Christian Football Coach’s Perfect Response To The Atheists Attacking Him Earns Him New Fans

University of Georgia head football coach Mark Richt has come under fire from the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF). The group is demanding the coach stop pushing his Christian beliefs on players and that the university eliminate the team chaplain position.

The FFRF charges that Richt, along with chaplain Kevin “Chappy” Hynes (who is his brother-in-law), is “on a mission to win souls” for Christ. 

The group reported that Coach Richt “fundraises for his brother-in-law’s chaplain position and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. At a gala event in the Butts-Mehre football complex in July of 2014, Richt helped bring in big money for the FCA.”

“We’re at a secular university, I understand that,” the coach responded to the accusation earlier this week. “I don’t try to make anyone believe a certain way at all. Anything that has to do with the spirit is strictly voluntary and never has any bearing on someone’s availability to play at Georgia. It’s always been that way.”

He went on to explain: “I think we’re made of our body, we’re made of our mind, we’re made of spirit. We work hard on our bodies as far as getting them in shape. We’re working on schemes, plays, lifting, running, nutrition, sleep. When we work on the mind, we care very much about them getting their degrees, tutoring, academic appointments, classes and all, meetings. All those things are mandatory.”

Richt noted that he would be ignoring a key component in his players’ development if he did not take into account their spirits. “I encourage our guys to grow spiritually, I believe our spirit is going to live beyond our body. I encourage them to grow spiritually but I don’t tell them what to believe in. Everything we do is strictly voluntary in that regard,” he reiterated.

Interestingly, Gen. George S. Patton made a similar observation to his unit’s chaplain during the height of World War II. Third Army Chaplain James O’Neill reported him saying: “A good soldier is not made merely by making him think and work. There is something in every soldier that goes deeper than thinking or working—it’s his ‘guts.’ It is something that he has built in there: it is a world of truth and power that is higher than himself. Great living is not all output of thought and work. A man must have intake as well. I don’t know what you call it, but I call it Religion, Prayer, or God.”

As reported by Western Journalism, FFRF sent letters to multiple public universities demanding that they end their sports team chaplaincies or face possible legal action. Among them were Auburn, University of South Carolina, University of Missouri, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Clemson and the University of Georgia, AL.com reports.

The group is actively seeking plaintiffs to step forward among targeted schools in order to bring a lawsuit to challenge chaplain programs at public universities. To that end, the FFRF sent packets to players on several teams, including Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State, Wisconsin and Illinois. 

How successful the FFRF would be if it were able to bring its suit is not clear. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of having taxpayer-funded chaplains for legislative bodies such as the U.S. Congress, and federal courts have done so for the military.

The Supreme Court has also recognized the right of students to voluntarily gather and pray at public school sporting events and during the school day, under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, though the court has ruled students cannot offer corporate prayers at sporting events over public address systems.

h/t: TheBlaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Public School Says No Prayer. Students Do It Anyway; Secularist Baffled

Last week, we discussed a recent ban by U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves given to the Rankin County School District, saying it promoted Christianity. What’s wrong with a school district promoting Christianity? The judge maintains a “legal fiction” the courts call the “Incorporation Doctrine.”

Contrary to the 10th Amendment, this “Incorporation Doctrine” has been the source of an unconstitutional federal usurpation of power over and against all 50 states along with their respective institutions, which now include state-funded government schools.  

Since my full conversion and submission to Christianity in 1997, I have made public schools part of my mission field to share my faith with students all over the country. This, of course, has led me to many wonderful experiences with Christian students, teachers, administrators, and principals. Unfortunately, it has led in recent years to a corresponding amount of antagonism from media, anti-Christian hate groups, an occasional school employee, and an isolated student or two.  

The reason for so called “legal” antagonistic persecution against Christianity is found in the 10 words we call the Establishment Clause. Here is what it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

Now the Constitution is a clear and simply understood document. Those who hate liberty try to convince us that it is so complicated that it requires their supreme expertise.

