IF WE SAY WE HAVE NOT SINNED

The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer -- Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824–1904)
The Christian Martyrs’ Last PrayerJean-Léon Gérôme (1824–1904)

Religious persecution is nothing new. As far back as we know, people have violently denigrated each others beliefs. In our arrogance, we can insist that the mere fact another disagrees with us offend us. Then we can “rightfully” destroy the offender.

What is especially offensive about Christianity? Christians call all men sinners, too weak, too pitifully lost to our sins to save ourselves. The prideful man hates such an accusation, but the Christian says we have hope. Jesus died on a cross for our sake, and He is risen! Still, the prideful man rejects the need for salvation. Even God has no right to call him a sinner, and even if he did sin, AND HE DOES NOT, with his works, he can save himself.

Because men say they do not sin — because men say they can save themselves (or because they deny there is any salvation) — members of the early Christian church experienced hideous persecution. We attribute the worst of these persecutions to the Emperor Diocletian.

In one respect, Diocletian did not sin. He was faithful to the traditional Roman cult. He did not demand that people worship him. He merely insisted upon the worship of the Roman gods, and Christians refused his command.

Here is the substance of the last of Diocletian‘s four edits.

In 304, the fourth edict ordered all persons, men, women, and children, to gather in a public space and offer a collective sacrifice. If they refused, they were to be executed. The precise date of the edict is unknown, but it was probably issued in either January or February 304, and was being applied in the Balkans in March. The edict was in use in Thessalonica (Thessaloniki, Greece) in April 304, and in Palestine soon after. This last edict was not enforced at all in the domains of Maximian and Constantius. In the East, it remained applicable until the issue of the Edict of Milan by Constantine and Licinius in 313. (from here)

Perhaps it was because of that lack of enforcement Christianity survived.

Even today, when people are suppose to be far more sophisticated, mankind persecutes those they find especially disagreeable.

Here is a link to the OpenDoors Watch List. Most of the nations on their list are either backwards or poor. The persecution they speak of is physical punishment.

Here in good ole USA, our government is more considerate of the ignorant, unwashed, Christian masses. When a Christian calls someone a sinner, the reply is “discrimination,” and the judges in news media, proudly proclaiming their tolerance, promptly charge the discriminators with bigotry. Hence, without ever intending any such thing, a small town, family-owned pizzeria found its way into the national news.

What does religious freedom involve? These days the corporate news media and homosexual rights advocates act like it is all about homosexual “rights.” No. It is not. That is only a small portion of the issue. We have other concerns such as:

  • Abortion rights.
  • Where we can build churches.
  • School prayer and religious education.
  • What we can wear in the name of religion.
  • What constitutes inappropriate proselytizing in the work place.
  • And so forth

What does religious freedom involve? We each get to choose our words and the course of our conduct, not just the manner of our prayers and worship. When we make excuses and use the power of government to force others to practice our beliefs, we deny them religious freedom. Just because we don’t like being called a sinner does not give any of us the right to persecute anyone else.

1 John 1:5-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

We are all sinners, and there are more ways to sin than what we might do in a bed. And none of us like being reminded of that, but today is the today we gratefully remember that God took notice of our sins and found a way to forgive us. Today is the day we remember to thank Him.

Happy Easter!

36 thoughts on “IF WE SAY WE HAVE NOT SINNED

  1. Ah yes, Christianity as the perpetual victim. How droll.

    What is especially offensive about Christianity?

    Other than believing in a celestial Dear Leader and trying to impose His tyranny on everyone? Not a thing.

    Like

    1. Perpetual victim? No. Just as Jesus Christ died only once, I will only die once. Moreover, the Bible does give a Christian any excuse to demand special treatment in this life. Jesus calls upon us to be servants to each other, not the masters of each other.

      On the other hand, it seems you want the power to impose your beliefs on others. Can you tell me where the Constitution gives our government to power to force private businesses to sell goods and service to people they do not wish to serve? As far as I can see that power does not exist in the Constitution. If you are not demanding special treatment, then why would you simply assume the government has a power we have no good reason to give it?

      Since I doubt you can answer that question, I will give you a second chance, that is, a second question. How do two people of the same sex consummate their “marriage”? If two people of the same sex cannot consummate their “marriage,” why should we call their union a a marriage?

      Like

      1. See what you did there? You took the idea of ‘equality’ and then tried to make it seem like an unfair imposition if transferred into law. Using this springboard, you then claim that because I support equality in law, I “want the power to impose (my) beliefs on others.”

