified trinity pre-existed simultaneously with the Father and Holy Spirit before being incarnated as a human with both the natures of God and human (hypostasis) rendering Jesus as simultaneously the Son of Man and the Son of God. It is the union of created humanity melded with the nature of the uncreated God that enables the redemptive of act of the Blood of Christ and the death of Christ expiating the sin nature of all humanity who believes on Christ Jesus. Accepting the redemptive act joins a believing human to the same resurrection life that makes one a new creation in Christ Jesus and joint heirs with the uncreated God via the Resurrection of Christ Jesus and thus the recipients of Salvation. Ergo saved from the dark realm of Satan’s dominion and transferred into the Kingdom of the Father’s dear Son.

The is what Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant denominations are all in unified agreement. All the disputes exist in the realm in which dogma that is the result of human reasoning of Scriptures and Traditions that separate most Christians.

Mormons do not believe in the Triune God, rather it is their belief that the Father created Satan and Jesus who have a relationship as brothers. This lowers Jesus to the position of a Created being when in fact he is Uncreated as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is my basis of not placing a great group of people outside of Christianity.

Just to be clear I am not a medieval to 19th century Christian that believes violence should be perpetuated on Mormons for their beliefs. I am a 21st century American Christian that believes an American may practice his faith as he sees fit as long as no obvious laws are broken (e.g. polygamy, child abuse, child marriage, murder, honor killings and so on). As I said those very same violent projections could come my way for many believe my Christian walk is not Christian either.

And I have to reiterate that although I do not consider Mormons to be Christians, I do admire their stand for Judeo/Christian ethics and morals.

Patrick I pray this lessons the offense you feel for my Mormon view. Keep up the fight to keep Judeo/Christian morality going. The alternate lifestyle relativistic morality could very well be the downfall of America as a good nation.

JRH 11/20/08

Muslim Religion Propagates Politics BUT NOT Christians

Are you aware that some moron allowed the First Amendment rights of organized Churches and evangelical ministries to be gagged? The First Amendment is still available to organized Churches and Ministries; however to exercise their First Amendment rights the IRS has been given the legal power to revoke Churches and Ministries 501(c)3 non-profit tax deductable status.

That means tax payers who give generously to a Church or Ministry would not receive the USA stamp of approval to use a donation as a tax deduction.

Honestly many Americans brainwashed into the non-existent Constitutional doctrine of Separation of Church and State (also First Amendment) believes religion should not mix with politics. That concept is only valid from the State side of the Constitutional equation. The First Amendment as it relates to religion ONLY forbids the STATE from meddling in religion and NOT religion from meddling in the State.

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The highlighted parts are done by me to make my point. Congress (i.e. the Government) cannot establish a State religion. Neither can the Government prohibit the free exercise of religion. Now tell me, where does it say religion must remain separate from the Government? IT DOES NOT! The First Amendment says the Government must remain separate from religion.

In the 1960’s an activist Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) began judicial stamping legislation prohibiting religion to be active in anything to do with government. This began when prayer was taken out of the school system and been chipped away judicially little by little ever since.

Let’s see the ninth State to approve the Constitution and therefore ratifying was New Hampshire on June 21, 1788. In 1986 the IRS tax code designated charitable organizations (aimed at Christian Churches and Ministries) cannot be involved in influencing legislation or candidate elections. Well actually charitable organizations can do so BUT the IRS will cut off the tax exempt status if the charitable organization participates actively in the voting process.

This is the back door gag order on First Amendment rights of Free Speech. Of Left Wing Courts support this Constitutional delusion by citing the mythical Separation of Church and State.

Now the big fear is this. Conservative Christians have become very organized and it is a Leftist way to slow down Christian Conservatives from supporting candidates and legislation that runs counter to secular humanist agenda that has ripped the fabric of Christian Morality from America’s foundations. Sure it applies to so-called Progressive Leftist Churches too; however if you notice in the media it is the Progressive Churches trying to alert the IRS about the Biblically Moral Churches about slipping to politics more that the Leftists like it. And of course secular Leftist or secular amoral organizations utilize there clout to shut Conservative Christian Political activity. Whereas the Secular Humanists (including the homosexual activists) are highly involved politically having nearly no IRS harassment because Secular Humanism is not classified as a religion.

Now that I written my thoughts on anti-Christian free speech, here is something I find totally amazing.

