So, the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of religion and speech. In the US, there are not supposed to be any laws that infringe upon those. There are other rights also guaranteed such that rights must be balanced against each other. In addition, rights can be taken to the extreme. A person's religion may call for him to destroy the Earth. The Constitution is not designed to protect his efforts to acquire and use the destructive force to do that. That's an extreme example to make the point. The legal concept of "reasonable" is applied. (What would the "reasonable" person believe is correct?) That "reasonable" standard is also balanced against protecting minority views for the sake of political and other speech, for the sake of the democratic process. Where no reasonable freedom of thought, word, or deed is allowed, a reasonably functioning democracy cannot exist.
Okay, that paragraph packs in a great deal, most of which will be very familiar to the vast majority who have studied even rudimentary "civics."
If a person is a Jew and is a conservative Jew, even Hasidic, and that person applies for a job, let's say a public teaching job, the school district cannot refuse to hire him simply because he is Hasidic. This is a very unusual example because Hasidim often do not apply to work at public schools for reasons of their religious beliefs. However, if one were to do it, the public educational authorities could not legally (under the US Constitution) deny him employment for being Hasidic.
They could not say that they will hire him provided he change his hair or clothes. The image there is a link to the site about a Hasidic man, Shlomo Koenig, who is a deputy sheriff. He works as a public employee. You will note though that he wears a sheriff's uniform. That's part of the balancing act I mentioned above. You will also note though that he has retained his curls or locks and his full beard.
Our school teacher though is not required to wear a uniform but is expected to meet certain dress-code standards of decency for instance. So, a Hasidic high school teacher would be fine dressed in his typical Hasidic clothes. There would be no requirement for him to hide is religion from the students. He would not though be allowed to proselytize in the classroom or to the students there on campus as a captive audience. He would though be allowed to continue off campus going about his openly Hasidic way of life and saying all the things he believes both religiously and politically (a distinction I make solely for the purposes of this post). He could have a Facebook profile where he openly and firmly discusses all of his religious beliefs including any negative view concerning any other religion, such as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., ad infinitum. He could discuss all the various ideologies and issues of our time pro and con. He could be for or against various laws and proposed laws and state the reasons openly. He could pray openly. Once back on the job on campus, he could not do all of that (with few exceptions) for reasons of possibly infringing upon the religious and other rights of the students and their parents and others responsible for their upbringing. He could have Muslim students. Allowing him to demand a Muslim student to pray Hasidic prayers in class would be violating the Muslim student's guaranteed right under the Constitution. It's a balancing act between the right of the Hasidic teacher to be Hasidic and the right of a student to be Islamic.
Now, along comes a group of practicing homosexuals who say that this Hasidic man can no longer be allowed to be a teacher not because he is standing before his class browbeating a child who may have homosexual relatives with whom the child lives. Since this is high school, the student may have already engaged in homosex himself or herself.
Homosexuals have complained for generations now that they must be allowed to engage in anal intercourse with multiple partners even at once and not be discriminated against for public employment especially, although many of them, if not most, would like to extend that to private employment including all religious institutions that are openly anti-homosex. Those particular homosexuals are anti-Christ and seek to destroy Jesus's Church, and I don't mean just some churches, I mean the whole Church to the last professing Christian. Let me add that anyone who says homosexuality is acceptable in real Christianity is either a liar or woefully ignorant.
Let's take the Hasidic deputy sheriff's situation. He has his beliefs. He isn't required to hide them when he's off duty. If he preforms his job without religious discrimination, bearing everything I've written above about balancing rights, the government has no cause to fire (or harass) him. If he begins to show signs off duty that he is losing his ability to perform his job without religious discrimination and those signs begin showing up on the job, then the government has a duty to do what is necessary to protect the public.
Because Hasidim are anti-homosexuality, if he states so openly where it is published even somewhat publicly such as on Facebook, certain of the homosexuals will say that Detective Shlomo Koenig should be fired for the reason that he may be unable to carry out his duty's without being impartial concerning homosexuals. They will not ask that he be investigated as to his actual job performance but rather seek his immediate dismissal for "cause": exercising his religion and right to speak and publish freely concerning his personal religious and political views, etc. It won't matter to those particular homosexuals and defenders that those same homosexuals or their spiritual fore-bearers complained bitterly that such treatment should not be meted out against homosexuals. Those homosexuals will insist that fragile homosexuals are put at risk by Shlomo Koenig having his job. Those homosexuals will be acting utterly fascistically: Suppression of the opposition through censorship; Oppressive, dictatorial control and not with an eye to the balancing of rights as anticipated by the Bill of Rights and particularly the First Amendment.
