Why Phil Robertson's Comments Are More Popular Than You Think

1. Conservatives have rallied to Phil Robertson's defense, arguing that employers should not be allowed to fire someone for making homophobic remarks.
2. Conservatives oppose passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, because they  believe employers should continue to be allowed to fire someone for being gay.

To recap: It's the gays who should be fired, not the people who make bigoted remarks about them.

Sign the petition: Tell House Republicans to join the 21st century and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

2013: Op-Ed's used as propaganda

• The Wall Street Journal has repeatedly published op-ed pieces related to environmental issues without noting that the op-ed's writers were tied to industries affected by environmental regulation.
• The Wall Street Journal and Las Vegas Review-Journal published op-eds from the Employment Policies Institute to push claims about labor issues without noting the group is closely connected to the fast food industry.
• FoxNews.com published an op-ed from Colin Hanna arguing against film industry regulation without   disclosing his organization has received money to promote the film industry.
• The New York Times published an op-ed defending cable broadband without noting the writer's group has received money from the cable industry's chief lobbying group.
• USA Today published an op-ed from a group attacking Media Matters for purportedly engaging "in the 21st century's version of book burning" by "target[ing] advertisers on shows such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News." The paper didn't disclose that the group receives financial support from the very media companies that have a business interest in preventing such actions.

RAPID RESPONSE: ISSA'S LATEST SELECTIVE LEAK ON HEALTHCARE.GOV

Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a statement regarding an ABC News report that relied on partial leaks from Committee Chairman Darrell Issa of selective transcript excerpts of an interview with Teresa Fryer, the Chief Information Security Officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  Although Chairman Issa leaked portions indicating that Ms. Fryer recommended against issuing a Authority to Operate (ATO) the Healthcare.gov website on September 20, key details from her transcript were omitted, including Ms. Fryer’s explanation that strong mitigation measures were put in place by September 27, that she viewed these measures as “best practices above and beyond what is usually recommended,” and that there have been no security breaches of the website.

“Chairman Issa’s reckless pattern of leaking partial and misleading information is now legendary for omitting key information that directly contradicts his political narrative,” said Cummings. “In this case, the very same witness interviewed by the Committee also said there have been absolutely no security breaches of the website and that she is satisfied with the current security testing.   This effort to leak cherry-picked information is part of a deliberate campaign to scare the American people and deny them the quality affordable health insurance to which they are entitled under the law.”

The Facts Chairman Issa Omitted:

·        Ms. Fryer stated on multiple occasions during her interview with the Committee thatthere have been “no successful breaches” of the Healthcare.gov website:
“All systems are susceptible to attacks.  There have been no successful attempts of any of these types of attacks.”
When pressed further by Chairman Issa directly, Ms. Fryer responded again:  “There have been no successful – no successful breaches, security incidents.”

·        Ms. Fryer stated repeatedly that the systems “exceed” the standards set by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) pursuant to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA):

Q:        Are there any other ways in which the Federally Facilitated Marketplace or data hub exceed what FISMA requires?

  A:        Just the, as I stated earlier, the added protections that we have put into place in accordance with the risk decision memo.  So there are best practices above and beyond what is usually recommended that we have put into place because the marketplace is such a complex and obviously high visible system.

·        Ms. Fryer confirmed that, based on her experience, some of these mitigation strategies are “beyond best practices”:

  Q:        So to sum up, the security team is in place, the continuous monitoring and weekly testing of border devices is in place, the daily, weekly scans are being done and those are all consistent with IT best practices?

A:        Yes.

 Q:        And then on top of the other mitigation efforts, there is a whole new SCA that is currently being conducted 3 months after the first testing.  Is that correct?

A:        Yes.

 Q:        So, what I hear from you is that the mitigation strategies are being implemented in accordance with best practices, in some case beyond best   practices, and in accordance with the 9/27 ATO, correct?

A:        Yes.

·        Ms. Fryer described “three layers” of security protecting the marketplace from bad actors:

Q:        And does CMS have a security framework in place to quickly catch bad actors as they try to penetrate the agency’s IT systems?

  A:        Yes, so we have several layers of protection.  We have continuous monitoring tools, and there are several layers of protection.  The marketplace security team has processes and procedures in place, as well as my group, the Enterprise Information Security Group, has also tools and processes in place.