There are several Mohammedan organizations that promote political agendas both on a legislative and candidate scale and are also 501(c)3 non-profit organizations. Although I personally believe that Islam/Mohammedanism is just as much political ideology as religious theology, the point is Mohammedanism is considered one of the largest religions in the world.

And yet the IRS does nothing to a religious organization like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) promoting a legislative agenda as well as candidates ranging from the only Mohammedan Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama.

Now keep in mind that ISNA is not only a religious organization doing what Christians are forbidden to do politically, but ISNA has one of its founders as Palestinian Islamic Jihadist Sami al-Arian who has been convicted for being involved with funding PIJ. ISNA denounces that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 and has been named along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations as an indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation hung jury trial.

So someone tell me how the IRS allows a terrorist supporting religious organization like ISNA maintain its 501(c)3 designation while Christian Ministries are either threatened or have their same non-profit designation revoked for being involved with politics?

JRH 9/7/08

Freedom is NOT a License to Break the Law

Tonight on the Fox News channel I watched a special on the alarming prevalence of honor killings occurring in America. From memory the nations referenced were Mohammedans from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt.

I also remember the Fox News channel reporting that the U.N. condemned honor killing; however twenty-two Mohammedan nations refused to be signatories of the Assembly Resolution. Let write that again: TWENTY-TWO!

Fox News trying to live up to its moniker of fair and balanced also interviewed a Muslim council representing Pakistani Mohammedans in the American location of an honor killing. The Mohammedan spokesman said that the crime perpetrated in the name of honor has nothing to do with Islam. The spokesman said this even though the Mohammedan murderer of his own daughter awaited police to pick him up and through the course of his legal journey admitted that killing his daughter for family honor is something he does not regret. Keep in mind the murderer was a devout Mohammedan in America that found a way to pray towards Mecca five times a day.

Now I find this WorldNetDaily article reporting on a British survey that found one in three Mohammedan students in Britain’s elite universities (meaning NOT impoverished people, which Lefties claim is the leading cause of radical Islam) believe it is just fine to kill in the name of Islam (Mohammedanism).

I write this enlightening information about Mohammedanism flabbergasted that I still receive comments from Lefties and Mohammedans that I am a “hatemonger.” I was remarkably accused of this by a Navy man stationed in San Diego (HERE and HERE). This does not have a clue why he is in the American military and he told me, he and others like are the ones that NEED TO WAKE UP. Mohammedanism is a threat to American and Western culture and Mohammedan immigrants in America (at the very least) need to submit to American rule of law or get out.

Is that hate? NO! It’s the rule of law. Sharia Law is not the American rule of law. The Mohammedan scriptures which promote hate as an abrogation to Mohammedan peace scriptures, needs active theological reformation (again – at least in America).

Freedom of Religion DOES NOT extend to murder any more than Freedom of Speech extends to hollering FIRE in a crowded theatre when in fact there is no fire.

JRH 7/27/08

War on Christianity?

Okay let us try to at least pretend to be observant.

Secular Humanism under the guise of moral relativist organizations have been warring against Christianity, against Christian morality and the Christian inspiration for the rule of law in America for over half a century. Some of my fellow zealots may even place this Leftist war on Christianity at an even greater length of time, but I personally don’t have the time to do the research to pin point Secular Humanistic slow erosive acts against Christianity in America. Let us just say that legal actions that would have been unthinkable fifty years ago are becoming common in this early part of the 21st century.

Just a few days ago I posted about a Christian business was fined over six-thousand dollars for refusing to do a photo op for a same sex union ceremony in New Mexico. Evidently the State of New Mexico has made State level anti-discriminatory laws which unconstitutionally override the Federal Law in the First Amendment in which is stated specifically that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion (thereof).

Let’s see if I can find some anti-Christian legal battles either instituted by the Government, the ACLU or the various deviant homosexual rights organizations (not necessarily in order).

Navy Lt Gordon James Klingenschmitt was court-martialed and booted out of the Navy for praying in the NAME OF JESUS.

Tyler Chase Harper in 2003 chose to wear tee shirts that said “I will not accept what God has condemned” and “Be ashamed, our school has embraced what God has condemned.” The Poway Unified School District chose to punish Harper for expressing Constitutional First Amendment Right to freely exercise his religious beliefs.

Mohammedans are provided special rooms and/or occasions to pray in Public and Collegiate level schools; however Brittany McComb was prevented from giving her Valedictorian speech in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2006 because it was known she was going to express her faith in Jesus Christ.

