The Church of no More Worship.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/09/22/...nd-counseling/

Does the state have the right to prevent people from training for particular careers because the state disagrees with their religious beliefs? U.S. District Judge George Steeh has made just such a ruling. Eastern Michigan University expelled Julea Ward from its master’s program in school counseling because Ms. Ward refused to undergo a reeducation program to silence her beliefs and to keep her convictions in check when counseling.The flashpoint was Ms. Ward’s refusal to counsel homosexuals about relationships because such behaviors are not consistent with her religious beliefs. The dismissal of Ms. Ward’s lawsuit could have a chilling effect on religious freedom. The threat goes far beyond the issue of homosexuality. If the government can determine that some beliefs make a person unfit for a profession, then anyone who has an unpopular belief can be denied the opportunity to practice his or her own profession. After all, if the government can determine that personal beliefs can make a person ineligible to train for a particular profession, what is there to stop the government from forcing people out of their existing profession? This ruling is a threat to everyone’s freedom, no matter what one believes about homosexuality.

Continued at link above.

Alright folks, It seems that our freedoms are coming under attack more and more.  This girl is only trying to become a counselor in order to attempt to help others.  In this case, she is being absolutely discriminated against due to her personal and religious views.

No judge is able to revoke our freedoms such as in this case.  We have the utmost responsibility to uphold our freedoms religious or otherwise. 

Here is the funny part to this whole situation…

Given any profession, if you as a service provider is unable to assist your client or customer you would be able to refer them to someone who could.  Right?  So if a person holds a personal view that is against homosexuality, and a gay couple comes to her for counseling, she should be able to refer them to someone that could help them.  Right?

Think of it like this, just because she doesn’t believe that they should be together is reason enough that she would be unable to offer helpful, unbiased advice.  That in and of itself is not discriminatory.  If she were to say “I hate f*gs,” or some such awful thing, then yes, that would.

She is protected by her first amendment to have her religious beliefs.  Further than that, she is granted by God to believe in Him and hold His values in her heart.

We cannot ask a Catholic pro-life pediatrician to perform an abortion, and then when he refuses force him to do so.  There are ethics protections for providers for that reason.  He would be able to refer that patient to someone more willing than he to perform that procedure.

If this is the case with so very many doctors and care providers, why is this young lady being discriminated against?  How are one couples’ feelings held in any higher regard than the religious views of another? 

In all fairness and impartiality, that a judge should take, he is overstepping his bounds by making this unconstitutional judgment against her. 

Remember Justice Breyer?  He said that the first amendment should come under review and that cases set precedence.  This is the precedence that we are to expect. 

Imagine a day where you are no longer allowed to go to church because it differs from the views that governing officials have.  Does it sound like the kings from a couple hundred years ago? 

Remember the more that we grab power from the people, the sooner that they will take it back.  This will lead to further restrictions on people of faith and eventually our faith will no longer be allowed.

Contact U.S. District Judge George Steeh and let him know that this ruling is not ok.

*Update*
Since trying to "influence a federal judge is "not okay," if you were to file a "friend of the court" document with more information about why his ruling was unjust, this is the more "acceptable" route.

U.S. District Judge George Steeh

United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan
Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse
231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 238
Detroit, MI 48226  

Chambers Telephone Number                  (313) 234-5175

Case Manager –

Marcia Beauchemin                                        (313) 234-5175

Court Reporter –

Ronald DiBartolomeo                                     (313) 962-1234

CourtroomRoom                                              236

“Silence is Golden” as Federal Policy?

Today is Constitution Day.

Unfortunately, this week we may see the beginnings of yet another attack on our Constitution.  Supreme Court Justice Breyer was interviewed on Good Morning America this week about his new book.  However, discussions strayed from his new book to the consequences of citizens using their speech freely, as demonstrated last weekend with Florida Pastor Jones in the threat to burn a Koran.

I have avoided writing about Pastor Jones regarding his threat to burn a Koran for a specific reason.  I wanted to see what the outcome would be.  I knew that the Usurper in Chief would get involved and that Jones would have most likely not followed through on his promise to burn a Koran on 9/11 of this year.

For the very reason he was chastised and ridiculed as a hate-monger, he should have burned the Koran.  He was Constitutionally protected to do so, and as any good American using his right to free speech, there should have been no repercussions for it.

Justice Breyer mentioned that, “Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater… Well, what is it?  Why?  Because people will be trampled to death.”  Even someone in a highly respected position as a Supreme Court Justice can be unmistakably wrong.

Justice Breyer is referring to Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919.  This is a popular Quote but often taken out of context.  The misquote fails to mention falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from truthful but also dangerous.  The quote is used as an example of speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous, which is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Here is the key, the Supreme Court has ruled in past that false and dangerous speech should be limited, not true and dangerous speech.  Pastor Jones wanted to show Islam that enough was enough and we (as Christians) were not going to take any more of their – let’s say stuff.  I absolutely agree that we should not allow for the Islamic Jihadists of our world dominate nor dictate to us how we are to act or believe.  It is only out of fear that they may attain that power. 

So if it is illegal to shout “fire” when there is no fire, because the powers that be say that someone might be unintentionally hurt, why do people see that burning a Koran is a bad thing?  If Jones were to burn a Koran and – as this past week has shown – Muslim extremists go out and kill some Christians for it, are these unintentional repercussions?

No.  They are not the direct result of his own actions or speech.  When these Christians were killed this week, that was the intentional reaction of militant terrorists that had an “religious” affinity for killing Christians already.  These Jihadists were only acting out they ONLY thing they know how to do.  Behave like a two year old with a gun.

Back to the point. 

If Justice Breyer and his anti-patriots in the Supreme Court bring the First Amendment under review, it will become just one more way for the government to attain power.  One more way, for our nation to fall.

He goes on to suggest that cases are what will determine the legality of burning a Koran.  “Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought.  Arguments are made.  The judges sit back and think.  And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason.”  With the reasoning that comes from the Leftist-Progressive judges in the Supreme Court currently holding position, this is a scary thought.

Do you see the irony in making it illegal to burn a Koran, in a Nation where it is legal to burn a Bible and the American Flag?  Scary times ahead.

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/justice-breyer-questions-free-speech-right-to-burn-korans/