 Q:        So layers, you said three layers of security?

  A:        There are three layers.  There’s the actual application security layer, then there is the marketplace security that’s the day-to-day activities, and then there is my group, who is the enterprise-wide security that’s in place as well.

Q:        And any one of these layers could potentially detect a bad actor if they were attempting to breach the system?

A:        Yes.

·        Ms. Fryer stated that she recommended not approving the ATO on September 20, but at the time she was not taking into account the mitigation strategies later set forth in the ATO on September 27, including the establishment of a dedicated security team, weekly testing of all border devices, and daily security scans using CMS’ continuous monitoring tools:

Q:        So your recommendation was based solely on the findings from the SCA, not in light of the mitigation strategy in the 9/27 memo?

A:        Yes.

·        Ms. Fryer stated that she is “satisfied” with current security testing, which is being conducted in accordance with the ATO issued on September 27, 2013.  The ATO required that CMS “conduct a full SCA test on FFM (E&E, FM, and PM) in a stable environment where all security controls can be tested.”

·        Ms. Fryer explained that it is “very common for systems to go into operation with low and moderate findings” as was done in the marketplace.  She also confirmed that Mitre closed all of its “high risk” findings during the testing period. 

·        Ms. Fryer stated that she did not object to the recommendation of Tony Trenkle, the CMS Chief Information Officer (CIO), to move forward with the ATO on September 27:

Q:        So when Tony Trenkle indicated to you that he planned to proceed with the authority to operate this 9/27 memo and get authorization from  Administrator Tavenner, did you object to his decision?

A:        No, I did not.  That was his decision, to move forward with this plan.

Q:        So you didn’t tell him he was doing the wrong thing?

A:        No.

·        Ms. Fryer stated that Mr. Trenkle, in his capacity as CIO, had a broader perspectiveand under NIST, he was charged with balancing the mission of the agency and the business functions of the system.

Q:        When reviewing the systems and making the evaluation about whether to authorize the authority to operate, the CIO has a broader perspective than you do; is that accurate?

A:        Yes.

Q:        And do you know what other information feeds into the CIO’s decision?

A:        Other risks, such as enterprise-wide security risks.  An authorizing official looks at the other risks, as, like I testified earlier, in NIST they take into account the mission of the agency, the business functions of the system, what the system is intended to do. So they have to look at and balance those various types of risks.

Q:        Because fundamentally NIST is a balancing test of risk that’s always inherent in every system and the need for the system to function?

A:        Yes.  That’s why they call it a risk-based decision for an authority to operate.

·        Ms. Fryer recalled several other instances during the two years since she has been at CMS when her recommendations on unrelated ATOs were not accepted.

·        During his own transcribed interview with Committee staff, Mr. Trenkle—who has decades of experience with IT systems and was not a political appointee—stated that the mitigation strategy addressed the risks outlined in the ATO on September 27:

Q:        So as long as the mitigation strategy described in the memo was carried out, you considered that it was, it would be sufficient to mitigate the risks described in the memo?

A:        Yes.

·        In fact, just yesterday, Darrin Lyles, an Information Systems Security Officer at CMS, stated during his own transcribed interview with Committee staff that there are no open high findings.

Pope Francis continues to preach reform at first Christmas mass

“In our personal history, too, there are both bright and dark moments, lights and shadows. If we love God and our brothers and sisters, we walk in the light,” he said.

“But if our heart is closed, if we are dominated by pride, deceit, self-seeking, then darkness falls within us, and around us. Whoever hates his brother — writes the Apostle John — is in the darkness; he walks in the darkness, and does not know the way to go, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.”

The "Duck Dynasty" Saga

By now, I’m sure you’ve heard all the controversy about Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson. For Robertson, it wasn’t enough to play a redneck on television. He had to go out and prove he really was one.

In a mind-boggling interview with GQ magazine, Robertson first identified himself as a Christian – and then went on to smear gays, insisting homosexuality was a sin and equating it with bestiality, adultery, idolatry, and prostitution.

He then proceeded to argue that the days of segregation were actually happy days for black people. Growing up in the South, he  said, he heard blacks singing in the fields and never heard one black person complain about conditions they lived in and under.

For his comments, Robertson was suspended by the A&E Network. But now Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives have come to his defense, insisting his First Amendment rights were violated and he’s a victim of anti-Christian hatred.

