Thursday, August 09, 2012

"Right To Pray" Amendment Passes Overwhelmingly, However...

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

A measure known as Amendment 2, but commonly referred to as "The Right To Pray" amendment passed with overwhelming voter approval in Missouri Tuesday, strengthening the religious freedom of the citizens in that state.

However, nothing close to that was on the Washington State primary ballot. Rather, Christians and conservatives in Washington State will, this November, be trying to turn back the newly imposed law that redefines marriage and family and undermines religious freedom.

Democratic Party Chair Dwight Pelz declared Washington State a "Blue State" Tuesday night, noting that the most populous counties around Puget Sound are essentially the political voice of the state, with their numbers and money.

Pelz also said, with beer in hand, that the Democrats strong showing reminded him of a 1970's movie, "Electra Glide In Blue." The movie is about a good cop on a big bike on a bad road---I think. You tell me what that means in relation to the primary.

The press generally defined the vote as "no surprises."

There were some highlights for conservatives and people of faith, but not the indication that the Republican Party would take back control of the Senate that some had suggested could happen.

The highlights.

John Koster dominated the field of candidates for Congressional District 1---Inslee's old seat, with 43.72% of the vote and counting. Suzan Del Bene will run against him. She had 23.3%. Interestingly, the Seattle Times endorsee, "moderate" Democrat Steve Hobbs, received a lowly 6.8%. That was particularly meaningful to me personally.

Clint Didier had a strong showing in the statewide race for Commissioner of Public Lands. He will be on the November ballot.

Although Hadian finished third in the race for the governor's office, it was a distant third. I had hoped for a stronger primary vote from people of faith and conservatives in this primary governor's race. It didn't happen. Now people of faith and true conservatives will decide whether and how to vote on a contest of the lessor of two evils. Inslee beat McKenna by a considerable margin. Generally more Democrats vote in the General election than Republicans. We'll see how it plays out.

And what happened to Reagan Dunn? He is the model that Sec. of State Sam Reed has declared as the only winnable Republican candidate model in a statewide contest---moderate.

Dunn will make the November ballot for Attorney General, but only as a distant 2nd primary winner. Conservative Steve Pidgeon drew nearly 10% of the vote, but will not make the general election. Even if all the Pidgeon votes, and they won't, would go to Dunn in the general election, he still would not win.

In state legislative districts many conservative representatives and senators did well, some not as well as hoped.

There is much work to be done. I am confident conservatives and people of faith will rise to the challenge to defend marriage and set our state, communities and nation on a different and better course in November. However, let me repeat, there is much work to be done.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active.


  1. Given the control of the state by folks west of the Cascades, there is little value in a conservative vote by those east of the Cascades. It's an exercise in futility when it comes to voting on statewide issues or candidates. I'm not quite sure why we even have a vote on such issues since it's a forgone conclusion that the way the state will go is the way Seattle/Olympia will vote -- which is predominately the same way San Francisco votes.

  2. Shame on Dwight for having a "beer in hand"....

    And shame on Jesus for turning the water into high quality wine...

    And shame on God for telling us we can buy liquor and wine, etc. when we go to the festival... (Deut 14:26ff).

    1. Come on patrick , add to the conversation . Exchange of ideas does not have to mean the constant hate of anothers.

    2. Anon 12:17

      That was the point - Gary and I suspect yourself have constant hate of another's idea - and that is why Gary dropped this snippy little beer comment into his blog.

      Wasn't that sort of obvious....??

  3. Patrick, shame on you for allowing your hate toward Gary and others who oppose your beliefs, be directed at God. My friend, you need a reality check.

    1. Your statement doesn't make any sense. Scripture calls us to reason together. I would appreciate if you would.

      Have you actually read the text I cited?? Did you actually understand Gary's snippy little attack about the beer??

  4. Ahh, Missouri's Measure 2. Touted as allowing children the pray at school and allowing schools display the bill of rights.

    Huh? Kids can already pray at school and schools can already post the bill of rights. Isn't this just a big waste of time protecting rights that are already protected? Are these Missourians so stupid they didn't know that?

    Nope. The real meat of the bill wasn't touted. It gives students the right to refuse to participate in any assignments that are contrary to their religious beliefs. Wow!

    Geology paper on rock formations that are 'millions' of years old? Not for my kids. The earth's only 6,000 years old.

    Homework on plate tectonics? Nope, won't do it.

    Study in biology of the similarity of the human genome and that of the ape? Are you kidding? Walkin' out that class.

    I'd say it protects the right to remain uneducated more than anything. Just what the south needs.

    1. Interesting , because there are many differing opinions based on evolution , from even among those who actualy believe in athesistic evolution. Even such things as the possibility of a an Intelligent designer are kept out of the classrooms while speculation on other theories of course are allowed. . So your not giving the whole picture. Science has limited in many cases do to a PC concept of science. There have been many examples in the past of frauds and the use of discovery based on falsifying information .

      Seems if you were as concerned about that , you might have had a chance of making a point , but using your comments to attempt to make those who see the discussion as being limited and skewed you make their point . Your only blogging here because of your prejudice views and idealogy. Seems your science is based on that .

  5. Ufortunately, any time a further right is enshrined in an amendment (state or federal), the government starts believing that it is the granter of those rights - rather than the protector of them. [This was, indeed, an argument against the implementation of the Bill of Rights. It was not that the rights in them were opposed, but rather, that writing them down as amendments would lead to eventual loss of libterty as the government would see itself as the moderator of those rights].

    Consider Candada, where the government 'grants' rights to the people so long as it is in societies best interest- vs. America, where we have natural rights, and the government merely protects them.

    As such, while the amendment itself is great and may even curb current abuses, it may lead to further abuses down the road. For example, what if other states look at it and say "we do *not* have a right to pray amendment, therefore we can ban prayer [Which they have done in some instances anyway]". The right to prayer is already enshrined under the first amendment - that congress shall make *no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or *prohibiting the free excercise* thereof.

    Actually, it used to be that states *could* set their own rules on religion, so I suppose in that sense states could promote or ban prayer as they pleased and the majority ruled. But the 14th amendment is generally held to bind the states to the Bill of Rights, and so they must allow freedom of religion as well [freedom of worship/conscience being the most important priveledge a man has, moreso even than life, as attested through history by the jews against Vitellias or Petronias, or the multitudes of Christian martyrs, who would rather die than violate the tenents of their faith].

    The amendment to protect prayer, brought in as a defense against those who do not follow theconstitution already, will not protect against those who will then decide that 'only' amendments to protect prayer may then save it.

    Since we already have protection for prayer [the constitution], and an amednment is naturally harder to pass, especially in secular states. they would have done far better to pass a resolution/statement, referencing history [Such as Jefferson and other preidents attending church in government buildings, resolutions of the government regarding religion, etc], past court cases [Such as Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the United States], the constitution, etc, to the effect that it was aknowledges that they had no power to interfere with the free excercise of religion, especial a priveledge and religious liberty so fundamental and beneficial to society as prayer.

    1. Good points. Perhaps I disagree with the Bill of Rights, since it was really written to limit the ability of government to impede on the rights of the citizens , not to provide rights .

      The Constitution would not have been ratified without the Bill of rights becausee of people not wanting the Feds to be able to do so .

      I think that was possibly caused this bill to be passed, the growth of government becoming so influenial in all of our lives it is seen to be impeding on our rights .

      Double edged sword, thanks for your comments .


  6. 10:07 You personify the elitism of the secular left. That's whats wrong in our country today. Your view has dominated over the past 50 years and look where it has gotten us. Are we living in an enlightened age or a dark age? Looks dark when you look at the crime and poverty statistics.

    1. That is pure baloney - the right has been the primary force dominating our country - your are listening the on-going evangelical right victimization media crying poor me while they are pounding everyone who disagrees with them into oblivion and destroying our country with their evil. No different back when they supported slavery and prohibition of woman's right to vote and the prohibition of alcohol, etc., etc.,, etc. ad nauseum. The evangelical right is always on the wrong side of Jesus Christ - just like their forefathers, the Pharisees who crucified Jesus. Count on it!

    2. Patrick,

      You are correct. I'd like these folks to point out just one time when religion opposed expanding civil rights and, in reflection, religion was correct.

      It's like the old definition of insanity. You know, doing the same thing over and over, etc.

  7. Anonymous - I was my highschool valedictorian, and several years in education beyond my peers throughout school. I skipped tenth grade, started taking college classes at 14, was on the Hi-Q team and won several awards and scholarships - do not mix up "blindly following what the teacher says" with "uneducated".

    I first encountered the theory of evolution in third grade, as my teacher presented a lecture on it. After her lecture she opened for questions. I got to ask three, since no one else ever raised their hands. 1) Where the animals came from ["From the matter and goo in the sea"] 2) "Where did that come from?" ["From the matter in the sky"]
    3) "Where did the matter in the sky come from? ["Are you trying to bring GOD into this??!!"]
    She grew angry and held me after class [And besides one time in 2nd grade where I was held in at recess for attending a *legal* christian school off campus, and one time out in kindergarten, I never got in trouble].

    After class, she broke down into tears, and told me never to start asking questions like that again. She said she would be fired if the school even thought she was trying to bring God into a lecture. [Since I hadn't brought up God in my questioning, my only conclusion here was that if the theory was so shaky as to not be able to stand up to questioning, and God was the only other alternative, I had a far greater faith in God than a theory that ran away from scientific inquiry].

    In 6th grade I studied the matter more intently, both evidences for creation and evidences for evolution, until eeventually I could debate both sides well [which was my usual method of studying an issue, unless I could play devils advocate and understand the opposing argument well enough to debate it, rather than build strawman arguments [like the faulty 'watchmaker' one so often used] then I don't feel I understand it well enough.

    By highschool I knew the theory better than my teachers, and was pointing out that their textbooks were out of date - including material that had been proven hoaxes, or been updated, even by their own scientists.

    Indeed, it has never been the study of evolution as a theory that troubles me, but study of it as *fact* - especially with all of its abuse of the scientific method, logic loopholes, circular reasoning, etc.

    For example, when I was in college and taking geology, we all we to do a paper reviewing a study. I chose an interesting study in which some scientists, do to the advancement of equipement in the 1970s (in this case, mass spectrometers), were now able to more accurately measure the decay of carbon in fossils and to account for contamination. They chose to test the hypothesis that there would be no C14 found in fossils millions of years old - a hypothesis that would have harder to test 50 years ago given available equipment, but quite possible now.

    Quite against the common expectation, they did find levels of carbon in all the fossil measurements - of which ground contamination and atmospheric could not account for, and measurable above that of their control [a carbon blank/graphite]. I concluded with the statement that the results would need to be replicated in other studies of similar nature before any further conclusions could be reached.

    My teacher gave me an A on the paper, with the note that why my analysis had been rigourous and she had found "nothing wrong with the study itself [as in, errors they had made such as bias or too few samples]" - the "scientists were crackpots!" to even attempt to go against such a "well accepted" (but not tested..) hypothesis.
    She sent me a link to a theistic evolution site where I could "reconcile the science with my faith".

  8. As for plate tectonics, the first person to ever forward that theory was a Christian, whose idea was that the flood causes plate tectonics (Ander Snider Pelligrini, though there were those who proposed a supercontinent before him, he is the first that I know of who proposed tectonics and continental drift). While I am not familiar with his particulars, the sum of his theory is a plausible explanation given the geological state of the current world.

    While it is too long a theory to delve into, it is quite simple, based on natural processes which we know, and the eviddence of the world we see, to derive both a worldwide flood and the current tectonic actions from a sequence of events: namely, the breakup of a comet or an asteroid shower over the earth, seismic activity and volcanic activity increased due to the impacts, as well [and the most important] the triggering of the subduction of one of the earth's ocean's plates under a continental edge. Seismic activity increases exponentially, geysers spring up all over, the supercontinent begins to break up, and all the ocean plates begin to subduct.

    The cool ocean floors begin to sink, and hot magma spills through the gap forming new ocean floors atop them. These hot ocean floors catapault upwards 3000 ft, before eventually cooling and sinking to form new ocean floors.
    Indeed, it is this process which the mantle shows more evidence of through therml imaging.

    But I digress:

    I was once asked to identify the time elasped between two *photos* - naturally it could not have been more than 100 years or so (being taken by human cameras. The photo looked like an eruption). Yet the "correct" answer was "10,000" years, due to erosion.

    And this was the same in *every* instance I faced evolution in school, and for big bang cosmology as well. It was not simply a matter of learning the theory or telling what processes were involved. There was always some hoax, some error, some intrusion into personal rights [i.e. You *must* believe this, without the hypothesis being tested], some circular reasoning. It was the opposite of learning the scientific method [which I approve of highly] which informs you to test, to be unbiased, that hypothesis must be falsifiable and can only be proven false, never true - instead, the big bang is assumed true, and despite its hypothesis being proven wrong more than 15 times, simply remodified and still taught as fact. Evolution, in the same way, assumes it is fact despite initial hypothesis being proved incorrect or remaining unsupported, refuses to accept the failure of other hypothesis, and builds yet other hypothesis not on actual observable, falsifiable evidences but on shaky assumptions and wants, far removed from the theories inital intent.

    I would need a great deal of wishful thinking, and a great deal more blind trust, to follow such a theory.

    And consider this:

    If the teachers must teach it, and the students must learn it, and it is *correct*, then they have learned something good - but if the theory is *wrong*, then society has destroyed the inellect of future generations; not only in that they have taught a flawed theory as right, and so set back science and progress, but in that they have taught the children not to think or question, to bully their peers who believe differently, and to discard the scientific method when it comes to "approved" theories.

    1. Wow! Well said!

      Craig in Lacey

  9. Gary,

    Please do not insult us by pushing R74 when you do not address Fuiten's and Backholm's attacks on I-1192, on Stephen Pidgeon and on Christian values. I remind you that Fuiten attacked the Christians who ran the R71 campaign on the grounds that they based the campaign on Christian values.

    How can you support this? How can you ask Christians to support a campaign being run by political operators who attack Christians?

  10. I love these long, 'fact based' responses detailing your evidence that the accepted scientific meme is flawed.

    I love the discussion.

    But you miss the point. There will now be a boatload of kids in Missouri who will never be exposed to scientific discovery because their parents believe the world is a few thousand years old and the state just decided that that's the only thing ever need to hear.

    1. should have read "that's the only thing they ever need to hear." Can't proof my own writing, apparently.

    2. I think the guys point was it's not a "scientific" theory or discovery at all. Evolution is a religion with man as god. That's all.

      Craig in Lacey

    3. You're right, and sadly Thor gets very upset when people worship themselves. When you hear thunder, it's probably because school's teach evolution.

  11. 5:19 You should not be insulted by Gary working to overturn the gay marriage law. He is not supporting Backholm or Fuiten, he is supporting marriage. It is bigger than any individual. I'm sure you know that Gary led in gathering more signatures for I-1192 than any other single organization. Faith and Freedom gathered nearly half of all signatures. You may also recall that Gary and Larry Stickney bore the brunt Joe Fuiten's attack on R-71. Hope this helps. I work very closely with Gary and Faith and Freedom.

  12. Gary is doing the right thing by supporting R-74. We have to rise above the personalities involved on something as important as marriage. You are doing the right thing Gary, and I support you 100%.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.