Jordan Lorence

Look Who's Joining TFP For DADT Press Conference

Submitted by Kyle on February 17, 2010 - 1:49pm

In my earlier post about the absurdly anti-gay Tradition, Family and Property "report" opposing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I wondered who would be joining them at their press conference tomorrow to unveil it at CPAC.

Now we know:

* Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
* Tom Minnery, Vice President, Public Policy, Focus on the Family
* Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
* Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy
* David Keene, President, American Conservative Union
* Penny Nance, CEO, Concerned Women for America
* Matthew Staver, Dean, Liberty University School of Law
* Jordan W. Lorence, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund
* Adm. James A. “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.), Flag & General Officers for the Military

Leaders from other prominent organizations, such as Eagle Forum, Let Freedom Ring, the American Family Association, Traditional Values Coalition, and Tradition, Values & Property (partial list) are lending support to the Military Culture Coalition, an informal network of individuals and organizations who support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.).

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

For The Right, Equality is the "Greatest Threat to our Liberty That We Face Today - Bar None"

Submitted by Kyle on April 3, 2009 - 3:17pm

Though it doesn't mention today's Iowa Supreme Court ruling, I expect that we'll only be seeing more articles like this one from the Baptist Press in the coming weeks warning that equality for gays is on a collision course with religious liberty in which Religious Right activists warn their supporters that, in the not too distant future, Christian churches are going to have their tax-exempt status revoked and that Christians as a groups are going to be turned into pariahs on par with racists unless they stand up and fight back:

"Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion (said Mathew Staver of the Liberty Counsel). The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values.... People really need to wake up, because this, I think, is the greatest threat to our liberty that we face today -- bar none."

Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, agreed.

"This is not a made-up threat," Lorence told BP. "This is not some sort of concocted Chicken Little cry. These are actual cases, and as those supporters of same-sex marriage get more and more bold, we'll see more action to punish and silence us."

...

Down the road, the tax-exempt status of churches could be challenged as homosexuality and "sexual orientation" increasingly are placed alongside race in anti-discrimination laws. The goal of homosexual activists, Staver said, is to transform society so much that it views opponents of "gay marriage" in the same light it views racists.

"That's the agenda. It's always been the agenda," Staver said. "There is no question that if same-sex marriage becomes legal, that churches eventually will have their tax-exempt status threatened -- no question whatsoever. If churches today discriminate against race, they would not be able to have tax-exempt status today. If churches discriminate on the basis of same-sex marriage -- if it became legal -- then same-sex marriage becomes the equivalent of race, and churches would not be able to have tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage."

If Staver's prediction comes true, it could impact everything from adoption agencies to Christian school accreditation to licensing for professional counselors, Lorence said. It even could impact church plants who wish to use or rent a public facility.

"The coercive aspect of this cannot be overstated, in my opinion," Lorence said.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

What About the Original Intent?

Submitted by Kyle on January 13, 2009 - 1:41pm

Last week we mentioned the suit that has been filed by Michael Newdow, the American Humanist Association, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and others seeking to remove the phrase "so help me God" from the oath of office during the Inauguration when we noted Rick Scarborough calling it borderline suidical.

The oath, as set out in the Constitution, reads:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Yet the conventional explanation of the addition of the phrase "so help me God" is that it was added by George Washington ... but as it turns out, there is no historical evidence that that is true. In fact, as far as anyone has been able to determine, the phrase wasn't added unitl 100 years and 20 presidents later:

Beth Hahn, historical editor for the U.S. Senate Historical Office, concurs. "The first eyewitness documentation of a president saying 'So help me God' is an account of Chester Arthur's Sept. 22, 1881, inauguration in the New York Times," she said Wednesday.

Presumably, had the Founding Fathers wanted the phrase included in the oath, they would have added it - but they didn't. Therefore, you'd think this issue would be a no-brainer for a group like the Alliance Defense Fund, which claims it is dedicated to upholding the "original intent" of the Constitution,

Of course, you'd be wrong:

Jordan Lorence and his Alliance Defense Fund organization fight for religious rights in court. Lorence told CBN News he thinks Newdow's suit is groundless.

...

"If a judge were to agree with Michael Newdow that he has a right to basically expunge any Christian references from the public scene, it would be a horrendous shift in thinking about the establishment clause," Lorence predicted. "That instead of the government not forcing people to believe certain ways, it would mean that there's a right for the village atheist to silence everybody from saying anything about God in public.

"It would marginalize Christians and other believers," he continued. "It would be totally upside-down and opposite of what the founding fathers intended."

So the phrase is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and, in fact, didn't find its way into the oath for more than a century - yet, to remove it, according to self-described advocates of "original intent," would be an insult to Christians and the Founding Fathers.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Right to Pastors: Join Us or They'll Come After You

Submitted by Ezra on April 25, 2008 - 8:29am

On Saturday, Coral Ridge Ministries—the televangelism empire of the late D. James Kennedy—broadcast a special program to encourage pastors to involve their churches in this year’s elections. While the panelists—Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, Jordan Lorence of Alliance Defense Fund, and Gary DeMar of American Vision—offered the usual admonishments that there’s no such thing as separation of church and state, the theme of the evening was that Christianity is being “suppressed” in this country by liberals and the “militant homosexual agenda.” Watch "Pastors, Pulpits, and Politics":

This is the persecuted majority syndrome: the idea that it’s a whole lot simpler to convince people to join your political program if you convince them that their faith is “under attack.” This has been one of the Religious Right’s dominant themes over the last few years through campaigns such as FRC’s “Justice Sunday,” a series of televised, church-based rallies to support President Bush’s most radical judicial nominees, who the Right claimed were being opposed because of their religion. Perkins picked up on that theme on Saturday:

The idea that there should be no religious test ... that has been turned on its head to say that if you have a particular faith or denomination in which you actually believe it and apply it to your lives, therefore, if that's the case, you can't serve in government. You have to somehow choose between actually believing in what you believe and serving in government. That's how this is being applied today and it's totally wrong.

And we're losing the Christian foundation of our nation. And if you want to see a totalitarian government, you want to see rights that are lost and freedoms abused, then you lose the Christian heritage of this nation and you go down the path that the liberals are taking us. And that's where it'll be found.