Nonsense to both. As compulsive as Robertson’s comments were, nobody says he didn’t have a right to say them. But his boss also has a right to fire him.

He’s no Christian victim, either. Whether Robertson realizes it or not, not all Christians are homophobic bigots like him.

BTW they are yuppie fakes and not white trash they play on TV 

Dear ‘Duck Dynasty’ Fans: You Do Know It’s All Fake, Right?

When Christmas Was Banned

Outlawing the celebration of Christmas sounds a little extreme, but it happened. The ban existed as law for only 22 years, but disapproval of the Christmas celebration took many more years to change. In fact, it wasn't until the mid-1800s that celebrating Christmas became fashionable in the Boston region. The Puritans who immigrated to Massachusetts to build a new life had several reason for disliking Christmas. First of all, it reminded them of the Church of England and the old-world customs, which they were trying to escape. Second, they didn't consider the holiday a truly religious day. December 25th wasn't selected as the birth date of Christ until several centuries after his death. Third, the holiday celebration usually included drinking, feasting, and playing games - all things the Puritans frowned upon. One such tradition, "wassailing", occasionally turned violent. The custom entailed people of a lower economic class visiting wealthier community members and begging, or demanding, food and drink in return for toasts to their hosts' health. If a host refused, there was the threat of retribution. Although rare, there were cases of wassailing in early New England. Fourth, the British had been applying pressure on the Puritans to conform to English customs. The ban was probably as much a political choice as it was a religious one for many. "For preventing disorders, arising in several places within this jurisdiction by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other communities, to the great dishonor of God and offense of others: it is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shilling as a fine to the county." From the records of the General Court, Massachusetts Bay Colony May 11, 1659 Records indicate the first Christmas the Puritans celebrated in the new world passed uneventfully. Some of the new settlers celebrated Christmas while others did not. But the events of the second Christmas were documented by the group's governor, William Bradford. Sickness had wiped out many of their group, and for the first time they were facing hostility by one of the Native American tribes in the area. Bradford recorded that on the morning of the 25th, he had called everyone out to work, but some men from the newly arrived ship "Fortune" told him it was against their conscience to work on Christmas. He responded he would spare them "until they were better informed." But when he returned at noon, he found them playing games in the street. His response, as noted in his writings, was: "If they made the keeping of it matter of devotion, let them kepe their houses, but there should be no gameing or revelling in the streets." That second Christmas was the first time the celebration was forbidden in Massachusetts, but the ban didn't make it into the law books until several years later. As the settlement grew and more English settled in the area, tensions grew between the Puritans and British. The more pressure the English king exerted on the colonists, the more they resisted. In 1659, the ban became official. The General Court banned the celebration of Christmas and other such holidays at the same time it banned gambling and other lawless behavior, grouping all such behaviors together. The court placed a fine of five shillings on anyone caught feasting or celebrating the holiday in another manner. "The generality of Christmas-keepers observe that festival after such a manner as is highly dishonourable to the name of Christ. How few are there comparatively that spend those holidays (as they are called) after an holy manner. But they are consumed in Compotations, in Interludes, in playing at Cards, in Revellings, in excess of Wine, in mad Mirth ..." - Reverend Increase Mather, 1687 The ban was revoked in 1681 by an English-appointed governor, Sir Edmund Andros, who also revoked a Puritan ban against festivities on Saturday night. But even after the ban was lifted, the majority of colonists still abstained from celebrations. Samuel Sewell, whose diary of life in Massachusetts Bay Colony was later published, made a habit of watching the holiday—specifically how it was observed—each year. "Carts came to town and Shops open as is usual. Some, somehow, observe the day; but are vexed, I believe, that the Body of the People profane it, and, blessed be God! no Authority yet to compell them to keep it," Sewell wrote in 1685.

Laws suppressing the celebration of Christmas were repealed in 1681,^[4] but staunch Puritans continued to regard the day as an abomination.^[6] Eighteenth century New Englanders viewed Christmas as the representation of royal officialdom, external interference in local affairs, dissolute behavior, and an impediment to their holy mission.

During Anglican Governor Sir Edmund Andros tenure (December 20, 1686 – April 18, 1689), for example, the royal government closed Boston shops on Christmas Day and drove the schoolmaster out of town for a forced holiday. Following Andros' overthrow, however, the Puritan view reasserted itself and shops remained open for business as usual on Christmas with goods such as hay and wood being brought into Boston as on any other work day.^[7]

With such an onus placed upon Christmas, non-Puritans in colonial New England made no attempt to celebrate the day. Many spent the day quietly at home. In 1771, Anna Winslow, an American schoolgirl visiting Boston noted in her diary, "I kept Christmas at home this year, and did a good day's work."^[6]

Although Christmas celebrations were legal after 1680, New England officials continued to frown upon gift giving and reveling. Evergreen decoration, associated with pagan custom, was expressly forbidden in Puritan meeting houses and discouraged in the New England home.^[8] Merrymakers were prosecuted for disturbing the peace. The Puritan view was tenacious. As late as 1870, classes were scheduled in Boston public schools on Christmas Day and punishments were doled out to children who chose to stay home beneath the Christmas tree.^[8][9] One commentator hinted that the Puritans viewed Santa Claus as the Anti-Christ.^[10]

In the aftermath of the American Civil War, Christmas became the festival highpoint of the American calendar. The day became a Federal holiday in 1870 under President Ulysses S. Grant in an attempt to unite north and south. The Puritan hostility to Christmas was gradually relaxed. In the late nineteenth century, authors praised the holiday for its liberality, family togetherness, and joyful observance.^[8] In 1887, for example, St. Nicholas Magazine published a story about a sickly Puritan boy of 1635 being restored to health when his mother brings him a bough of Christmas greenery.^[8]

One commentator suggested the Puritans had actually done the day a service in reviling the gaming, dissipation, and sporting in its observation.^[10] When the day's less pleasant associations were stripped away, Americans recreated the day according to their tastes and times. The doctrines that caused the Puritans to regard the day with disapprobation were modified and the day was rescued from its traditional excesses of behavior. Christmas was reshaped in late nineteenth century America with liberal Protestantism and spirituality, commercialism, artisanship, nostalgia, and hope becoming the day's distinguishing characteristics.^[11]

A North Carolina Presbyterian Church, will kick you out, for just knowing someone who is Gay

A Christian school in North Carolina affiliated with a Presbyterian Church made headlines this week when it released a policy that says it seeks to refuse admission to students if the student or someone in the student's family supports equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.

 

Note that this not a school associated with some fringe church. It is affiliated with a Presbyterian church, Myrtle Grove Evangelical Presbyterian Church. 

The school's policy reads in part: This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, participating in, supporting, or affirming sexual immorality, homosexual activity, or bisexual activity; promoting such practices; or being unable to support the moral principles of the school.

During the previous two years, Faith In America has been observing a disturbing trend in which the anti-gay religious forces are intensifying their efforts to give spiritual legitimacy to religion-based bigotry toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals.

We have seen in recent days the United Methodist Church stepping up its efforts to put on trial pastors in that denomination who bless same-sex weddings. 

We have also seen how America's anti-gay religious industry is exporting its religion-based bigotry to other areas around the globe – particularly Russia.

When James Dobson, former president of the anti-gay Focus on the Family, said three years ago that the culture war had been lost, many may have thought that the anti-gay religious industry was conceding defeat. Today that would appear a mistaken analysis. Instead, Dobson's words most likely were meant as a wake-up call for the anti-gay religious industry to intensify efforts to place its religious and moral stamp of rejection and condemnation on gay and lesbian people. It seems to be heeding that call.

When we see churches within these "moderate" Methodist and Presbyterian denominations promoting harm toward innocent people, it should serve as a wake-up call for those advancing a much different religious perspective on sexual orientation.

Faith In America is answering that call and we hope you will join us.

You can start by sharing our message about this new religious perspective and our call to end the immense harm caused by religion-based bigotry. Visit this page and learn and how you can help by simply sharing the name and address of someone you would like us to send the materials.

We hope the pastor and congregants at Myrtle Grove Evangelical Presbyterian Church pause for a moment when they pray this morning to think about the immense emotional, psychological and spiritual harm caused to LGBT youth and their families.

Many of these families have lost a child due to this harm  – a horrible situation that is being committed in the name of Christ's love and understanding. Myrtle Grove Evangelical Presbyterian Church is making a mockery of that love and understanding.

Join our efforts to send a much different message and help us end religion-based bigotry's grotesque harm.