But take a look at the Bell County Bobcats, a Kentucky High School Football team. They understood the 10 simple words as protecting, not preventing, their school prayers from federal encroachment, even after an organization filed a complaint with the school district’s Superintendent and threatened to file a lawsuit.  

The students’ dedication to their God was rewarded, and the Bell County Board of Education facilitated the students to lead in a pre-game prayer over the public-address system.

TheChristianPost.com reported: “The director of the school’s football booster club, Joe Humfleet, told the Lexington Herald-Leader that the school community was excited for the student-led prayer and added that the pre-game invocation was greeted with a ‘big eruption of happiness.’”

President George Washington made a claim with respect to “religion and morality” stating: “In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

Contrast this with the response letter written to the Bell County school district from an out of state vassalage law firm’s attorney named Rebecca Markert, “Scheduling prayer at a school-sponsored event is a flagrant violation of the law. Given the clear legal precedent on this issue, it is surprising — not to mention baffling — that the school board would knowingly violate the law and bring back prayer before athletic games.”

I leave you with this thought: if you can isolate children, and train them to believe that there is a wall of separation between God and government, then you can enslave them—or rather, they will have enslaved themselves.

Perhaps the issue is how well the government schools are working. Stay tuned; I will address more on this topic next week.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Refusal To Issue A Same Sex Marriage License Is A Civic Duty

Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis has just lost her application in the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of a federal court order requiring her to issue a marriage license to a couple of the same sex. Denial of the stay puts Clerk Davis in a difficult situation. She is being called back before the District Court on Thursday morning to give an account for her behavior. Although the nation’s press has portrayed her as lawless, this one courageous lady is standing in the gap, defending the rule of law against judicial tyranny.  

As an elected official faced with an obviously illegitimate Supreme Court opinion, in a better time, a President could have explained to the American people why the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and protected her. Failing that, Clerk Davis should have been able to call on her state’s Governor to protect her — to interpose between her and the five Justices. However, Democrat Governor Steven Lynn Beshear is demanding she make a choice – either resign, or comply with his lawless instructions to implement the Supreme Court decision sanctifying same sex marriage. The Governor apparently believes in the unconstitutional Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy — that by a stroke of the pen, five elite lawyers wearing black robes can rewrite the Constitution, and that no one may question their decisions. Even worse, the Governor apparently cares nothing about the created order. He has no problem with a Court that had the audacity to try to change the Creator’s definition of marriage for all America — by pretending to find the issue hidden in the penumbras and emanations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Clerk Davis’ position is quite different. She stands on God’s law and Kentucky’s law. God’s law is clear. See Genesis 2:18-24 and Matthew 19:4-6. And, according to Kentucky law, and notwithstanding the Governor’s action unilaterally preempting the authority of the Kentucky legislature, same-sex couples simply are not eligible to obtain a marriage license. Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 was passed by 75 percent of the voters in 2004. It states: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Must Clerk Davis conform her practices as Clerk to those of a lawless Supreme Court and a capitulated Governor? Surely not. She cannot turn back now. Having stated that her behavior is constrained by her understanding of God’s law, any retreat would do damage to the name and reputation of the Lord. She could resign. But resignation would be the equivalent to admitting that in the wake of the Supreme Court’s folly, no Bible-believing Christian or Jew can serve in public office in America. Efforts are already beginning to use the Obergefell decision to remove Christian judges across America.  

Clerk Davis is constrained by her civic duty as an elected official in Kentucky, sworn to uphold the Constitution. As a lower civil magistrate, there is only one course of action – to refuse to issue the marriage license to the same-sex couple BECAUSE the federal court order requiring her to issue the license is based upon a wholly illegitimate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry. Although some have tried to muddy the waters as to her reasons for resisting, this case is not a matter of her conscience or her personal religious scruples. It is about her civic duty as a civil government official. She resists illegality not because her conscience is offended, but rather it is her conscience and religious beliefs that gives her the courage to stand against lawlessness. She is well aware that she could face the court’s sanction for disobedience of a court order, perhaps including civil or criminal contempt of court.  