In 2007 the American Family Association sends out an Action Alert about the Senate and the House of Representatives working on legislation that would Pastoral or Ministerial sermons on the sinfulness of homosexuality a hate crime.

Here we are AGAIN with the Day of Silence garbage in 2008 in which many Public Schools across the nation will force student to learn that homosexuality and transgender lifestyles are not deviant. This is happening with impunity knowing the big money for litigation is with the homosexuals via homosexual organizations and especially the ACLU (the King pen of anti-Christianity).

I could on and on; nonetheless I have to mention Secular Humanist war against one of the most Holy Days of Christianity – Christmas. Way too many corporate store chains are falling into the same pit the Left has forced the government into, viz. censoring Christmas because it is Christian. The big Capitalists (and I not against Capitalism) want to be Leftie Politically Correct and make their Christmas dough at the same time. Every Christmas comes a controversy: no Santas; no Salvation Army bell ringers, the replacement of “Merry Christmas” with “Merry X-mas” or “Happy Holidays” and so on.

Is there a war on Christianity in America? You’re darn toot’in!

The latest stupidity in battling Christianity is an ACLU legal win in banning a quarter century school tradition of praying before Football Games at East Brunswick High School located in New Jersey. The Coach even tried to accommodate the ACLU by refraining from verbal prayer but having a student lead in a moment of silent prayer. The Court said NO!

JRH

Christian Business Fined For Upholding Their Faith

Here is a classic example of the homosexual agenda exploiting the belief that homosexuality is an immoral practice by using anti-discrimination or hate crimes laws to PUNISH a business that declined to do a photo opt for a same-sex marriage. The State Government is using anti-discrimination laws to prevent the free exercise of religion as protected under the First Amendment to protect the practice of a horrible disgusting lifestyle in which the Bible believing Christians find sinful.

Disgusting!

JRH 4/14/08

Can America Afford Moonbat Theology Politically?

Let us read the bed rock of civil rights in America today:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment)

The problem the Christian Right and many Conservatives have with Liberal Activist Judges and Justices is the interpretation of “Establishment Clause.” The Left and/or Progressives believe the implication of the clause is that religion can have zero association with anything taxpayer supported on all levels of government. The Christian Right and many Conservatives believe the clause merely prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION as the religion of the land or nation. Thus the Christian Right believes the symbols of the moral foundations of America (i.e. Judeo-Christianity) are inclusive on public lands as long as the Federal Government does not establish the symbolism as representative of a particular Christian Denomination.

Now let’s look at the next clause of the First Amendment: [Congress shall make no law] prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. religion).

Everybody from the fringe Left to the fringe Right pretty much understands this to mean the Federal Government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, in other words – Freedom of Religion.

Unfortunately the Leftist interpretation of the Establishment Clause has become a weapon aimed at Christianity’s free exercise of Religion in recent years. Since the Leftists in the Judiciary have become firm on the non-existent Constitutional term “Separation of Church and State,” the Christian religion has slowly been exorcised from a public forum (particularly in public schools) with the unconstitutional promotion of non-Christian religions in public schools.

The primary case in point is that schools are prohibited from allowing Bible reading or Christian cultural history to be taught yet alternative religions and the humanist religion of Secular Humanism are becoming mandated norms in our public schools.

Religions such as Mohammedanism, Hinduism and Buddhism (to name a few) are required as practicing role models to instill a counter Christian cultural understanding of other religions. The worst example is the forcing of students to recite the Quran and pray toward Mecca with the weak explanation of teaching the understanding of alternative cultures and religions. Hello! Christianity is prohibited in the class room.

Another religion being foistered among the young are the various New Age cultic religions propagated into schools and public forums as an alternative to Christianity.

I don’t have a problem of stacking various religions equally in the class room comparatively; however Christianity is not part of that comparison. Leftists whine of “Separation of Church and State” and thus prohibit the equal ground of Christian ethos and morality to be taught equally with the alternative religions. This directly breaks the second clause of the First Amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity and establishing the study of other religions as an alternative to Christianity.

Some might say, “Did you see the word ‘Secular’ in Secular Humanism?” The very word “secular” denotes something other than religion. The reality of course is that the tenets of Secular Humanism have taken on a cultic value. Thus all that defines a religion such as setting values and tenets and mindsets that compete with other religions have transformed Secular Humanism into a religion. The only difference from Secular Humanism from other Religions is that the god of Secular Humanism is the relative terms of human philosophy; ergo humanity collectively is god.

Now let’s bring this discussion home about Presidential Candidate Barak Obama running for the Democratic Party nomination.

Obama is an articulate charismatic speaker. This has aided him in catching up in the polls to his adversarial harsh sounding rival Hillary Clinton. Not too long ago Hillary was thought of as the unstoppable Queen of the hill that many felt was a certainty for the Democratic Party nomination.

Enter Oprah Winfrey into the endorsement fray. Oprah not only endorses Obama but is actively campaigning for an Obama nomination. And it is her right to do so.

If Oprah is successful in knocking the Queen off the top of the hill with Obama replacing Hillary as the Democratic Party nomination, then you Christian Right people should know a few things about Oprah personal religious beliefs that she is entirely free to practice.

Oprah is a devoted New Ager that hangs with New Age big dogs such as Marianne Williamson and Neal Donald Walsch. Oprah is heavily hooked into the New Age principles of “A Course in Miracles.” All this is no big deal as far as the freedom of religion goes.

Here is my concern. Obama is not exactly a moderate. He has a Mohammedan past and attends what the Christian Right would term a progressive Church. The term “progressive” is another way of saying liberal. The Denomination that Obama attends is the United Church of Christ (UCC), which is notorious for abandoning the Scriptures of the Bible as Divine and supports such things as homosexual rights and abortion.

So I am thinking Hillary is a Leftie; however Obama by association is even more a fringe moonbat Leftie. And Oprah is using her star power and influence to hook Obama’s charisma to the Democratic Party.

For Conservatives and the Christian Right, this is dangerous stuff!

JRH

Rule of Law Under Islam

If there is such a thing as Moderate Mohammedanism it is in only practiced in Western style democratic nations.

At the ccpga Yahoo Group there is a huge amount of citations of non-Islamist (ergo the opposite being moderate) Mohammedans experiencing judgments from the rule of law in various Middle Eastern nations.

The post begins with a Dhimmi Watch post about a Christian woman being thrown in the slammer in Egypt for stating her religion as Christianity on her Marriage Certificate.

Evidently her father converted from Christianity to Mohammedanism briefly then converted back to Christianity. That is illegal according to the law of the land in Egypt. The father’s brief flirtation with Mohammedanism made all his children (whether they wanted to or not) legally Mohammedans. Thus the Egyptian Christian according to the law of the land was a Mohammedan. She broke the law trying to marry as a Christian.

The ccpga Post goes on with comments about the Dhimmi Watch post some of them telling accounts of other enforcement of the rule of law in Egypt.

Now if this is justice in a moderate Mohammedan society imagine the ruthlessness of Islamism.

Now imagine that Islamism is the predominant force in America and the West seeking Mohammedan converts and supporting the biggest and the newest Mosques in America and the West.

Now I am a huge believer in America’s First Amendment right that implies Freedom of Religion or philosophical conscience; however if this is the kind of rule of law moderate Mohammedans expect to be practiced in America, I am for some religious profiling to make sure Islamist teaching is NOT a right and a test to make sure a moderate Mohammedan is moderate by American Constitutional rule of law.

Message to pastors and other Christians: Just keep your mouth shut

Secular Humanism has made the public speaking of Christian Morality pertaining homosexually a hate crime in Europe and Canada. Swedish and Canadian Christians have been prosecuted for preach hate crimes relating to Christianity. The Secular Humanist agenda to extinguish Christianity in one of the most powerful nations in the world is making its play.

House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105 if passed and signed by a now unfriendly President, would make the public free speech Biblically based Christian Morality a hate crime.

JRH
***********************************

Message to pastors and other Christians: Just keep your mouth shut


American Family Association
Action Alert
Donald E. Wildmon
June 14, 2007


A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality.


If pastors and other Christians don’t aggressively oppose a bill now in Congress, in the near future they will be subject to huge fines and prison terms if they say anything negative about homosexuality.

The proposed law would make it a crime to preach on Romans Chapter 1 or I Corinthians Chapter 6. Or even to discuss them in a Sunday School class. If churches and individuals want to keep the government from telling them what they can and cannot preach and teach about homosexuality, they better get involved now!

House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105 would make negative statements concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a “hate crime” punishable by law. This dangerous legislation would take away your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion. Consider what has already happened:

• 
  
  A California lawsuit which is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court would make the use of the words “natural family,” “marriage” and “union of a man and a woman” a “hate speech” crime in government workplaces. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled in favor of the plaintiffs!
• 
  CNN and The Washington Post both reported that General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was fired because he publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior.

For the Alliance Defense Fund’s summary of this bill, click here.

Take Action

We are looking for one million Americans willing to take a stand and not allow a small group of homosexual activists to take away our freedoms. Can we count on you? Click on the link below to sign our Petition to Congress in Defense of Religious Freedom.

Please forward this to others, especially your pastor, and ask them to get involved in protecting our freedoms of speech and religion. This threat to our religious freedoms is real!

Sign the Petition to Congress Today

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman

American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

Sharpton and Romney

I am a Word of God kind of guy and not a huge proponent of Latter Day Saints doctrine. Now here is the thing: the so-called Reverend Al Sharpton criticized Mormon’s belief in God. It was an attack on Mormonism and Republican Presidential candidate Mint Romney.

If Sharpton criticized Mormonism on doctrinal basis as extra-Christian he would be correct. However Mormons are one of the most moral of sects/cults in America.

This is a case of Sharpton should look at the mote in his own eye before trying to cast the beam out of another person’s eye. Sharpton has been involved in dubious spiritual matters that filter everything he sees through Black victimhood. In other words Sharpton is a racist and denigrates anything Caucasian to promote Black superiority via victimhood. The victim deserves special treatment based on past oppression rather than advancement by merit.

That is stinking thinking as much as Mormonism is a Gnostic disguised as Christianity. The Reverend Al Sharpton should be promoting a Christ agenda rather than a Black victimhood that in reality forces many Blacks in America to be dependant on the government turn to crime for a higher wage bracket or break the victimhood cycle to find a path of merit oriented upward mobility. The first two or predominant among Blacks and as such they have become slaves to Democratic Party promises of handouts.

As much as I disagree with Mormon theology, they seek God in a manner to enhance self-worth and community via moral foundations. (Of course there are tons of fringe Mormons that have rejected the present and live in the past practicing illegal acts as polygamy; however those Mormons are an example of the fringe.)

I will not support Romney for the Republican nomination because of his faith, but if he wins I will vote for him over any deceptive Democrat that promotes a secular humanist agenda to delete Christian morality in favor of moral relativity. That is what Al Sharpton represents.

The New Christian Persecution

Western Europe is probably overcome by a new religion. I am not speaking of Mohammedanism though Mohammedanism is probably the new European religion’s greatest competitor by virtue of rising population demographics and the stupidity of the new religion.

What is that new religion? It is Secular Humanism.

Secular Humanism actively attacks the foundations of Biblical morality. In Britain the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private or Christian Schools to teach Biblical Morality, viz. that homosexuality is a sin. The effect is to make Christian teachings illegal.

This kind of thinking is moving to America. The new Christian persecution is analyzed by Chuck Colson which I have posted below - READ IT.
JRH
**************************************************

Homosexual Practice Trumps Religious Belief: Outlawing Conscience.

By Chuck Colson

Christian Post Guest Columnist

Tue, Mar. 20 2007 11:36 AM ET

You may think the day would never come when preaching the Gospel would be illegal in a Western country—when governments would restrict what Christians can teach.

You would be wrong. The persecution against the Church has taken a decisive turn in the cradle of civil liberty—the United Kingdom (UK). And it will happen in America, also, if we do not wake up to the danger.

In London last month, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral. The committee claimed the regulations are needed to combat discrimination against homosexuals.

And we know about this. Last summer, the British government closed down our IFI unit because we teach that sex should be limited to heterosexual marriage. And if these regulations violate the rights of Christians—what does the government say? “Too bad.”

Luke Gormally, a fellow at London’s Linacre Centre, a Christian bioethics institute, put it this way: “The Committee could not be clearer in saying that they believe the freedom to live a practicing homosexual lifestyle trumps the freedom to live a religious lifestyle.”

The committee explicitly said that no exemption should be made for Christian schools. So, unbelievable though it sounds, Gormally notes, when it comes to sexual morality, the committee would make it illegal for Christian schools “to teach that Christianity and its principles are ‘objectively true.’”

