<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Liberty Pundit &#187; Religion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.libertypundit.com/category/religion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.libertypundit.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:25:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Texas Law Requires Bible Study In Schools, Liberals At Fark Go Beserk</title>
		<link>http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/08/17/texas-law-requires-bible-study-in-schools-liberals-at-fark-go-beserk/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/08/17/texas-law-requires-bible-study-in-schools-liberals-at-fark-go-beserk/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitution And Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/08/17/texas-law-requires-bible-study-in-schools-liberals-at-fark-go-beserk/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ok, first the story:

The school year is almost here, and if literature of the Bible is not alr...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, <a href="http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?s=10933571">first the story</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The school year is almost here, and if literature of the Bible is not already offered in your child&#8217;s school, it will be this fall. </p>
<p>Books are a common sight in classrooms around the nation,  but the Bible is one book that is not. Come this fall, a Texas law says all public schools must offer information relating to the Bible in their curriculum.    </p>
<p>&#8220;By the end of the year, what they begin to realize is that it is pervasive. You can&#8217;t get away from it.  The kids came back and were like &#8216;It&#8217;s everywhere,&#8217;&#8221; said John Keeling, the social studies chair at Whitehouse High School.  Whitehouse already offers a Bible elective. &#8220;The purpose of a course like this isn&#8217;t even really to get kids to believe it per say. It is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government,&#8221; said Keeling. </p>
<p>The law actually passed in 2007, but this will be the first school year it is enforced because the bill says,  &#8220;The provisions of this act pertaining to a school district do not take effect until the 2009-2010 school year.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>So, naturally, liberals at Fark (which is pretty much the entire membership, except for a handful of conservatives or independents/libertarians) are <a href="http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4578120">going insane</a> over this, mainly because they have this thought that the Constitution prohibits it.  They&#8217;re waiting for SCOTUS to strike it down.  They very well might, especially with a new liberal judge on the bench.  </p>
<p>But there is a possibility, however small, that the Supreme Court could finally set straight the notion that the Bill of Rights only prohibits the establishment of a national religion.  They could finally reverse the idiotic decision made by a liberal, activist judge that set us on this path of moral self-destruction.</p>
<p>Read the the Bill of Rights.  The <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rights1.asp#1">First Amendment</a> says:</p>
<blockquote><p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof</p></blockquote>
<p>All this means is that 1) Congress cannot establish an official religion, and 2) it cannot prohibit the free exercise of whatever religion floats your boat.  That&#8217;s it.  Pretty simple, isn&#8217;t it?  Not to liberals, apparently.</p>
<p>The left-wing, athiest activists in this country have taken both points to the extreme.  They&#8217;ve perveted the first part to mean that not only is Congress forbidden from respecting one religion over all the rest, but every state, school, or other government-run institution, whether it&#8217;s at the federal, state, or local level, is forbidden, as well.  Which would be perfectly fine if what we&#8217;re talking about is the attempt at establishing an &#8220;official&#8221; religion, but we&#8217;re not.</p>
<p>The second part they&#8217;ve twisted to mean that if you even mention God in a public setting, you&#8217;re in deep trouble with the ACLU and every other kook-liberal fringe group.  Unless, of course, you&#8217;re not talking about the Christian God, in which case you&#8217;ll be ok.  See, it&#8217;s not religion that they hate, per se, it&#8217;s Christianity they despise.  You can worship at the altar of any God you choose, so long as it isn&#8217;t the God in Christian religions, and as long as He&#8217;s ok with everything they believe in (gay marriage, abortion, etc.).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/08/17/texas-law-requires-bible-study-in-schools-liberals-at-fark-go-beserk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Decides On Camp David Church</title>
		<link>http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/06/30/obama-decides-on-camp-david-church/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/06/30/obama-decides-on-camp-david-church/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:44:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/06/30/obama-decides-on-camp-david-church/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not sure if anyone has a problem with this:

For the past five months, White House aides and fr...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure if anyone has a problem with <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html">this</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>For the past five months, White House aides and friends of the Obamas have been quietly visiting local churches and vetting the sermons of prospective first ministers in a search for a new — and uncontroversial — church home. Obama has even sampled a few himself, attending services at 19th Street Baptist on the weekend before his inauguration and celebrating Easter at St. John&#8217;s Episcopal Church. </p>
<p>Now, in an unexpected move, Obama has told White House aides that instead of joining a congregation in Washington, D.C., he will follow in George W. Bush&#8217;s footsteps and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David.</p></blockquote>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t call it an unexpected move, because there is a precedent here.  Most modern-day presidents have done almost the exact same thing.  In Reagan&#8217;s memoirs, for example, he said they stopped going to public churches because he felt the danger he brought along with him (assassination attempts, terrorist attacks, etc) and the media spectacle his attending always created was unfair to others in the congregation, who wanted nothing more than to worship in private and in peace.  So he had church services in the White House.  The article mentions some other examples of this:</p>
<blockquote><p>The challenge of being part of a church community but also praying in peace has long been a problem for Presidents, according to historian Carl Sferrazza Anthony. &#8220;McKinley hated having people staring at him while he read Psalms, sang hymns, put money in the collection plate or took communion,&#8221; he writes in America&#8217;s First Families. &#8220;By the 1920s, getting a presidential family in and out of church was a production. Secret Service agents had to cordon off a clear path from the curb to the church entrance before the Coolidges arrived &#8230; [and] they were swiftly escorted to their third-row pew.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>So I don&#8217;t see the problem here, if in fact there is one.  Unless Reverend Wright is officiating, this is nobody&#8217;s business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/06/30/obama-decides-on-camp-david-church/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>So Obama&#8217;s A Muslim After All?</title>
		<link>http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/06/03/so-obamas-a-muslim-after-all/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/06/03/so-obamas-a-muslim-after-all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[I Told You So]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liars Exposed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/06/03/so-obamas-a-muslim-after-all/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Forgive me for not &#34;getting&#34; this, but either he is or he isn't.  During the campaign that's all ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forgive me for not &#8220;getting&#8221; <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/abc-news-jake-tapper-and-sunlen-miller-report-the-other-day-we-heard-a-comment-from-a-white-house-aide-that-neverwould-have.html">this</a>, but either he is or he isn&#8217;t.  During the campaign that&#8217;s all we heard from him, that he wasn&#8217;t a Muslim (his father was).  But, then again, we heard lots of things during the campaign from The One that turned out to be &#8212; <em>ahem</em> &#8212; untrue.</p>
<p>So I guess the thing to take away from this is that <a href="http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/02/obamas-islamic-roots/">Obama is a Muslim when it helps him</a>, he isn&#8217;t when he doesn&#8217;t.  He&#8217;s pro-life when it helps him, he&#8217;s pro-abortion when it doesn&#8217;t.  He&#8217;s pro-gay marriage/gays in the military when it helps him, he&#8217;s anti-gay marriage/gays in the military when it doesn&#8217;t.  Get it?</p>
<p>In short, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/02/now-it-can-be-told-obama-has-muslim-roots/">he&#8217;s a panderer</a>.  In the finest Clinton tradition, mind you.  He&#8217;ll say whatever he has to say and do whatever he has to do to get elected.  And we told you so, from the moment he first announced his candidacy, that he was a serial liar.  And, as much as I hate to say it, we were absolutely correct.</p>
<p>Now, I don&#8217;t particularly care if Obama is a Muslim or not, any more than I care/cared whether or not Romney is/was a Mormon.  What religion a Presidential candidate belongs to doesn&#8217;t matter all that much to me.  However, it does matter to me that they <em>HAVE</em> a religion, i.e., that they believe in something bigger than themselves.  About the only thing you can say about Obama is that he doesn&#8217;t think there <em>IS</em> anything bigger than himself (except maybe Oprah, but enough with the fat jokes).  Obama may believe in God, or <em>A</em> god, but only in the sense that he thinks <em>someone</em> or <em>something</em> (other than the left-wing press) annoited him to be the Chosen One.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/06/03/so-obamas-a-muslim-after-all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
