Christianity is distinguished from other religions in its belief that salvation is a gift of God, through Jesus’ payment of the penalty for sin. And it’s the resurrection of Jesus from the dead that verifies that claim.
Retired Desert Storm veteran Samuel Williams reacted to Warnock’s tweet: “What kind of Reverend would say something like this. Jesus Christ died and then rose again to take the sins of the world away. You are poisoning the minds of Christians for political purposes.”
Television producer Jason Romano pointed out Warnock’s message “is literally the opposite of what the Gospel says.”
Warnock got the support of MSNBC host Joy Reid, who criticized Ellis’ response.
“This lady is literally calling the pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church – the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s church – a heretic … Madame, I’m gonna take @ReverendWarnock’s take, as a pastor and a scholar on the Word over yours, if you don’t mind.”
Warnock’s support for abortion previously was criticized by Hall of Fame football coach and Christian leader Tony Dungy.
In December, Warnock called himself a “pro-choice pastor.”
“Rev Warner may be a pastor. My question would be ‘Is he a Christian?’ That is, does he follow the teachings of Jesus and does he believe that the Bible is the absolute word of God?” Dungy wrote.
“I would think it would be difficult for someone who believes that God sees us when we are in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16) to think that it is OK to choose not to bring that life to fruition,” he said.
On Twitter, Dungy pointed critics of his response to Warnock to the Bible.
“Please read Psalm 139:13-16. Then tell me if you think God puts babies in the womb or man does? If you believe they randomly get there, then I have no argument. But if you believe God puts them there, then how does anyone have a right to ‘choose’ which ones survive?”
Warnock, Breitbart reported, mocked Christians several years ago for advocating carrying guns for self-defense.
The Daily Caller News Foundation reported he also charged that it is the “moral bankruptcy of the American church” that put President Trump in office.
“Perhaps more than anything else we have seen in modern times, a rise of Trump and Trumpism on the shoulders of Christians brings into sharp focus the moral bankruptcy of the American church,” Warnock said after Trump was elected.
He also declared America needed to “repent” for supporting Trump’s political rise.
Canadian Police Try To Shut Down Church – Pastor Yells “GET OUT!
This is what happens when God’s people refuse to give up their right to assemble…
SHARE THIS FAR AND WIDE THIS GUY HAS A SPINE WELL DONE SIR
YouTube has penalized Christian media network, theDove, by deleting its channel and removing all of its content, estimated at 15,600 videos. TheDove is one of several ministries around the world navigating penalties due to political and religious statements, particularly ones that pertain to the COVID-19 pandemic and the LGBTQ community.
“We are dealing with two fairly significant law firms, one in Washington D.C. and one in California, to see if there’s any recourse we may have to retrieve our 15,000 videos,” said Perry Atkinson, theDove’s president and CEO. “We are looking into three other platforms as to whether or not we can re-establish a way to distribute our videos.”
Christian Media Network Banned from YouTube
YouTube’s decision was part of its “three-strikes system.” If users violate the social media giant’s community guidelines, YouTube issues the channel a strike. A first strike results in YouTube imposing one week of serious limitations, including not allowing the channel to upload content. If a second strike occurs within 90 days, YouTube restricts the channel from uploading content for two weeks. Each strike has 90 days to expire. After the third strike, the channel is removed completely.
Atkinson said that YouTube flagged videos from the Christian media network that pertained to COVID-19, the Equality Act, and the recent presidential election. It was after the riots at the U.S. Capitol that theDove received its first strike. The second strike was in February, and the third was on March 22. In a statement on its website, theDove said:
On March 22, 2021 the Dove was permanently banned from YouTube – our first amendment rights attacked. TheDove has over 40 years of providing hope and giving a Biblical perspective to current events. Over 15,000 interviews and segments have been posted to YouTube and the Dove has experienced millions of views. In today’s cancel culture YouTube has deleted every video.
LoveWorld is another media network that has been penalized for statements it has promoted about COVID-19. LoveWorld USA is a network launched by televangelists Benny Hinn and Chris Oyakhilome. LoveWorld also has a branch in the United Kingdom, and U.K. Communications regulator Ofcom has fined LoveWorld UK £125,000. Ofcom levied the fine on the grounds that the network was spreading misinformation about COVID-19, including that the pandemic is the result of a conspiracy planned by the “deep state.”
In this video of a Global Day of Prayer event the network held on Dec. 2, 2020, Oyakhilome said the virus is a “scam” and a “scheme to deceive.” He then introduced a clip in which a woman identified as Claire Edwards, a “United Nations editor and trainer in intercultural writing,” said that COVID-19 “was a long pre-planned in documents and simulation exercises emanating from the eugenicist Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation.” Edwards also said the “sinister vaccine conspiracy” was intended to “enslave humanity.”
In a statement, Ofcom said that LoveWorld UK “risked serious harm” and “had the potential to undermine confidence in public health measures put in place to tackle COVID-19 – at a time when cases, hospital admissions and deaths were rising in the UK, and when people were looking for reliable information given advances in the vaccination programme.”
This week brings a legal victory in the U.K., however, for Samaritan’s Purse CEO and president Franklin Graham in regards to an evangelistic crusade he held in Blackpool, England, in September 2018. After British LGBTQ leaders complained about past comments Graham made about LGTBQ community, Blackpool Transit pulled bus advertisements promoting Graham’s event. Today, Judge Claire Evans ruled that pulling the bus advertisements had violated “freedom of expression.”
“The Defendants had a wholesale disregard for the right to freedom of expression possessed by the Claimant,” said Evans. “It gave a preference to the rights and opinions of one part of the community without having any regard for the rights of the Claimant or those who shared its religious beliefs.”
