Friday 29th of May 2020

make war, not same sex love...


The Washington Supreme Court has again ruled against Christian grandma florist Barronelle Stutzman who faces the risk of crippling fines for refusing to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

The state’s highest court unanimously upheld its 2017 decision, leaving Stutzman on the hook to pay thousands in legal fees for violating the state’s non-discrimination law that protects on the basis of sexual orientation.

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Washington court’s 2017 decision last June and sent the case back to the court for further consideration in light of the court’s 7-2 ruling in favor of Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips. Phillips was accused of violating Colorado’s discrimination law for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The Supreme Court asked the Washington high court to consider whether or not there was any animus against the florist’s religious beliefs when the lower courts ruled against Stutzman previously.

The court found in Phillips’ case that the Colorado government did display religious hostility to the baker’s Christians beliefs on marriage and sexuality.

The Washington Supreme Court stated in its opinion Thursday that neither the state supreme court or the lower state court in Benton County acted with religious animus.

The court again asserted that Stutzman’s refusal in 2013 to provide flower arrangements for the wedding of Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed to be a violation of state law.

“They did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such discrimination is not privileged or excused by the United States Constitution or the Washington Constitution,” the ruling reads.


Read more:

of war and cupcakes...

Can Christians become a part of war? This is a question Christians often ponder. But when this discussion comes up, you'll often find that every Christian has a different opinion about it. It is, therefore, safe to say, that not all Christians will have the same point of view in this matter, and we have to be respectful of that. 

The Three Views on Christian Participation in War

There are generally three views on the participation of Christians in war. These are activism, pacifism, and selectivism. Activism is when Christians participate in a war their government enters. Pacificism is when Christians do not participate in any war, especially when there's killing involved. Selectivism, on the other hand, is when Christians participate in what they believe are just wars.

Activist View

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. – Romans 13:1-2

There are Christians who believe that disobeying a government that God ordained is a sign of disobedience to God as well. Nonetheless, it is also important to point out that the Bible doesn't support total activism. What if you believe that your government's stand is wrong? Will you still fight for them? The only measure is to check if the government's goal contradicts the moral laws of God. If the government asks you to kill an innocent life and you know that is contrary to God's commandment, then you certainly should not do that.

Let me cite one perfect example here. Desmand Doss joined the U.S. Army in 1942 and fought in World War II. He was one of the 431 soldiers who received a Congressional Medal of Honor. Would you believe that Doss refused to bear any weapon? He successfully rescued 75 of his comrades without killing an enemy. His only weapons were his Bible and his faith. At first, his comrades disrespected his beliefs and mocked him. But after rescuing them, he received new found respect from his comrades, as well as the entire country. The famous movie "Hacksaw Ridge" is based on his story.

Pacifist View

Pacifists hold on to the Lord's commandment that we should not murder. They also promote strongly Matthew 5:39, which says, "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

This means that they believe vengeance and violence are not the way to go.

There are some pacifists who simply believe that all wars are influenced by greed.

Selectivist View

The selectivist view is based on what they call a "just war".  However, what a just war amounts to is a matter of debate, and often can only be defined by man - there is no mention of specifically what a "just war" would be in the Bible.

Read more:


Without naming each wars, in the bible, the Israelis fough a thousand wars against enemies, often started in the name of god... That some Christian choose not to go to war is often anecdotal, rather than the norm. At the moment MANY CHRISTIANS SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP's war in Yemen and so forth. Shame...

naked religion...

Thank Christianity, Not Secularism, for Religious Liberty

The First Amendment's origins can be found in the early Church, not the Enlightenment.


The origin story of religious liberty commonly cited in college courses and museums, informed by proponents of the so-called Whig view of history, goes something like this. In the West, individuals were expected to conform to the religious beliefs of their larger social and political communities. As evidenced in examples like the Inquisition of the Catholic Church, non-conformists risked persecution and even death. It was only the European exhaustion over the many violent wars of the Reformation era, and the subsequent secular rationalism of the Enlightenment, that led to a political solution that honored individual liberty in matters of religion.

This story, however, is not only superficial and inadequate, but backward. Religious historian Robert Louis Wilken’s Liberty in the Things of God documents how the origins of religious freedom aren’t secular, but decidedly Christian.

Read more:


Okay, this is like opening a door that has already been opened yonks ago. Young Casey is at it again. Secularism is not about religious freedom but about making sure religious beliefs do not interfere with government business and is designed for ALL people, not just one group or another. Some laws will end up clashing with beliefs. YOU CAN BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, but you cannot tell a country how to behave. Is this not clear? This is the extent of your freedom.

God is an illusion, a delusion, a story that has no place in the workings of the modern societies. So you can go around the traps and search for who or what gave religions some elbow room to operate with impunity, one does not have to go to far back in history to find that religion and the power of government — kings, emperors, despots, Constantine — worked hand in hand to control the masses with godly bullshit. Religion had the freedom to dictate to the state... It worked till...

... Something came along called DEMOCRACY. It’s far from perfect as it can be swayed by various influences from rabid slanted biased media, from religious groups with singsongs and from sociopaths who will use any means, including the fakery of religious beliefs to self-promote, like Trump. We're at the mercy of the lowest denominators, the religious mobs and of the farmers/miners in Queensland — all being used by the rich manipulators — like the liar called Clive Palmer.

That some people see that the Enlightenment led to a political solution that honored individual liberty in matters of religion as the inventors of religious freedoms — or that the religions themselves invented their scope of freedoms — is irrelevant in our modern times, though the freedom of religions to tell the state what its affairs were had to be clipped at some stage. This was done by the Enlightenment that gave secularity more freedom than to the religious beliefs.

The separation of state and church is a matter of law in many countries.

The Constitution of Australia prevents the Commonwealth from establishing any religion or requiring a religious test for any office:

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

This is based on the US constitution, though the US has adopted the “god bless America” syndrome, possibly since the 1950s.

Islam is the dominant religion in Azerbaijan, with 96% of Azerbaijanis being Muslim, Shia being in the majority. However, Azerbaijan is officially a secular state. According to the Constitution of Azerbaijan, the state and religion are separate.  In Saudi Arabia, a Sunni state, should you be a non-believer, you will be killed.

The current Constitution of Brazil, in force since 1988, ensures the right to religious freedom, but bans the establishment of state churches and any relationship of "dependence or alliance" of officials with religious leaders, except for "collaboration in the public interest, defined by law”. This is borderline.

The Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees, in its article 36, that:

No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.
No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

Meanwhile: The Finnish Freethinkers Association has criticised the official endorsement of the two churches by the Finnish State, and has campaigned for the separation of church and state.

The French version of separation of church and state, called "laïcité", is a product of French history and of philosophy. It was formalised in a 1905 law providing for the separation of church and state, that is, the separation of religion from political power.

And so on… In no way, is there laws against what you believe, even in China — though it is controlled as not to interfere with the secular state.

But the SECULAR laws are there for all to adhere to… and you can't refuse custom to a naked man if his religion tells him to be naked — but the state can limit his nakedness.

This is relative freedom. Go away.

adding fire to bigotry...


Israel, oh Israel, wilt thou lead us to the promised land? At least The Christian Porter is doing his best to assist Bible enthusiast and former Wallaby Israel Folau with this mission.

The attorney-general this week unveiled aspects of his religious freedom bill and in the process performed a terrific somersault in the pike position, saying the legislation would prevent employers enforcing contracts that shut down religious expression of the Folau variety.

He told Guardian Australia there would be an “overarching” rule that would prevent employment contracts that have a “disadvantaging” effect on a person of faith.

That was not the impression he gave six weeks ago to listeners of Perth commercial wireless station 6PR: “... what I would say is that we’re not necessarily in the business in government of trying to prevent individuals privately contracting the terms of their employment in a fair and balanced and reasonable way with their employer in a range [of] circumstances.”

This is not the only confusion. A character from a local Astroturf Christian lobby outfit last week claimed that a recent decision of the High Court of England and Wales in a case brought by Felix Ngole against Sheffield University “lines up almost exactly with Folau’s case”.

Ngole is in the Folau camp when it came to sins: “Homosexuality [is] a sin ... God hates the act ... same-sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not.”

It is a decision on religious freedom that “will send chills down the collective spine of Rugby Australia ... The factual similarities to Folau’s case are remarkable,” wrote John Steenhof of the Human Rights Law Alliance Limited.

Some mistake, surely. The Ngole case concerned a judicial review about the university’s processes and findings in relation to a vague health and care guide for students’ conduct and ethics.

It was largely about discrimination, whereas Folau is a case about the enforceability of a contract, the ambit of the Fair Work Act and perhaps the law relating to secondary boycotts. It’s so easy to get overexcited with religious fervour, but the two could not be more different.



Read more:


Read from top.