Congress Shall Make No Law: Religious Freedom, And The Absolutist Exercise Thereof

As of April of this year, some twenty states had enacted so-called “religious freedom” laws, with similar legislation pending in another half-dozen states. But why do states need such laws when the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? The modern “religious freedom” movement, which took hold during the Clinton administration, was in response to a Supreme Court ruling in 1990 (“Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith“). The case “determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.”

• • •

Ben Affleck Unwittingly Confirms Bill Maher’s Criticism Of Liberals

On the September 26th installment of Real Time on HBO, host Bill Maher used his “New Rules” segment to call out liberals who need a lesson on what liberals are supposed to stand for. “President Obama keeps insisting that ISIS is not Islamic,” said Maher. “If vast numbers of Muslims around the world believe — and they do — that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea, or drawing a cartoon, or writing a book, or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.”

• • •

Climate Change For Evangelical Christians: Actions Have Consequences

Those of us who accept the scientific consensus know there will be consequences of inaction on climate change. But instead of our inaction, what about the consequences of our actions? What we don’t consider is the consequences of our actions in a faith-based sense, that might speak to the evangelical Christians who reject climate change. Let me explain.

• • •

The Christian Right Wishes To Protect Intolerant ‘Religious’ Beliefs

There is great absurdity in calling “the left” intolerant, as it relates to the Duck Dynasty / Phil Robertson “story,” when the Christian right is masterful at employing intolerance by masquerading it as a protected religious belief. They wish to portray “the left” as being intolerant when liberals criticize hateful religious beliefs. If these religious beliefs were harmless, and if these religious beliefs were not discriminatory, then maybe, just maybe the Christian right would have a point. But if a Christian conservative vocally condemns an entire group of people based on sexual preference, or race, or anything else that is part of what makes them human, that is true intolerance, and they will rightfully be labeled a bigot.

• • •