When government and even society fails to extend tolerance to people of faith, we are headed down a perilous path.

wolf

A former congressman from Virginia is asking the question: Prison Next Step for American Christians?

Excerpt:

Former Congressman Frank Wolf warned that Americans’ freedom of conscience is under attack and it’s mainly Christians with conservative values who are in the crosshairs of the new champions of political correctness.
 

Wolf, 76, said Christians may have to resort to civil disobedience because their views are increasingly considered “intolerant.”

“When tolerance is demanded, when orthodox Christianity is deemed intolerant and when government and even society fails to extend tolerance to people of faith, we are headed down a perilous path,” said the former 17-term congressman from Virginia.

Wolf was a champion for religious freedom throughout his time in Congress. Since his retirement in January, he has become a senior fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, which advocates for religious freedom worldwide.

Wolf delivered the May 7 speech at an event hosted by the Petrie-Flom Center and the Ambassador John L. Loeb Jr. Initiative on Religious Freedom and its Implications at Harvard’s Center for American Political Studies.

His address was titled “After Hobby Lobby: What is Caesar’s and What is God’s?” at the center’s 2015 Annual Conference, “Law, Religion, and Health in America.”

The Christian Post reported that Wolf’s main point was that freedom of conscience has long been understood as important for religious freedom, but recently there has been a trend of violating the conscience protections of conservative Christians, particularly over the issues of abortion and marriage.

“Our conscience is not ultimately allegiant to the state, but to something, and for many people, Someone, higher,” Wolf said, citing a resolution adopted by the Continental Congress to protect the conscience rights of pacifists. This is important “because if our conscience belongs to the state, the state can choose to violate it or compromise it at will.”

faith crimesFAITH CRIMES: Order the May issue of Whistleblower magazine, which takes an in-depth look at how courageous Christians practicing their religion are being persecuted in Obama’s America.

He referenced a “subtle but insidious trend” in which the government is expanding into areas more likely to infringe upon conscience rights.

This trend was “at the heart” of the recent Supreme Court case involving Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, and the Obama administration’s birth control mandate, according to the Christian Post article. While the owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, are pro-life, the Obama administration sought to require them to pay for health insurance coverage for contraceptive pills that could cause an abortion.

“We are witnessing the imposition of a new state religion” called “progressive liberalism,” Wolf said.

Check out the BIG LIST of Christian coercion: A complete catalogue of same-sex marriage entrapments.

Wolf also cited the recent firestorm of opposition to Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in Indiana and other states as part of the trend.

Read it all HERE.

Over 300 comments at the link. Here’s a good one written by Rationalist:

Here’s what the gay agenda is really about and why we need a religious freedom bill-

Demanding tolerance gave way to demanding recognition which gave way to demanding equality which is now giving way to demanding superiority.

So much for the Stonewall excuse that all they wanted was to be “left alone”…

Christians are under attack by the homosexual community for speaking out on the
Biblical principle that homosexuality is sin.

Gay fascists won’t be satisfied until they’ve silenced every opposition – especially true born again Bible believing Christians…..

Examine evidence where Christianity is being intimidated through bullying, threats, intimidation, laws or lawsuits – Christian business owners who are approached by gay couples trying to force them into compromising their beliefs and then suing them when they won’t…gays picketing churches who’s ministers preach that homosexuality is a sin. How about the “tolerance” that was shown to Chi-fil-A or Duck Dynasty ? How about the Houston Mayor recently…?

It’s happening more and more so it’s not just about “equal rights” anymore.

it’s about eradicating any ideology that disagrees with homosexuality – especially Bible believing Christians standing on Biblical principles.

You want to talk about intolerance…? Look no further than the “tolerant” homosexual..

Homosexuality is a behavior,…not something that needs to be “protected” with special legal rights…

The ones who need “protection” are Christians under attack by the intolerant bigoted
homosexual community for speaking out on the Biblical principle that homosexuality is sin.

Hat Tip: WND

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

11 Responses to “When government and even society fails to extend tolerance to people of faith, we are headed down a perilous path.”

  1. Father Paul Lemmen Says:

    Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.

    Liked by 1 person

    • christinewjc Says:

      Thanks Father Paul!

      It is amazing to me that when the Clintons supported traditional marriage…until they changed their minds…and when Ozero supported traditional marriage…until he changed his mind, they all were not jeered at and labeled as “intolerant!” So what’s the difference? Their religion of liberalism/progressivism gives them a “pass” on everything…and anything – especially on LYING!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Father Paul Lemmen Says:

        Sadly, you’ve hit the nail on the head! Of course, those putatively ‘christian’ members of our society that view christianity as a cafeteria, that they have the right to pick and choose what teachings of Christ to follow, these folks are a problem and have little understanding what real Christianity is …

        Liked by 1 person

  2. GMpilot Says:

    CJW: “When government and even society fails to extend tolerance to people of faith, we are headed down a perilous path.”
    Does that tolerance extend to all ‘people of faith’ or just your ‘people of faith’?
    This nation was founded largely by people of faith, but it was not founded for them alone, and the Founders knew that. Many, if not most, worshiped the same god, held similar beliefs and outlook, and took pains to differentiate themselves from Jews and ‘Mahometans’ (as muslims were called then), but you will search in vain to find any specific god in the Declaration of Independence, and any mention of any god at all in the actual law of the land, the Constitution. One would think an ex-Congressman would know that.
    If the men who established this country wanted us to be explicitly christian, they could have easily said so. Instead, they declared neutrality, which meant tolerance toward all, and favoritism toward none. The religious wars that had ravaged across Europe was recent history to them, and they wanted none of that here.
    “Religious Freedom” is a very selective issue among christians. Most of them are Protestants like yourself, and while they certainly want it among their own kind, they might not extend that same freedom to Jews or “pagans” or even Catholics.

    Rationalist at WMD claims “…it’s not just about “equal rights” anymore.
    it’s about eradicating any ideology that disagrees with homosexuality – especially Bible believing Christians standing on Biblical principles.”
    Yeah, you know what I’m going to say here: ‘Bible believing Christians standing on Biblical principles’ are supposed to kill homosexuals, and not by pushing it off on the government—the people are to kill them themselves. I suspect Rationalist has never done it himself, and would probably give some lame excuse why he hasn’t obeyed his god’s word. I’m not homosexual, but I wouldn’t ‘tolerate’ any supernatural creed that demands my destruction—which is why I eschew all religions, because all of them declare death for unbelievers. Tolerance of religion also includes tolerance by religion—but when religion is in control, there’s no such thing as tolerance.
    I need hardly remind you that the attacks of 9/11/01 were carried out by “people of faith”. It appears that no god ever gets the message exactly right to all their followers.

    Like

    • christinewjc Says:

      Well then why aren’t you commenting on Muslim sites about their executions of homosexuals in their Sharia law countries?

      Muslims don’t worship the same God. Their allah moon-god is a false god. See this post.

      Like

      • GMpilot Says:

        I’m sure you don’t go to any Muslim-oriented sites, so you have no idea whether I comment on any. Right?
        Also, the nations you’re probably thinking of are an excellent example of what I said above: when religion is in control, there’s no such thing as tolerance. The more extreme religious members even in moderate Muslim nations wouldn’t even allow you to walk the streets by yourself, let alone run a blog telling other people how to treat each other.
        I don’t care about their god any more than yours, but I know they’re far from marching in lockstep with each other. In that respect, they’re just like Christians.

        Like

      • christinewjc Says:

        GM,

        You could easily just admit whether or not you go to Muslim-oriented sites, so your non-answer tells me that you don’t.

        Disparaging Christians at their own blogs might get you rebuked via Scripture, but an Islamist (especially the radicalized ones) might get you a fatwa placed against you, or worse, a lopped off head if you disparage allah or muhammad in any way.

        Christians in America are not trying to “have religion in control.” The Founding Fathers escaped that kind of national religion demand and created the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in order to reiterate this fact.

        Tolerance is a two-way street which is something that is sorely lacking in both the radical homosexual activists agenda (who want to destroy Christianity and one man, one woman marriage instituted by God) and the radical Muslims (who want to kill the infidel – which includes you).

        Both ideologies come from lies – and they only want to “tolerate” what they themselves believe in. Thus, if their demands are not met, they seek to “steal, kill, and destroy” the minds, souls, and bodies of those with whom they obviously not only disagree with, but also vehemently hate. Such attitudes come from the enemy of God.

        As Frank Wolf so accurately stated in the article, “When tolerance is demanded, when orthodox Christianity is deemed intolerant and when government and even society fails to extend tolerance to people of faith, we are headed down a perilous path.”

        Like

  3. GMpilot Says:

    Okay, the links were over-extended. I’ll try again. Sorry for the excessive use of electrons.

    You could easily just admit whether or not you go to Muslim-oriented sites, so your non-answer tells me that you don’t.
    If you know that, then why’d you ask me?

    Disparaging Christians at their own blogs might get you rebuked via Scripture, but an Islamist (especially the radicalized ones) might get you a fatwa placed against you, or worse, a lopped off head if you disparage allah or muhammad in any way.
    Disparaging christians at their own blogs might get me rebuked only by christians. Radical christians might not declare a fatwa (not by that name, anyway), but they will resort to the shotgun or bomb if they feel someone is being (or worth being) disparaged. Also, like radical Islamics, they’ll fall back on the excuse that their god told them to do it. But that god never gets subpoenaed to appear in court.
    As I’ve said before, you keep leaning on that word “radical” as an escape hatch. Not all muslims are radical, any more than all christians are.

    Christians in America are not trying to “have religion in control.” The Founding Fathers escaped that kind of national religion demand and created the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in order to reiterate this fact.
    Yet radical christians continually try to do an end run around that. Adding “under god” to the Pledge of
    Allegiance is one example. Declaring a given year as “the year of the Bible” is another. I have not seen any evidence that the latter made us a more pious nation.

    Tolerance is a two-way street which is something that is sorely lacking in both the radical homosexual activists agenda (who want to destroy Christianity and one man, one woman marriage instituted by God) and the radical Muslims (who want to kill the infidel – which includes you).
    More likely ‘the radical homosexual activists agenda’ is to be allowed to take part in what everyone else feels to be a right—the right to marry. Murderers serving life in prison are allowed to marry, but for law-abiding gays it has to be a privilege? Really?
    I have always said that both christian and muslim will fight for the opportunity to cut my throat first. “Unbelievers must perish” is the one thing both can agree upon, ’cause their god says so.

    Both ideologies come from lies – and they only want to “tolerate” what they themselves believe in. Thus, if their demands are not met, they seek to “steal, kill, and destroy” the minds, souls, and bodies of those with whom they obviously not only disagree with, but also vehemently hate. Such attitudes come from the enemy of God.
    All the above is true, except that last sentence. Not only the ‘enemies of god’, but god itself, have declared such things.

    As Frank Wolf so accurately stated in the article, “When tolerance is demanded, when orthodox Christianity is deemed intolerant and when government and even society fails to extend tolerance to people of faith, we are headed down a perilous path.”
    As so many groups have learned, tolerance cannot be demanded. But it will never be granted if the larger societal group regards the other as outsiders. All those outsider groups in the nation’s past did not want to be tolerated; they wanted to be accepted. “Tolerate” is something you do to a cold: it’s going to be with you for a week no matter what you do, so you put up with it. But people should not be treated that way, and you don’t need to be a christian to know that—just a human being.

    Like

  4. christinewjc Says:

    I asked you because I wanted you to admit it. But once again, you waved your hand and turned your head away in order to avoid answering.

    Hundreds of thousands of Christians have protested peacefully at abortion clinics. In some cases, they have helped to change the minds of mothers who were about to make one of the biggest mistakes of their lives. Such information is not sensational enough for the news, but one person who turns evil for evil gets all the attention. Choose life! Your mother did.

    Under God was added to the pledge because our nation was founded under the Judeo-Christian ethic. Fifty years later, the atheists objected to it and tried to get it removed. God is a general term so we know that the “god” of atheists is secular humanism. See? They are covered!

    People who don’t know the God of the Bible cause themselves, as well as many other that they lead astray, to take this nation as far away from piety as they possibly can. In fact, one lesbian activist was recorded on tape that the goal of the homosexual “legal” agenda is not to gain marriage for themselves. Their ultimate goal is to destroy marriage altogether.

    In Islam, the believers want the infidels to perish. In Christianity, God wants all to come to repentance through the shed blood of Christ at the cross for forgiveness of sins and reconciliation back unto God. Quite a big difference!

    The homosexual activists (not all gays) have the goal of destroying Christian morality and ethics through the courts precisely because it is the one thing standing in their way of total deviant sexual political anarchy. They want to wipe away the First Amendment for Christians – including forcing them to lose their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association rights. They don’t want just “acceptance.” It goes much further than that. They want “the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos” and they are doing this through lawsuits with the purpose of destroying God’s idea and declaration thousands of years ago for the definition of marriage. .As the recent lawsuits against Christian business owners demonstrates, they want to destroy the people of the cross of Christ because what we believe about homosexual behavior and what God has said about homosexual behavior condemns them. Just like any other sin, those who refuse to repent will miss out on the mercy, grace, love, and forgiveness of God for all eternity. Of course, that is their choice to make, as it is with all human beings…just like you.

    Like

  5. GMpilot Says:

    You could easily just admit whether or not you go to Muslim-oriented sites and seen my name there, so your non-answer tells me that you haven’t.

    ”…but one person who turns evil for evil gets all the attention.”
    You prove my point. Hundreds of millions of muslims have no interest whatever in fighting us, but we have allowed Mohammed Atta and his suicide squad to taint our opinion of all of them. You never claimed that Fred Phelps represented all christians, did you?

    “Under God” was added to the pledge because we wanted to differentiate ourselves from those Russian commies—who were openly atheistic. That was a political act, not a spiritual one. Even in 1955, some people thought it was a bad idea. “God” as you wrote it—with a capital “G”–is not a general term. It is specifically applied to the Abrahamic god, the one meant by Jews, Christians, and (sometimes) Islamics. Other gods in other cultures actually have names, not a generic “God.”

    Uh huh…one lesbian activist said that. Does she speak for all the lesbians in the land, the way the Pope speaks for all Catholics everywhere? Yeah, didn’t think so.
    What, there are dissenters in the “universal church”? Who’d have thought it?

    In Islam, the believers want the infidels to perish.
    Christians want this too, but most of them, in this age, are willing to wait until the infidels are physically dead. Until the recent past, they were less patient. Both religions are reassured that their respective god will see to it that infidels do indeed perish.

    If gays want “the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos” as you claim, then why would they go through the authorities to do this? Why don’t they just secede and form their own national enclave, as christians have tried to do? Because if they have no uniting principle, you wouldn’t be up in arms about them. What they have is a uniting principle that you don’t like, and you’re attempting to enlist your god’s alleged word to speak against it.
    God’s definition of marriage, as described in the bible, is remarkably flexible. I’ve demonstrated that before.
    Just check your own book. In some places, marriage is forever; in others, divorce is permitted, usually for adultery. But a divorced man or woman who marries another while the first spouse lives is considered an adulterer…and you know what’s to be done with adulterers! If those words were applied here and now, half the US population would have to die tomorrow.

    Just like any other sin, those who refuse to repent will miss out on the mercy, grace, love, and forgiveness of God for all eternity.
    “Missing out” is one thing. Being smacked in the head forever with the Eternity Stick is another. We both know which one the bible emphasizes.

    Like

  6. GMpilot Says:

    Reposted 20 May. I suppose the original was ‘misplaced’.

    You could easily just admit whether or not you go to Muslim-oriented sites and seen my name there, so your non-answer tells me that you haven’t.

    ”…but one person who turns evil for evil gets all the attention.”
    You prove my point. Hundreds of millions of muslims have no interest whatever in fighting us, but we have allowed Mohammed Atta and his suicide squad to taint our opinion of all of them. You never claimed that Fred Phelps represented all christians, did you?

    “Under God” was added to the pledge because we wanted to differentiate ourselves from those Russian commies—who were openly atheistic. That was a political act, not a spiritual one. Even in 1955, some people thought it was a bad idea. “God” as you wrote it—with a capital “G”–is not a general term. It is specifically applied to the Abrahamic god, the one meant by Jews, Christians, and (sometimes) Islamics. Other gods in other cultures actually have names, not a generic “God.”

    Uh huh…one lesbian activist said that. Does she speak for all the lesbians in the land, the way the Pope speaks for all Catholics everywhere? Yeah, didn’t think so.
    What, there are dissenters in the “universal church”? Who’d have thought it?

    In Islam, the believers want the infidels to perish.
    Christians want this too, but most of them, in this age, are willing to wait until the infidels are physically dead. Until the recent past, they were less patient. Both religions are reassured that their respective god will see to it that infidels do indeed perish.

    If gays want “the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos” as you claim, then why would they go through the authorities to do this? Why don’t they just secede and form their own national enclave, as christians have tried to do? Because if they have no uniting principle, you wouldn’t be up in arms about them. What they have is a uniting principle that you don’t like, and you’re attempting to enlist your god’s alleged word to speak against it.
    God’s definition of marriage, as described in the bible, is remarkably flexible. I’ve demonstrated that before.
    Just check your own book. In some places, marriage is forever; in others, divorce is permitted, usually for adultery. But a divorced man or woman who marries another while the first spouse lives is considered an adulterer…and you know what’s to be done with adulterers! If those words were applied here and now, half the US population would have to die tomorrow.

    Just like any other sin, those who refuse to repent will miss out on the mercy, grace, love, and forgiveness of God for all eternity.
    “Missing out” is one thing. Being smacked in the head forever with the Eternity Stick is another. We both know which one the bible emphasizes.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: