California’s Proposition 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

On February 8, 2012, in Uncategorized, by WanderseeFontan338

The ruling today, at the 9th Circuit, was no surprise. See the New York Times , ” Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California .” And from Maggie Gallagher, at National Review , ” Ninth Circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You Are Irrational Bigots .” (Via Memeorandum .) And still more at Legal Insurrection, ” 9th Circuit holds Prop. 8 violates 14th Amendment .”

Continued here:
California’s Proposition 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

‘Extremely Loud’

On February 4, 2012, in Uncategorized, by GilruthMilillo633

I saw ” Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close .” I went yesterday afternoon. I was intrigued by this film from the moment I saw the preview, just days before Christmas. It came out in limited release in order to qualify for the Academy Awards. It opened Christmas Day. Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock star, and of course that had something to do with my interest. Tom Hanks is probably my favorite actor, and I say probably because I don’t really rate actors all that much. Hanks is on the left of the spectrum politically, but he’s not progressive in the sense of the mainstream Democrat Party establishment today. Hanks is what a “liberal” used to be — someone patriotic who believes in the positive role of America in the world in the defense of freedom. I imagine Hanks is also “liberal” in the old sense of believing that governmental institutions can leaven markets and help solve collective action problems (while not specifically attempting to destroy capitalism). And of course, Hanks’ advocacy for the memory of the World War II generation is a major contribution to contemporary American life. So it was no surprise to me that he’d be playing a lead role in a film which takes the September 11 attacks as the foundation of the story. I went into the movie with only the vaguest details of the story, since I frankly just skimmed the reviews in the most obligatory manner at the time. I knew I wanted to see it for the reasons stated above. Now that I have I confess to being more profoundly moved than I thought I’d be, and I say that with the confession that I did expect to be moved a little bit. I’m a hopelessly emotional sap when it comes to stuff like this. I think I’ve mentioned it before but the movies are the only place where I’ll really cry. I don’t get that emotional most other times. But the movies sometimes open me up and I wish I’d brought a box of tissue. This movie doesn’t really have that one emotionally devastating scene where you can’t hold it in any longer. The gushy scenes kind of ratchet up until the film’s crescendo toward the conclusion. I was wiping my eyes a little by that time, but it wasn’t a gusher or anything. Mostly I was just amazed at how well the story was all tied together. The main character is Oskar, the 11-year-old boy who loses his dad (Thomas, played by Hanks) on 9/11. Thomas was in one of the towers, caught above the impact zone 100 stories or so near the top of the skyscraper. Thomas calls home and leaves messages on the answer machine. Oskar’s school is closed because of the emergency and he comes home to hear the his father’s voice. It’s hard early in the movie to figure out how significant those taped messages are, but it’s a powerful scene when we learn what happened. Oskar is beyond precocious. He and his dad play together like best friends and Thomas designs games and adventures to challenge his son and help build his character. It’s a love story between a boy and his father. There’s some craziness in the pacing of the movie. The flashbacks between the present and the past are hard to separate temporally since the flashbacks only flash back a year to two before the present. And parts of the movie seem improbable: Oskar finds a key that belonged to his dad and he’s convinced the key holds some magical significance. No doubt it’s closure, but most 11-year-olds probably wouldn’t be able to walk across all of New York City to track down the people, hundreds of people, who might have an answer to the mystery. (What does that key open?) But movies sometimes require a willing suspension of disbelief, and this one is so realistic in other respects — and we love and trust the actors so much already — that it’s not hard to do. It’s a great film. It’s nominated for best picture, although I can’t say it’s the best of 2011, having only seen one or two others that were nominated. However, it’s a much more powerful movie than “War Horse” (which I saw a couple of weeks back and meant to write something about but procrastinated). There’s an emotional closeness to “Extremely Loud” that’s at