Graham responded to the decision, saying, “We thank God for this ruling because it is a win for every Christian in the UK.”
Other recent legal battles involving church leaders include a pastor who wants to hold a vigil outside the U.S. Capitol on Good Friday. Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, is suingKamala Harris, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Capitol Police Board, and the Sergeant of Arms for the Senate on the grounds that his First Amendment rights have been violated.
According to court documents, Mahoney wanted to “hold a vigil for the express purpose of beseeching God’s healing from the divisiveness and anxiety lingering over our nation since the tragic events of January 6, 2021.” The reverend says he has held many events at the Capitol’s Lower Western Terrace, but that the fences currently barricading the area have “effectively created a no- speech zone.” Mahoney’s case was heard in federal court today(April 1st) at 3:30 p.m. ET.
Jessica Lea is a writer for ChurchLeaders.com. She has always had a passion for the written word and has been writing professionally for the past two years. When Jessica isn’t writing, she enjoys West Coast Swing dancing, reading, and spending time with her friends and family.
A church in Bangor, Maine has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court against the governor’s restrictions on in-person worship services.
Acting on the behalf of Calvary Chapel of Bangor, Liberty Counsel filed a petition for cert on Monday asking the high court to review the church’s federal lawsuit against Gov. Janet Mills’ unconstitutional orders against churches.
The governor allows churches to hold secular gatherings to feed, shelter, and to provide social services and counsel to an unlimited number of people. However, religious gatherings are limited to no more than 50 people despite the size of the building.
In their brief, Calvary Chapel argues, “If the ‘mild climate’ of California is an insufficient basis for permitting the Governor to force worshippers outside, then it is much more so the case in Maine where there is no such mild climate this time of year. In a country where religious exercise is a fundamental constitutional right, can the First Amendment really be thought to countenance the notion that religious congregants must brave freezing temperatures and driving snow to engage in that constitutional right? Surely not. The First Circuit’s decision telling Calvary Chapel to take its religious freedom outside has – quite literally – left them out in the cold in direct conflict with the decisions of this Court.”
Liberty Counsel argues that the lower courts have not taken seriously the irreparable harm caused by Mills’ unconstitutional COVID restrictions on houses of worship. When Calvary Chapel first filed its lawsuit last May, the governor’s orders permitted no religious gatherings, including parking lot services, and violations carried criminal penalties of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
After the religious rights law firm filed the suit, Mills said at some point in the future she would allow very limited worship, but only after churches applied to re-open, were approved, and displayed a badge on the building.
Following the decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court in South Bay United Pentecostal Church and Harvest Rock Church, striking down the numeric restrictions (Ninth Circuit) and the total ban on worship (Supreme Court), Maine now has the most severe restrictions in the nation on places of worship, according to Liberty Counsel.
Even before the Supreme Court’s ruling in South Bay and Harvest Rock Church, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Nevada’s 50-person numeric limit.
The church also has the Calvary Residential Discipleship (CRD) program, a biblical-based ministry that helps men and women who are seeking healing and restoration from drugs, alcohol, and other life-controlling issues. The year-long residential program operates two homes, one with 24 women and one with 24 men, for a total of 48 full-time residents on the church property.
Regular attendance at church services is required by the individual to be a part of the program. So there will always be a minimum of 48 students at worship services on any given Sunday and Wednesday. When combined with Pastor Ken Graves, the staff of seven or eight, and the other pastors, the governor’s orders preclude Calvary Chapel’s CRD residents from worshipping in the church. They can meet for substance abuse counseling that does not involve Bible studies and worship, but as soon as they worship, the assembly is illegal.
The petition also noted Gov. Mills has deemed certain commercial and non-religious businesses so-called “essential” to include liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries, warehouse clubs, “big box” and “supercenter” stores that accommodate large gatherings of people. These organizations were never threatened with criminal sanctions, and people still may gather in these venues without restrictions.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled against these unconstitutional worship bans, and Governor Janet Mills has continued her draconian restrictions against churches and places of worship. The High Court now must end Governor Mills’ unconstitutional actions once and for all.”
Sarah Parshall Perry is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
A near-unanimous Supreme Court decided Monday that two Christian students have the right to sue the Georgia college that violated their free speech rights in the past.
The impact of the ruling is far greater than what at first sounds like a run-of-the-mill decision on a procedural issue that might prompt non-lawyers to take a nap.
The case is a significant win for the First Amendment and protection of religious speech on the campus of a public college. It portends more thoughtful administration of speech policies on campuses.
And the near unanimity of opinion by nine Supreme Court justices with vastly different ideological bents also may bode well for the high court’s future interpretations of the importance of constitutional rights.
The case, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, involves two former students of Georgia Gwinnett College who, while enrolled there, sought to exercise their religious liberty and publicly share their faith with other students by handing out religious literature on campus.
However, college officials decided to enforce a policy that barred students from speaking to fellow students about their Christian religious beliefs in a public square. Later, officials barred the students’ speech in a campus “free speech zone” even after the students had applied for and received the appropriate permit as requested by the school.
An analysis of the case reveals how hostile Georgia Gwinnett College was to religious speech.
After other students complained about Chike Uzuegbunam’s sharing of his faith in the school’s “free speech zone,” campus police told Uzuegbunam that his speech violated campus policy because it “disturb(ed) the peace and/or comfort” of others.
Uzuegbunam and the other student filed lawsuits seeking injunctive relief and nominal damages. After the college eventually abandoned its speech policy, the school moved to dismiss the suits as moot.
But the students pressed forward, arguing that their claims were not moot because they sought to remedy a violation of their First Amendment rights through a request for nominal damages.
In a short opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by seven other justices, the Supreme Court ruled that a request for nominal damages satisfies Article 3’s “redressability element” necessary for standing before the court when a plaintiff’s claim is based on a past violation of a legal right.
The court specified that even a claim for small or largely symbolic damages—here, for the violation of a constitutional right—is enough for a plaintiff to sue, assuming all other elements of standing are met.
In agreeing with the former students, the court looked to forms of relief generally awarded in common law to determine whether nominal damages can redress a past injury.
Significantly, the court acknowledged that the rule allowing nominal damages for a violation of a legal right is “decisively settled” and was established specifically to prevent favoring “economic rights over important, but not easily quantifiable, nonpecuniary rights.”
During oral arguments in January, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked the attorney for the Justice Department whether the case would have much broader implications than protecting free speech.
Specifically, Barrett asked whether the outcome of a dispute over New York City gun laws, a case that the court dismissed as moot after the city had changed its policy, would have been different if the challengers had added a claim for nominal damages for the violation of their constitutional rights.
The Justice Department attorney answered that the outcome indeed would have been different.
Chief Justice John Roberts was the lone dissenting vote, writing that the majority risked a “radical extension of judicial power.”
Roberts’ decision was unusual, not only because it was his first solo dissent since joining the court in 2005, but because of his strong language in rebuking the majority.
Roberts stressed that because the disputed speech restrictions no longer exist at Georgia Gwinnett College, and because the students had not asked for “actual damages” (monetary relief), the case no longer was a live controversy and therefore moot.
The chief justice suggested that the majority’s ruling risked forcing federal courts to “give advisory opinions whenever a plaintiff tacks on a request for a dollar.”
But Thomas countered that if the high court would recognize a dollar in economic injury for wasted bus fare in traveling to the free speech zone, it must certainly recognize a dollar for a completed violation of a constitutional right.
Holding that every violation of a right imports damage, Thomas wrote that nominal damages are sufficient to redress an injury even if that injury—like the violation of First Amendment rights—cannot be reduced to or quantified in simple economic terms.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a reminder that censorship has consequences and that redressing the harm from violating constitutional rights, though sometimes hard to quantify, is just as important as redressing the harm from violations of economic rights.
A college’s preemptive silencing of a student’s speech—even if it later changes that policy to pump the brakes on litigation—may not be enough to keep the matter out of court.
School administrators hopefully will think twice before promulgating and implementing campus speech codes and other policies that can adversely affect their students’ constitutional rights.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.
A Note for our Readers:
With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:
Is socialism really morally sound?
The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.
They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today !
Contemporary crises, ranging from COVID to economic and political upheaval, have revealed the fragility of our freedom, and brought into view perhaps two of the greatest threats to liberty in our time — judicial usurpation and presidential Executive Order.
In the hands of people who either don’t understand, or give little regard to Constitutional principle, these can be instruments of national suicide. They underscore that the greatest threats to liberty often come from within.
In 1838, twenty-eight-year-old Abraham Lincoln felt he was watching his country tear itself apart. Riots had broken out over slavery, and no doubt Lincoln also had in mind the 1837 assassination of abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy.
In that precarious period Lincoln spoke to the Young Men’s Lyceum, a gathering of rising leaders in Springfield, Illinois. Lincoln said that if ever there were a serious threat to American freedom it would “spring up amongst us… If destruction be our lot, we (would) ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we (will) live through all time or die by suicide.”
And so, we come to a February 6 Christian Post story by Anugrah Kumar, headlined:
Some will applaud the Court’s ruling apparently in favor of the churches. At the same time, there is reason to lament the fact that the Supreme Court — or any court for that matter — is “allowing” churches to meet, and to do so on terms laid down by the Court.
We must see the dangerous precedent in such a move by the Judiciary. A poisonous precedent lurks beneath its surface blessing.
Crisis has a way of driving us to desperation and the disordering that goes with it. In the frantic reaches to control COVID, government seems to have forgotten the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Italics added)
Usurpation sneaks up on us from behind.
“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion,” said Edmund Burke in 1784. Burke, an Englishman, was an intense observer of the French Revolution and its excesses. He could see that what the revolutionaries were calling “Liberte” was itself morphing into an oppressive system pretending to be a freedom-giver.
Early on, Thomas Jefferson had a more favorable view of the French Revolution, but also understood the creeping threat of the enlargement of government power in aborning America. On May 27, 1788, Jefferson, in a letter, warned: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
Thus, “liberty” extended by the Court to churches means that a branch of government has presumed it has the authority not only to grant the right of assembly but also to specify its parameters — in this case twenty-five percent of capacity, with no chanting or singing.
Again, we can rejoice that churches have sanction to meet, but mourn the fact that it must be sanctioned in the first place because another government agency—that of the State of California — had forbidden churches to assemble.
Not to be outdone, the State declared it would be monitoring the situation and perhaps issuing more guidelines.
Then there is the other internal threat to our liberty: Presidential Executive Order.
One of the most severe cases occurred in 1952 during the Korean War when President Harry S Truman, through an EO, sought, in effect, to nationalize steel mills. The Supreme Court declared this a violation of the Constitution, and its right of private property.
Truman perhaps had learned at the feet of his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. He issued a whopping 3,721 EOs. True, FDR was a wartime president, but many of his orders were used to structure his prime legislative initiative, the New Deal.
Both Republican and Democrat presidents have found the Executive Order handy in avoiding congressional or judicial mire. Republican Richard Nixon, my boss, issued 346, while Democrat Bill Clinton 364.
Much attention was focused on the Executive Order issue when President Obama said, in the face of congressional opposition to some of his intended policies, “I have a pen, and I have a phone.” David Davenport wrote in Forbes, that Obama had established a pattern “of unilateral action to set his agenda, advance it, and change it, well beyond … the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.”
It should be noted that Obama issued 276 Executive Orders while Trump 220. Biden, as of February 26, 2021, was spewing Executive Orders at a rate that, if continued, would amount to 400 per year.
Speaking of Executive Order power, Lincoln, in his 1838 speech was also concerned about a dominating tyrant emerging at some point through national crisis: “Is it unreasonable … to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us?”
Watch carefully over the next four years and be concerned—very concerned—about the enlargement of the Judiciary’s attempts to usurp freedoms, as well as the emergence of candidates who could easily cloak their passion for power and abuse the powers granted them through Executive Order.
And heed the words of John Adams when, amid the stirring of the American Revolution, he wrote:
“The Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored… Liberty once lost is lost forever.”
Wallace B. Henley’s fifty-year career has spanned newspaper journalism, government in both White House and Congress, the church, and academia. He is author or co-author of more than 20 books. He is a teaching pastor at Grace Church, the Woodlands, Texas.
In the face of continued threats to religious liberty and attacks from the “cancel culture,” Liberty Counsel just won a major victory against the ACLU. This is a new, precedent-setting case. Read on to learn more about this major victory and what it means for religious freedom in America. – Mat
“The whole display, including the secular items, offends me because it is all part of the Christmas and the whole, you know, Christianity thing.” That was the testimony of the plaintiff who, along with the ACLU, sought to force Jackson County, Indiana, to tear down its Christmas Nativity display. She wanted the display removed because she hates Christmas – not just baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the manger, but even secular icons like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.
Liberty Counsel represents Jackson County, Indiana, as well as another Indiana county undergoing similar harassment over Nativity scenes in lawsuits brought by the ACLU.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Nativity scene is constitutional using a historical test and thus setting a new precedent for Nativity displays.
The Court wrote, “we conclude that the County’s Nativity scene is constitutional because it fits within a long national tradition of using the Nativity scene in broader holiday displays to celebrate the origins of Christmas—a public holiday.”
The Court expressly rejected the so-called “Lemon test,” a legal test created by the Supreme Court years ago that has caused significant confusion. The late Justice Antonin Scalia once said, “Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys.”
For years, Liberty Counsel has advocated for a historical test, and now this is the first case to use a historical approach to Nativity scenes. Justice Scalia would be proud that we put a stake in the heart of this ghoulish monster!
The ACLU plaintiff, Rebecca Woodring, said she was offended by the display. She did not even live in the county.
Woodring stated that no matter how many secular items are in the display, and no matter their arrangement, she was offended. She wanted the whole display gone.
We are also defending another Nativity scene display against the ACLU in Fulton County, Indiana. This week’s victory for Jackson County will also end the ACLU’s attempt to remove the Nativity in Fulton County.
This issue is also symptomatic of a larger problem infecting our nation – a “cancel culture” which seeks to silence and eliminate anything with which it disagrees. Those pushing the cancel culture not only hate history, religious freedom and the Constitution, they hate Donald Trump and YOU!
Here are the facts concerning the upcoming “impeachment” farce: ONLY sitting presidents may be impeached, and ONLY the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court may preside over a Senate impeachment trial.
But Donald Trump is no longer in the White House, and the impeachment is so obviously unconstitutional that Chief Justice Roberts has REFUSED to preside over it!
But the Democrats (and a handful of Republicans) won’t stop! They continue this farce and have inserted the longest-serving Senate Democrat, Patrick Leahy, as the kangaroo court’s “judge.” Leahy cannot be impartial – especially when he plans to vote, making him both judge and jury.
Like the Nativity case and our church closure cases, the impeachment farce is little more than a punitive partisan attack seeking to silence people of faith, subvert the Constitution and cancel American greatness.
This Nativity scene win is a major blow to secularists seeking to eliminate Judeo-Christianity from America’s history and culture.
As you know, we also have two church closure cases before the Supreme Court (CA and IL) and multiple federal lawsuits defending religious liberty, in addition to all our other legal work. We expect a ruling from the High Court on the California case soon!
Finally, please be in prayer for the soul of our country and its people!
“The people who know their God will be strong and take action” Daniel 11:32. God bless you and your family! Mat Staver Founder and Chairman
“Nazi” is the abbreviation of National Socialist Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei).Its leader was Adolph Hitler, who became Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933.Hitler began implementing a plan of universal healthcare, with no regard for conscience.Read as PDF …
The New York Times reported October 10, 1933:“Nazi Plan to Kill Incurables to End Pain; German Religious Groups Oppose Move …The Ministry of Justice … explaining the Nazi aims regarding the German penal code, today announced its intentions to authorize physicians to end the sufferings of the incurable patient … in the interest of true humanity …”
The New York Times continued:”The Catholic newspaper Germania hastened to observe: ‘The Catholic faith binds the conscience of its followers not to accept this method’ …In Lutheran circles, too, life is regarded as something that God alone can take …Euthanasia … has become a widely discussed word in the Reich … No life still valuable to the State will be wantonly destroyed.”
When Germany’s economy suffered, expenses had to be cut from the national healthcare plan, such as keeping alive handicapped, insane, chronically ill, elderly and those with dementia.They were considered “lebensunwertes leben” — life unworthy of life.
Then criminals, convicts, street bums, beggars and gypsies, considered “leeches” on society, met a similar fate.
In the United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., took the fateful step to “play God” in his infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, that “for the protection and health of the state,” those deemed intellectually disabled should be forcibly sterilized by the government:”Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
His pseudo-science research on eugenics, Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene, was read by Hitler in prison and became a basis for Hitler’s racial superiority in Mein Kampf.Eugen Fischer’s work led to the Nazi Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, 1933, which caused hundred’s of mixed-race German-Africans and French-Africans to be subjected to compulsory sterilization.
An associate of Margaret Sanger was eugenicist Madison Grant, founder of the New York Zoological Society.He put an African pygmy from the Congo Mbuti tribe, Ota Benga, in a cage in the Monkey House of his Bronx Zoo.Grant wrote the racist Darwinian book The Passing of the Great Race, which Hitler not only read, but sent him a thank you letter.
Margaret Sanger stated January 1, 1932:”Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”Sanger founded a magazine, The Birth Control Review.In the April 1933 edition, her magazine published the article “Eugenic Sterilization” by German eugenicist Ernst Rudin, considered “father of racial hygiene” for the National Socialist Workers Party.
Ernst Rudin recommended that the state prevent hereditary defective genes from passing to future generations by those considered inferior “under mankind” — “untermensch.”
The National Socialist Workers Party labeled the Aryan race as “herrenvolk” (master race) and “ubermensch” (super mankind).Aryan etymology originated in Iran, from where the Indo-Iranian people group descended.
The National Socialist Workers Party enacted unconscionable plans to reduce the population and purge the human gene pool of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Negroes, and other whom they considered “inferior.”As a result, 6 millions of Jews, and millions of others, were barbarically killed in gruesome gas chambers and ovens.
Nazis anatomists harvested human body parts from prisoners for scientific research and gruesome laboratory experimentation.
One cannot help but see similarities between Nazi medical experimentation with human body parts and recent headlines:
“Planned Parenthood exec, fetal body parts subject of controversial video” (CNN, 7/15/15);
Cardinal Timothy Dolan described New York Governor’s Reproductive Health Act which allows killing of babies as they are being born, as “ghoulish, grisly, gruesome” (Fox and Friends, 1/28/19);
“Report: China still harvesting organs from prisoners at a massive scale” (CNN, 6/24/16).
In 1948, Lawrence Sullivan wrote in The Case Against Socialized Medicine: A Constructive Analysis of the Attempt to Collectivize American Medicine (Washington, DC: The Statesman Press)“Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of life? Lenin thought so. He declared socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.”
The American Medical Association printed this quote in a pamphlet, and in the early 1960s recruited Ronald Reagan, then president of the Screen Actors Guild, for a campaign to educate the nation.Called “Operation Coffee Cup,” an LP recording was produced titled “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,” in which he stated:”One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project …Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill … that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance … He said ‘If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.’”
U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated in 1977:”When the first 273,000 German aged, infirm and retarded were killed in gas chambers there was no outcry from that medical profession … and it was not far from there to Auschwitz.”
British Journalist Malcolm Muggeridge explained:”We have … for those that have eyes to see, an object lesson in what the quest for ‘quality of life’ without reference to ‘sanctity of life’ can involve …The origins of the Holocaust lay, not in Nazi terrorism … but in … Germany’s acceptance of euthanasia and mercy-killing as humane and estimable.”
Exemplifying this socialist ideology in the U.S., the Federal government engaged in a 40-year-long Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, where black men infected with syphilis were allowed to die while government health-care workers documented the disease’s progression.
The next victims of statism were political prisoners. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote:”Over there people are groaning and dying and in psychiatric hospitals. Doctors are making their evening rounds … injecting people with drugs which destroy their brain … There are tens of thousands of political prisoners in our country … under compulsory psychiatric treatment.”
In 1933, just one month after Hitler was made Germany’s Chancellor, there was a crisis.Germany’s capitol building — the Reichstag — was attacked and set on fire under suspicious conditions.Historians implicate Hitler and his supporters as being responsible in what is termed a “false flag” event — a crisis perpetrated by deep-state government insiders which could be blamed on Hitler’s innocent political opponents to create a panic of sufficient magnitude to induce the population to surrender their freedoms and to implement a purge.
Immediately after the Reichstag fire, Hitler declared the “Fire Act,” February 28, 1933, which nullified civil liberties and suspended basic rights.In the midst of this national frenzy, Hitler swiftly arrested his political opponents and had them shot without a trial.
The Nazi Minister of Propaganda was Joseph Goebbels, who famously defined “fake news”:“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Goebbels’ propaganda methods were studied in the U.S. after WWII, most notably in Solomon Asch’s Conformity Experiment.
Students were brought into a classroom and shown two cards:
the first had one line on it, and
the second had three lines, one the same length as the first card, another longer and another shorter.
All student were paid actors, except one naive participant.One by one, the paid actors said the wrong length matched the first card. Last was the naive participant’s turn to answer.
So strong was the desire to fit in and be accepted, that 30 percent of naive participants denied their own perception in order to conform with the group.This method of promoting agendas through peer pressure and the manipulation of one’s desire for acceptance has been integrated into classroom education, television sitcoms, news reporting, social media platforms, and political campaigning.It most recently is used in the advancement of novel sexual agendas, which many privately consider contrary to biology but are afraid to express so publicly for fear of being shamed, ridiculed or ostracized.
Goebbels propaganda methods utilized cinema and immense Super Bowl-size choreographed gatherings.
Hitler rose to power with the help of violent homosexual activists called Brownshirts, who organized social unrest, street riots, vandalism, and boycotts of Jewish businesses.Like disrupters of speakers on modern-day college campuses, or ANTIFA or BLM protest organizers, the Brownshirts violently stormed into and disrupted meetings of opposing parties.Once securely in power, Hitler had the Brownshirts killed in the Night of the Long Knives, thus eliminating competition and giving the public impression of cracking down on law-breakers.
Hitler swayed the public with mesmerizing speeches.
He then confiscated weapons from law-abiding citizens.An SA Oberführer warned of an ordinance by the provisional Bavarian Minister of the Interior:”The deadline set … for the surrender of weapons will expire on March 31, 1933. I therefore request the immediate surrender of all arms …Whoever does not belong to one of these named units (SA, SS, and Stahlhelm) and … keeps his weapon without authorization or even hides it, must be viewed as an enemy of the national government and will be held responsible without hesitation and with the utmost severity.”
Foreshadowing present-day political candidates, Heinrich Himmler, head of Nazi S.S. (“Schutzstaffel”-Protection Squadron), announced:”Germans who wish to use firearms should join the S.S. or the S.A. Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”Disarming the civilian population was a necessary step in state control, as Vladimir Lenin explained: “One man with a gun can control 100 without one. “George Mason, a founding father from Virginia, stated:”To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”Noah Webster wrote:”Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”Machiavelli wrote:”It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willing one who is unarmed.”Theoretical arguments for disarming citizens become indefensible when faced with actual situations:
disarmed North Koreans being sentenced to labor camps;
disarmed Nigerians being killed by Islamist Boko Haram;
disarmed Iranians being killed by their fundamentalist state; and
disarmed Venezuelans being killed by a corrupt dictator.
WND published the headline, Feb. 3, 2021:”Dems push psychological evaluations for gun owners and ‘family members’ — Measure also includes massive insurance fees.”
In 1938, when a suspected homosexual youth shot a Nazi diplomat in Paris, it was used as an excuse to confiscate all firearms from Jews.German newspapers printed, November 10, 1938:“Jews Forbidden to Possess Weapons By Order of SS Reichsführer Himmler, Munich …’Persons who, according to the Nürnberg law, are regarded as Jews, are forbidden to possess any weapon. Violators will be condemned to a concentration camp and imprisoned for a period of up to 20 years.’”
The New York Times, November 9, 1938, reported:”The Berlin Police … announced that … the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been ‘disarmed’ with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition.Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.”
Of the Waffengesetz (Nazi Weapons Law), March 18, 1938, Hitler stated at a dinner talk, April 11, 1942 (Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, 2nd Edition, 1973, p. 425-6, translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens):”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing …So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order.”
The Church had allowed Hitler to rise to power because of Germany’s version of separation of church and state.For centuries the German Church had embraced pietism, which, on one hand, emphasized a genuine personal relationship with God; but on the other hand, focused so much on the personal side that it abandoned responsibility to influence the state.Martin Luther King, Jr., later declared:“The church must be reminded that it is … the conscience of the state.”
Hitler at first pretended to be sympathetic to Christianity in order to get elected.He duped naive Christian ministers with his placating rhetoric, but once in power he dispensed with the pretense and revealed his nazified social Darwinism and open hostility toward Christianity.
Recently headlines indicate a similar phenomenon is occurring in communist China:
“China Trying to ‘Rewrite the Bible,’ Force Churches to Sing Communist Anthems (The Christian Post, 9/28/18);
“In China, they’re closing churches, jailing pastors – and even rewriting scripture. China’s Communist party is intensifying religious persecution as Christianity’s popularity grows. A new state translation of the Bible will establish a ‘correct understanding’ of the text (The Guardian, 1/13/19).
Goebbels confided in The Goebbels Diaries 1939-1941, that in reality, Hitler “hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”
Hitler forced old traditional military generals to retire, thus purging his administration of any still retaining a remnant of “archaic” Judeo-Christian values, who might resist him.
Franklin D. Roosevelt stated December 15, 1941:”To Hitler, the church … is a monstrosity to be destroyed by every means.”
Hitler attempted to “nazify” German Protestant Churches.Ministers who resisted were imprisoned, such as Rev. Martin Niemöller, a founder of the Confessing Church.A profound statement of Niemöller‘s, of which several variant versions exist, is:”In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
FDR stated in his State of the Union Address, January 6, 1942:”The world is too small … for both Hitler and God …Nazis have now announced their plan for enforcing their … pagan religion all over the world … by which the Holy Bible and the Cross of Mercy would be displaced by Mein Kampf and the swastika.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt stated of Hitler, December 15, 1941:“Government to him is not the servant … of the people but their absolute master and the dictator of their every act …The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which seemed to the Founders of the Republic inalienable, were, to Hitler and his fellows, empty words …”
FDR continued:“Hitler advanced: That the individual human being has no rights whatsoever in himself … no right to a soul of his own, or a mind of his own, or a tongue of his own, or a trade of his own; or even to live where he pleases or to marry the woman he loves;That his only duty is the duty of obedience, not to his God, not to his conscience, but to Adolf Hitler …His only value is his value, not as a man, but as a unit of the Nazi state.”
Winston Churchill, in From War to War (Second World War, Vol. 1, ch. 4, p. 50) described Hitler’s Mein Kampf as: “… the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”
Hitler was initially going to allow Jews to be deported to Palestine, but the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, who met with Hitler, also held anti-Jewish views.
Beginning in 1931, al-Husseini attempted to follow Hitler’s example by expelling Jews from Palestine, as the Muslim Brotherhood would also do in Egypt.
Mufti al-Husseini recruited 30,000 Bosnian Muslims to join Hitler’s Waffen-SS.Hitler gave al-Husseini financial assistance, and then asylum in 1941, with the honorary rank of an SS Major-General
During the final battle in Berlin in April of 1945, as allied forces closed in on Hitler’s bunker, they confronted a hundred Muslims of the Mufti’s Arab Legion making their last suicidal stand.
Hitler’s view was the Nazi’s had the right solution but the wrong religion, stating:”Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers (732 AD) … then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.”
Hitler stated of the Nazis:”The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France.”>
According to Albert Speer, Third Reich’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, Hitler stated in private:”The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity … with its meekness and flabbiness?”
A leader of the Confessing Church who resisted Hitler was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.Dietrich Bonhoeffer was born FEBRUARY 4, 1906.
He studied in New York in 1930, where he met Frank Fisher, an African-American seminarian who introduced him to Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church.
He was inspired by African-American spirituals and the preaching of Adam Clayton Powell, Sr., who helped Bonhoeffer turn “from phraseology to reality,” motivating him to stand up against injustice.
Bonhoeffer helped found the Confessing Church in Germany, which refused to be intimidated by Hitler into silence.He stated:”Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.”This view was derived from Proverbs 24:11-12:“Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die. Don’t try to disclaim responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it.For God, who knows all hearts, knows yours, and he knows you knew! And he will reward everyone according to his deeds.”(TLB)
In his book, The Cost of Discipleship,Bonhoeffer rebuked nominal Christians:“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession.Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.”
This was similar to what William Penn wrote when he was imprisoned in the Tower of London, 1668″Christ’s cross is Christ’s way to Christ’s crown … The unmortified Christian and the heathen are of the same religion, and the deity they truly worship is the god of this world.It is a false notion that they may be children of God while in a state of disobedience to his holy commandments, and disciples of Jesus though they revolt from his cross.”
Bonhoeffer stated in a 1932 sermon:”The blood of martyrs might once again be demanded, but this blood, if we really have the courage and loyalty to shed it, will not be innocent, shining like that of the first witnesses for the faith.On our blood lies heavy guilt, the guilt of the unprofitable servant.”” align=”left”>
Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned Germans not to slip into the cult of Führer (leader) worship, as he could turn out to be a Verführer (mis-leader, seducer).” align=”right”>
Jimmy Carter wrote in his book Sources of Strength, 1997:”Rev. Niebuhr urged Dietrich Bonhoeffer to remain in America for his own safety. Bonhoeffer refused. He felt he had to be among the other Christians persecuted in Germany.So he returned home, and … in resistance to Hitler…preached publicly against Nazism, racism, and anti-semitism …Bonhoeffer was finally arrested and imprisoned.”
Of his return to Germany, Bonhoeffer wrote:”Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. At the end all his disciples deserted him. On the cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and mockers.For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God. So the Christian, too, belongs not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the thick of foes.”
Jimmy Carter continued:”Dietrich Bonhoeffer died April 9, 1945, just a few days before the allied armies liberated Germany. He was executed on orders of Heinrich Himmler. He died a disciple and a martyr …”
Carter added:”The same Holy Spirit … that gave Bonhoeffer the strength to stand up against Nazi tyranny is available to us today.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer challenged:”To endure the cross is not tragedy; it is the suffering which is the fruit of an exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ”
On February 16, 2002, Dr. James Dobson told the National Religious Broadcasters:”Those of you who feel that the church has no responsibility in the cultural area …What if it were 1943 and you were in Nazi Germany and you knew what Hitler was doing to the Jews … Would you say, ‘We’re not political-that’s somebody else’s problem’?”
Dobson concluded:”I thank God Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not give that answer, and he was arrested by the Nazis and hanged in 1945, naked and alone because he said, ‘This is not right.’”—
(Natural News) Democrat Joe Biden’s message of wanting to ‘unify our divided country’ suffered another credibility blow in the wake of a newly uncovered Democratic memo that warns two-thirds of our country is a bigger threat than China, Russia, Iran and North Korea combined.
A report prepared especially for the (potentially) incoming Biden administration from the Secular Democrats of America PAC provides guidance to “boldly restore a vision of constitutional secularism and respect in the land for religious and intellectual pluralism.”
And here we thought that after four years of President Donald Trump that his efforts to uphold the right of Christians — and Jews, and Muslims, and whomever else — to practice freely, as outlined in the First Amendment, was him restoring constitutionality.
In any event, the PAC says it “represents secular Democratic individuals and organizations” while advocating for “secular governance” as well as the promotion of “respect and inclusion of nonreligious Americans,” while mobilizing “nonreligious voters.”
Again, that same First Amendment guaranteeing Americans the right to worship freely also lacks a provision that mandates a religious society or the practice of a certain religion. So — if there can be no forcing of religion on Americans, why does this group think it can force secularism on all of us?
Just The News reports that the proposal was formally presented to the Biden team by Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman, co-chairmen of the Congressional Freethought Caucus; it was also endorsed by Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney.
The proposal calls for Biden’s team to work with Congress and governors to “advance a secular agenda at all levels of government, taking into account the current makeup of the federal courts and new, unfavorable precedents that your administration will have to contend with.”
In the document, the group argues that Trump has “empowered the religious right in ways no other administration has before, making significant advances in enacting their Christian nationalist agenda.”
The proposal outlines recommendations for reversing certain policies and “proactively” implementing new rules that would “restore secularism to federal governance and disentangle entrenched religious interests from federal policy.”
Again, what is inherently wrong with Trump ‘empowering’ people of faith within his administration? Understand that this proposal would not have been given to Team Biden unless these three lawmakers had a problem with the empowerment of religious persons within the Trump White House — none of whom were pushing to mandate Christianity across the country.
Only people who do not believe in any religion are ‘suitable’ for government, according to this PAC.
But it gets worse: These bozos liken Christians with a threat to America’s “national security.”
“The rise of white Christian nationalism is a national security threat,” read the document. “We recommend you: encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to dedicate resources to de-radicalization programs aimed at hate groups, including, but not limited to, white nationalists; increase monitoring of such groups, including the online environment, and take action to address increased hate crimes toward minority faith communities; and shift rhetoric to label violent white nationalist extremists as terrorists.”
That is outrageous. If there are any threats to America’s national security that emanate from within the country, they are coming from the insane left: Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and burgeoning anarchist organizations on both the left and right.
But you can see what this is really about.
There is no bigger impediment to authoritarian rule than a belief among the populace in something higher and more divine than ‘big government.’ And what better way to destroy the fundamental right to not only believe in a higher authority but to worship that higher authority than to declare those who do to be our most dangerous threat.
The Marxist Democratic left hates America as it was founded, period. This is just another modicum of proof.
Sun Valley, California’s Grace Community Church announced on Friday November 13, 2020, that they received a notice from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health saying they had been cleared of a COVID-19 outbreak linked to their church.
Grace Community Church’s website states:
We are glad to announce that we received a notice from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health on Thursday, November 12, saying that we have been cleared of COVID-19 outbreak. After a thorough investigation, Public Health officials have decided to rescind all outbreak related requirements and restrictions on Grace Community Church.
A health investigation took place after Grace Community Church reported that four people had tested positive for the COVID-19 virus back in mid-October.
ChurchLeaders reached out to the Los Angeles County’s Public Health Department on October 23, 2020 and confirmed they were investigating the reported outbreak at Grace Community Church responding with the following:
Public Health can confirm it is currently investigating an outbreak at Grace Community Church and will list the church on our outbreak dashboard today showing 3 confirmed cases. As with all investigations of outbreaks, Public Health will work closely with the church to support outbreak management strategies that can limit transmission of COVID-19.
Strip Clubs Can Open, But Churches Can’t?
John MacArthur and Grace Community Church have been defying state and county government COVID-19 orders since July, 2020 by holding in-person worship services, and they have had numerous trips to the Los Angeles Superior Court attempting to fight for their constitutional right to gather indoors. California’s current orders call for halting indoor church services, indoor dining, and indoor gym workouts.
Represented by attorney Charles S. LiMarandi, Grace Community Church returned to court this past Friday November 13, 2020 and was told by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff that he will allow pretrial discovery and the calling of witnesses in the contempt hearing scheduled for January 15, 2021. The hearing will deal with whether or not fines should be imposed on Grace Community Church and Pastor John MacArthur for holding indoor worship services despite being issued a preliminary injunction on September 10, 2020.
Attorney LiMarandi stated that the pretrial discovery that is being allowed by Judge Beckloff is necessary because the county has displayed more hostility with its COVID-19 orders toward churches than other places of businesses, saying that “tattoo parlors and nail salons have received greater consideration than have churches.” LiMarandi followed that up by saying, “You can’t pray to almighty God, but you can watch nude dancing.”
During a speech before the Federalist Society on Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito stated that “in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.” And is viewed by some as “not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed.”
Alito began by cautioning that, aside from specific references to any Supreme Court cases, he isn’t commenting on the legality of coronavirus restrictions and isn’t making any statements as to whether the restrictions constitute good policy.
He stated that coronavirus has “highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.”
Alito said that cases involving coronavirus restrictions have “pointed up emerging trends in the assessment of individual rights. This is especially evident with respect to religious liberty. It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”
Alito contrasted the bipartisan passage of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act with the backlash faced by states that have attempted to pass or passed similar legislation in recent years.
He then turned to “the protracted campaign against the Little Sisters of the Poor,” the Ralph’s pharmacy case, and the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Alito remarked, “You can easily see the point, for many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed. And the cases I just mentioned illustrate the point. As far as I’m aware, not one employee of the Little Sisters has come forward and demanded contraceptives under the Little Sisters’ plan. There was no risk that Ralph’s referral practice would have deprived any woman of the drug she sought and no reason to think that Jack Phillips’ stand would deprive any same-sex couple of a wedding cake. The couple that came to his shop was given a free cake by another bakery, and celebrity chefs have jumped to the couple’s defense.”
Alito then noted cases where coronavirus restrictions that “blatantly discriminated against houses of worship” in California and Nevada were upheld by the Supreme Court. Alito stated that in both cases, the rationale was that the court should defer to the governors. Alito continued that this deference meant that Nevada treated “casinos more favorably than houses of worship.”
He added, “If what I have said so far does not convince you that religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right, consider a case that came shortly after the Nevada case.” Alito then discussed U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang’s ruling suspending the FDA’s requirement that women who wish to obtain an abortion pill must pick up the drug at a clinic. Alito said that Chuang’s rationale that enforcing the rule would interfere with abortion rights because some women might not obtain the pill due to fear of contracting coronavirus if they leave their homes. He noted that at the time of the decision, Maryland’s governor had opened many places of business, and “apparently concluded that Marylanders could safely engage in all sorts of activities outside the home. … If deference was appropriate in the California and Nevada cases, then surely, we should have deferred to the federal Food and Drug Administration on an issue of drug safety. But no, in this instance, the right in question was the abortion right, not the right to religious liberty, and the abortion right prevailed.”