CondomsUSA: Religious Freedom: Some Christians refuse to pay taxes (even indirect thru health-insure companies) becawz Obama régime destroys institutional religious freedom

Three vitally important news stories have appeared in Christian Post, a newsdaily online that belongs to the  publication members of the Evangelical Press Association (and is thus assumedly in conformity with its ethical guidelines for Chrsitian news-media).  The news source is very much a newshorse, and in the current Obamacare stealth-rules for employers a moment has come when this news horse is keeping up-to-date on the fast-breaking developments of the tidal wave of adverse reaction, whether a majority, or even a majority of Evangelicals or Catholics remains to be seen. The first story centers upon the figure of a political scientist of reformational philosophical background, Dr Stephen Monsma.

Monsma has studied, as a political science professor, and practiced, as a Michigan state government representative, American government for over 40 years. Recently, as senior research fellow at The Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity andPolitics at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Mich., and a fellow at the Center for Public Justice, Monsma has turned his attention to the study of faith-based organizations. — CP (Feb17,2k12)

Dr Monsma's latest book appeared this year under the title, Pluralism and Freedom: Faith-based organizations in a democratic society.  It had been written prior to the onslawt of the birth control mandate's headlines.   Monsma challenges the "underlying assumptions" of the Obama practice of politics with which many, perhaps most, voting Americans agree.

The crucial [assumption] is that religion is something that takes place in churches, synagogues, mosques, or in private activities, such as devotional reading or prayer, in the home. That leaves out a host of religiously based organizations that are involved in health care, education, other social services, which then are not seen as being truly religious organizations, and, therefore, they can be forced to engage in practices that go against their beliefs without really, supposedly, violating their religious consciences.

Against that political-moral view of the inherent religious neutrality of institutions functioning outside of the societal spheres of church and home Monsma offers the Obama régime and the American voting public a real alternative:  

I think the beginning point is to recognize that faith-based organizations engag[ing] in education, health care, and social services [for instance] are truly religious organizations by which individuals are living out their religious faith and therefore they are deserving of the protection based on religious freedom rights. 

The CP article, by Napp Nazworth, proceeds in question-and-answer form.  The interview proceeds with systematic delineations of government support for any proportion of a committed organization's when its program/s contribute to the common good, but not in any such activities that woud involve
direct proselytization or worship activities. "But otherwise, if the organization is providing a public good, helping to solve problems in society, they should be able to continue to do so in the manner that has helped them to be successful in the past. Monsma is especially firm when he insists that "Certainly, restrictions should not include forcing that faith-based organization to hire persons who are not in religious agreement with them, which would virtually destroy that organization as a religiously-based organization."


Read more ... click on the t+mstamp below ...

Media: Censorship: Anti-Religious Censorship by New Media Companies

e-News for Faith-Based Organizations (Nov2,2k11)

A report by Stanley Carlson-Thies appears in the IRFA newsletter for Nov2,2k11

— items reposted here by Lawt, juridics columnist for refWrite frontpage.

The third of five briefings for Capitol Hill staff on institutional religious freedom issues was hosted by IRFA and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty on October 19.  The title:  "Protecting Conscience and Faith-Based Institutions in Health Care." The expert panelists were Jonathan Imbody, VP for Government Relations for the Christian Medical Association; Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops; Susan Post, Executive Director of Esperanza Health Center, Philadelphia; and Mark Rienzi, constitutional law professor at the Catholic University of America.  Alan Hurst from the Becket Fund moderated the panel. Video of the briefing is available here.  The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities is videotaping each briefing.  Videos are posted to a special channel onVimeo.com, here . The fourth briefing, Safeguarding Faith-Based Services Against Charges of Discrimination, will be held at noon on Friday, Nov. 4, in the Capitol Visitors Center, HVC-201.  Panelists are Marc Stern, American Jewish Committee; Dan Avila, US Conference of Catholic Bishops; and Eric Scalise, American Association of Christian Counselors. The final briefing, Dec. 9th, is on protecting the religious mission of faith-based education.

NRB Study Exposes Anti-Religious Censorship by New Media Companies

Apple, alas, is a notorious anti-religious censor, having ejected from the iTunes App Store two Christian apps--one on the Manhattan Declaration, one from Exodus International.  Apple also stopped participating in the Christian Values Network (now CGBG), an online service through which shoppers can direct a portion of their purchase amounts to charities they choose, because the service allows shoppers to donate to allegedly "discriminatory" Christian organizations. But this is just the tip of the high-tech censorship iceberg, according to a new study by the John Milton Project for Religious Free Speech, a project of the National Religious Broadcasters.  In its report, "True Liberty in a New Media Age:  An Examination of the Threat of Anti-Christian Censorship and Other Viewpoint Discrimination on New Media Platforms," NRB names other instances of censorship and, more important, points out the right asserted by companies such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Verizon, and Comcast to decide for themselves what views are objectionable and will be banned.  Such companies play a vastly important "gatekeeper" role in our communications and, thus, though they are private entities, need to assume some responsibility for the free flow of information, including information that they might not agree with. This is a careful and sobering study, looking to Supreme Court standards concerning free speech to develop best practice recommendations for social media companies.  The Twitterati will be glad to learn that Twitter stands out as a company committed to protecting speech. Find the report here.