supreme court

Naked Church Congregation Bares it All for Christ

Posted on Updated on

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.Genesis 2:25 KJV

When God created the world Adam and Eve had no clothing, they worshiped God and went through their day without clothing or shame of being naked because they didn’t know that they were naked until the serpent came and tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit therefore awakening them to the knowledge of good and evil. In today’s world everyone and everything has been perverted so much so that they have come to believe that as long as they worship and believe in God and that Jesus died and rose in three days for the remission of their sins that they can worship the way they see fit.

Today when people go to church to worship God, some deck themselves out in hats, flashy suits etc. and some of us wear jeans and t-shirts. We all who love God believe that in order to worship God that it doesn’t matter what we wear or don’t wear. Today there are so many different beliefs in doctrines and dogmas, yet we still all believe in One God.

Worship and customs of Rastafarians;
images (1)images (2)

The meetings are referred to as Reasoning sessions. They provide a time for chants, prayers and singing, and for communal issues to be discussed. Marijuana may be smoked to produce heightened spiritual states.

images (4)

The first great Supreme Court freedom of religion case was decided in the middle of World War II in West Virginia v. Barnette. In one of the Court’s most frequently quoted passages it said:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

images (3)

In the Barnette decision, the Jehovah’s Witnesses asserted that it was against their religious beliefs to pledge allegiance to a flag; they believed that their allegiance should be pledged solely to God. Because of their deeply held religious beliefs, Jehovah’s Witnesses children who declined to recite the pledge in unison with others were expelled from schools. Their parents were thrown in jail and attacked and beaten on the streets in America. In the Barnette case, the Supreme Court finally sided with the ACLU and came down squarely in support of religious freedom and the freedom of conscience of religious believers.[6]

Whether we think of Madison’s Memorial, or the Supreme Court’s Barnette decision, we should constantly remind ourselves that religion is a fundamental right that needs to be protected for individuals, families, and religious communities. The government has no business telling any American what to believe in religious matters or deciding which side to support – symbolically or financially – in religious questions.

A little church in Virginia is making a name for itself by not caring about holy clothes or clothes with holes.

The church’s congregants, in fact, do not care about clothes at all. Not when worshipping, anyway.

While Virginia prepares for another round of snow and cold, NBC12 brings the story of White Tail Chapel in Southampton, where people find warmth in worshipping just the way they were brought into the world: naked.

Pastor Allen Parker told the station it’s not about the clothes but rather about baring his soul to Christ and leading his flock down that path of righteousness, no matter what they’re wearing.

The appropriately named Katie and Robert Church married at White Tail Chapel and say the church has given them a sense of Christian community with none of the pretense of a traditional church.

“Once we were married, and we were here, this whole place became our family,” Katie Church told the station. “I feel like I can turn to anyone in this church, or even in this park, and they will be there to help me.”

download (1)

“People are more open as far as hearing the word of God, and speaking the word of God,” agreed Robert Church.

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment clauses.[1] It encompasses not only the right to believe (or not to believe), but also the right to express and to manifest religious beliefs. These rights are fundamental and should not be subject to political process and majority votes. Thus the ACLU, along with almost every religious and civil rights group in America that has taken a position on the subject, rejects the Supreme Court’s notorious decision of Employment Division v. Smith. In Smith, Justice Scalia wrote that the accommodation of religion should be left “to the political process” where government officials and political majorities may abridge the rights of free exercise of religion.

Empower A Felon

Equality in Higher Education

Posted on

Supreme Court Affirmative Actionsupreme_court_120848933b

Does race have a place in University Admissions? Consider two cases.

In 1946, an African American man, Heman Marion Sweatt, believed he should be allowed to attend Law School in his home state of Texas – which prohibited integrated education at the time. He took his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in Sweatt v. Painter, challenging the “separate but equal” doctrine of racial segregation and laying a foundation to end segregation at universities across the country – especially the South.

Over sixty years later, in 2008, Abigail Fisher said the same thing, but from a slightly different vantage point: She was white. She too argued that race should not play a factor in admissions policies – in this case, focusing on affirmative action policies designed to increase diversity on The University of Texas at Austin’s campus. Her case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 and now has the potential to end admissions policies that consider race at public universities across the country.

Both cases argue for fairness and equality in education. Both ask for race not to be considered as a factor for admission. So then – what should fairness in education look like today? Are there societal factors that cannot be ignored in the pursuit of equality at the individual level? Watch a clip from KLRU-TV’s new journalism project that is examining a issue that has become one of the most-watched US Supreme Court cases of this term.

So, what do you think? What does equality in education look like today? I would like to hear your thoughts below. Be honest. Be bold. Be you. However, I also ask that you be courteous and stick to the issues.