Obama threatens to veto defense bill because it protects religious groups

For as long as Barack Obama has been on the scene, he has claimed to be a Christian, and the media have consistently defended him against any claim to the contrary - whether that he is a Muslim (which he is not) or simply a closet atheist (much more likely if you ask me). The claim that Obama is a Christian is based on a) self-identification; and b) his years listening to Jeremiah Wright rant about America's chickens coming home to roost. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus says that many will cry out to him, "Lord, Lord," and that He will reply, "Away from me you evildoers. I never knew you." In other words, you can claim to be a Christian all you want. That doesn't make it true. We can't know what's in a person's heart, and we certainly can't know whether that person has attained salvation through faith in Christ. That's a matter strictly between God and the person.

---

But what we can do is examine the person's fruit. A person who claims to be a Christian but consistently acts in a manner that's hostile toward Christianity does not deserve to be taken at his word when he claims the mantle of faith. So it is with the man who thinks Christians should come down off their high horses because of the Crusades. In fact, if there are any new crusades for the U.S. military to undertake, the bill authorizing them will not contain any protections for Christians - or any other religious group - if Obama has anything to say about it. The latest National Defense Authorization Act contains a thing called the Russell Amendment. It protects religious organizations from being accused of discrimination because their workforce reflects their beliefs and mission. In other words, the Catholic Church can't be expected to hire a gay rights activist for a communication job, or simply a person who rejects some or all Catholic doctrine. That's common sense, and yet without the Russell Amendment, it could put religious groups at risk of trouble with the federal government on discrimination grounds. Who could have a problem with that? I bet you can guess:

---

---

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual bill that sets policies and budgets for our nation’s fighting forces and is currently being negotiated by both houses of Congress in conference before a final vote. Included in the House-version of the National Defense Authorization Act is an amendment offered by Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., that applies decades-old religious exemptions from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) to federal grants and contracts. The Russell Amendment is sound policy that will prevent the administration from stripping contracts and grants from faith-based social service providers whose internal staffing policies reflect their faith. Jewish day schools and Catholic adoption centers, for example, are not liable under Title VII for being authentically Jewish or Catholic, and their staffing policies shouldn’t disqualify them from federal grants and contracts either. But Obama’s veto threat is actually the strongest proof of why the Russell Amendment is needed. It shows that the president wants absolute freedom to discriminate against religious social service providers that interact with the government—all because many religious organizations won’t endorse the LGBT cause. Congress should say no to the president’s blatant attack on religious diversity.

---

---

Federal government hopes to use discrimination laws as a hammer with which to beat up on faith organizations

The fact of the matter is that the federal government hopes to use discrimination laws as a hammer with which to beat up on faith organizations, especially in reference to gay marriage and so-called transgender issues. That's the very reason Obama doesn't want to sign any bill that contains protections like those offered by the Russell Amendment. The left is counting on discrimination laws to enable them to go after religion - particularly Christianity. I don't know if Obama is prepared to follow through on his threat, given the problems Hillary is already having with people of faith. Most likely the media would have his back on the issue - either by defending him or by ignoring the story because it's bad for him - but it's possible Republicans could make an issue out of it nonetheless, and Hillary might not want any more clear and obvious evidence that Democrats are the enemies of people of faith. But don't expect stuff like this to stop, even if doesn't succeed in this case. This is what Democrats are determined to do. The only way to stop them is to not elect them.

---