Wednesday, December 3, 2014

HEARTBROKEN

Eric Garner should not have died. Plain and simple. This is a case of excessive force, not necessarily motivated by racial animus. Sadly, more care is typically taken handling animals than was given to this man. The NYPD should man up, admit their mistake here, apologize to the family, and pay up.

This case must be distinguished from Ferguson where the decedent was a thug and the behavior displayed following the incident by the hoodlums feigning concern dishonored the distinguished memory of our revered civil rights icons. Both the autopsy and the video in Garner's case rightly indicate probable criminal negligence. Unlike Ferguson, there should have been an indictment in this case. 

Hearing this man beg for air only to be ignored by the NYPD directly leading to his death is both heartbreaking and inexcusable. Once he let the officers know that he couldn't breathe, the officers were under a moral and legal obligation to release him enough to remedy the life threatening activity. End of story. The type of "hold" that was used to restrain Garner is irrelevant. There were no exigent circumstances here justifying turning a deaf ear to this man's cries for his life. Let's pray for his family and that the NYPD realizes its errors and does the honorable thing here to make this right.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/…/Timeline-Eric-Garner-Chokehold-…

Saturday, November 1, 2014

INDIVIDUAL PRAYER AND ACTS OF RELIGIOUS DEVOTION BY STUDENTS IS NOT AND CANNOT BE SUMMARILY FORBIDDEN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS - By Mario Gonzalez Jr., J.D.


Contrary to myths spread by the legally misinformed, the Supreme Court has not ruled that students are forbidden to pray, read a religious book, or otherwise worship on their own while at school.

In Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) the Supreme Court simply concluded that officially conducted prayer, promulgated in this case by the Board of Regents in New York, violated the Establishment Clause.  Similarly, in a subsequent Supreme Court ruling the following year involving school prayer and Bible reading, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), the Court decided that opening exercises promoting either the reading of the Bible or recitation of the Lord's Prayer in a public school violated the Establishment Clause as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

That said, it is critically important to point out to legally uninformed school officials that these decisions of the Supreme Court did not "remove prayer [or other religious observances] from public schools."  The Supreme Court simply and exclusively removed only government-sponsored worship from the public schools, as is expressly outlined in the Court’s rulings in both cases. Public school students have always had and still possess the right to pray, read the Bible, or worship on their own while attending a public school as class schedules permit.

Conversely, a public school official’s interference with such private religious observances would constitute an impermissible intrusion into religion by the state and would thereby violate the student’s First Amendment rights. Officially interfering in any manner with an individual’s non-disruptive religious observance, even within a public school environment, is proscribed by the U.S. Constitution. This would include interfering with such activities as quietly praying, reading the Bible, worshiping, or even outright proselytizing during a scheduled break time or even during class time when objectively appropriate due to the subject matter being discussed. Public School officials, including teachers cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination, even if the viewpoint in question is inherently religious.

I hope this information will help many of you in defending your particular student’s constitutionally protected rights.  

Saturday, October 18, 2014

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage – by Mario Gonzalez, J.D.
In a recent interview, Rev. Brian Houston, pastor of the well respected Hillsong Church in Australia, responded to a question by Michael Paulson of the New York Times requesting a clarification of their church’s stance on the issue of same sex marriage by evading the question. In summary, Brian responded by saying that is was “an ongoing conversation” among church leaders and that they were “on a journey with it.” As anticipated, this non-answer prompted an immediate backlash from the conservative faith community who has been feeling almost universally disenfranchised from society because of their perceived biblical stance on the subject. Essentially, people holding conservative Christian views on the issue of sexuality, marriage and family are now routinely scorned and labeled “bigoted” and “homophobic” for nothing more than what has been and continues to be their long-held, deeply rooted religious convictions on the issues based on scriptural teachings.

Echoing the evasive stand of pastor Houston, Pastor Carl Lentz, who pastors the local NYC chapter of the Hillsong Church, told Anderson Cooper that he apparently believes that not taking a public stand on the issue of homosexuality is behavior somehow modeled by Christ that he and the Hillsong Church leadership strive to imitate. It is apparently simply “godly” not to publically comment on the church’s theological perspective on these issues when asked, whatever they are.

With the greatest respect and deference to Pastors Houston and Lentz (which I do deeply respect), the fact that Jesus never addressed the matter of homosexuality directly in the Bible does not negate other communicative norms observed in scripture on the issue, particularly those observed by the apostle Paul. Nor does it lessen what are essentially universal scriptural teachings on the subject. The myth propagated by intolerant interest groups that holding to certain scriptural teachings on homosexuality somehow invalidates one’s ability to love people who engage in this behavior is misleading, invalid, and the height of intolerance. Just because you disagree with what your teenage child does doesn’t mean you love them any less. On the contrary, you hope to love them through whatever it is that they're experiencing. As parents we lovingly walk our children through all phases of their lives. Here’s the point: God loves us despite our inherent sinfulness. Scripture tells us “all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.” We are ultimately all sinners saved by grace.

That said, this does not mean that we are to refrain from identifying behavior that the Bible clearly teaches is sinful. Paul tells his spiritual son Timothy and every one of us by extension “I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom [pretty strong terminology don’t you think]: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 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." (II Timothy 4:1-5 NKJV). Sharing the truth in love, as we are commanded to do in Ephesians 4:15, inherently requires "sharing the truth" so that we as Christians, members of the body of Christ, can ultimately mature in the faith – it is how we grow. So what is the truth? Paul put it this way in 1 Corinthians 6, “9 or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” What “some of you were” – this is critical.

What we do once we know something we’re doing is sinful is every person’s individual choice. God must be allowed to move in our hearts in his time. Scripture requires us, however, to share what the Bible says is sinful so that a proper choice can be made in the first place. That said, we cannot treat anyone less than we do anyone else because of a particular “type” of sin. God’s grace and mercy is available to every person willing to open their hearts to him. God forgives every manner of sin if we are willing to confess them and turn to him (1 John 1:9). His love is expressed in that he loves us despite our sin (Romans 5:8). This does not mean that we simply ignore teaching about a particular sin simply because the message is unpopular or because it might make the messenger less “marketable.”

In a society overrun with political “newspeak,” this generation has grown tired of hypocrisy and double-talk. We’re getting that from our political leaders - we shouldn’t also have to deal with it in church. In summary, I would encourage every believer to be who you are and say what you believe in love and with respect (1 Pet. 3:15). I would agree with a good friend of mine and fellow minister at my church that its really come time for the people of God to rise up from the ashes of their rejection and to be strong, to be bold, and to be holy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/hillsong-church-gays_n_6002762.html

Saturday, June 28, 2014

NOT EVEN A “SMIDGEN OF CORRUPTION” IN THE IRS SCANDAL?


President Obama, a Harvard educated lawyer, used these words in his description of an investigation of the IRS that had not yet concluded at the time. He spoke of “knuckle-headed decisions” having been made, thereby denying by implication that laws had actually been broken with a straight face.  This was said in the face of the legal fact that when Lois Lerner, a lawyer herself and head of the IRS Exempt Organization Division, was brought to testify before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, she decided to invoke her rights under the 5th Amendment. In order for her to legally do this, as Ms. Lerner and President Obama both clearly know (a rookie lawyer knows this), it is mandatory that she have a “real and substantial fear” that her testimony would result in self-incrimination, or minimally contribute to her criminal conviction in the United States. She could not rightfully plead the 5th if there was absolutely no possibility of her being found guilty of a crime as a result of her testimony. Her actions evidently speak to her belief, notwithstanding the President's assertions, that answering Congress’ questions might well provide more than a “smidgen” of proof of criminal conduct on her part.

The President’s statement concerning the non-existence of criminal activity and Lois Lerner’s actions are thus both factually and rationally irreconcilable. Subsequent to the invocation of her right against self-incrimination, Ms. Lerner joined our present U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, in the now highly esteemed “contempt of Congress club.” Ms. Lerner was rightfully held in contempt of Congress for which she could have, and perhaps should have, been jailed on the spot. This is where it really gets interesting. Now it appears that years of emails from Ms. Lerner to various parties in Washington have been “lost” by the IRS, along with her hard drive. Furthermore, it also appears that other critical parties in the IRS have also mysteriously lost their emails and hard drives as well – a statistical impossibility. These facts alone establish the need for the appointment of a special prosecutor - now.

One thing can be said of all of this - the present administration lacks a “smidgen of credibility,” a fact on which the American public, both conservative and liberal, seem to wholeheartedly agree. 

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

SCOTUS HOLDING TODAY - OPENING TOWN MEETINGS WITH PRAYER IS CONSTITUTIONAL

Deconstruction of the “Establishment Myth.” Reason prevails. The key is to make sure that no faith (or belief system) is excluded or preferred.

TOWN OF GREECE v. GALLOWAY
Opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy – May 5, 2014
“Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs. The prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion… The town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment by opening its meetings with prayer that comports with our tradition and does not coerce participation by non-adherents. The judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed.”

Thursday, February 27, 2014


SUPPORT HOBBY LOBBY – FOR PROFIT DOES NOT MEAN THE COMPANY IS “NON-RELIGIOUS”

Here's the Government’s current argument in Hobby Lobby case: “There is no reason to think that Congress intended [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”)] to grant for-profit corporations rights that previously had been reserved to individuals and religious non-profit institutions. For-profit corporations ‘are different from religious non-profits in that they use labor to make a profit, rather than to perpetuate a religious values-based mission.’”

Ironically, one of the business involved here, Mardel, is a chain of Christian bookstores that hire at least some non-believers to arguably "perpetuate a religious-based mission." Where does that fall into the government's argument here?

So, when the IRS revokes a religious corporation’s tax exempt status for improper filings, or for some other “administrative” reason, thereby legally forcing them to become “for profit” corporations, do these inherently “religious” corporations then “SUDDENLY” become “secular” and lose their RFRA rights? (By “religious” I mean companies whose sole purpose for being is religious – i.e., religious schools, religious organizations, etc.)

This conclusion would be inevitable if we are to buy the government’s PRESENT argument in the Hobby Lobby case. Whether or not you pay taxes, as this very real example explicitly demonstrates, SHOULD NOT BE THE SOLE DISTINGUISHING CRITERIA for determining whether a corporation can be deemed to be a “religious corporation,” or whether a corporation should be denied the right to uphold a “religious” ideology as part of its business model. You can’t have it both ways. Thousands of religious organizations have either been denied tax-exempt status, or have had their present status revoked by the IRS in the last year alone for “administrative” reasons. So now what? Are they no longer “religious?” Says who? The IRS?

A “religious” business (in terms of their corporate mandates), for profit or not, should not be forced to engage in activity that is against its collective conscience, albeit indirectly, because the government orders it to do so. It’s time for the church and all people of faith to speak as one. Unless people of faith rise up, we’re headed for some real dangerous ground really fast. We cannot afford to sit these cases out.

F.Y.I.: Of twenty (20) methods of contraception approved by the FDA, Hobby Lobby and Mardel Christian bookstores were willing to provide sixteen (16), no questions asked –They agreed to pick up the tab in full in order to provide these contraceptives to all of their employees, as required by the ACA. This, however, was not enough. They had to pay for two types of IUDs, Plan “B” and Ellla, all of which could terminate human life, whether they liked it or not.

THIS CASE HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT “CONTRACEPTION.” This case HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT ABORTION, and the right of a corporation not to allow one penny of its hard earned money to go toward extinguishing human life.

From Me2u,
Pastor Mario

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

“BUT IF THOUGHT CORRUPTS LANGUAGE, LANGUAGE CAN ALSO CORRUPT THOUGHT.” George Orwell, 1984


Constitution for the United States of America
Bill of Rights - Article the third [Amendment I]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

If you thought the IRS scandal which almost exclusively targeted conservative organizations for special scrutiny, denying them tax-exempt 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) status, now followed up by a new IRS initiative, 26 CFR Part 1, REG-134417-13, whose apparent aim is to institutionalize discrimination against tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups by limiting the political activities in which these organizations can participate, like neutral “voter registration” and “get out the vote” drives, was the end of governmental intrusion into “First Amendment” space, think again.  The FCC has now been recruited to continue the “dirty work.”

In what has now become the typical “Orwellian” modus operandi of our government, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced that it will soon launch an initiative — the Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs (CIN) — “in order to assess whether GOVERNMENT ACTION is needed to ensure that the information needs of all Americans are being met, including women and minorities.” When the FCC’s OCBO announced the initiative, apparently on November 1, 2013, it selected Columbia, South Carolina [a generally conservative state] to field-test the Research Design for the CIN. OCBO expects to complete this next phase of its Critical Information Needs Research no later than July 2014 – much in advance of the mid-term elections. The FCC’s stated purpose of the CIN is to “collect information from television and radio broadcasters about ‘the process by which stories are selected’ and how often stations cover ‘critical information needs,’ as well as to assess ‘perceived station bias’ and ‘perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.’”

Quite frankly, if this is not a blatant First Amendment violation of freedom of the press, my law school education is worthless. It is my hope that stations approached, whether liberal or conservative, will simply refuse to cooperate with this impermissible and unconstitutional governmental intrusion. How a news organization chooses to cover a story is simply NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS - EVER. Freedom of the press is and should forever be an inviolable right of the American people. Maintaining freedom of the press, regardless of political ideology, is absolutely critical if we are to remain a free republic.

From Me2u ;-)

Saturday, February 1, 2014

TALK IS CHEAP BUT OFTEN NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THE ALTERNATIVE

Notwithstanding, action always speaks louder than words. John 13:35

In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310, the Court declared:
"In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy."

Vehemently disagreeing with someone does not indicate a lack of love. On the contrary, the people who love you the most will often be the only ones willing to take a contrary stand. Ask anyone with teenage children.

From me2u,
P. Mario