Christian schools will not be alone in seeing their religious freedom stripped away. If this law passes, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for ministers to share the Bible’s teachings on sexual morality. Property owners who do not want, for moral reasons, to rent property to homosexuals will be breaking the law. So will Christian printers who refuse to print pro-gay literature.

Last Thursday, a House of Commons committee met to decide on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Many MPs protested the Blair government’s refusal to allow a full debate in the House of Commons. And despite repeated appeals for a postponement, the chairperson insisted on taking an immediate vote: The regulations were upheld.

Now, the Blair government is attempting to rush the law through both houses of Parliament before opponents have time to organize. The vote will take place on Wednesday.

On that day, many Christians will be found at a prayer vigil in Old Palace Yard near the entrance to the House of Lords. We need to be praying with them, because it is going to take a miracle to keep this law from passing.
We must also realize that we are going to face this same kind of persecution if same-sex “marriage” is legalized in America. It’s already begun, especially in Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” was imposed by judges. For instance, a federal judge recently decreed that Christian parents cannot opt their kindergarteners out of public school classes that normalize homosexuality. And last year Catholic Charities shut down its adoption agencies rather than agree to send innocent children into homosexual homes.

This is why we desperately need to be vigilant—especially our religious liberty groups. This is why, for example, we need to pass a federal marriage amendment. If we do nothing, we are going to be facing the same future that Christians in the UK are facing: a future in which preaching the truths of the Gospel is against the law.

The New Christian Persecution

John R. Houk

© March 23, 2007

_______________________

Homosexual Practice Trumps Religious Belief: Outlawing Conscience

From BreakPoint®, March 20, 2007, Copyright 2007, Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved.

Copyright © The Christian Post

Dhimmitude or How Western Muslims Use Western Laws

There is more and more evidence coming forth that illustrates what the jihadists cannot do by violence, Islamists will do with Western Laws to protect their Fifth Column agenda to mohammedanize the West and America.

I know you are thinking I am just being an Islamophobe and you are correct. The problem is Islamophobia is not racism as the many Islamist organizations in America, Canada and Europe would have you believe. Radical Islam is not a race. Certainly Radical Islamists have a high profile of Arab and Middle Eastern looking fellows; however Mohammedanism’s largest population is in Indonesia. That is Asian. A huge segment of Mohammedans have an Indian ancestry which is currently split up between Pakistan, Bangladesh and large segments of India.

So let us re-think this Islamophobe business is a racist business. Radical Islam is more akin to political theory radicalized by an injection of religion. It is much like what the Soviets and Red Chinese did at the beginning of their revolutionary regimes. They propagandize the population under their influence to worship a cultic status. In communism it was Karl Marx, Lennon, Mao and the State. In Mohammedanism it is the medieval acts of Mohammed and his blood lust for a cohesive empire. The empire initiated by Mohammed exercised a combination of brutality and propaganda to transform the conquered into passionate believers of the old Arab moon deity Allah.

With money from Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Shi’ite Iran, migrating Mohammedans to America and Europe are exploiting laws of freedom and liberty reverse assimilating the cultures they have moved to. WAKE UP!

Thought Police Strike Again

The Constitution Party bills itself as the third largest political party in America by virtue of registered voters. Actually I like the Constitution Party. It is a political party that enjoins strict constructionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. If the Constitution Party ever garnered enough votes to be a viable competitor without placing Left Wing Democrats in power, I would vote their candidates.

Here is a Constitution Party e-newsletter sent out on February 5th.

The e-newsletter refers to Legislation proposed Rep. Sheila Jackson a Democrat from Texas. H.R. 254 would make preaching Christian Morality a hate crime. One example is the description of homosexuality as a dark sin. Under H.R. 254 that Christian would be guilty of a hate crime. Disagreeing radical Mohammedanism and denouncing Quranic scripture as not congruent to Christian Scripture would be a hate crime.

YOU CAN READ THE E-NEWSLETTER HERE.

Klingenschmitt and the U.S. Navy

Navy Lt Gordon James Klingenschmitt will go down in Christian history as a man that not only stood for principle but also for faith in the name of Jesus Christ. Klingenschmitt is (or was) a Chaplain in the U.S. Navy that was reprimanded and court-martialed for praying in the name of Jesus.

Klingenschmitt had to choose between following orders from a commanding officer of higher rank and following the conscience of his faith. He followed his conscience.

His fight has led to a Congressional act enforce future Chaplains to pray according to their faith. His fight also has led to the disciplinary action of being dismissed by the Navy.