Atheists Can Be Banned from Delivering Invocation Prayers

A federal appeals court pointed to precedent and the Founding Fathers in ruling Friday that atheists can be barred from delivering official invocations.

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the policy of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, which requires that the person who prays must be “a member of a regularly established church or religious organization.” The policy further says the prayer’s purpose is “to seek divine intervention” in the work and lives of House members.

It was the second such decision this year by an appeals court. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in April ruled the chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives could bar atheists from praying.

The Pennsylvania lawsuit was brought on behalf of a group of secular humanists, Unitarian Universalists and freethinkers who don’t believe in a higher power and wanted the opportunity to pray before the Pennsylvania House. Most, if not all, could be labeled as “atheists.”

The plaintiffs argued the policy of excluding atheists and nontheists violates the Establishment, Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The Third Circuit overturned a lower court decision that had sided with the atheists.

Judge Thomas L. Ambro wrote Friday’s majority opinion, ruling that “only theistic prayer can satisfy all the traditional purposes of legislative prayer.”

“The Supreme Court has long taken as given that prayer presumes invoking a higher power,” he wrote.

Ambro, who was nominated by President Clinton, was joined in his opinion by D. Michael Fisher, a nominee of President George W. Bush. Judge L. Felipe Restrepo, a nominee of President Obama, dissented.

The majority opinion pointed to the Founding Fathers and noted that a day after proposing the First Amendment during the 18th century, Congress “urged President Washington to proclaim ‘a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.’”

The court quoted Supreme Court precedent and argued that, historically, legislatures prayers “seek ‘divine guidance’ in lawmaking” and “allow the legislature to ‘acknowledge the place religion holds in the lives of many private citizens.’” Such prayers also “connect [lawmakers] to a tradition dating to the time of the Framers” — one that “has always included a higher power.”

It also cited the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the constitutionality of a 40-foot cross.

“As a matter of traditional practice, a petition to human wisdom and the power of science does not capture the full sense of ‘prayer,’ historically understood,” the majority decision said.

Among the 265 Pennsylvania House guest chaplains between 2008 and 2016, 238 were Christian, 23 were Jewish, three were Muslim and one was defined only as “monotheistic.”

Source: https://www.christianheadlines.com

Church Sparks Controversy After Holding ‘Inclusive’ Joint Birthday Celebration for Jesus, Muhammad

A Church of England church in London has been criticized after holding a joint birthday celebration for Jesus and Muhammad in an effort to be “inclusive.”

The “Milad, Advent and Christmas Celebration” took place on Sunday at All Saints Church in Kingston upon Thames earlier this month, according to Premier.

An Islamic prayer was recited and a birthday cake was cut during the hour-long celebration, which was advertised as an event “marking the birthday of Prophet Mohammed and looking forward to the birthday of Jesus.”

The church organized the event alongside the Kingston Inter-Faith Forum and the South London Inter-Faith Group, notes the outlet.

Prominent Christian blogger Archbishop Cranmer criticized the church for “rejoicing in both, eulogizing both, solemnizing both, glorifying both, honoring both” and questioned this “sensitively missional” approach, saying that exalting Muhammad in churches suggests that Muhammad is greater than Jesus.

“Every time a church accords Muhammad the epithet ‘Prophet’, they are rejecting the crucifixion, denying the resurrection of Christ, and refuting that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, for Muhammad denied all of these foundational tenets of the Christian faith.”

However, a spokesperson for the Diocese of Southwark defended the event, saying it “enabled Christians, Muslims and others to meet together in order to promote better understanding, conversation, and relationships.

“It was not a service and the event broke no Canon law.”

Earlier this year, a passage from the Koran denying that Jesus is the Son of God was read during a service at St. Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow, prompting one of the queen’s chaplains, Rev. Gavin Ashenden, to step down from his position.

“Because I think it a higher and more compelling duty to speak out on behalf of the faith, than to retain a public honor which precludes me doing so at this time, I resigned my post,” he explained at the time.

Ashenden felt compelled to speak out against the Quran reading, which he considered to be “a fairly serious error.”

“To have a reading from the Koran at that point was a fairly serious error for the Christian worshipping community, but to choose the reading they chose doubled the error,” he told BBC Radio 4 in an interview. “Of all passages you might have read likely to cause offence, that was one of the most problematic.”

In a letter he wrote for The Times, he also demanded that the church apologize to Christians who are enduring intense persecution from Muslims.

“The problem with what happened in Glasgow was that although it was presented as a way of building bridges and a way of educating people it was done badly in the wrong way in the wrong place in the wrong context.,” he said. “It should not happen in the holy Eucharist and particularly a Eucharist whose main intention is to celebrate Christ the word made flesh come into the world.”

Source:
https://www.gospelherald.com/articles/71703/20171208/church-sparks-controversy-holding-inclusive-joint-birthday-celebration-jesus-muhammad.htm

GOOGLE FIRES ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ENGINEER WHO DISAGREED WITH DEMOCRAT PARTY POLICIES

The firing happened in early June, but I was busy at the time, and didn’t blog about it. This isn’t the first time that Google has fired software engineers for disagreeing with Democrat party policies. The last one, you’ll remember, was James D’Amore. This time, it’s Mike Wacker, who was fired for expressing Republican views and dissenting from Google “reporting” policies.

The Daily Caller reports:

A Republican Google software engineer has written an open letter describing a culture of left-wing “outrage mobs” that make use of the company’s anonymous bias reporting channels to shut down dissent.

The open letter, published Tuesday morning on Medium, was written by software engineer Mike Wacker, who was reported himself multiple times via the company’s anonymous reporting tools.

“If left unchecked,” Wacker wrote, “these outrage mobs will hunt down any conservative, any Christian, and any independent free thinker at Google who does not bow down to their agenda.”

In one case, Wacker describes a fellow Republican employee who was reported for saying nice things about the University of Toronto academic Jordan Peterson. He was given a note in writing that said, “One Googler raised a concern that you that you appeared to be promoting and defending Jordan Peterson’s comments about transgender pronouns, and this made them feel unsafe at work.”

Wacker himself was twice reported via the company’s anonymous reporting channels.

The full article by Wacker is here on Medium. Keep in mind that we have so many stories like this coming out of Google. The James D’Amore story was big, but it’s not the only one. Google apparently fires any employee who is caught disagreeing with the company’s political objectives.

Google-related companies donate 90% to Democrats
This firing of the Republican software engineer makes me wonder whether Google has a policy of discriminating against employees to make sure that no Republicans can work at Google.

According to the Washington Examiner, Google, YouTube and other Google-linked companies gave 90% of their political donations to Democrats:

A study released Thursday found that 90 percent of political donations by Google, YouTube, and other subsidiaries of Alphabet have gone to Democrats.

In 2016, when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, Alphabet employees donated more than $5.8 million to Democratic candidates and causes, while only $403,042 was contributed to Republicans. Ninety-four percent of Alphabet contributions in that year went to Democrats.

Would that be a sign that their products and services are biased to support Democrats?

Are there any SENIOR EXECUTIVES AT GOOGLE who voted for Donald Trump? She’s not aware of any. What about the $1.315 million given to Hillary Clinton in 2016 by Google employees and $0 given to Donald Trump? She has no answer.

I have some questions of my own. Would Google fire any employees that did give money to Republicans? Would Google prevent employees who gave to Republicans from advancing in the company? Would these political contributions to Democrats be a sign that the products and services offered by Google are biased to support Democrats? It seems to me that the firings that we know about, and the complete lack of donations to Republicans show that Google is discriminating against conservatives, so that they are unwilling to go on the record as supporting Republican candidates.

Studies show bias in Google products and services
What about the study showing that they promote progressive news sources ahead of conservative or unbiased ones?

Breitbart News reported in March 2019 on how Google used their products to influence elections:

New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country.

The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge.

This confirms a previous study from 2016:

The research follows a previous study conducted in 2016 which showed that biased Google results pushed votes to Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Democrats and Google executives have disputed these findings.

[…]Users performing Google searches related to the three congressional races the study focused on were significantly more likely to see pro-Democrat stories and links at the top of their results.

Here’s another study reported in May 2019 by the UK Daily Mail:

Google’s bias towards left-wing media outlets has been laid bare by an algorithm which detected that it favors sites including CNN and The New York Times over others.

According to data compiled by researchers from Northwestern University, the search engine promoted those sites over others repeatedly in November 2017.

Of the 6,302 articles that appeared in Google’s ‘top stories’ page that month after a term was searched, more than 10 percent were by CNN.

The New York Times was the second most favored and accounted for 6.5 percent of articles. The Washington Post was third with 5.6 percent.

By contrast, Fox News, the most right-wing outlet in mainstream media, was the source of just three percent of the stories which appeared.

Source
https://winteryknight.com/