We've heard the lame excuses for the Ft. Hood killings where words like deranged get thrown around like candy from a parade wagon.  Nobody wants to offend, at least nobody on the Left wants to offend radical Muslims.  (Not the average, peace-loving kind -- they'll offend them later.)  I wonder why.

Barber's excuse started out sounding almost reasonable:

Critics have jumped on liberals in the Army for being more devoted to civil rights than national security for refusing initially to suspect that Major Hasan's Fort Hood rampage that cost 13 lives might have been an act of terrorism motivated by fundamentalist zealotry. Instead, they seemed to favor the knee-jerk notion that he was unstable, perhaps deeply troubled by the prospect of shipping out to a war zone.

But then he misrepresented the whole problem.

For political correctness rests on a liberal refusal to stereotype.

I wonder how many peace-loving jihadists he knows.  Is he unable to make a precise identification of the specific mindset behind this action?  Is this his only way to avoid the stereotype?  But he went further:

So here's the tough call we have to make: should the army bar Muslims from service? If you say no, as I say no, then it isn't fair to complain about political correctness because that's just a nasty name for upholding the rights of individuals and shielding them from stereotyping groupthink.

As you can see, he missed the whole point of hitting the problem directly.  (To be fair, he did say that there is a specific problem with this mindset, but he refused to acknowledge that there is any problem with PC thinking when it comes to making, or rather avoiding, this clarification.)  But he goes too far.:

In this case, it was a high price indeed, certainly not one to be dismissed. But it turns out to be the price of government by law, of innocent till proven guilty, of refusing to ask individuals to carry the burden of guilt by association based on groups to which they belong by virtue of race, religion or ethnicity.

And painful as it is, this is a good thing - even when it is called political correctness and even when we are compelled to pay the dreadful price of Fort Hood. Liberty's price is never cheap.

Again, is he not capable of separating the belief systems of various groups?  If he is, then why is he not doing so?  Why does he persist in allowing this high price for the sake of PC?  It is an excuse which we should all find disgusting. 

And this all comes to you by way of Arianna Huffington.  Because for HuffPo, mass murder is the price of liberty.  What a disgusting bunch of Leftist thugs.

Does the church have the right to teach its own members its belief system?  Yes.

Does a fellowship have the right to discipline its members who reject the church's doctrinal and ethical standards.  Yes.

Does this mean that a church may discipline a member who is engaged in politics?  Yes.

The discussion, in the video below, is all about how the church has engaged one of the Kennedy clan and whether the church should be speaking to the issue.

Chris Matthews says that this discipline amounts to telling a politician how to vote.  WRONG.  Kennedy can vote however he chooses. 

Susie Madrak, one of those anti-lifer Leftists at C&L, says that prosecuting for abortion means prosecuting the women who have abortions:

Because here's the moral hypocrisy at the heart of the Church's abortion position: If it's really and truly murder, you're talking about prosecuting mothers, sisters, lovers and friends for having them. Tweety is quite aggressive with the bishop, demanding to know exactly what legal penalties he thinks should be legislated.

No, Susie.  Except for a few exceptions, the general position is that the doctors are the ones who do the killing and who would be treated as the killers.  But sucy misrepresentation is not below the posters at C&L, and one can expect this type of rhetoric to continue.

So how does this affect religious liberty?  For Madrak and Matthews the church has crossed the line.  But the reality is that it has not.  The church is neither writing nor dictating legislation, but instead asking for consistency from its member.  The member is free to come and go as he chooses.  It's too bad that these Lefties would deny this liberty.  Then again, Leftists don't know what liberty is.

We now know of the hoax of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.  The revealed emails show the manipulation of information.  There is nothing left to doubt except the leftist politicians.  But what do we do now?  Here are some ideas:

1) Ask Honda and Toyota to produce diesels instead of hybrids.

2) Challenge Congress on the Cap & Trade tax excuse.  Challenge them to shelve it entirely.  And return any tax dollars disbursed to reinforce this hoax.

3) Challenge President Obama to apologize for his error.

4) Challenge Al Gore to apologize.

5) Challenge the emergent and postmodern theologians to apologize and remediate their accompanying theological errors.

Of course there is much more that we can do.  But we must begin by actively communicating with the apologists.

The Washington D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has made its understandings of the law clear -- that somehow homosexual marriage is required by law.  You can read the whole document here.  The board finds its motivation in the modern feminist movement.  In evaluating two matters, the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act (JAMA) and the Human Rights Act (HRA), the board came to the conclusion that

While neither the HRA nor its legislative history explicitly mentions same-sex marriage, it is without question that the HRA must “be read broadly to eliminate the many proscribed forms of discrimination in the District.”40 Since JAMA’s enactment, the District recognizes same-sex marriages that have been properly entered into, performed, and recognized by other jurisdictions. This did not exist when Dean was decided. Consequently, couples who fall within JAMA’s purview are entitled to the same benefits of marriage that are afforded heterosexual married couples, and the denial of these benefits to married couples on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individuals who comprise the couples now constitutes a “proscribed form of discrimination.” It is clear that this result is the intent of the Council, which voted 12-1 to pass JAMA. The Initiative seeks to deny recognition to JAMA marriages on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individuals who comprise the couples. As a result, the Board finds, and both the District’s Attorney General and the General Counsel for the Council agree, that the Initiative authorizes or would authorize discrimination proscribed by the HRA and is therefore not a proper subject for initiative.

This is dangerous.  The D.C. board considers the disallowance of homosexual marriage recognition, in principle, to be a "proscribed form of discrimination" -- and "proscribed" means dangerous and illegal.  The D.C. board has used specific terminology that declares the Christian view of marriage, that marriage must be between one man and one woman, and the practices of hiring and service, to be dangerous and illegal.

It doesn't take long to go back and look at the government's confrontation of Bob Jones University for its institutional racism.  The school was, in my understanding of the Word, practicing an immorality for which it deserved condemnation.  But the power of the federal government to intrude into religious organizations has been established, against Bob Jones and elsewhere, as the Left continues its assault on individual liberty.

And the board has let its intentions regarding any initiative to change this ruling:

IV. Conclusion Under current law, the District recognizes same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions. The proposed Initiative seeks to prohibit the District from continuing to recognize these same-sex marriages. The Initiative instructs that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the District of Columbia.” If passed, the Initiative would, in contravention of the HRA, strip same-sex couples of the rights and responsibilities of marriages currently recognized in the District.

The District’s Initiative, Referendum and Recall Procedures Act requires the Board to refuse to accept referenda and initiatives which violate the HRA. Because the Initiative would authorize discrimination prohibited by the HRA, it is not a proper subject for initiative, and may not be accepted by the Board.

The board's appeal to the Human Rights Act leaves open a door for a new type of discrimination:  Where do religious charities that participate with the government stand when it comes to their hiring practices and where does the expression of the Chrisitan faith end and responsibility to the state end?  This Human Rights Act is Section 14, Title 2 of the D.C. code, and as later clarified:

But is the district's law even legal?  Sounds strange, but the question must be pursued.  Does the district's denial of initiative and referrendum amont to an unconstitutional  limitation of the rights of the citizens of the district.  Could it be that the very definition of discrimination as used by the District is one which is politically motivated and of merely partisan convenience?  Should not the citizens be allowed -- they are by the Constitution, though not by District leadership -- to correct the error of the District?  They do, after all, regard us as dangerous.  This type of rhetoric is hardly tolerant.

First, I do not and will not promote insurrection.  But I will promote active dissent, even active disobedience when it comes to maintaining the practice of one's faith.  The time is coming closer with the current situation in D.C.  As report in the Washington Post today, the D.C. council has taken upon itself the authority to decide when one can or cannot practice their religious beliefs.

Under the bill, headed for a council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings.

How dare they!  They should be silent on the matter.  They should speak neither positively nor negatively.

But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

Well, not yet. But it looks pretty likely. Washington, D.C., the city that should be the protector of liberty is now bent on reducing liberty. Specifically, the city is bent on reducing religious liberty. And they are doing it in the same fashion as Massachusetts did a few years ago.

Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post report today (Nov. 12, 2009, front page) that

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage la, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness, and ehalth care.

Under the bill, headed for a D. C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay mean and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

If you are unfamiliar with the happenings in Massachusetts a few years ago, the Catholic Church was forced to withdraw from participation in the foster care and adoption system of the state because of moral objections to having to place children into homosexual households. The state could have accommodated the church and modified their procedures, but they chose to do otherwise, thus removing the church from equal rights to participate in civic matters on account of religious beliefs.

The Post article goes further:

If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city’s long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

And of course there is the expected accusation from the homosexual community:

Peter Rosenstein of the Campaign for Alll D.C. Families accused the church of trying to “blackmail the city.” 

“The issue here is that they are using public funds, and to allow people to discriminate with public money is unacceptable,” Rosenstein said.

And

“If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer cake city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes,” Catina said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.

Terry Lynch, head of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations, said he did not know of any other group in the city that was making such a threat.

“Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?” Cheh asked. “I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat.”

craigt@washpost.com

boorsteinm@washpost.com

Now, is anyone outraged? Well, the homosexual advocates are. But are we? Can we promote liberty while they, under their special-rights processes, seek to secularize society and turn the church into a servant of the secular state. This is statism at its worst.  Discrimination against religious beliefs and related liberty, under law.  But what has changed, really?  The homosexual thugs will not stop at restricting religious liberty to enforce their agenda.  They will go further if they are allowed to win more of these battles.  They want control of your belief system and find the church to be their greatest opponent. 

Your tax dollars at work.

Step 1 was our identity crisis. From the beginning through the Civil War we sought to clarify our system of government, leaving the Articles of Confederation and moving onto the more centralized Constitution. We ended our bout with slavery and secured rights. We secured the hemisphere from European expansion and the threat it posed.

Can the U.S. survive itself? Some days I wonder. While I think the classic liberal position holds great hope for the world, today's Marxists leave no hope for a free society to survive.