        This is a very warped view and reveals the depth of dishonesty necessary to support legalized bigotry against the exercise of legal equality.

        You should be ashamed of yourself and those who share your religious beliefs embarrassed by how such religious beliefs can be utilized to protect and promote and justify legal discrimination.

        Like

        1. And in the name of what you call “equality,” you found a way around answering any of my questions. That includes enforcing a law that doesn’t even exist except as a figment in the minds of power-hungry politicians and their dupes.

          Do homosexuals have a right to be equal before the law? Yes, and no one here has denied the right to any such equality, but the facts of life are undeniable. Two people of the same sex cannot get it together. They can make of superficial pretense of getting it together, but such a perversion has nothing to do with marriage or the creation of a family.

          What is the government’s interest in marriage? Children. The traditional interest is that marriage establishes paternity. When a man takes a woman to wife, he accepts responsibility for bringing up the children that result from their union. Since children need and have a right to the care of both their mother and father, government has an interest in promoting strong marriages.

          Because no children can in any possible way result from a same-sex “marriage,” there are no children whose rights need to be protected. In fact, since same-sex unions are unnatural and spread sexually transmitted diseases, encouraging same-sex sex is a dubious enterprise, at best.

          Like

    2. Ah but sir Tildeb, that’s the beauty of your misunderstanding:

      He imposes His will on no one, as He is the most Excellent guest. You either welcome Him to your abode, or you send Him packing.

      If you do invite Him to be your stay, you will at some point recognize your sin, and bow in humble adoration; but grace is hardly a dictator.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh, I don’t suggest that it is your Dear Leader doing the imposing, CS, but his busy little minions doing atrocious things in the name doing His work and furthering His cause. This is how totalitarianism is brought to life… by undermining principles such as equality and claiming this to be a Good Thing, a Pious Thing, a Godly Thing. It’s a shameful capitulation of the principle of reciprocity, of doing unto others as you would have others do unto you. It doesn’t surprise me one bit that believers and followers of some Dear Leader celestial or terrestrial eject principle when it interferes with the practical advancement of their tyrannical ideology. Indiana state legislature, your name is Bigotry, and you act in the name of the pious to ear their disreputable political support.

        Like

        1. Uh Mr. Tildeb, you DID say it was HIS tyranny (God’s).

          That said, you also say it is tyrannical to hold to absolutes, and that is your dilemma, not one of believers.

          For as certain as a clock, or the laws of arithmetic, there are absolutes, ahem, ie, to cite CT, what is marriage?

          Is it a union whereby ANYBODY can define the meaning, such as a man legally marrying his pet gerbil, or a man having four husbands? Absurd? Yes, that’s the point.

          Without a standard, then anybody with a clever imagination could claim his ‘rights’ are violated.

          You will lose this argument every time without a standard. It is not an imposition of will, it is defending right from wrong.

          It is agreeing with nature, and natures God. Tyranny? Ha! Like righteousness is a bad thing.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Your inability to comprehend the written word is showing again, CS, What I said was ” believing in a celestial Dear Leader and trying to impose His tyranny…”

          Who doing the believing and trying, CS? That’s you, the minion.

          What is the tyranny? To make slaves of us all. That’s what you proudly declare yourself to be, a slave to your God, a slave to the wishes you think He has, a slave to the purpose you think He has for you. What you have is a slave mentality where your Dear Leader and Slave Master owns you. You will try to mitigate this repulsive piety by claiming you do so out of ‘free will’… all rather convenient considering the only other option is suffer eternal torment. Such freedom for people like you is hard to pass up.

          You continue to believe – in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary (what a surprise) – that you have access to understanding a righteous standard independent of people but denied to me as a non believer (people who supposedly argue that we should be able to marry pet gerbils). You use the Napkin argument and its indisputable logic to support your lunacy: the Napkin Religion is the one true religion because it says so right here on this napkin. You believe our morality is granted to us by your Dear Leader and then measured in righteousness by how well it comports to your Slave Master’s capriciousness. That’s why you use scripture to back up your claim and not reality for reality tells us that many people use many standards they claim to be equivalently righteous but which are, in fact, incompatible with each other. You have no means at your disposal to differentiate between those that are righteous and those that are not except by your repeated use of the scriptural Napkin argument. But that isn’t an answer, CS; it’s just another religious claim empty of knowledge value.

