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

“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 ;-)

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

Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

From Mario Gonzalez Jr. Legal Intern at Kemp Law Group Greater New York City Area Organic, I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Mario Confirm that you know Mario You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Unsubscribe © 2012, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct. Mountain View, CA 94043, USA

NJ PARENT’S RIGHT TO CONTROL THE MENTAL HEALTH CARE OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN HAS NOW BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITED

A3371/S2278, the bill to ban counseling efforts to change a minors' sexual orientation, has passed both houses of the NJ legislature. Absent intervention by governor Christie, parents in NJ can no longer seek professional (including psychiatric) help for their minor children struggling with their sexual identity if such counseling includes any manner of redirection of the child's "stated" gender affectional preference, even if the professional believes the affections to be misguided and/or mistaken. In saying what I am saying, I am in no way condoning the recently reported ridiculous and harmful practices allegedly utilized by members of the psychiatric community in this regard, assuming such reports are true.

What is of concern to me is that fact that this bill presents an impermissible intrusion into a parent's right to bring up their minor children according to the precepts of their particular faith without intervention by the government. The issue of gender identity is integrally tied to foundational religious beliefs affecting a majority of Americans - Beliefs which must be respected and over which the state cannot constitutionally intrude, irrespective of popular opinion to the contrary.

In light of this legislation, it would appear that mental health care professionals who are devout Muslims, Jews, or Christians are now at a crossroads in terms of reconciling their professions with their respective faiths. Licensed School teachers are sure to follow if they work in a school, public, private, or parochial, "licensed" by the State of New Jersey. This is a matter of a person's right to hold to their religious convictions and to impose the same onto their children, convictions held sacrosanct for thousands of years. To summarily dismiss and to publicly disparage and ridicule the views of millions of decent, law-abiding Americans who happen to hold to strong religious convictions on a particular matter of great moral controversy, and to now legislatively force a particular secular view into how parents choose to care for their children's psychological/psychiatric health, is simply both "un-American" and unconstitutional.

The practice in many Christian churches in Germany during WWII was to sing louder so as to drown out the screams of millions of Jews as they were herded to their deaths in Nazi concentration camps on train tracks near church buildings. Singing louder did not save the life of one precious Jew. When it comes to enacting legislation that directly or indirectly affects our religious beliefs or the manner in which we choose to raise our children, we can either sing or fight. I would highly recommend that we learn from past mistakes. Though I would legally fight for the right of any person not be discriminated against in terms of housing, employment, etc., I would fight even more strongly for people to be able to practice their faith unimpeded by government, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Lest there be any confusion as to my statements, here is the full text of the bill…

SENATE, NO. 2278

An Act concerning the protection of minors from counseling attempts to change sexual orientation and supplementing Title 45 of the Revised Statutes.

     Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

     1.    a. A person who is licensed to provide professional counseling under Title 45 of the Revised Statutes, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training for any of these professions, shall not engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

     b.    As used in this section, "sexual orientation change efforts" means the practice of seeking to change a person's sexual persuasion, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender; except that sexual orientation change efforts shall not include counseling that:

     (1) provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person or facilitates a person's coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual persuasion-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and

     (2) does not seek to change sexual persuasion.

     2.    This act shall take effect immediately.

STATEMENT

     This bill prohibits counseling to change the sexual orientation of a minor.

     Under the provisions of the bill, a person who is licensed to provide professional counseling, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training, is prohibited from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

     The bill defines "sexual orientation change efforts" as the practice of seeking to change a person's sexual persuasion, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender.  The term, however, does not include counseling that: provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person or facilitates a person's coping, social support, identity exploration and development, including sexual persuasion-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and does not seek to change sexual persuasion.

CHRISTIAN INVOLVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY PROMOTED BY PAUL

EXHORTATION TO LIVE "QUIET LIVES IN ALL GODLINESS AND HOLINESS" OFTEN MISAPPLIED AS AN ADMONITION PROMOTING CHRISTIAN DETACHMENT FROM POSITIONS IN GOVERNMENT

In his first letter to his spiritual son Timothy, the apostle Paul instructs him in 1 Tim. 2:2-3, urging him and those over whom he has influence, to first see to it "that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people…" He then specifically identifies those with governmental authority when he continues by saying, "² for kings and all those in authority…"

Paul goes on to explain why he is requesting that prayers be made for all men as a whole, and this governmental subgroup in particular, when he says, "…that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." We pray for the well being of our governmental leaders so that they will govern wisely and in such a manner as will allow us to live quiet and peaceful lives. The balance of the passage addresses the act of 'praying for all men and our leadership,' and not to 'living quiet and peaceful lives' when he says, "³This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

The implication here is that God is pleased with such prayers because it is His will that all people, including those possessing governmental authority, "be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." The point being that God wants kings and all those in authority to be part of the kingdom of God, not at all implying that God's people should live lives that are detached from governmental involvement. God's desire is that all people, particularly our governmental leaders, "should be saved" according to the apostle Peter in this passage. 

That being said, it is in fact our lack of participation in the political process - our overwhelming apathy as "the Church" to things happening outside the walls of our respective houses of worship - that has landed us where we are today as a society. In the words of James, "faith without works is [quite] dead."

RESPECTING RELIGION...

Speech at Mayor Healy's Latino/Clergy Leadership Meeting at Hard Grove Café - Delivered on March 26 by Rev. Mario González 

The Constitution of the United States - Article VI, Section 3.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

"AMERICA is an experiment in democracy. For hundreds of years now, people from all over the world have migrated to this country with an ideal about what had come to be known as the American dream.

It was a dream that led us to believe that the whole could be greater than the sum of its parts; that we could find greater strength, by virtue of our diversity. That people possessing different philosophical paradigms could somehow set aside their differences for the common good.

For hundreds of years we have been relatively successful at finding common ground and moving forward because, notwithstanding our differences, we learned to engage each other with due deference, with civility, and with respect.

This forward momentum, and our democratic experiment itself, is now challenged by a contrary ideal. Many now embrace a visceral political philosophy that values the use of ad hominem political strategies – strategies founded on appealing to people's base fears, emotions and prejudices rather than their intellect or reason.

The Bill of Rights places a constraint upon government's involvement in religion in the very first Amendment to the Constitution for a reason - because our founding founders valued the concept of religious liberty as a whole, and respect for the individual's right to practice their religion unencumbered and without having to worry about bearing the stigma of governmental intervention or criticism in particular,

The Fulop campaign now appears to believe that when it comes to conducting a campaign, "all bets are off," as regarding our First Amendment. That they, through a sitting Assemblyman, can explicitly criticize and exploit a candidate's alleged personal religious beliefs for their own political gain; that they can criticize the deeply held beliefs a large number of our constituents, particularly seniors among us with conservative views, with critical immunity. They have made a mistake.

We take this opportunity to thank the mayor for his stand on the First Amendment and the right of all people to worship according to their conscience, and the separation of a person's religion or creed from political discourse. He is to be applauded for taking the high road in this campaign and standing for ALL THE PEOPLE OF JERSEY CITY.

We are here joined together across denominational lines to tell Steve Fulop and his campaign that when it comes to religion, we demand respect across the board. This isn't just about Christians. We speak for all conservative religious groups in saying that this behavior will not be tolerated within political campaigns in our great city. A candidate's religious beliefs, whatever they are, must be respected."