Understand here that I don't know Shlomo Koenig or his job performance rating. I am simply using him as a hypothetical example. He may be very highly rated by the department (if he is still even there). He certainly was when the article was written about him. Hopefully a high rating includes the absence of illegal discrimination on account of religion or other protected classes.
The homosexuals want hyper protection for what they wish to portray as fragile, unstable, vulnerable homosexuals while trampling upon other protected classes, classes expressly written into the US Constitution where homosexuality is only implied at best in the minds of the homosexuals and certainly not all Americans including many who do believe in protecting minorities.
If there are two young boys in the same classroom, one Hasidic and the other thinking himself a homosexual, which one deserves more or less protection for his thoughts, words, and deeds? Is the Hasidic boy to be crucified and ridiculed and made to feel inferior and stupid and wicked while the boy sticking his penis in his "boyfriends" anus even before puberty is only to be coddled and not told that the behavior is wrong and to never do it again? Is that what the United States has come to?
Now, I am obviously not Hasidic. I disagree with Shlomo Koenig's religious beliefs. He disagrees with mine. What I'm not about to do is say that he should be fired and deprived of his living over that. I would only discuss (without coercion) our respective religions with him and leave it to him to decide. If he's not interested, so be it. I would expect him not to seek to get me fired from any public or private position because I am a Christian and disagree with Hasidism. Why should homosexuality be treated better than Hasidism or Christianity, or any other class for that matter?
An atheist can teach public high school in the US. No one can legally (under the Bill of Rights) force him to lead a class in prayer to my God. That same atheist can rant and rail on Facebook against the Christian God (many certainly do) and not lose his public teaching job even though there are Christian students in his classroom.
The homosexuals are pushing anti-bullying laws so that a teacher can't mock a homosexual student or do other things (all under the pretense that it's disruptive to the students education and overall mental state). However, this is a one way street with many/most homosexuals. An anti-homosexual student (there are tens of millions of them still; the tide should turn again after saturation and after the current young generation grows up enough to face the truth they know that is that penises do not belong in anuses) can be removed from class and forced to undergo browbeating of a clear sort to "reeducate" him to the pro-homosexual psychological view. That reeducation will not allow for an open debate on the merits concerning the physical (and mental) ill-health engendered by homosex including where all other things are equal, homosexuals can't point to a false situation where a homosexual is being bullied. It means that even in the absence of what the homosexuals call bullying, there is still ill-health. The stats are there and show a high correlation. There is cause (homosex) and effect (ill-health) even where bullying is completely absent.
Should human beings be "free" to engage in putting their penises into anuses? That's the question that has been put to me by homosexuals. As far as I'm concerned, anyone doing that is not free but headed to enslavement to a bad practice. However, in the manner of the term "free" used by the homosexuals, I don't practice or advocate coercion. So, no, we don't need to kill the homosexuals. What we need though is not to allow homosexuals to censor the truth that anal intercourse is wrong and that it should not only not be promoted but discouraged openly in the public schools and especially the middle and high schools in the US and nation-wide.
Now that's the issue that the Christians should be promoting. It is completely consistent with the Gospels.
Look, the high schools are not supposed to promote unhealthy activities. They don't pass out cigarettes to the students. They prevent them from smoking on campus too. What's different? They promote "safe sex," meaning condom use; but condoms are not foolproof. They break for one. Even if they do promote so-called safe sex and even if they pass out condoms, it doesn't alter the fact that taking a penis up the anus and allowing someone to use the anus as a vagina to the point of orgasm is not health promoting but ill-health promoting. It's a clear and plain fact concerning which the educational system of the United States has been completely derelict.
It is long beyond the time when this exactly on-point aspect be put directly before the entire population so that there will be no excuse of ignorance before making the decision concerning what is being taught and promoted in the public schools.
