Quebec May Ban ‘Religious Clothing’

See the source image

You asked for it–and now you don’t like it?

As they say in Canada, and among liberals here at home, “We don’t need no stinkin’ First Amendment!”

The Quebec legislature is considering a ban on “religious clothing”–that is, say, a cross on a necklace, a yarmulka, or a hijab–for all public employees: civil servants, teachers, nurses, bus drivers, lawyers, “and other people who interact with the public” (

Although “all religions” are to be affected, the focus is on Islam, and especially on the head scarves and other coverings required of some Muslim women. Secular libs don’t like the headwear. They don’t like it, so Muslims can’t have it.

Uh, guys–this is Islam. Or at least some brands of it. If you don’t like it, you shouldn’t be importing it. “You can have your religion, as long as you don’t practice it.” What kind of sense does that make?

If your life turns sour on you because your kid’s teacher has a cross on her bracelet, or the bus driver is a Sikh with a turban, then you need to change your life. Isn’t it funny, though, how the “tolerance” crowd is always the most intolerant bunch of them all?

If this were happening in America, we would call it an unconstitutional attempt to establish secularism as the state religion. But a lot of the Quebec legislators are perfectly comfortable with that. They like the idea of themselves owning the state religion, before which all other religions must bow down and confess themselves inferior and wrong.

Isn’t that what they always accuse us Christians of doing?

So What Are They Gonna Do About It?

Image result for images of valedictorian

As reported yesterday (, school officials at Beaver High School in Pennsylvania forbade their valedictorian to say “in the name of Jesus Christ” in her graduation speech. And she said it anyway.

Now what? That’s what I want to know. They, the leftist cretins who run the school, say “It’s against the law!” (what law?) to invoke the name of Jesus Christ anywhere but in church or at home. So what are you guys gonna do about this kid who broke “the law”? Like, her high school days are over–you can’t give her detention, or make her write on the blackboard “I will not mention Jesus Christ” a hundred times.

Besides which, the assembled community at the graduation ceremony, by their long ovation for the girl, made it very clear whose side they were on.

So what are they going to do? Have the police arrest her for “breaking the law”? That’d go over big. Uh, contact the college she’s signed up to go to, and try to get them to kick her out? Or they could change the whole graduation format, and just not allow any more student speeches. That way they wouldn’t have to worry about anyone ever speaking the name of Jesus.

Why do school officials act like the devil in The Exorcist?

See, I’m betting these people, and all who are like them, wouldn’t dare do anything but back down if society stood up to them–as this one girl, by herself, stood up to the Christophobes at Beaver High. There are so vastly more of us than there are of them, I’m betting they’ll fold like cheap cameras if we all stand up to them. Let’s just see if they dare more than that. Let’s see!

Our God is an awesome God, and He will bless us if we stand tall for His Son.

My Reader Requets Is Shutup!

Boy that big dop lee has maked me mad, he trying to get reeders to ask him to post them stopid christin Hims on this blogg!

Dont he knowe its Unconstotontial to play Hims in publick, it says rihghjt thar in the Constotutin yiu got to have Sepration of Churtch and State and that meanes All The States includin the one yiu in rihgjt now! But no! he tryin to git reeders to Break the law.

My prefesser he sayes usuly the Constototoin it got nothin to do with nothin it is jist bad old dockumint writ up by Dead White Mails who was Slave owners and wuldnt let no wimmims vote and aslo Homo Phobs. But “stil even so” he sayes, their is things in the Constututin that “thay is” truely worthwile, lik A Bortion and Gay Marrage and Aformative Actoin and To Save the Plenet from Climbit Change! and He sayes the Best Thing in the Constututun, it is that Religgin realy is Aginst The law and no One shuld bea aloud to talk abuot no religgin in no Publick place. And “thats” whatt he sayes!

So al yiu religgis dops out thar yuo is nothin but Haters and Biggits and yiu aslo Ingnorent! yuo shuld ouhgjt to lissten to us Interllecturals hear at the Collidge, becose we smarter “than” yiu and yiu jist waight til Hillery is Pressdint, boy wil she ever fix yiu!! She wil inforce the law of the Connstytutoin aganst religgin and christinitty in pertickuler and that wil be that!

I warnin yiu, al yiu peple beter stoppit with thoose Hims!

Libs Move to Protect Religious Liberty

I guess I must be “stopid,” just like Joe Collidge says, because I can’t see any Constitutional authority for five schmucks on the Supreme Court to redefine marriage–and to create a brand-new “law of the land” without any legislation being passed by anyone’s elected representatives.

So a county clerk in Kentucky was tossed into the slammer because she wouldn’t obey the Supreme Court’s new “law” and issue marriage licenses to pairs of homosexuals, some of whom drove in from other states just so they could force her to refuse their demands. She didn’t issue the licenses because she is a Christian and she holds to God’s law, which deems homosexual acting-out a serious sin. She was also complying with the only written and duly enacted law involved here–the Kentucky Constitution.

Not to worry–the Democrat National Committee’s new Commissar for Religious Issues, the Hon. Jezebel Jones, says the party is proposing a way to let people “practice their religion” without getting chucked into prison for it.

“In each home, be it a house or an apartment or a furnished room,” says Jones, “one particular area–say a closet, or a corner of the bedroom, whatever–will be set aside as a Religious Freedom Zone where that person can believe whatever he or she wants to believe, regardless of how hateful, stupid, backward, vicious, or despicable it is.

“True, when you come out of your Religious Freedom Zone, you still have to obey whatever the Supreme Court or your neighborhood gay activist tells you to do, no matter what it is. Whatever judges say, from day to day, even from hour to hour, that’s the law.

“But afterward you can go home and go into the linen closet and have all the religious freedom anybody deserves.”

In the interests of Diversity, she adds, only Christians will have to restrict their practice of religion to Religious Freedom Zones. “For all non-Christians, we have an open-door policy. Do what you want, wherever you want. As long as it’s okay with the gays. They’re the ultimate authority.”

The Folly of Mohammed-Mocking

Do we even know what “freedom of speech” is, anymore?

Happily no one was killed at last night’s “Draw Mohammed” contest in Phoenix. There are a lot of angry people on hand, but there were also a lot of police who were ready to deal with any trouble. You will remember that, when they had a “Draw Mohammed” in Houston, people got shot.

Current events are confusing me. Apparently “freedom of speech” means you have an absolute right to insult religious people and mock their beliefs–something which Christians in America have known for quite some time, and Muslims are just finding out.

But apparently it also means that if you are a religious person, especially if you are a Christian, you may be forced to say and do things that are an outrage to your conscience: to take an active part, for instance, in a same-sex parody of marriage.

It seems to mean that a religious person, especially a Christian, must tamely put up with speech that seeks to refute his beliefs. But at the same time, no atheist has to tolerate seeing or hearing any kind of religious expression. One atheist can stifle a whole town’s prayers.

You can see how it gets confusing.

I don’t think much of Draw Mohammed contests. Other than to provoke Muslims to violence, what’s the point?

If it’s “to exercise free speech,” then it seems to be the kind of free speech exercised by Caliban, the monster in Shakespeare’s The Tempest: all he knew how to do was curse.

As a Christian, I naturally don’t believe in Islam. As a civilized human being, I hate the savagery practiced by Muslims all over the Middle East and Africa.

But is the only use of free speech to curse at things which others hold sacred? Is that all we know how to do with our freedom?

St. Paul preached to pagans. Did he ever try to convert them by telling dirty jokes about their gods? “So Zeus comes home drunk one night, and Hera’s waiting for him with a rolling pin…” No, he did not. Indeed, he cited their own poets in support of his Christian teaching, in his sermon to the sophomoric pagans of Athens (see Acts 17). Mockery was not found in Paul’s evangelistic tool kit.

If Muslims will make war, it’s righteous to make war right back at them, and defeat them–which the West could easily do, if the leaders had the stomach for it. If they will commit acts of violence against their neighbors, it’s righteous to punish them severely–whatever it takes to ensure the domestic tranquility.

But if they will live in peace, then Christians most certainly ought to live in peace with them. We do our Lord Jesus Christ no service by joining the Caliban crowd in gratuitously offending Muslims.

“Hey, guys! Now you know how we feel, when they hand over our tax dollars to some cockroach whose ‘art’ is to dunk a crucifix in urine! Now you know exactly how we feel.”

It’s what the ungodly do. It’s not what we should do.

A World Governed by Satanists

Does it bother any of you that America is about to do away with religious liberty? Gee, it’s only one of the core principles that brought this country into being. That whole “America” idea grew out of freedom of religion.

And remember when laws told you what you couldn’t do–and beyond that, you were on your own?

But now we have laws to tell you what you must do: for instance, buy medical insurance whether you want it or not, whether you can afford it or not, or else pay a fine.

But even worse than that, even more fundamentally antagonistic to our country’s very reason for being, is this new doctrine: Religious freedom ceases to exist the moment a Christian is ordered by a homosexual to take an active part in an evil, same-sex parody of marriage. If you’re a faithful, Bible-believing Christian, and a pair of lesbians demand that you–let’s say you’re a florist–personally decorate their “wedding” venue: well, pilgrim, the fact that you consider such a thing to be totally sinful, an abomination, a blot on your immortal soul–hey, that’s just too bad! You either participate in someone else’s sin, or the government destroys your livelihood, and maybe doesn’t stop there with your punishment–you menace, you enemy of the human race!

Really–if the government can actually force someone to take action that is outrageous to his conscience and his religious beliefs, how can we say there’s any religious freedom left?

At the same time, the UN’s top “climate” honcho–what an absurdity!–says Global Warming gonna kill us all, unless we take active steps toward “depopulation” ( ).

Notice how none of these rich, powerful, Climate Change wallahs who wants to depopulate the earth ever sets a good example by hanging himself.

Do you know what is the scariest thing about all this business?

If by some powerful magic we could instantaneously consign the whole Obama regime to another universe, and completely dismantle the United Nations–as gloriously happy as that would make some of us feel, it would do no good. The places held by those devil-worshipers would instantly be filled by others exactly like them. That’s how deeply depraved our culture is. The corruption reaches very far down from the top.

America doesn’t need another election.

America needs an exorcism.

America needs her people repenting on their knees–and then rising up to defend the right, and do it.

How About Just ‘Some’ Religious Freedom?

How can America preserve religious freedom–guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution–while at the same time preserving the right of homosexuals to force Christians to perform actions against their conscience and their faith?

The city of Gomorrah, New York, has the answer.

Here, the city council has passed the Kinda-Sorta Religious Freedom Ordinance, which sets up six Religious Freedom Zones around the city. Each is roughly the size of an old-fashioned public phone booth.

Explained Mayor Bill Zebub, “Anyone who steps into a Religious Freedom Zone, for as long as he remains inside it, cannot be forced to say or do anything against his beliefs. Within the zone, absolute freedom of conscience prevails.

“Outside the zone, of course, everyone, including Christians, must obey any order given by a gay or lesbian or trans person. To do otherwise is to be guilty of Hate, and Hate is a very bad emotion. It will not be allowed to exist within the city limits of Gomorrah.”

The city has authorized a Human Rights Whipping Post, with rack and thumbscrews reserved for “particularly difficult cases.”

“We got the idea from the Free Speech Zones you find on many college campuses,” the mayor said. “After all, the First Amendment doesn’t say where you have freedom of speech or freedom of religion! All it requires is that you have freedom somewhere in America. Nor does it say how large that somewhere has to be.”