          We have advanced our thinking about morality from the late Bronze Age you’ll be glad to hear (or more likely disappointed to hear). We actually have access to standards other than one approved by the Napkin approach. And yet no one is marry their pet gerbil. You must be shocked. In fact, most people look at marriage as a matter of legal rights and not Bronze Age morality where girls with broken hymens prior to their wedding night no longer need to be stoned to death using your righteous moral standard. Amazing, I know. In fact, we have an entire legal code based on standards of principles that can be shared by all people (but not gerbils, I’m sad to say).

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          FROM YOUR HOST

          tildeb

          I deleted the last paragraph.

          We have dictionaries online these days. So don’t waste your time and mine using fancy words to rudely insult other commenters or Christianity. It does not prove anything anyway. It just shows you lost your cool.

          Since I enjoy debate, I would rather not moderate your comments or ban you from this blog, but I also don’t consider stupid insults an appropriate part of debate.

          Please do us both a favor. Behave like an adult.

          Like

        3. “And yet no one is marry their pet gerbil.”

          A dolphin is the most unusual marriage partner I’ve seen, so far. But male dolphins (this one was named “Cindy” but was actually male) have a noted sexual affinity for human females, whereas gerbils became famous as the implements of odd sexual practice rather than the practicers of it.

          You continue to assert that Christians are trying to impose God’s “tyranny,” but you seem to be stuck in a rather Medieval timeframe to do so. The current practitioners of exactly that sort of tyrannical imposition are Muslim jihadists, not Christians.

          Encouraging voluntary belief is not imposition of tyranny. Forced conversion on threat of death, as the jihadists do, is. That should be the focus of your venom, it seems to me.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Like

  2. I’m sorry tom but we really have no concept of True persecution here in the us.
    147 Christians in Africa should give us a glimpse of the definition.
    Pizza and flowers are not.
    -mike

    Like

    1. Hence the picture.

      Remember this part of the Sermon on the Mount.

      Matthew 5:21-26 New King James Version (NKJV)

      Murder Begins in the Heart

      21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

      When they stir up needless hysteria and controversy, do we ever get an apology from the Liberal news media? No. Even when exposed as frauds, they just double down.

      If murder begins in the heart, then I would not be surprised if some day soon we begin seeing more than a glimpse of true persecution.

      Like

  3. A total misunderstanding of tyranny. Christianity does not seek to impose straight marriage on gays, but freedom from frivolous lawsuits over not making cakes taking pictures or providing sevices that could easily be obtained from someone who had no religious objections.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Actually, the reverse is true. Homosexual rights advocates want to use government to impose same-sex marriage on straights. If you offer benefits to married couples, what do you think the government will require if you hire someone who is married to someone of the same sex?

      Like

  4. Religious persecution is, if we can judge both from history and the present, a condition endemic to the human condition. It is everywhere, it is universal, at least on a personal basis. The world has advanced to the point where there are countries in which governmental persecution is forbidden, but the dark elements of the human heart will probably never be universally illuminated to the point that we find ourselves globally devoid of religious prejudices on an individual level.

    Having said that, the term “persecution”, in my mind, implies a form of governmental compulsion either to follow a particular religion or to eschew religions. In that context, Saudi Arabia seems to be a champeen persecutor of any religious activity beyond one particular Muslim sect (I’m not sure it is any easier to practice Shia Islamic faith in the Kingdom than it is to be a Christian, although my understanding is that the Saudis will allow all Muslims, of whatever sects to make the Haj). China also stands out, not for favoring one sect over all others, but for being a pretty near equal opportunity persecutor of all organized faiths. And, it goes without saying, that Christians have been abominably treated by non-govenrmental or quasi-governmental groups like ISIL and Boko Haram. A lot of individual violence against Jews in Europe, and, to a lesser, but nonetheless disturbing extent, against Muslims and Sikhs in the United States, although that’s more a sign of ignorance and bigotry on an individual level than persecution in an official sense.

    What all this brings me to is that I think it nearly laughable for us Christians to complain about conditions in this country. A major religious group never had it so good. The government is compelled by our founding document to leave us an other religions alone, and, by and large, it does so. We are not forced to pray government prayers in our schools or government venues, we are free to choose our church affiliations, our churches and clergy enjoy tremendously liberal exemptions from taxation (although I think those polices could use some review), and we generally enjoy a high degree of physical security. By any objective standard, we live very well and there is not a day that goes by that I do not give thanks to God for being here, as opposed to almost any other location on the face of the planet. To pretend that we are some sort of persecuted class is to ridicule and trivialize the very real persecution, including imprisonment, torture, murder, inflicted on Christians and other religions in other parts of the world.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @scout

      What all this brings me to is that I think it nearly laughable for us Christians to complain about conditions in this country.

      That’s about the sum total of all you said. And why did you say it? Because Christians have it worse elsewhere. So?

      Americans live in the USA. My neighbors, my family, and I live here. I am more responsible for here than I am anywhere else. When we see sadistic, powerhungry fools threatening the religious freedom of Americans, what are we suppose to do? Are we suppose to wait until it gets worse here than anywhere else before we do something?

      If someone whacked you along side the head with a 2 X 4 and some how you managed to survive, how would you feel? Would you feel threatened? What would you do about it? Using your own logic, could you complain? If you did, would it not be okay for the person who whacked you to laugh? After all, some people have it worse. Those people were killed with 2 X 4’s. So, given you logic, those in authority should ignore your complaint. After all, you are still alive. In fact, your trivial injury is funny.

      Next time someone loses their business just because some vindictive people sue them, think about that 2 X 4 and don’t forget to laugh. After all, what does not kill you makes you stronger. Therefore, the correct solution, using your logic, is to ask that guy with the 2 X 4 to hit you again. If you are lucky, he may knock some sense into youb — if he does not kill you. Fortunately, if he kills you, that’s good too. Then you can complain, and nobody will laugh.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It isn’t just religious freedom at stake; the entire First Amendment is at risk. Of course, people elsewhere don’t even have a First Amendment, so in scout’s mind we perhaps should not complain. (I recall a Canadian case in which someone — Mark Steyn — was charged and tried for insulting Islam. During the case, the prosecutor sneered that freedom of speech was “an American concept” that had no place in Canada.)

        In any event, progressive folks along scout’s line of thinking don’t like guns — so police in Virginia just arrested a woman for posting a picture of her holding a gun on Facebook. It turns out that it is against the law in the state of Virginia to curse, or to insult or threaten someone — even online. Did you know that? Perhaps the policeman was referring to a local ordinance, not state-wide; I’ve not researched it.

        And, when this young woman was threatened, and she posted the picture of herself holding a gun to dissuade the stalker, the cops came and threw her in jail. Now she faces a year in jail and a $2,500 fine because the picture (with the caption like “here’s a picture of me so you’ll know the difference when u ‘come find me’ “) was construed to be a threat. (The dispute started, apparently, from a case of mistaken identity.) Evidently, you can’t make threats in Virginia, at least in her town. An insult, apparently, carries the same penalty, as does using an obscene word. Here are the details:
        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/johannes-paulsen/woman-arrested-for-posting-gun-selfie-in-facebook/

        The situation tempts me to profanity myself, to which I am rarely inclined. In the nation we are becoming, the laws are so onerous and so complex that every single one of us is a criminal — and we can thus be quite selectively prosecuted at the discretion of tyrants.

        Consider recently, where alleged corrupt Senator Mendez (recently critical of Obama) was indicted, but his quite abundantly corrupt partner Senator Reid (a defender of Obama) is unscathed. (I am personally familiar with Reid’s corruption from my involvement in the Nevada casino business. I got briefly famous/notorious myself in Nevada news at the time; a long story.)

        Lois Lerner, for whom criminal evidence is abundant, will not be charged. But Dinesh D’Souza, whose $20,000 donation was not a fraction of the illegal activity of multi-million-dollar Clinton bundlers, was prosecuted while the Chinese communist bundlers went free. Military leaders critical of Obama are being expelled from the service, threatened with prosecution and forced into retirement. And so on. Obama keeps his allies in line, and his enemies under threat; it is no longer the rule of law but the rule of a nattering nincompoop ne’er-do-well narcissist.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        Like

        1. It looks like we crossed in the mail, Keith. I would be interested in knowing more about the Virginia laws that permit arrest of citizens for cursing. I seem to hear a great deal of that kind of vulgarity as I go about my business in the Old Dominion, but have never, prior to your comment, been aware of folks being arrested for it. Moreover, I think if you were to come hang out here for a while, you’d find that we have a very permissive view of guns here. We can carry openly without permits and, as I myself have experienced, can obtained concealed carry permits pretty much by being able to breathe and pay the State 50 bucks.

          Finally, I agree with your observation that there are other countries, even ones that are highly developed and quite “liberal” (in the traditional sense of the word) that lack our protection of speech and religious freedom. My point precisely.

          Like

        2. The Canadian example is factually wrong.

          Provincial Human Rights Commissions were set up in the 70s to address racial discrimination in apartment rentals. The Commissions had language in their legislation that was later misapplied to trying to curtail speech deemed ‘offensive’ that was transmitted electronically. These commissions used tribunals staffed by people of no particular legal ability (but politically connected). The tribunals had a 100% ‘conviction’ rate, which Steyn pointed out and wrote about in a national magazine called Maclean’s. It was Maclean’s that was charged for paying for hate speech because of criticisms Steyn wrote about Islam and Muslims and the charges were brought up by various Muslim organizations. Macleans funded the defense and made such an outcry that the Conservative federal government deleted the section in legislation and de-fanged these kangaroo courts. No ‘convictions’ were legally upheld when taken to (legitimate) court and the commissions ordered to cease and desist their ‘investigations’ into hate speech.

          But we do have hate speech laws that have resulted in convictions for advocating ‘hatred’ (meaning intolerance) against specific groups of people protected under law from such discrimination.

          Like

        3. A snippet of trial transcript from Canada:

          “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

          MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

        4. Steacy was a bureaucrat ‘investigating’ complaints brought forward by a single employee of the commission! And he had a 100% ‘conviction’ rate through the tribunal! That’s why it is well known that the man’s judicial views were and are hardly representative of Canada’s legal protection of free speech and that these tribunals and what these mouthpieces said were nothing more than kangaroo courts, which is why the offending section – Section 13 – was withdrawn in its entirety! Nothing Steacy said or says reflects Canada’s legal protection of free speech.

          You say upthread that “It isn’t just religious freedom at stake; the entire First Amendment is at risk. Of course, people elsewhere don’t even have a First Amendment, so in scout’s mind we perhaps should not complain. (I recall a Canadian case in which someone — Mark Steyn — was charged and tried for insulting Islam. During the case, the prosecutor sneered that freedom of speech was “an American concept” that had no place in Canada.)”

          Oh contraire: Section Two of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly sets out the fundamental freedoms all Canadians share, namely, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. Section Two in Canada is equivalent to the American First Amendment. You make it sound – using this example – that other people like those in Canada do not have the same kind of legal protection. That’s simply not true. Your contrary example has been legally corrected and Macleans won its case on behalf of Steyn by threatening the tribunal with a Charter challenge and the means to carry it out. To avoid this public embarrassment, the Tribunal withdrew their ‘charges’ but it was too little too late. As I pointed out, the legislation that empowered these kangaroo courts was deleted.

          So your point is not true in regards to Canada in that we do very much have the legal protection of free speech and like Americans have to continue to work to protect it as much as is legally possible from encroachment.

          Like

        5. So, you assert that I am lying about what happened … because they later changed the law being used in that case so that it was less likely to happen again. And yet Canada still curtails speech, to this day, by “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

          The fellow you describe as a mere “bureaucrat” was handling the matter for the Canadian Civil Rights Commission. What do they do? They are the ones who administer the Canadian Human Rights Act, which includes their anti-“hate speech” laws. He was a person in charge of the free speech issue under discussion, not some mere cubicle-bound flunky.

          The UK has large problems here as well, with one notable case a few months ago arising when a person was arrested for quoting a speech by Winston Churchill, because the speech was deemed offensive to Muslims. There are lots of such cases, though British crime reports tend to disguise crimes against persons or property actually committed by Muslims. They generally identify the ethnicity/nationality/religion of victims, but not perpetrators.

          Europe does this in general; quite a few cases are completely disguising North African and Middle Eastern Muslim criminals to avoid offense. Here’s an example, where a bunch of Muslim rapists were described only as “Swedish men.”

          This ties into the US First Amendment in that it is becoming a prevalent notion around the world, and being increasingly looked to by SCOTUS to guide US law, that speech offensive to Muslims is simply Not Done. I wrote years ago that Supreme Court Justice Breyer likened speech offensive to Muslims to “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” and contemplated outlawing it:
          http://level-head.livejournal.com/482022.html

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 2 people

      2. A bit intemperate there, Tom. My point is that we live in a country of enormous religious freedom, particularly for the dominant Christian faith, which suffers very little opprobrium compared to other faiths adhered to by our fellow citizens. I am very concerned about real persecution of Christians and others abroad. I would not cheapen that concern by equating our comfort and liberty with their plights.

        If someone hits me in the head with a piece of lumber (why that would happen, I don’t have the foggiest idea), I have many ways of obtaining redress.

        And, in case I was not clear (although I think it was quite clear) my use of the word “laughable” to describe the idea that Christians are subject to persecution in this country was not because I think such fantasies “funny”. The laughter I was referring to was intended to be derisive.

        Like

        1. @scout

          Some people will hurt another just because they want something and they can take it. Do you really need that explained to you? Are you really that naive?

          As Keith explained, what we don’t protect we lose. When we get more interested in having our own way than we are in protecting everyone’s rights, only tyrants win.

          Like

  5. When I read your post and all the comments, this King Solomon writing and Commandment comes to my mind in relation to sin.

    This only have I found:
    God created mankind upright,
    but they have gone in search of many schemes (Ecclesiastes 7:25)

    Thou shalt not kill

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. It isn’t just religious freedom at stake; the entire First Amendment is at risk.

    Yes, indeed. Well pointed, Keith.

    Regarding RFRA. As I noted in another post, the federal RFRA was enacted in response to a SCOTUS ruling that restricted use of peyote for Native Americans in religious services. Thanks to the delinquent media, RFRA is misunderstood and wrongly attacked by the general public. The nature of RFRA, regardless of limited or broad language therein, is that a governmental entity must demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” to burden a person’s exercise of religion. That “compelling governmental interest” is case-by-case. For example, the Federal Bureau of Prisons prohibited Satanists from performing sacrifices, since sacrifices are part of Satanism. Satanists challenged under the federal RFRA. SCOTUS ruled that the FBoP demonstrated a compelling governmental interest forbidding sacrifices owing to the inherent violent nature thereof and that such behavior would jeopardize safety and security of the institution, staff, and inmates. RFRA is a governmental entity versus a person, not a person versus a person. The errant media is portraying RFRA as a person versus a person, which is wrong and people should be calling the media out on it. CNN (Communist News Network) reporting on the RFRA has been the worst so far.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Correction. The Satanism case was decided under the four guidelines set under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). Nevertheless, the “Turner Test” was similar to the federal RFRA passed in 1993, which explained my mix up.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Matthew, the “errant media” , in recent context, was not talking about the federal RFRA. They were talking about the Indiana statute, a state level RFRA. That statute did apply to civil actions between individuals and was not confined to protections against government intrusion.

    Like

    1. Wrong, Scout. The errant media was (and is) misconstruing Indiana and Arkansas RFRA laws. Again, the fact remains, both RFRA laws unambiguously state that a governmental entity must demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” to burden a person’s exercise of religion. The language is clear in both laws. I read them both.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. As I stated above, the nature of RFRA, despite federal or state level, despite limited or broad language therein, is the following: a governmental entity must demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” to burden a person’s exercise of religion. RFRA is between government and person, not between person and person. Why is this so hard to understand?

      Liked by 1 person

  8. My previous questions remain unanswered. All RFRA laws, in spite of jurisdiction and limited or broad language, say the same thing, that is, to burden a person’s exercise of religion, a governmental entity must demonstrate that the burden (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Thus, a governmental entity versus a person, not a person versus a person. If the governmental entity fails to demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest,” the law provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Furthermore, these RFRA laws, notwithstanding jurisdiction and limited or broad language, do not permit discrimination or denial of service between a person and a person. (Governor Pence affirmed that fact over and over, yet no one listened.)

    I do not recall the Left becoming irate and the dishonest media crying when President Clinton signed the federal RFRA into law, which, by the way, was approved by both political parties without opposition. Some States enacted their own RFRA law in response to a SCOTUS ruling, which stated that the federal RFRA does not apply to the several States. (Duh. Federalism.) I repeated many times and will repeat again, the nature of RFRA — regardless of jurisdiction and limited or broad language — is that a governmental entity must demonstrate a “compelling government interest” to burden a person’s exercise of religion. With that said, why was (is) the emotional Left and the fraudulent media singling out Indiana and Arkansas? Why are people moaning now? Why did not anyone complain back in 1993? Why is no one complaining about the other RFRA laws? These questions are open to the floor.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

The Cripplegate

for a new generation of non-conformists

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

MUSINGS OF AN IMAGINARY BILLIONAIRE

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Christians in Motion

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

The Latin Community

"You will be my witnesses." Acts 1:8

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Derecho

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Twenty First Summer

Thoughtful. Positive. Relevant.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Christian College Professor

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

altruistico

People Healing People

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

%d bloggers like this: