Reflections From a Murky Pond

It’s a sick, evil thing when faith and the casual expression thereof becomes an actionable offense. Yet this is becoming more and more the case, at least when that faith and its expression are of the normative, Christian variety.

According to U.S. Bank in Walton, KY being a Christian and not hiding the light of your faith under a bushel of political correctness and silence is an Ethics Violation and cause for termination.

It does not bode well for America’s future that we, as a people, have allowed this sort of persecution of America’s religion to be considered acceptable in any way shape or form.

A former Northern Kentucky bank teller claims she was fired from her job for telling customer to “Have a blessed day.”

“I say ‘have a blessed day’ all of the time,” says Polly Neace. “I don’t think there’s any better kind of day you can have than a blessed day.”

Neace filed a lawsuit against U.S. Bank claiming she was discriminated against for her religious beliefs.

Neace clams after years of saying “Have a blessed day” to customers, she was reprimanded in March 2011.

In a Code of Ethics violation, US Bank states several customers complained when Neace said, “Have a blessed day.”

~*~

That Code of Ethics Violation warns Neace that “effective immediately you will no longer discuss the subject of faith or religion with customers and co-workers alike.”

“I was upset with the fact they were stifling me and not allowing me to act on my beliefs,” Neace says.

Neace admits she was reprimanded again a few months later.

“A customer went through the drive thru and I waited on them. She said, ‘God bless you.’ I said, ‘Thank you, God bless you too,” says Neace.

And then, after complaining about a situation at the bank, Neace claims she jokingly told a manager she might as well go back to saying, “Have a blessed day” and be fired.

The next day, Neace was fired.

In many ways this is far, far worse than A&E’s short-lived assault upon Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson. They were just kowtowing to a segment of what they thought were their audience whereas U.S. Bank has instituted a policy by which to persecute Christians.

Polly Neace – An American Martyr

Do not mistake me. Neace did also, according to the Ethics Violation, reprimand a bank customer for blaspheming and talk to that customer about salvation, and that seems to be solid grounds for a reprimand. However, the rest of what led to her termination is nothing but religious persecution and bigotry.

Be absolutely assured that, if Nease was a Muslim and interjected Islamic phrases into normal conversation as is their wont, things would be quite different. The bank would dare reprimand or terminate a Muslim for being a Muslim because that would violate their “Civil Rights.” Indeed, if a Muslim employee chastised a customer for blaspheming Allah, it would be the customer that the bank would declare to be in the wrong.

It’s a sad time when being a Christian becomes an ethics violation. It’s fairly worrisome for me as well because I’m not Christian and, if America’s enemies can successfully persecute the Christian majority, me and mine, mere statistical outliers, are very much at risk.

Obviously, Independence Day, celebrated annually on the 4th of July, is an uniquely American holiday. How could it be otherwise when it celebrates our declaration of independence from the tyranny of the British Crown?

Independence Day – An American Holiday

Of course, it’s a bit more of a truly American holiday – dare I say Holy Day? – in some families than in others. 😉 I can only hope you had half as good of a 4th of July weekend as her husband did…

Remember to be of good cheer. Do not bitterly cling to your guns and God(s). Use the former to make a joyous noise unto the latter.

It’s the Fourth of July, America’s Independence Day. So, my fellow Americans, be a good cheer and remember that you celebrate not only America’s independence from a tyrannical Power but the successful fulfillment of a holy oath.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— Declaration of Independence

This statement, which the the 56 men representing the 13 united States of America signed their names to, was not mere words, for when the founders affixed their names under those words they pledged before- and to their God their lives, fortunes, and honor towards the founding of a new nation and for a cause that they believed so firmly in that they were willing to die for it.

Never doubt that America was founded by Divine Grace and the steadfast, true worship of men of faith and character. Never doubt that little in this has changed, despite the bleating of those would usher in a new Crown to rule over us.

The US Supreme Court finally rendered its ruling upon the very high profile Burwell v. Hobby Lobby yesterday, June 30, 2014. It was a 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby’s owners’ religious freedom and will prevent them from being forced by ObamaCare’s mandates to pay for health insurance coverage for four varieties of “morning after” contraceptives and IUDs which can cause miscarriages aka spontaneous abortions.

As expected, the Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling has generated a lot of response throughout the nation. Many American’s are crowing about how this is a victory for our 1st Amendment religious freedoms and the vast majority of Liberals and Progressives are ranting about it violating the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, about how corporations aren’t people, and that it violates the rights of women.

What is equally humorous and sad is that Americans’ shouldn’t be celebrating this ruling overmuch, nor should Liberals and Progressives be bemoaning to any great extent. The SCOTUS rendered no constitutional ruling, nor did they overturn or set aside any laws. All that the Court did was apply long-existing US laws to the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The two laws in question being the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act (RFRA) of 1993 and the Dictionary Act of 1947.

U.S. Code: Title 42, Chapter 21B — Religious Freedom Restoration

§ 2000bb–1 – Free exercise of religion protected

(a) In general

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception

Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

1. is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
2. is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief

A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

The Court did, in fact rule that ObamaCare’s contraception mandate met the first criteria under the RFRA.

We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA

However, the Court found that it did not meet the second test, that of it being the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods. They went so far as point out examples of such less restrictive means.

The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections.

The SCOTUS’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby broke no new ground, re-harrowed no old ground, no made any significant changes in US law or the interpretation thereof. It was nothing more or less than the application of the existing RFRA to a case in which it was pertinent. That the Court applied the law should be no grounds for complaint and that it was the SCOTUS which had to do abrogates and cause for celebration.

As for the various strident complaints about “corporate personhood,” there is little to be said about those particular Left-wing rants other than that they based upon the all-too-commonplace ignorance of the law in America.

U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1 – Rules Of Construction

§ 1 – Words denoting number, gender, and so forth (Excerpt)

The words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

The Rules Of Construction aka the 1947 Dictionary Act are part of the General Provisions of US law and serve to legally define common words and phrases used in Acts of Congress. Hence, the RFRA applicability to “persons” include corporation, irregardless of their profit status, just as does every other Act that uses the word “person” unless otherwise contextualized or excepted.

Honestly people, the only thing of great interest in the Courts ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was the painstaking effort the Court took to address each argument and to craft an opinion that was extremely narrow and extremely difficult for the Appellate Court to later (mis)use in a broader context such as they did with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

When the Muslim female attempted to hijack a Benghazi panel – and got herself well schooled by Brigitte Gabriel – she did bring up one point, irrelevent to the panel discuss but relevant to America and Civilized World.

How can we fight an ideological war with weapons? How can we ever end this war? The jihadist ideology that you talk about, it’s an ideology. How can you ever win this thing if you don’t address it ideologically?

This is relevant because in the war of Islam vs. the Civilized World, especially America, Islam’s jihadis have already won the hearts and minds of the Liberals and Progressives and, by extension, the politicians of the Democratic party within America’s borders.

Illegal Enemy Combatants

The image above is a very proficient use of Photoshop but there isn’t anything in it that the Left hasn’t said repeatedly, nor is there any call to action in it that the Left has tried their best to realize. Since mere hours after the atrocities of 9/11 the Liberals and Progressives have been siding with Islam’s jihadis and no time in the intervening years has their support wavered or waned.

My fellow Americans, if you love America and love her children you must remember that the Democrats now represent the jihadis and their dhimmi sympathizers against America and you must act accordingly in the fast approaching 2014 midterm elections.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down. 😉 Your vote counts, whether it’s cast at the polls or from the rooftops.