Saturday, June 23, 2018

ANDY STANLEY - A MARCIONIC HERETIC?

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." - The Apostle Paul (2 Tim. 4:3-5)

I start by saying that I am pretty shocked right now. To be honest with you, I'm actually in pain right now.

Based on the alleged quotes from Andy Stanley's preaching series called "Aftermath" below, it would clearly appear that Andy Stanley, son of the respected teacher Charles Stanley and mentor to beloved teacher Craig Groeschel of Life Church, has now embraced and is promoting the latest form of heretical Marcionism - an ancient heresy recently revived and promoted by false teachers like Darrin Hufford, writer of The Misunderstood God.

Below I am quoting excerpts from a blog that I just read written by Steven Kozar. Steven's blog seems well written, well structured and thoroughly logical. Though I do not personally know Steven, his words below are sufficient, in and of themselves, to warrant distribution. I will be hearing the series myself personally in order to test the veracity of the quotes offered by Steven below:

*** BEGINNING OF EXCEPTS
"In Andy Stanley's latest series, called "Aftermath," he suggests that Christians can unhinge their faith from the Bible while attaching their faith to the historically reliable resurrection of Christ (which is something we learn about from the Bible). Along with propagating doubt in God's Word, Andy Stanley is teaching a modern version of Marcionism, which is an ancient heresy that eliminates the Old Testament. Here are some recent articles that explain this in greater detail:

Here are some direct quotes from this truly bizarre and confusing "sermon" series:

“Jesus’s most devout first-century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible, they couldn’t have read the Bible if there was a Bible because most of them couldn’t read and there was no Bible to read. And yet, these men and woman turned the world upside down, they’re the reason we’re here today worshipping Jesus but they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century. Why are you so quickly persuaded to walk away from faith because of a book that didn’t exist when Christianity began?”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

“In order to remain irresistible, I noticed something we needed to address. And it had nothing to do with how we do church, it had everything to do with how we talk about the Bible, and specifically what we point to as the foundation of faith, which for most Christians, unfortunately, is the Bible. ”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

“Many of you-I’m in this group-we were raised to believe that the foundation of our faith is the Bible; that as the Bible goes, so goes our faith, and if some of it’s not true then none of it can be trusted; it’s a house of cards.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

It only took about ten minutes into the first sermon for Stanley to dismantle the authority of the Bible and give high praise to the sincerity and intelligence of atheists like Sam Harris, but then he spends the rest of the "sermon" talking about the ministry of Jesus and the early church while quoting from the Bible. But the obvious question should be: why is he using the Bible at all?

Here are some more direct quotes:

“The first-century Christians had a very different kind of foundation for their faith than many of us have. Many of us were raised to believe that the foundation of our belief is the Bible, but they didn’t have a Bible, the Bible wouldn’t come until the early fourth century. What they based their faith on was an event-specifically the resurrection of Jesus, and this should be the reason we choose to follow as well.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“When Paul’s eyes were opened he had extraordinary clarity around the incompatibility of the Old and New Testaments.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“The Bible teaches that God mostly loves Jews AND the Bible teaches that God loves everybody; they are two incompatible covenants.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“I’m telling you, you take Old Testament values and imperatives and you mix them with New (Testament values and imperatives), you end up with a mess, and you end up with a message that unnecessarily drives people away from the Gospel. And once upon a time this wasn’t all that big of a deal, because once upon a time nobody knew that much about the Bible and they couldn’t find out much about the Bible unless they went to a library, but now everybody is one click away from whatever information they need to dismiss their faith, including your children and grandchildren.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“(On the public display of the Ten Commandments:) Jews aren’t for this, and it’s their law. You don’t see Jewish groups saying ‘We need the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn!’ Jewish people are like: ‘It’s over, it’s over...’ and the Christians are like: ‘No! It’s not over, we wanna keep it alive!’ And the Jewish people are like ‘I don’t think you’ve read it carefully.’ Cause they’re smarter than us about THEIR scripture.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“The gig is up. The truth is out there. We can’t hide anymore. So let me be super honest: We can’t hide behind the Ten Commandments anymore because everybody has discovered that the Ten Commandments aren’t the only commandments; the Ten Commandments are the table of contents for the whole Jewish law.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“Originally in my notes I was gonna put a screen up here that said ‘In other words that means thou shalt not obey the ten commandments,’ but I knew someone would take a picture of that and it would define me for the rest of my life, so I’m not gonna put that up there...”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 3, April 28, 2018"

*** END OF STEVE'S BLOG EXCERPTS

I am in utter shock in reading this. Though I knew the church was in trouble, I had no idea that this spirit of Amalek/Jezebel had already done this much damage.