once both endearing and devastating. “War Horse” was much less intense in that regard, although it’s a great movie that deserves a nomination. So with that, I was a bit caught off guard (although not surprised, actually) at progressive hate-blogger Scott Lemieux’s attack on the movie, at the communist Lawyers, Guns and Money , ” Extremely Loud and Incredibly Shitty? “: This was truly a banner year for terrible movies…. But I was interested to see several critics in the New York survey mentioned Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close . About 15 seconds into the first time I saw the preview it was clear that it was going to be a major threat to be the Academy’s middlebrow doorstop of choice. And that was before I knew it had been directed by Stephen Daldry, the homeless man’s Lasse Hallström and the most obvious choice to produce the kind of kitschy “serious” films that simulate content without having any. It’s based on a prominent bad novel using one horrible historical event as a backdrop, and also invokes two other horrible historical events while telling you nothing you didn’t already know about any of them or about anything else. It has an annoying precocious kid, who encounters Noble African-Americans. It has Tom Hanks. I mean talk about your Oscar bait. So did it get nominated? Oh, yes, and I can’t imagaine anyone thinks this is surprising. Has anyone seen it? Could anything be as bad as it looks? All that and Lemieux hadn’t even watched the film. And the “several critics” mentioned are those cited at a New York article on the year’s worst movies. Reading those, along with Lemieux’s response, it’s not hard to figure out that these people simply can’t stand that September 11th is used as an historical anchor to a movie about family, grief, and recovery. Progressives think the U.S. deserved 9/11 and they hate the institution of the family. Why on earth would they give a fuck about a film that features these things as the subject matter? Perhaps read the LGM comments there as well, at least to get a feeling of what radical leftists think about cinema and annual Oscar pageant overall. These losers aren’t representative — not of regular Americans, of course, but not of people in the movie industry either. “Extremely Loud” got great reviews, or at least great reviews in respectable sources. Here’s Betsy Sharkey, at the Los Angeles Times , for example: “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” is a handsomely polished, thoughtfully wrapped Hollywood production about the national tragedy of 9/11 that seems to have forever redefined words like unthinkable, unforgivable, catastrophic. It has also redefined our expectations of filmmakers who try to examine the still aching wound — and perhaps explains why most films about 9/11 haven’t resonated with audiences. Mindful of that, director Stephen Daldry has taken great care in looking at it through the eyes of a precocious New York City boy in a film filled with both sentiment and substance. Finding the right balance was critical to making any adaptation of Jonathan Safran Foer’s provocative novel work. But this is a filmmaker who’s equally sensitive and bold in handling films with heavy emotional and political content as he has in “Billy Elliot,” “The Hours” and “The Reader,” all of which earned him Oscar nominations. He’s up to the task again with “Extremely Loud,” which opens Sunday. Like the novel that inspired the film, screenwriter Eric Roth (“Munich”) has brought things back to ground zero through the story of one family torn asunder by the World Trade Center attacks. So it seems a smart choice to put two quintessentially heartland stars in Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock at its center. It makes acceptance easier, offense harder. Keep reading . Manohla Dargis is more critical in her review at the New York Times , ” A Youngster With a Key, a Word and a Quest .” She writes: In truth, “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” isn’t about Sept. 11. It’s about the impulse to drain that day of its specificity and turn it into yet another wellspring of generic emotions: sadness, loneliness, happiness. This is how kitsch works. It exploits familiar images, be they puppies or babies — or, as in the case of this movie, the twin towers — and tries to make us feel good, even virtuous, simply about feeling. And, yes, you may cry, but when tears are milked as they are here, the truer response should be rage. Okay. Right. We should have rage. Personally, it’s enraging that we’ve had so few films of this caliber dealing 9/11 that we should bemoan kitsch and demand rage. That’s progress. In any case, Mandelyn Kilroy has an approving review at Philly Buzz , where she notes, it’s “a must-see movie, just make sure to pack the tissues.” That’s good advice.

Continued here:
‘Extremely Loud’

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Holder Berates Rep. During Hearing: ‘Maybe This Is the Way You Do Things in Idaho or Wherever You’re From’

On February 3, 2012, in Uncategorized, by

Attorney General Eric Holder castigated an Idaho congressman while testifying before the House Oversight Committee Thursday, accusing him of committing one of the “worst things I think I’ve ever seen in Congress.” Holder was on Capitol Hill to testify in an ongoing congressional probe into the failed Operation Fast and Furious, in which weapons sold to Mexican drug cartels were not tracked, resulting in the deaths of hundreds, including a U.S. Border Patrol agent. According to National Review Online , Holder was responding to a “grandstanding presentation” by Republican Congressman Raul Labrador that “cobbled together testimony from Holder going back ten years to establish a ‘pattern’ of Holder saying, in effect, ‘I don’t know’ in testimony.” “There’s a whole bunch of things that I could say about what you just did, maybe this is the way you do things in Idaho or wherever you’re from,” Holder said. “But understand something — I’m proud of the work that I’ve done as attorney general of the United States, and looked at fairly, I think that I’ve done a pretty good job.” He continued, “Have I been perfect? No. Have I made mistakes? Yes. Do I treat the members of this committee with respect? I always hope that I do. And what you have just done is if nothing else, disrespectful. And if you don’t like me that’s one thing. You should respect the fact that I hold an office that is deserving of respect.” “And you know, maybe you’re new to this committee, I don’t know, I don’t know how long you’ve been here. But my hope would be that we can get beyond that kind of interaction, that kind of treatment of a witness whether it’s me or somebody else because I think what you just did was fundamentally unfair, just not right,” Holder said.

View original post here:
Holder Berates Rep. During Hearing: ‘Maybe This Is the Way You Do Things in Idaho or Wherever You’re From’

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

‘A Slander Against the Film’: Narrator Says Documentary Shown to NYPD Officers Isn‘t ’Anti-Muslim’

On January 26, 2012, in Uncategorized, by

The New York Police Department is taking heat following revelations that a documentary about the threat of radical Islam was screened to nearly 1,500 officers during training.

The New York Police Department is facing intense scrutiny following revelations Monday that a film about the threat of radical Islam was screened to nearly 1,500 officers during training. Critics of the 2008 documentary “The Third Jihad” have denounced it as “anti-Islam” and ” hate-filled .” The Council on American-Islamic Relations called it ” anti-Muslim propaganda .” The 72-minute film exposes what it calls a strategy by radical Muslims to “infiltrate and dominate America,” and features grisly images from jihadist terror attacks, Muslim leaders calling for an Islamic world order, and goes after CAIR, among other organizations, for having radical ties. “Islamism is like a cancer,” one interviewee says. “You either defeat it or it will defeat you.” News that the film was shown during NYPD training first broke in January 2011: NYPD spokesman Paul Browne initially told the New York Village Voice that officers never saw the film, calling it a “wacky movie” that was “reviewed and found to be inappropriate.” Browne later amended that statement, saying that upon further review the film had been shown “a couple of times when officers were filling out paperwork before the actual coursework began.” “It was not approved for the curriculum. It’s not shown for any purpose now,” Browne told the Village Voice. But one year later, documents obtained through the state’s Freedom of Information Law indicated otherwise: The film was shown “on a continuous loop” for between three months and one year of training, and was seen by at least 1,489 police officers, the New York Times reported Monday. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday blasted the police department, saying someone had used “terrible judgment” in showing the film. “Somebody exercised some terrible judgment,” Bloomberg said. “As soon as they found out about it, they stopped it.” Of particular note was the fact that New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly himself appeared in the film as an interviewee: On Monday, Browne said Kelly’s appearance was lifted from old interview footage. But the next day, the police department shifted and confirmed Kelly did participate , after the film’s producer provided the date and time of the interview to the Times. Kelly said he regrets appearing in the film. Others featured include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, former CIA Director James Woolsey, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and about a dozen other intelligence and Middle East experts and activists. CAIR used the NYPD’s admission to call for the resignations of both Kelly and Browne — coming at a time when sentiments between CAIR and the NYPD are particularly inflamed over recent reports that the police department used spy tactics to keep tabs on Muslim groups in an effort to catch terrorists. “This controversy has moved beyond an issue of poor judgment in the use of an Islamophobic training film to an issue of the integrity of public officials,” CAIR said in a statement Wednesday. “The lack of truthfulness exhibited by Commissioner Kelly and Deputy Commissioner Browne means New Yorkers must now question the credibility of every statement they make. This situation necessitates their immediate resignations.” Anti-Muslim? But despite seething objections that the film is anti-Muslim and anti-Islam, “The Third Jihad” explicitly states that it is about radicalism only. “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical,” a statement reads at the beginning of the film. Narrated by Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, the film describes what it says is the true agenda of much of the Muslim leadership in America: A kind of “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” based on a 15-page manifesto from the Muslim Brotherhood. Among the strategies outlined in the document, the film says, are to set up mosques and Islamic centers to achieve the ultimate goal of “sabotaging the miserable houses of the West so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Organizations listed that can help carry out these goals include the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America and the Islamic Association for Palestine — a Hamas-linked organization whose three officers founded CAIR in the 1990s. “Islam will dominate….We want to see Shariah here, and it will be,” a member of the New York-based Islamic Thinkers Society vows in one clip. The film shows several images taken from Muslim websites: An Islamic flag flying over the White House, an hourglass depicting the inevitability of countries around the world falling to Islam and an American flag with the words “Under Shaytan Authority.” In Islamic theology, “shaytan” is the term for “devil.” “When groups like these talk about wanting to create a global Islamic state and Islam dominating the world, you realize that they hold some of the same goals as Al Qaida and millions of radicals around the world, and that’s what make them dangerous,” Jasser narrates. ‘A slander against the film’ In a telephone interview with The Blaze, Jasser — who has been a repeat guest on Glenn Beck’s show — said the media’s treatment of the film as “anti-Muslim” shows “the death of journalism.” “[The film] is a wake up call to the threat that is in our community,” he said. “Not one report has attacked the facts in the documentary. To call it anti-Muslim is slander against the film.” He said CAIR’s announcement Wednesday that it’s calling for the NYPD commissioner’s resignation shows the organization only wants to use the situation “as a tool to attack Commissioner Kelly.” “What type of documentary does CAIR want shown?” he asked. He said he finds it curious that it’s suddenly become “a major federal crime” that the film was shown to a group of police officers when it’s been available online for the past several years. “The more [CAIR] can take up the bandwidth of the discussion about the threat of the radical Islam with victimization issues…the less work they have to do for reform,” Jasser said. “They don’t want anybody becoming educated about the slippery slope of political Islam, which is the movement of trying to put into place their own Shariah law…they look upon us as not just a faith group but as a global political movement.” Alex Traiman, a spokesman for the Clarion Fund, which financed the film, said he also sees the response to the current media controversy as “CAIR trying to take down the New York Police Department.” According to its website , the Clarion Fund is a nonprofit organization that “produces and distributes documentaries on the threats of radical Islam” and lists former Reagan deputy defense secretary and Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney Jr. among its advisory board members. In a telephone interview with The Blaze, Traiman referred to CAIR’s response as “their tried and true method of demonizing anyone who asks real questions by just labeling it Islamophobia.” “CAIR is targeted specifically in our film for doing exactly what they’re doing now,” he said. Despite the controversy, Jasser said he stands firmly behind the film. “The reason I agreed to narrate is that there are many of us within the Muslim community that are a part of, if you will, a “jihad against jihad,” he said. “I’d much rather have people see that a Muslim is part of the solution. The solution has to come from within.” Watch an abbreviated version of “The Third Jihad” below:

Excerpt from:
‘A Slander Against the Film’: Narrator Says Documentary Shown to NYPD Officers Isn‘t ’Anti-Muslim’

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

The Obama Memos

On January 24, 2012, in barack obama, Uncategorized, by stuartbramhall

From Ryan Lizza, at The New Yorker , ” Barack Obama, Post-Partisan, Meets Washington Gridlock .” This is a progressive puff piece that paints the GOP as the polarizing bad guys and the Dems as jilted suitors in some woefully lost post-partisan nirvana. Despite assessing political science data, Lizza doesn’t appear to have considered that today’s Democrats are socialist partisans with a demonizing agenda or that this administration long ago abandoned any hopes of post-partisan happy talk. What the Lizza piece does do is provide a smokescreen for the MFM and progressive left. They can gleefully point to this article — and many more like it no doubt on the way — to tar Republicans as “obstructionist” and “racist” when in fact it’s exactly the opposite that’s true. See, for example, Victor Davis Hanson’s piece at National Review : ” Obama’s Racial Politics “: Obama has mainstreamed the practice of profiling friends and enemies on this reactionary basis of racial identity. In a Democratic National Committee video in April 2010, Obama called on “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women . . . to stand together once again.” Are those not included in his categories, then, not to stand “together” again? Shortly before the November 2010 congressional elections, Obama suggested told a huge audience in Philadelphia that Republicans “are counting on black folks staying home.” In one of his most surreal speeches before the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama in affected fashion adopted the supposed patois of Black America in defining collective interests by shared race: “Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on. We’ve got work to do.” Separately, he appealed to Latino voters not to stay home from the 2010 election, but instead to “punish our enemies” — and not to fall prey to the Republicans’ “cynical attempt to discourage Latinos from voting.” I don’t think a president of the United States has ever, at least since the pre–Civil War era, openly called on a racial group to join with him to punish political adversaries. I would love to see Hanson just destroy Lizza in a debate on this. What’s funny though is folks like Lizza are actually convinced they’re right. They’ve got data to prove it! Perhaps. But what they don’t have is honesty and common sense, and that decency gap is going to come back and bite them in the ass in November.

See the rest here:
The Obama Memos

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Republicans Might Save the Keystone Pipeline (ContributorNetwork)

On January 20, 2012, in Uncategorized, by StevenLWhiteheader

ContributorNetwork – The Keystone Pipeline project by TransCanada will be resurrected and brought to life. President Obama said that he denied the 1,700 mile long pipeline because the State Department did not have enough time to complete the review process. The decision to deny the application for the pipeline was applauded by environmental groups, but it took harsh criticism from lawmakers that want to reduce America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil and create jobs.

Continue reading here:
Republicans Might Save the Keystone Pipeline
(ContributorNetwork)

Tagged with: • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

The Cowardice of Captain Francesco Schettino

On January 18, 2012, in Uncategorized, by MalekAskew938

There’s an editorial at Toronto’s Globe and Mail . And see the Los Angeles Times , ” Recording in cruise ship disaster casts captain in bad light .” Also, at London’s Daily Mail , ” Forget women and children first. Burly crew men led the race for the lifeboats .” And at National Review , ” In the Italian cruise-ship disaster, another death knell for the age of chivalry .” UPDATE : At New York Times , ” Captain of Stricken Vessel Says He Fell Overboard in Passenger Panic .”

Read more here:
The Cowardice of Captain Francesco Schettino

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Supreme Court Rules Against Obama Admin: Religious Employees Can’t Sue For Job Discrimination

On January 12, 2012, in Uncategorized, by

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Religious workers can’t sue for job discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, saying for the first time that churches — not courts — are the best judges of whether clergy and other religious employees should be fired or hired. The Blaze originally covered this story in October. But the high court tempered its decision bolstering the constitutional separation of church and state by refusing to give a detailed description of what constitutes a religious employee, which left an untold number of workers at churches, synagogues and other religious organizations still in limbo over whether government antidiscrimination laws protect them in job bias disputes. It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a so-called “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws — a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves religious employees of these institutions.

Chief Justice John Roberts

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a unanimous opinion. “But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.” Douglass Laycock, who argued the case for a church school that fired a teacher for bringing about an employment discrimination lawsuit against it, called it a “huge win for religious liberty.” “The court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders,” he said. The court’s recognition of the ministerial exception likely ends any chance members of the clergy and church leaders have to sue churches and other religious organizations for job discrimination, experts say. The U.S. Census identified 429,000 Americans as members of the clergy in 2010. “Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matters of theology — no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be — have just had the courthouse door slammed in their faces,” said Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

U.S. Supreme Court

But there need to be future court rulings to spell out exactly which other church employees fall under this ruling, like teachers and instructors at religious schools. Some teachers will and some teachers won’t, said Rick Garnett, associate dean and professor of law at Notre Dame Law School. “There are going to be some employee relationships involving religious institutions that are not religious at all, and those are not going to be covered” by the court’s ruling, Garnett said. “But there are going to be some that are religious, even if they are not ordained clergy, and they are going to be covered. The way the court put it was that some employees are essentially involved in the religious mission of the institution and those employees are covered.” Judges will still have to decide which religious employees get protection and which ones don’t, Garnett said, something that could bring the issue of who gets protection back to the Supreme Court. In the current case before the court, justices denied government antidiscrimination protection to Cheryl Perich, who complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that her firing was discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The commission sued the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford, Mich., over her firing. Perich was promoted from a temporary lay teacher to a “called” teacher in 2000 by a vote of the church’s congregation and was hired as a commissioned minister. She taught secular classes as well as a religious class four days a week. She also occasionally led chapel service.

Justice Clarence Thomas

She got sick in 2004, then tried to return to work from disability leave despite being diagnosed with narcolepsy. The school said she couldn’t return because they had hired a substitute for that year. They fired her and removed her from the church ministry after she showed up at the school and threatened to sue to get her job back. Perich complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which sued the church for violations of the disabilities act. A federal judge threw out the lawsuit on grounds that Perich fell under the ADA’s ministerial exception, which keeps the government from interfering with church affairs. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated her lawsuit, saying Perich’s “primary function was teaching secular subjects” so the ministerial exception didn’t apply. The 6th circuit’s reasoning was wrong, Roberts said. He said that Perich had been ordained as a minister and the lower court put too much weight on the fact that regular teachers also performed the same religious duties as she did. The circuit court also placed too much emphasis on the fact that Perich’s religious duties only took up 45 minutes of her workday, while secular duties consumed the rest, Roberts said. “The issue before us … is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch,” he said. National Review writes : The opinion thus rejects the  remarkably hostile  contentions of the Obama administration that there is no general ministerial exception and that religious organizations are limited to the right to freedom of association that labor unions and social clubs enjoy.

Justice Samuel Alito

But since this was the first time the high court has ever considered the “ministerial exception,” it would not set hard and fast rules on who can be considered a religious employee of a religious organization, Roberts said. “We are reluctant … to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister,” he said. “It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment.” The court also refused to extend the ministerial exception to other types of lawsuits that religious employees might bring against their employers, like breach of contract lawsuits. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that in future cases, he thinks the lower courts should defer to the religious organization on who it thinks “qualifies as its minister” instead of letting a judge decide. “A religious organization’s right to choose its ministers would be hollow … if secular courts could second-guess the organization’s sincere determination that a given employee is a `minister,’” Thomas said. Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a separate opinion, argued that the exception should be tailored for only an employee “who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.” But “while a purely secular teacher would not qualify for the `ministerial exception,’ the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones,” Alito said.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Obama’s Scary Postmodern Vision

On January 12, 2012, in barack obama, Uncategorized, by petreewild969

From Victor Davis Hanson, at National Review , ” Obama’s Postmodern Vision .”

Read more here:
Obama’s Scary Postmodern Vision

Tagged with: • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Awaiting President Obama’s Keystone XL Pipeline Decision (ContributorNetwork)

On January 7, 2012, in Uncategorized, by DusenberyGarratt

ContributorNetwork – President Obama will soon have to decide on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline project, from Canada to Texas, is designed to move Canadian crude from the Canadian oil sands project to U.S. refineries. Though environmental impact studies have been going on for three years, President Obama ordered a delay in construction, saying the project needed further review. The Keystone XL pipeline construction project raises key questions.

Read more from the original source:
Awaiting President Obama’s Keystone XL Pipeline Decision
(ContributorNetwork)

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

« Previous Entries
Go To Top »