So, Shlomo Koenig has not been subjected to a homosexual attack on his ability to be Hasidic and a deputy sheriff and express himself about his religion openly on Facebook that I know of, but Viki Knox has been thusly attacked on her ability to be Christian and a public high school teacher and express herself about her religion openly on Facebook. Those homosexuals really, really hate. They hate Viki Knox and want her fired ASAP! See my post from yesterday, which will open in a new tab so you won't lose your place here in case you want to leave a comment, etc.: Protected speech v. illegal religious discrimination: Viki Knox: homosexuality "perverted" "sin" "breeds like cancer". Meanwhile, a whole cadre of homosexuals will troll the Internet pointing the finger at others and calling those others "haters." It's completely hypocritical and again, fascistic. See my post from last month: "Pro-homosexual Lies About Jesus Exposed but No Apology Forthcoming."
By the way, many homosexuals rant and rail on Facebook against the Christian God, even though they don't know what they are talking about. How many of those homosexuals are public high school teachers charged with overseeing the prevention of bullying of Christian children? Will the homosexuals go after all of them to get them all fired ASAP?
Good for Rev. Milton B. Hobbs, pastor of the non-denominational New Covenant Fellowship in Clark, New Jersey, Viki Knox's Church where Viki, 49, is also an ordained minister, for coming out publicly in her defense. Being ordained is why Viki wrote that she teaches and preaches. She does. She teaches and preaches in Church and on her Facebook Wall, as I do and as tens of millions do, as is their right (if, for one, Facebook is to avoid discrimination lawsuits, including of the class-action variety). Viki Knox also teaches in high school to special ed children.
I don't know whether I completely agree with Milton Hobbs' views because I don't know what they are in full. I don't know if his statement(s) have been taken out of context or he's been mis-paraphrased or not. "Viki Knox is not a homophobe" is not a direct quote, but the sentiment is attributed to Hobbs: "Pastor sticks up for Union High School teacher who made anti-gay Facebook comments."
I don't agree with the term "homophobe" as used in general. It's a nonsensical as generally used. Phobia as generally used means irrational fear. "Fear" in Christianity has specific meanings not generally used or understood by outsiders. It matters. Also, irrationality is a relative thing. If homosex is not healthy and if it is spreading and if that is "feared," it is not an irrational thought or position.
Apparently, this final comment by Viki Knox on her Facebook Page sparked at least one fascist to seek to have her shut down and fired:
God cannot abide, tolerate, accept, go along with SIN. That's why Jesus came and gave his life as an offering for our souls; so we could once again be right-standing. Everything God has created, Satan has perverted, EVERYTHING! Sin is sin. Wrong is wrong. ["Daily poll: Should the Union teacher who made anti-gay remarks on Facebook be fired?"]
She's not wrong about that. There is no sin allowed in Heaven. Those who sin fall away. It is their own fault when they know better, but others tempt them away too. Others tempt away the extremely young, the ignorant, the gullible, the naive. The homosexual fascists know that and use it as a tool to degrade society. They do it for a whole host of reasons and wittingly and unwittingly depending upon the individuals involved. They are confused. They are mistaken. They are in need of healing, as are we all. Denying it is just that: denial of the truth.
That article quoting Ms. Knox goes on to say:
A parent copied the remarks and forwarded them to attorney John Paragano, a former Union resident. Paragano, a former township councilman and municipal court judge, wrote on Saturday to the school district's chief administrator, urging Knox be dismissed.
Ah yes, I don't know whether John Paragano is a homosexual, but I know he's acting fascistically towards Viki Knox. One wonders about his other ideological views.
Who else should be sacrificed on the alter of homosexuality? Should NATO bomb nations so homosexuals there may be freely licensed to practice libertinism, hedonism, public orgies, and the rest? (See my post: "NATO's War Aims include Gay [Homosexual] Rights! - YouTube, 108Morris108.") Is that promoting health or disease? I'm not supportive of slaughtering homosexuals to be rid of the DNA. I understand that, that was Moses' position. Jesus didn't teach that method of coping or changing though. I follow Jesus, not Moses; otherwise, I'd be the most wrathful person on the planet and seek to make violent total war on all sinners. I'd be one (a sinner) even if that's the only thing I was about accomplishing. I'd have to finally commit suicide after exterminating the species or be a hypocrite.
So, I'm opposed to coercion. I'm opposed to being coerced. I do know where censorship lines are attempting to be drawn and that they are in the wrong place. I stand foursquare opposed to the homosexual fascists on the rise and seek others to stop them dead in their tracks via open, honest, and direct debate (in the mainstream media too). I am adamantly opposed to the mainstream media being the willing tools of fascists whether homosexual or otherwise.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US 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.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)