However, Clerk Davis is bound by her oath to support the Kentucky State Constitution, and the United States Constitution – not as perversely and politically “interpreted” by the Supreme Court, or even by the Governor of Kentucky, but as she understands her oath to be. If it were to be otherwise, her oath would not be to support the Constitution, but rather a pledge of fealty to obey a higher government officer no matter how lawlessly that higher officer may behave.  

According to Romans 13:4, Clerk Davis is a minister of God for good, and not for evil. While she is elected by the people, she is to serve the people according to the laws of God and men. As a servant of God, she has no authority to implement a court ruling that is contrary to God’s law. According to God’s law, two people of the same sex cannot marry, marriage being reserved to only one human relationship, one male and one female in a lifetime committed union. See Matthew 19:4-5. As was true for the apostles Peter and John when brought before the Council in Acts 4 and 5, Clerk Davis must obey God, not men. Acts 5:29.

Therefore, Clerk Davis cannot resign, and cannot capitulate; but she must resist by interposing herself as a lower civil magistrate sworn to uphold the law, not just to do what a higher civil magistrate has ordered her to do. By resisting, Clerk Davis risks being held in both civil and criminal contempt, fined as well as being forcibly removed from office. But she will be blessed by God for her righteous stand embracing the rule of law, and resisting tyrannical power. And, Clerk Davis’ courage just might inspire those in authority to have the courage of what they claim to be their convictions and join in the resistance.  

________________________

Herbert W. Titus taught Constitutional Law for 26 years, and concluded his academic career as the Founding Dean of Regent Law School. William J. Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration. Together, they have filed over 80 briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court, and dozens more in lower courts, addressing important public policy issues. They now practice law together at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at traditionalmarriage@lawandfreedom.com or twitter.com/Olsonlaw.

This article is part of a series on “Building Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage.” Please support this important work with a contribution to the U.S. Justice Foundation. Permission is freely granted to publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, or excerpt from this article for any purpose.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama And Mount McKinley: A Liberty Test

So Obama renamed Mount McKinley, and I suppose we are supposed to be outraged about that. There are a few problems with that outlook, however. How we respond to the renaming of Mt. McKinley will be a great test of just how Liberty-minded we really are.

As the story is told, Mt. McKinley was named by a prospector in 1896 after then-presidential candidate William McKinley. McKinley never visited the mountain named after him or spent any time in Alaska at all. The Native Alaskans named the mountain Denali long before the prospector came along, and Alaska had been “petitioning” the federal government to change the name back to Denali since 1975. The Interior Department claims the US Board on Geographic Names had been deferring to Congress this whole time regarding the name change. According to an Associated Press article, a “bipartisan effort by Ohio’s congressional delegation has blocked the effort by introducing bills requiring it to be named after McKinley, who was born in Niles, Ohio and buried in Canton.”

Let’s start unraveling all the problems with this story.  

  1. The Sovereign State of Alaska had been “petitioning” the federal government since 1975 for permission to change the name of a mountain that lies within their State.
  2. The Department of Interior feels it has the authority to grant or deny permission to Sovereign States on what they name and how they maintain their land. (Note, there is no Constitutional authority for the Department of Interior to begin with, much less to dictate policy to the Sovereign States.)
  3. Congress has been BLOCKING the Sovereign State of Alaska from naming their mountain how they choose.
  4. A band of delegates from Ohio have prevented the State of Alaska from changing the name of their own mountain since 1975.

Are we beginning to see the big picture? I do not propose that Obama can constitutionally, by executive order, change the name of any part of any State. However, can we see how unconstitutional this entire scenario really is?  

Why in the world should any Sovereign State have to beg the federal government for permission to do anything with their own property? That is absurd. But even more ridiculous than that is the fact that politicians in Ohio have been dictating policy to the people of Alaska regarding their own property. Really? I am 100% certain that if James Madison were alive today, he would be completely amazed at the stupidity of this situation.

Enter in the Republican political establishment that seems to be completely ignorant of their own party platform of small government and more power to the people.  Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, says: “This political stunt is insulting to all Ohioans, and I will be working with the House Committee on Natural Resources to determine what can be done to prevent this action.” Insulting to Ohioans? Really? It is the Alaskans who should be insulted by Gibbs’ egotistical claim that Ohioans should have any feelings whatsoever regarding the land that belongs to Alaskans! Gibbs’ description of Obama’s renaming of Mt. McKinley as a political stunt is truly rich, considering that the original naming of Mt. McKinley was apparently a political stunt to get McKinley elected president.  

The Associated Press says that: “Ohio politicians reacted angrily, although it wasn’t immediately clear if or how they could stop it. Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, said McKinley deserved to be honored, and invited his colleagues to join him to try to block what he called Obama’s ‘constitutional overreach.’” Rep. Gibbs, if Mr. McKinley “deserves to be honored,” why don’t you do that in YOUR OWN State instead of making a State with NO connection to the man whatsoever do your irrational bidding? Obama certainly doesn’t have the authority to rename it, but Gibbs classifying Obama’s actions as “constitutional overreach” is the veritable pot calling the kettle black. One State dictating to another State is just as overreaching as the actions of presidential executive orders.

So here is the question. How many will jump on the bandwagon against the renaming of this Alaskan mountain, according to the will of the Alaskans, just because it has been turned into a Republican vs. Democrat battle?  Who will see the real troubling issues in this quintessential constitutional learning moment?  

  1. States are Sovereign and have the authority to name and maintain their own land. Period.
  2. Executive Orders have no authority upon Sovereign States to dictate how they name and maintain their own land.
  3. If Alaskans want to change the name of the mountain, they should change the name of the mountain and tell the rest of the States and the federal government to take a flying leap if they don’t like it.
  4. Ohio politician should shut up about Alaska’s business.

It is not a Republican vs. Democrat thing. It is a Liberty and Sovereignty vs Big Government thing. And if we can’t see that, we have bigger problems that we could ever imagine–and no election is going to fix that kind of ignorance. We should be patently offended by the entire scenario. We should be holding all constitutionally ignorant politicians accountable, regardless of political party. Liberty over Security. Principle over Party. Truth over Personality. Liberty First!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Some Texas Counties Are Making A Bold Move That Has The Mexican Gov’t Furious

As outspoken Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump continues to lead the charge for a swift and decisive response to America’s illegal immigration problem, some Texas officials are trying to take one aspect of that issue into their own hands.

Reports indicate several county registrars across the state have been refusing to accept identification cards issued by the Mexican Consulate, noting the inherent unreliability of such documentation.

According to the Texas Tribune, the Mexican government filed an amicus brief last week on behalf of several illegal immigrant families who claim their children were unfairly denied a birth certificate. The Texas Department of State Health Services was named in an associated lawsuit after reportedly telling states that were accepting the identification cards – known as matricula – to stop.

Two Texas civil rights groups filed the suit, which has since been revised to include additional families and a third activist organization. The children represented in the suit, lawyers claim, have had their constitutional rights violated.

Jennifer Harbury, a lawyer representing the Mexican families, asserted that state officials “have to take something” when presented with ostensibly valid identification. She went on to insist that children who “were born here … are U.S. citizens.”

One of Trump’s recurring campaign points includes conclusively determining if the Constitution’s 14th Amendment truly does guarantee any child – regardless of their parents’ status – born in the U.S. automatic citizenship.

The discussion has continued on social media, with several Twitter users citing examples that seem to prove the amendment does not apply in all cases.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the matter last week, quoting the 14th Amendment’s author, Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote in 1866 that birthright citizenship “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens…”

Does the Constitution guarantee automatic birthright citizenship? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth