A One Stop Shop of Recent Religious Freedom Articles (and a Short One by Me)

Is religious freedom a biblical issue?  It is in one sense, that is, God hasn't rescinded the cultural mandate, to subdue and have dominion.  Christians are salt and light, so it's not just all about evangelism.  This does not mean that the ultimate answer is in politics or even government.  Empires will fall, as seen in Daniel 2 and 7.  It isn't the priority, but I believe it is still a biblical issue, because religious freedom is of God.  Taking away religious freedom is bad.  We should stand for it as much as we can.  We should have an answer to the world about it.

Religious freedom is tied to private property rights.  If someone won't participate in a same-gender mirage by baking a cake or taking pictures or providing the flowers, he should not have to lose his business and his personal belongings.  That is not just anti-American, but it is unbiblical.  We should stand for righteousness in the nation, and that is unrighteous.  Evangelism and practiced righteousness do not contradict one another.

I'm going to provide several links to allow you to get up to speed and comment on a few articles others have written.  Before I do, you should know that you are being lied to about this issue especially in the following way.  When the media publishes these so-called poll results, they are lying about them.  I've looked at most of them, and what they are saying is that a majority of Americans support anti-discrimination about religious freedom laws, but here's the lie, folks.  They are talking about whether a business will serve homosexual customers, not participation in a same-gender event. They know that too.

The media says that a majority is against religious freedom that discriminates against same gender activity, but that's not what the religious freedom laws are about.  They are about a person's constitutional right of free exercise of his religion, his freedom of conscience.  That's what the laws are about, not about denying a table at a restaurant.  Again, they know that.  They are counting on a large percentage of people not understanding that.  They are lying, people (an example of the lie at Politico, finding the 'good' company of Al Jazeera).

Here's how the confusion works for the media, which opposes religious freedom, and, therefore, rejects the first amendment.  The media wants to make the news, not report on it.  They speculate that if people think the majority support anti-discrimination, that more other people will be swayed that direction, so they are counting on people's ignorance in this.  They also know that they won't suffer much for their lies, because they've seen obvious examples, for instance, with the Clintons.  It's the fairly new adage that it's easier to say you're sorry than to ask for permission.  If they get caught in the lie, they'll just say they're sorry.  Or maybe not.  They don't expect to be held accountable, and even if they were blamed, they can call it a sort of civil disobedience that is at the bedrock of the progressive movement.  Lying is a form of progressive "righteousness," this coming from people who have cast their lot with chance in denial of their Creator.

All I did to get the following links was to plug in "religious freedom" for the last week and then see what people are writing about.  A lot of the states are talking about religious freedom right now, and they are afraid.  For instance, Governors Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin are capitulating to a degree for obvious political reasons.  On the other hand, Bobby Jindal of Lousiana is supporting a religious freedom bill.   Ricketts of Nebraska seems to be trying to create some momentum by declaring a religious freedom day in the state on April 13.  Maine is discussing a religious freedom bill in its state (and here).  The lies of the media have buttressed killing a Nevada religious freedom law.  Alabama is being called upon to support religious freedom. Kasich and Walker have measured the value right now after having viewed the carnage in Indiana, and have decided not to go there.  If you live in those states, you should let them know.  Indiana and Arkansas both already caved under the pressure.  What many states are saying is that the laws already on the books are sufficient to protect religious freedom.  We all know that isn't true by what we have seen in devastating court cases in Washington, Colorado, and New Mexico.

The progressive states, liberal ones, where Democrats have the majority, see an advantage right now to standing against religious freedom laws.  Massachusetts is slamming religious freedom bills.   Florida right now is attempting to protect religious families, who want to adopt children, keeping the state from denying an adoption just because they believe in God.  

On April 11 at Townhall.com, Ken Blackwell writes: "Religious Freedom: What About the Florist and the Baker?"  A predominant paper of West Virginia writes a pro religious freedom article, charting some history, on April 13.  On April 13, Michael Brown explains what's really behind the attack on religious freedoms.  The Christian Post reports of an interview of Focus on the Family with Jeb Bush on religious freedom (April 13).  Wayne Root at The Blaze explains "Why Obama, Democrats and Apple CEO are Hypocrites About Indiana Religious Freedom Law" (April 8).   On April 10, Joe Carter at the Acton Institute blog writes, "What Exactly Is 'Religious Freedom'?"  Religious colleges are already rejecting their ability to receive student loans and grants in order to ensure future religious freedom.  Tim McMurty was published on April 10 in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel with "Religious Freedom:  to be or not to be."  Matt Barber in Western Journalism on April 14 gives "A Message to Liberals" about baking their own cake.