Congress passed the Equal Access Act August 11, 1984

American Minute with Bill Federer

AUGUST 11, 1984, by an 88-11 Senate vote and a 337-77 House vote, Congress passed the Equal Access Act, stating:

“It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum,

to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meeting.”

Regarding this, President Reagan commented August 23, 1984 at Reunion Arena, Dallas, Texas:

“We even had to pass a special law in the Congress just a few weeks ago to allow student prayer groups the same access to school rooms after classes that a Young Marxist Society…would already enjoy.”

The Supreme Court upheld the Equal Access Act by a vote of 8-1 in Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, June 4, 1990:

“If a State refused to let religious groups use facilities open to others, then it would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility toward religion.

The Establishment Clause does not license government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it…as subversive of American ideals.”

Ronald Reagan stated in a radio address, February 25, 1984:

“Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted if religious exercises are held to be impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage.

Permission for such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion.

And a refusal to permit them is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson, W.D. Va,. 1983:

“The First Amendment was never intended to insulate our public institutions from any mention of God, the Bible or religion.

When such insulation occurs, another religion, such as secular humanism, is effectively established.”

This reaffirmed what George Washington wrote to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia, May 10, 1789:

“If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.”

Ronald Reagan, on the National Day of Prayer, May 6, 1982, commented:

“Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away.

For the sake of religious tolerance, they’ve forbidden religious practice.”

On January 10, 1963, Democrat Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr., of Florida, read into the Congressional Record a list of Communist goals for America, (Vol 109, 88th Congress, 1st Session, Appendix, pp. A34-A35), which included:

“Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state’…

Discredit American culture…Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and divorce…”

Rep. Herlong continued listing Communist goals:

“Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, healthy’…

Infiltrate churches and replace revealed religion with ‘social’ religion…

Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a ‘religious crutch’…

Control schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda.

Soften curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put party line in textbooks… Control student newspapers…”

Ronald Reagan told the Annual Convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, January 30, 1884:

“I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible. But, you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that.

Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor.”

---

The Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.

63 – March – 04 – THIS DAY IN BAPTIST HISTORY PAST

 

An Anabaptist imprisoned

 

March 4, 1647, the Baptists of England received some relief from persecution when the Lords and Commons published a declaration providing some religious freedom.  In essence it said that even though they would wish that all would agree on the subject of “infant baptism”, it still remained a matter of time and place, therefore men should come to a reasonable conclusion from the Word of God, “…without being beaten out of it by force and violence.”  This referred to the fact that early in the 17^th Century, Samuel Oats, a very popular preacher went into Essex, and an adjoining country, and baptized great numbers of converts.  One of those women died after she had been dipped in cold water, Oats was indicted, sent to prison for murder but acquitted by a jury.  However the enmity was so great against Oats that a group of rowdies dragged him from his house and bragged that they had thoroughly dipped him.  Peace was short lived however, for on May 2, 1648, The Lords and Commons rescinded the law by saying that anyone who baptizes someone formerly baptized  “…(shall) be committed to prison,…until he (promise) that he will  publish such errors that he will no longer do such things.”

 

Dr. Greg J. Dixon, from: This Day in Baptist History Vol. I: Cummins/Thompson /, pp. 89.

 

The post 63 – March – 04 – THIS DAY IN BAPTIST HISTORY PAST appeared first on The Trumpet Online.

 

 

222 – August 10 – This Day in Baptist History Past

Religious Liberty Comes to Spain

1870 – William I Knapp from America baptized thirty-three people in the Mananares River in Madrid.  He had entered Spain immediately after the Declaration of Religious Liberty in 1868.  These believers formed the First Baptist Church of Madrid and is considered the first Baptist church of Spain in modern times.  It was not until 1980 that a law was passed giving non-Catholics complete religious freedom in Spain. [J.H. Rushbrooke, The Baptist Movement in the Continent of Europe (London: Carey Press, 1923. p. 19; This Day in Baptist History II: Cummins and Thompson, BJU Press: Greenville, S.C. 2000 A.D. pp 437, 38.]  Prepared by Dr. Greg Dixon.

161 — June 10 – This Day in Baptist History Past

 

Targets of Persecution

 

Annekin Hendriks – Anabaptist

 

“On the 10th of June, 1535, a furious edict was published at Brussels. Death by fire was the punishment on all Baptists who should be detected and should refuse to abjure. If they recanted they were still to die, but not by fire; the men were to be put to death by the sword, ‘the women in a sunken pit.’ Those who resisted the operation of the edict by failing to deliver up Baptists [Anabaptists] to the authorities, were to suffer the same punishment as accomplices.”What a troublesome time in which to live! Religious freedom was unknown to Anabaptists, and they were forced to worship covertly, everywhere because informers were promised one-third of the confiscated estates of the dreaded Anabaptists!

 

Perhaps the actual wording of a portion of the edict might prove enlightening as to the pressures that our forefathers experienced.

 

“In order to provide against and remedy the errors and seductions which many sectaries and authors of mischief, with their followers, have dared to sow and spread in our possessions, in opposition to our holy Christian faith, the sacraments and commands of the holy church our mother; we have at various times decreed…many mandates containing statutes, edicts, ordinances, together with punishments that transgressors should suffer; in order that by such means the common and simple people might guard themselves against the aforesaid errors and abuses, and that their chief promoters might be punished and corrected as an example to all.

 

And it, having come to our knowledge, that…many and various sectaries, even some who are denominated Anabaptist or rebaptizers, have promoted…their said abuses and errors, in order to mislead the same…to the great scandal and contempt of the sacrament of holy baptism, and of our edicts, statutes, and ordinances:

 

Therefore, being desirous to provide against and remedy the same, we summon and command, that, from this time…you make proclamation in all the parts of limits of your jurisdiction, that all who are, or shall be found to be, infected by the cursed sect of Anabaptists, or rebaptizers, of what state or condition they may be, abettors, followers, and accomplices, shall suffer the forfeiture of life and estate, and shall without delay, be brought to the severest punishment.”

 

There are several other paragraphs of the edict, but this example is typical of the many edicts issued by the Roman Catholic and even Protestant leaders who harmonized only at the point of persecuting the re-baptizers. Catholics and some reformers believed that “re-baptism” was a repudiation of the baptism by the state church, which they considered salvation. Anabaptists did not accept “sacramental grace” and “infant sprinkling.” They denied that they were re-baptizers at all! Thank God for grace in Christ and the privilege of obeying His ordinance as a testimony! Praise the Lord for our glorious freedom of religion and liberty of conscience to serve Him without man’s dictates!

 

Dr. Dale R. Hart:: Adapted from: This Day in Baptist History Vol. I. (Thompson/ Cummins) pp. 239 -240.

 

 

Homosexual Marriage not Conducive to Religious Freedom

 

By Erick Erickson

 

Published March 26, 2013

 

FoxNews.com

 

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-religious-freedom-are-incompatible/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2UALiTAuC

 

Excerpts from the above article:

 

Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state’s anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer.

 

– In Lexington, Ky., a T-shirt shop called Hands On Originals was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. The T-shirt company politely declined and even sought out quotes and gave the group referrals to other T-shirt printers, along with comparable prices. They were promptly sued by the group under Lexington’s anti-discriminatory laws and forced to comply with a lengthy investigation. The city’s power-drunk human rights commission said the shop will be “required by law to participate in the investigation.”

 

“We have subpoena power and have the backing of the law,” Raymond Sexton, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission told Fox News.“We are a law enforcement agency and people have to comply.”

 

Leftist groups are trying to get the company evicted from their premises. The city now has school districts freezing their business with the privately owned company. Meanwhile, the owner of the company tried to defend his faith and decision in an op-ed in the paper.

 

– A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church.

 

– A same-sex couple from California sued a Hawaiian bed and breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman for not allowing them to rent a room.

 

– A bed and breakfast in Alton privately owned by a Christian couple was sued when they would not host a same-sex civil union ceremony.

 

– Owners of a small, privately owned inn in Vermont declined to host a same sex wedding reception due to their religious views and were sued.

 

– An employee of Allstate insurance wrote an essay online disagreeing with same-sex marriage and was reportedly fired from his job as a result.

 

– Catholic Charities was barred from assisting in adoptions in Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and Illinois and excluded from future contracts because it declined to consider same sex couples. Sorry kids, but the agenda impresarios need to make an example.

 

There are even more examples. The fight has only just begun. Might as well stop trying to convince yourself it hasn’t.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-religious-freedom-are-incompatible/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2Pb23ePeR

 

A free people and the IRS cannot co-exist!
The IRS must be destroyed now!  <:} Bob Minarik

 

 

121 – May 01 – This Day in Baptist History Past

Unified British and Colonial Baptists  

As long as the established State Church (Anglican) existed, certain limitations would be experienced.  The Edict of Toleration in 1689 did not grant total religious freedom.  Baptist church buildings had to be designated as chapels, tabernacles, or with some other name.  Dr. John Rippon, of London, in a letter written to President James Manning, of Rhode Island College, on May 1, 1784, stated thus: “I believe all of our Baptist ministers in town, except two, and most of our brethren in the country were on the side of the Americans in the late dispute . . . . We wept when the thirsty plains drank the blood of our departed heroes, and the shout of a king was among us when your well fought battles were crowned with victory; and to this hour we believe that the independence of America will, for a while, secure the liberty of this country, but if that continent had been reduced, Britain would not have long been free.”  When Robert Hall was a small boy he heard John Ryland, Jr say to his father, Dr. John Ryland, Sr.: “if I were Washington I would summon all the American officers, they would form a circle around me, and I would address them, and we would offer a libation in our own blood, and I would order one of them bring a lancet and a punch bowl, and we would bare our arms and be bled, I would call on every man to consecrate himself to the work by dipping his sword into the bowl and entering into a solemn covenant engagement by oath, one to another, and we would swear by Him that sits upon the throne and liveth forever and ever, that we would never sheathe our swords while there was an English soldier in arms remaining in America.”
Dr. Dale R. Hart adapted from: “This Day in Baptist History III” David L. Cummins. pp. 252 – 253

97 — April 07—This Day in Baptist History Past

A Patient Sowing and Enduring Bringeth Forth Fruit

“…not many noble, are called:” But thankfully He does call some.

On April 7 1657 – Henry Dunster, President of Cambridge College (now Harvard), was so stirred in his mind that he turned his attention to the subject of infant baptism and soon rejected it altogether. It was upon the persecution of Obadiah Holmes and others who had taken a strong stand for believers’ baptism that the faithfulness of Holmes, the publicity his enemies gave to his convictions, his willingness to suffer for convictions, and the beastliness of a church-state (Congregational), that denied its citizens religious freedom, all magnified the truth he propagated.

Dunster’s success in promoting Harvard by furthering its interests, collecting large sums of money in its behalf, and even giving one hundred acres to it, was marvelous and testified to his commitment to the institution. But he had a higher commitment to the truth of God and began to preach against infant baptism in the church at Cambridge in 1653, to the great alarm of the entire community. Armitage quotes Prince in pronouncing Dunster “‘one of the greatest masters of the Oriental languages that hath been known in these ends of the earth’, but he laid aside all his honors and positions in obedience to his convictions.”

Dunster was forced to resign his presidency of Harvard College, April 7, 1657, after which he was arraigned before the Middlesex court for refusing to have his child baptized.

Dr. Dale R. Hart from: Adapted from:  This Day in Baptist History Vol. I: Cummins Thompson /, pp. 141-142.