By Tom Stark, 05/16/2012

As I write this, it is literally4 a.m.and I am seriously wide awake.  I went to sleep before11 p.m.but awoke from a disturbing dream.  Is what has been happening inAmericathat far away from a bad dream?  We have drifted, no run, so far from our roots of religious freedom and our Christian roots that it is difficult to recognize the country we have become.

Did you know, for example, that the first official act of the first Congress, immediately following the first inaugural address of George Washington was to follow him in a procession from Federal Hall inNew York Cityto St. Paul’s Chapel where he led the Congress in a prayer of consecration – yes, consecration of the nation – to the work of God, and a prayer of thanks to God for His guidance and blessings on the formation of our government?

Did you know that in that first inaugural address,Washingtonwent so far as to say,

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself hath ordained.”?

Religious freedom sounds quite abstract when spoken alone – without context – but carries with it an obligation when set in the surroundings of our everyday lives.  Religious freedom is what prevents the government from telling us what to believe or whom to believe in.  It does not force us to believe anything.  Rightly so, since beliefs are personal and should be voluntary in order to be meaningful and sincerely held.

We write countless articles about the many attempts to suppress religious freedom in 21^st centuryAmerica.  Why, dear readers, do we think this is happening?  Is it some broad conspiracy?  Is it misguided progressives who hold humanist beliefs?  Is it all about the atheists attempting to impose their fictional “separation of church and state” on the rest of us?  I submit that while all of the above are happening, not necessarily in concert, but simultaneously, they are instrumental rather than causal.  Confused?  So was I…until…

Read the rest of this entry »

by Nathan A. Cherry, 05/15/2012

The religious freedoms of American’s are under attack, of that we can be sure. Never before in our nation’s history has our government sought to violate the deeply held religious convictions of churches, Christian businesses and employers, and individuals. If the plan is to take a back seat and just let things happen then we had better prepare for persecution not seen on American soil, ever.

The Speak Up Movement blog asks a very good question that every religious person with deeply held convictions should ponder and answer: “Do timeless religious convictions need to ‘adapt’ to fit these times?”

Well, do they? Do those of us that stand firm on the Bible and hold to the teachings of our faith need to “get with it” and move our beliefs into the 21^st century? Or, is it logically and theologically absurd to ask any religious person to “adapt” their beliefs to the arbitrary prevailing public opinion? I would lean (heavily) toward absurd.

Taking the latest and greatest case of religious persecution by our government, the HHS mandate to provide contraception, birth control, abortifacients, and sterilization coverage in insurance plans, the Speak Up Movement blog shows how government officials don’t regard religious convictions as something worth preserving. Quoting Kathleen Sebelius the article states:

“Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law….  This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.”

Adapt!? As if centuries of tradition, teaching and religious conviction can be tossed aside because our President doesn’t share or care about our religious beliefs. This proves that the Obama administration has more interest in advancing a radical abortion agenda than they do in preserving the freedoms of Americans.

Read the rest of this entry »

by Nathan A. Cherry, 05/11/2012

You may remember my last article with recent news on the situation facing the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Then again it was during our “hacked period” so maybe you missed it. Check it out here. By now most of the country has heard of the controversy facing the BSA over their dismissal of a lesbian woman from her position as a den mother.

The BSA has had a long standing “zero tolerance” policy for homosexual members or leaders. They simply do not allow homosexuals into their organization and, as a private organization, has every right to do so. Truthfully, with rampant abuse taking place in the country it makes sense to safeguard young boys in every way possible. Now that news of Facebook’s child porn ring has rocked the country it’s no wonder parents feel better knowing a heterosexual male is spending the night in the woods with their sons. A recent article comments on the BSA’s right to be “exclusive”:

“As a private organization, the Boy Scouts has the legal right to exclude both gays and lesbians from membership and leadership. That right was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, but that has not ended the controversy. Since that decision, the Boy Scouts have paid dearly for the policy, as some cities and other governments and institutions have severed support and relationships with the BSA and its local programs.”

Unlike groups such as Komen that cave under pressure after mere days, the BSA has stood strong for more than a decade in the face of criticism and pressure. That alone deserves a merit badge.

A story at WorldNetDaily.com sums up the BSA’s position on why they do not allow homosexuals into their organization:

“Scouting, and the majority of parents it serves, does not believe it is the right forum for children to become aware of the issue of sexual orientation, or engage in discussions about being gay. Rather, such complex matters should be discussed with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting.”

Read the rest of this entry »

By Tom Stark, 05/12/2012

There is a saying that has become common over the past sixty years:  “As goes California, so goes the country,” or words to that effect.  California has always been seen as a trend-setter for the rest of us.  Unfortunately, the trends in California are headed in the opposite direction from any destination I would choose to visit.

The latest “trend” has been in the legislative onslaught of laws restricting what can or cannot be said with regard to the pros and cons of homosexuality.  By this I mean that in California, nothing negative can be said about homosexuality and at every opportunity, the schools are forced to praise and honor the “contributions” of people like Harvey Milk and other homosexual “idols.”

Now, the latest segment of the latest trend has been introduced in the California legislature.  State Senator Ted Lieu has sponsored a bill (SB 1172) that [was] given a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 8.  This bill would make it, among other things, illegal for a counselor to treat anyone under the age of 18 for sexual orientation confusion (a desire to prevent one from becoming a homosexual).

The bill goes so far as to deny minors the right to counseling to prevent becoming homosexual even if they and both parents are consenting parties to the counseling.  If the counselor does it anyway, he/she opens themselves up to criminal and civil liabilities initiated by the state and/or interested private parties.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), is quoted in Bob Unruh’s piece in WND Faith as saying,

“I can honestly say this is one of the most outrageous, speech-chilling bills we have ever seen in California – and that’s saying a lot,”

Read the rest of this entry »

This morning, I had the privilege of being invited on Talkline with Hoppy Kercheval, West Virginia’s statewide talk radio morning show.  The debate was to discuss President Obama’s – what are we calling this, revelation? evolution? endorsement? – announcement that he is hunky dory with redefining marriage.

You can listen to the debate between myself and former chairman of Fairness WV, Stephen Skinner, by clicking here. 

As you know, sometimes you think of the perfect thing to say or wish you had said something you did say a bit different after you hang up front he interview.  Or, sometimes, time just doesn’t afford the opportunity to expand on a point.  That’s why I usually post this, “What I should have said . . .” post.

It’s not that I’m not happy with what I did say.  Our society – and our President – ought to be doing everything it (he) can to strengthen and support marriage, not undermine it.

But, there’s always more to say, I supposed.  So, here’s what I maybe should have said:

Read the rest of this entry »

by Nathan A. Cherry, 05/07/2012

If you are anything like me, you like to keep up with things. So you keep up with your favorite sports team, current social trends, the political climate, and of course technology…as best you can. And while keeping up with all of the latest news and information made available, you use the Internet and an aggregation of websites as your top resources (the alternative is…a newspaper? Do they still make those?)

So maybe you would find it surprising to learn that a recent study suggests that “religious sites are [a] greater security risk than porn destinations.”

As West Virginia’s most widely read conservative blog, one with a decidedly religious foundation, this is of particular interest to us. Not to mention that over the last three weeks we have been resolving our very own security breach. You might remember my post detailing our recent ordeal, if not, click here to read it (it’s very compelling). It also details the list of possible groups to blame for our security woes, including Redskin fans, cat-lovers, and Steve Jobs – I told you it was compelling.

But seriously, why is it that religious sites could be more of a risk than porn sites? It seems to me that far more porn sites will be visited on any given day than religious sites. As a hacker, someone wanting to spread viruses, I can’t help but think porn sites are a better target.

And yet this recent study suggests otherwise:

“According to the company behind the report, Internet security firm Symantec, websites featuring religious or ideological themes are three times more likely to host infectious malware compared to sites with adult or pornographic content.

“Websites categorized as ‘blogs/web communications’ are the most likely to contain malicious code: a full one in five websites in that category were identified by Symantec as ‘infected.’ They’re followed by ‘hosting/personal hosted’ sites (15.6%) and ‘business/economy’ (10%).

“Approximately 2.4% of pornographic sites contain malware. The reason porn sites are relatively malware-free?”

Read the rest of this entry »

By Tom Stark, 05/05/2012

Not too many months ago, a bill was introduced in Congress that would extend workplace protections to people who chose the homosexual lifestyle or were “gender confused” or liked to dress as the opposite sex.  Employers across the country along with religious groups made some serious efforts to stop this continuing madness that has gripped our country in trying to accommodate this small group of people with a perverted lifestyle.

The effort, thank the Lord, was successful and the bill was not enacted into law.  But like so many other things like this inWashington, they never truly die.  They simply lie dormant on someone’s desk until a more opportune time and then resurface as a bill amendment tacked onto a “must pass” spending bill or some other vehicle that is likely to carry that amendment successfully through the legislative tunnel and emerge as law at the other end.

In the most ludicrous of cases that are becoming an everyday occurrence with the Obama administration’s gang of progressive panderers, these onerous efforts to appease and “buy votes” are resurrected in the form of bureaucratic “determinations” by a regulatory agency headed by another of the President’s ideologues.

This background information brings us to just such a case in the news over the past week.  Godfather Politics carried an article by Gary DeMar relating the latest instance of regulatory over-reach.  That bill I mentioned at the beginning has been manipulated into an “opinion” that places it among the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).   It also has the all the earmarks of being applied through the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The agency that has “stepped up” to force this latest effort on employers is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which was a product of liberal attempts to compensate for past discrimination against people of color.  It has been relatively quiet in recent years, but occasionally pops up to do what it can to interfere in what should be private decisions between applicants and employers or freely determined decisions about conditions in the workplace.

Read the rest of this entry »

by Nathan A. Cherry, 05/04/2012

Gov. Tomblin signs the Premarital Education Act.

The National Day of Prayer got started with plenty of food and coffee at the Clay Center in Charleston, West Virginia. The Family Policy Counsel of West Virginia (FPCWV) hosted its first ever Gubernatorial Prayer Breakfast with a packed house and balcony for the purpose of spending time intentionally praying for our local and federal leaders.

FPCWV president Jeremy Dys welcomed the crowd and introduced our special guest, the Appalachian Children’s Choir. We were blessed by the singing of “God Bless America.” After their beautiful rendition of this timeless classic song of faith we welcomed our guest of honor, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin.

Gov. Tomblin read the proclamation for this year’s National Day of Prayer invoking the blessings of God and calling for us to seek guidance from God in directing our state and our nation. We are thankful for the Governor’s time and for his emphasis on faith and prayer as we gather for this specific purpose.

Gov. Tomblin also came to sign the Premarital Education Act, a bill the FPCWV helped author and pass through the legislature during this year’s session. Members of the WV Legislature, Jeremy Dys and others looked on as the Governor signed the historic bill designed to lower the divorce rate in West Virginia, while saving the state more than $5 million dollars a year.

After signing the bill Tomblin closed by saying “God bless America, and God bless the state of West Virginia.” Thank-you Gov. Tomblin, we appreciate your faith, your passion for West Virginia, and your help in getting this bill passed.

We then welcomed WVU play by play man Tony Caridi as our key note speaker for the morning’s events. Anyone that has followed WVU sports for any amount of time can easily identify the voice of Tony Caridi considering the many years he has spent calling plays for Mountaineers sports.

But Mr. Caridi did not come to talk about sports, the Mountaineers, or his career as an announcer. He came today to talk about something much bigger in his life, his faith in Jesus Christ. Read the rest of this entry »

By Tom Stark, 05/02/2012

The State of Kansas, the state that brought us pro-abortion governor Sebelius – currently the head of the agency that brought us forced contraception mandates and the like – is about to usher in another insanity for the rest of the country to marvel at.  Yes, four cities in the state are about to consider local legislation that will not only allow “gender identity” to join the ranks of the “protected classes.”  Protected, it would appear, from the distressful and disturbing requirement that they use the rest room assigned to their biological sex rather than the one they aspire to in their hearts.

According to Karla Dial, writing for Citizen Link, four cities – Hutchinson, Pittsburg, Salina and Wichita – two of which will vote soon to add this group to the protected ones.  She relates that the implications are significant on a number of fronts, including:

• “[It would allow] people to use public showers, restrooms and dressing rooms set aside for the opposite sex.”
• “any church allowing its facilities to be used for public events would be required to let gay or transgendered people “who want to rent the building for a party” do the same,”  (from FAQs on the Hutchinson Human Relations Council website) and,
• “[Businesses] would not be allowed to make any employment decisions based on a person’s “sexual orientation” or “gender expression,” including enforcing dress codes.”

Can you imagine the kind of disruption a Christian bookstore owner would experience if forced to abide by such rules?

Read the rest of this entry »

By Tom Stark, 04/28/2012

Have you seen the game that can be found at most arcades and carnivals called “Whak-A-Mole”?  You know, the one that has about a dozen holes from which little animals pop up unexpectedly and you try to guess which hole they will come from and hit them before they disappear again.

Well, that has to be about how Alliance Defense Fund attorneys feel when facing the increasingly frequent calls they received from college students and their parents across our country as they face the blatant discrimination of college administrators’ policies regarding membership in religious clubs on campus.

Citizen Link reported on its disappointment that the U.S. Supreme Court failed to provide a hearing on a case involving San Diego State University.  In that case, a religious club on campus was required under university policies to open membership to non-Christian students and further to allow them to run for club offices and assume leadership roles in that club.  How ridiculous is that?  Vanderbilt University in Tennessee is also trying to apply an identical policy on their campus as well.

The thing about this case that amazes anyone with a modicum of common sense is that it clearly discriminates against religious organizations.  How, you ask?  It discriminates because under the same schools policies, the campus Republican Club and Democrat Club are not under the same obligations.

The District Court that first heard this case ruled in favor of the student club stating that such a policy was discriminatory on its face.  However, as might be expected by those who know history, the highly left-wing Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals inSan Franciscooverturned the District Court and allowed the discriminatory policy to stand.  The Supreme Court refused to change that ruling.

Read the rest of this entry »