We must return to fasting and prayer guys. We are fighting huge principalities here.

Monday, January 1, 2018

THE RISE OF NARCISSISTIC CHRISTIANITY


People are increasingly becoming accustomed to a certain degree of narcissism in their walk with Christ. They reject anyone who brings up anything that they disagree with or otherwise stirs up their own perceived personal worldview which they have actually unwittingly adopted from the secular media and anti-Christian university professors both in Christian and secular universities.

Questioning what someone thinks these days is often viewed as an ad hominem attack on that person. To some, though to a much smaller degree, it’s actually considered a physical attack on their person justifying a physical response. New, cute little phrases like “micro-aggressions” are now routinely used to describe statements made that are at odds with what the hearer believes and thereby challenges what they (and the entire educated world from their perspective) justifiably defend and espouse.

Unfortunately, many who describe themselves as Christian have joined the pack.  Repudiation of spiritual authority and the rejection of any spiritual guidance into their lives by those whom God is expecting to give Him an account for them, as clearly stated by the writer of Hebrews when he says, Obey them that are over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Heb. 13:17), has now become the new normal. Most now reject any spiritual guidance if it includes any manner of correction or rebuke. At best, proper spiritual mentoring may include suggestions in their secular mindset, but should never fully or completely embrace the advice the Apostle Paul gave his spiritual son Timothy in 2 Tim. 4:2, when he says,

2 Tim. 4:2 (NIV)
Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

People are now often ONLY good with one of the three instructions given by Paul to Timothy here. Namely, that we as Christians (and not necessarily as leaders) should “encourage” one another. Many utterly question and reject any person’s authority to either correct or rebuke anyone else without their express consent. They embrace Paul’s advice to the Corinthians that everything they do should be “done in love” (1 Cor. 16:14), but then reject the statement just before it in verse 13 where Paul instructs the Corinthians that they should also “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, [and] act like men, be strong.”

The bottom line is that this new and insidious religious narcissism, affecting millennials in particular and the Church as a whole, now serves as the backdrop for knowingly rejecting Biblical authority as the only objective standard of faith. Don't be mistaken. This is all about ascension. This is nothing less than dethroning God and taking His place on the throne of our hearts while believing ourselves to be correct in our elevation of self over God.

That said, this is not a new problem.  The great American theologian Jonathan Edwards years ago addressed what he then described as “religious narcissism.” He believed it to be “the essence of hypocrisy.” It remains very much that to this day.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

RESIST FASCISM? HOW RIDICULOUSLY LUDICROUS.


Dear alt-left people: For the record, ignorance is not fascism.
#RESISTTHERESISTANCE

There is a legal term for what these people are engaged in. It's legally called sedition. The sad thing is that Legion (the mainstream media) is promoting this narrative, likely for ratings.
How stupid does the alt-left think people are? This entire alleged "movement" undermines the principles of a free and open democracy on which our nation was founded. Somehow these people feel they have the moral right to undermine the political will of a majority of our states (30 states) because they disagree with the policies of the party the people of the United States legally voted into power. They are doing exactly what they claimed Trump supporters would do if they lost, a contention I wholeheartedly rejected from its inception. Liars believe everyone is a liar.
Here's the truth: They couldn't win at the polls for POTUS and have lost both houses of Congress with no hope to regain the majority in sight. Soon they will likely lose Control over the Supreme Court.

So now apparently they feel compelled to incite an insurrection in order to challenge a duly elected President. This movement is engineered to get people hurt. That is the only way they believe they can emotionally turn the hearts of the people of our country so that they gain some level of sympathy toward their socialist and fascist agenda.

Here's how Black's Law Dictionary breaks it down:
SEDITION, n. (14c) 1. An agreement, communication, or other preliminary activity aimed at inciting treason or some lesser commotion against public authority. 2. Advocacy aimed at inciting or producing — and likely to incite or produce — imminent lawless action. ● At common law, sedition included defaming a member of the royal family or the government. The difference between sedition and treason is that the former is committed by preliminary steps, while the latter entails some overt act for carrying out the plan.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

SILENCE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA ACTION WILL PROVE DEADLY TO THE CHURCH




 By Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

I write this, not as a pastor, but as an attorney, concerned citizen, and most importantly as a Christian.  While I understand that the church may not officially attempt to influence legislation without endangering its tax exempt status, the church may well be in a catch 22 situation here.

After the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the church and overall faith community had clearly been put on notice that they are facing a very real and present danger of losing public funding for any community based initiative that they might seek to undertake, as well as their tax exempt status, an act which will then both impose corporate taxation of any income received by the church beyond that required to cover expenses at the highest corporate tax rate in the world (on tithes and offerings), as well as the taxation of all presently tax-exempt real property owned by the church.

The end game, now being masterfully implemented by a Justice Department emboldened by the most liberal, anti-church president in U.S. history, is to criminalize orthodox Christian/Jewish/Muslim behavior by falsely alleging that such behavior, protected by the First Amendment, is violative of the federal Civil Rights Act and federal law, and and then shoving the SCOTUS holding in Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) down the collective orthodox throats of the faith community.

Once this strategy is fully implemented, it will lead to the closing of countless churches and other houses of worship throughout the United States. Why? Because many small congregations of all orthodox faiths throughout the U.S. are presently barely able to meet their monthly mortgage payments or even to pay their ministers, let alone pay high corporate taxes on their income and property taxes on their real estate holdings. Many have survived by helping their communities through community initiatives subsidized by public grants. This will SHORTLY no longer be possible.

North Carolina’s legal action affords the faith community their collective “LAST LEGAL STAND.” The legal tide can be turned in this new case by use of the SCOTUS holding in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) which differentiates discriminatory "intent" from discriminatory "effect." The key is understanding the fact that though the so called “bathroom” law may be regarded by some, or perhaps by many, as arising from discriminatory intent, if it can be legally proven that it is in fact based on a concern over public safety and state economic concerns and not as a result of an intent to discriminate, both areas that fall under the protection and purview of state law, then the law would not be considered unconstitutional and would be upheld. 

Contrary to what is being promoted by the media and interest groups who could care less what the majority of parents in the United States desire for the protection of their children, parents, and houses of worship, the North Carolina law is admittedly based on the realistic understanding that it is a State’s right and responsibility to protect its citizenry from perceived dangers. In this case, protecting both children and the elderly from individuals who may gain access to public restrooms by falsely claiming to identify as women simply to use the access then granted to hurt innocents. In terms of “numbers,” simply citing the absence of documented cases to justify the public concern is inadequate, as only minimum scrutiny is required for laws imposed by the government in order to protect public safety and the economic well-being of the state. If only a few of the vulnerable parties may rationally be hurt by not imposing the new law, this is good enough legally. That is, the State must simply show that the law is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government end. If the local church remains silent at this juncture for the sake of political correctness, it will solely be responsible for is own very quiet economic demise. 

#gonzlawgroup
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mario-Gonzalez/104864159567451#

Saturday, February 13, 2016

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA’S PASSING - THE FIGHT TO PROTECT OUR CONSITUTION IS NOW OURS.


By Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq. - www.gonzlawgroup.com

Today, America lost one of its greatest heroes. An Italian-American icon dedicated to defending the Constitution with every fiber of his being. A man who recognized the erosion of the family unit in America as the greatest threat to its stability, who understood the Constitution to be a document that, like any other document, should be read and analyzed as expressing the thoughts and values of the authors that wrote it at the time of its writing. A document much too precious to be twisted and contorted to support sentiments and ideologies anathema to the very patriots who poured their hearts, souls and minds into its drafting.

I can’t tell you how many times I thought of custom designing a T-Shirt with his name and likeness on it that I could wear around my law school just to freak my professors out. Every time Scalia was derided during a discussion at law school by the backhanded comment of some confused liberal, my heart was broken. I saw his critics as lost souls, adrift in a sea of legal and logical instability destined to be helplessly marooned on an island of conflict and confusion by their fundamentally flawed ideologies.

Even in his controversial decision on Employment Div. v. Smith, 484 U.S. 872 (1990) which ultimately prompted a religious backlash and evidenced the need for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993), I understood and agreed with Justice Scalia’s much criticized opinion. Justice Scalia penned the Court’s decision in Smith holding that though the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to believe whatever they wish, it does not necessarily protect an individual’s right to act on that belief when doing so violates a neutral, generally applicable state law governing criminal behavior the state has a Constitutional right to regulate though its police power.  In Smith, it was Oregon’s right to regulate the use of an illegal drug (Peyote) for religious purposes. However controversial, his decision in this case demonstrated Scalia’s consistent commitment to protecting an individual State’s rule of law. His steadfast support for state sovereignty and his commitment to limit the scope of the federal government’s ability to interfere with this Constitutional right was invariable.

I secretly shuddered in fear when I envisioned what it would be like to have a Supreme Court without Justice Scalia. But in my heart I was comforted in knowing that Justice Scalia would continue to hang-on, if only to protect the Constitution until a President was elected that would properly select another constitutional originalist to fill his place. He hung on as long as he could, protecting the Constitution to his last breath. We now have the most liberal president in the history of our country poised to submit an appointee to the Supreme Court that will worsen the constitutional imbalance already present in this historically liberal Court.  If ever conservatives needed to erect an impregnable firewall to a potential presidential appointee to SCOTUS it is now.

What is at stake? Let me make it simple for you - the country.  Simply put, SCALIA’S REPLACEMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE. The next president’s influence over our country is constitutionally limited to no more than eight (8) years. Conversely, the decisions of a newly appointed Supreme Court Justice will affect us for generations to come. We cannot now allow what Scalia’s life stood for to be lost with his death. The fight to protect our beloved Constitution now passes to you and me.

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

WE SAW IT COMING FOLKS - CONSTITUTIONAL GENDER CONFUSION

By Rev. Mario Gonzalez, J.D.

Biological males now protected as having a “Constitutional Right” to bathe along with biological females in High School, so long as they “believe themselves” to be female, notwithstanding the presence of a distinctly male organ for all (biological females) to see or turn away from. This is the finding of Federal education authorities in Illinois against an Illinois school district seeking to honor the requests of parents who found the practice disgraceful. It’s only going to get worse unless the Church and other groups rally together and demand equal respect.

Here’s an excerpt from my lecture series on the outcome of the Same-Sex Marriage Decision which foretold of this move. It is part of my section on “The Trojan Horse.” –

“Here’s the problem - Allowing people who identify as gay or lesbian to marry is a question of what the State does. It governs the conduct of state or governmental officials. However, how you treat alleged discrimination against people who identify as gay – is another question altogether. This is a question that addresses the behavior of private actors - business owners, private employers, pastors, licensed teachers, public and private schools, licensed counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists and so on. Now we have a Supreme Court precedent that can be used to force people to act against their religious beliefs by claiming that acting on their faith is a discriminatory act.

As expected, WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE DECISION, the EEOC in a 3-2 ruling (notice how close these rulings are – around 50% are AGAINST) held that discrimination against someone in employment for sexual preference is the same as sex discrimination (an established protected class) and is to be treated accordingly. This law basically proscribes disparate treatment of “similarly situated persons.” It essentially allows enforcement action by federal, state and local municipalities against private citizens, companies, or generally “actors” as an anti-discrimination effort.

By conflating the two issues (the right to marry and discrimination based on an individual’s personal sexual preference and/or preferred sexual identity) and by morally justifying homosexuality in its holding, Obergefell essentially established A NEW CIVIL RIGHT affecting an ever-expanding and as yet undefined group of people (LGBTQ… LMNOP). This decision not only forced states to ignore their democratically adopted domestic relations laws (family law) against the will of the people in those states, but it will now be used to demand equal protection for this as yet undefined group to engage in behavior considered by most as morally unacceptable for thousands of years, such as the unfettered use of restrooms or showers of one's choosing, irrespective of one's biological gender, based solely on a person’s claimed (and unchallenged) psycho-sexual proclivity or identity. This will be allowed and protected by law as a result of this holding irrespective of how morally repugnant the choice might be to others directly affected by it.

In summary, based on this opinion, the Court has not only established itself as the Supreme Court of the land, but as a Supreme entity. It is no longer limited to merely interpreting the laws of the several States in light of the Constitution, but can now apparently confer dignity on what or who it sees fit, making moral what religion deems sinful, finding value in what nature manifests as wasteful, and praising a behavior that historically has served as a consistent marker for impending societal collapse.”Look up the article in the New York times by clicking here

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/us/illinois-district-violated-transgender-students-rights-us-says.html?mwrsm=Facebook&_r=0

Sunday, October 4, 2015

THE SUPREME COURT’S NEW CLOTHES


An examination of the Supreme Court’s recent same-sex ruling. 
By Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq., J.D.

A Fairytale
In 1837 Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, penned the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” about cunning swindlers who concocted a scheme to defraud a vain emperor. The emperor was duped into buying a garment hailed as being made from a valuable fabric invisible to anyone either unfit for his position or “hopelessly stupid.” The June 26, 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, came as a result of the use of the same deceptive technique by the LGBT lobby, duping the American public, the media, and now the U.S. Supreme Court into buying a fantasy to our collective shame as a nation.

Contrary to popular belief, marriage equality was not achieved by this ruling. Even before this decision, everyone in America could technically marry. What this ruling actually did was obliterate the definition of marriage, an institution held sacrosanct for thousands of years. It defined the term into meaninglessness. As a result of the ruling, same-sex couples can now enter into an as yet undefined social compact which has no gender limitations and soon will have no empirical limitation, as limiting marriage to two people will be legally problematic based on the legal logic used in this holding.

Government is God
Through this decision the Supreme Court has unilaterally overridden the legislative will of over thirty (30) states. And as in the Obamacare decision that preceded it, the Court here unequivocally solidifies its new standard that words no longer have a definite legal meaning. Words now mean only what SCOTUS says they mean. Based on this opinion, the Court has not only established itself as the Supreme Court of the land, but as a Supreme entity. It is no longer limited to merely interpreting the laws of the several States in light of the Constitution, but can now apparently confer dignity on what or who it sees fit, making moral what religion deems sinful, finding value in what nature manifests as wasteful, and praising a behavior that historically has served as a consistent marker for impending societal collapse.

Justice Kennedy’s “Newspeak.”
Justice Kennedy gives lip service to the virtues of marriage by saying, “It is fair and necessary to say these references [to marriage] were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex.” And that “…reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world still hold this view of marriage.” But his soliloquy makes this irrelevant, as he ultimately uses the Court’s newly found divine authority to label these “reasonable” people as both wrong and biased. In this context he makes an ominous statement:

“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.”

This statement essentially excludes people whose opinions are forged by their moral and religious ideals from involving themselves in the legislative process and further proscribes the application of their beliefs to democratically influence public policy. He ‘touts’ religious freedom apparently believing religious communities to be comprised of legal idiots when he says,

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

So basically, religious people can constitutionally believe and teach whatever they want to [even if this Court has deemed it bigoted], so long as they don’t put their beliefs into practice, a right portentously excluded from this statement. Justice Thomas’ response to this ruse is significant, characterizing the majority’s assumption that government confers “dignity” through marriage as nonsensical:

“Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved... [a]nd those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

He calls out Kennedy’s attempt at deception, quoting portions of the above excerpt and adds,

“Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for ‘religious organizations and persons… as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths’. Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.”

What About Marriage Equality?
Chief Justice Roberts, in his vehement dissent, states, “The majority’s decision [to announce a new civil right] is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.” A person does not find their identity and gain "civil rights" by a pattern of willful behavior. Behaving or feeling a certain way is an aspect of our human experience and does not in itself establish an inherent immutable characteristic. To be “immutable” something must be permanent – unchanging. Being black, for example, is a legitimate constitutional immutable characteristic. Even using the amicus brief actually quoted by Justice Kennedy in support of this Court’s mistaken contention that “sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic,” (yeah, I read it), said “… fully 88% of gay men and 68% of lesbians reported that they had ‘no choice’ [about their sexual orientation] at all.” Based on this Court's own supporting briefs from which it draws its irrational conclusion, 12%, or 1-2 out of 10 self-professed homosexual men and over 1/3 of professed lesbians in the studies feel they have a choice as to their sexual orientation. These numbers do not an “immutable” characteristic support.

That said, the question was never one of equality. The question always was whether an alleged committed relationship between two same-sex parties could legitimately be called a “marriage” and who should decided whether this is so. According to Justice Kennedy, a man who just two years ago in the infamous United States v. Windsor case wrote an opinion that concluded, “[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” and then went on to write, “[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations,” he now has completely reversed his opinion and feels that it is the Federal Government through the divine Supreme Court that should decide what a marriage actually is.

The Court has now unfortunately legally codified a false narrative. Based on strained studies engineered to push an agenda bent on establishing a bogus "civil right" where such a right does not constitutionally exist, we are now faced with a “new” civil right for a non-existent and non-discrete class of people. As a result, people of faith will suffer greatly because of the tsunami of litigation that will follow against those who will dare to refuse to “bow to Baal” (figuratively) by not compromising their deeply held religious convictions. Justices, Judges and City Clerks will likely be fired all around the country if they do not perform same-sex ceremonies they find repugnant to their faith. Religious schools and organizations may also soon be sued and may well loose public grants and ultimately their tax-exempt status as a direct consequence of this ruling, a ruling purportedly aimed only at guaranteeing “equality” for a burdened class.

Chief Justice Roberts issued this chilling warning of impending attacks against people of faith,

“Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution (First Amendment). Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same- sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

In the end, this decision had little to do with equality or the U.S. Constitution and everything to do with a social agenda aimed at vilifying and ultimately mortally wounding all who look upon the sexual behaviors in question as morally wrong. Like the fairy tale, it is all about forcing the American people to recognize and laud a non-existent civil right fancifully displayed by a largely immoral Court. This time it’s America that has no clothes.