Obama’s Ungodly Youth Corp

by Chuck Ness

What is it about socialists, that makes them despise religion? It seems that whenever a Socialists wins an election that gives them the ultimate power in a country, the first thing they try to do is remove religion as a force in that society.

 Oh it’s not done in a way that the people realize it is happening. No, it’s more covert and insidious in the way it is brought about. Usually it’s done right under the noses of the very people who claim their ruler would never do such a thing. In America, religious persecution by the government has been brewing for a few generations.

The shot over the bow of religion was fired by Hugo Black, a former Ku Klux Klan member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR. In 1947 when Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion for Everson vs. Board of Education. High Black reinterpreted the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution by taking completely out of context a phrase used by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. By using the phrase, separation of church and state, Justice Black interpreted that Jefferson meant that religious liberty of Americans, does not include their right of expressing it in any way that would interfere any government institution.  

After 62 years of constant government attack, Obama, the Democrats, and many Republicans passed the law Obama and his Communist Cronies wanted. The law in essence amended Bill Clinton's  AmeriCorps program, that was originally established in 1993. The full name of Obama''s reorganizing of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorp, was originally a reorganizing of what JFK stated, with we all know as the "Jobs Corp,Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act known or GIVE, is also known as the, The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws.” This Bill will for all intents and purpose combine JFK’s Peace Corps and WJC’s AmeriCorps with Obamas new Youth Brigades. The idea is to create a volunteer movement among the junior high, high school, and College aged youth of America. This movement will be a precursor of his larger plan for a civilian national security force thats just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military. Obamas plan begins with his requirement that anyone receiving school loans or who volunteer to serve at least three months as part of the brigade.

This all sounds fairley innocuous until you read the part of the bill that forbids any student in the program to participate in religious activities. The exact wording from section 132A of HR 1388 is as follows. Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization. In layman’s terms that means, All members of the Corp are not allowed to no attend church services of any kind and never are they to witness about their faith to others.

My biggest frustration in seeing this the law come about, is how the Republicans did not even attempted to stop or change this religiously poisonous Bill. So with a stroke of his pen, Obama has told God to leave our children alone. Hitler did a similar thing when he told the church to worry about God and that he would take care of the people. Now we could argue about whether Obama is a communist or if he is a fascist, personally I do not see too much difference between the two philosophy’s. Eventually both destroy the will of men, because politically, both ideologies strive for an omnipotent, totalitarian, bureaucratic state. They also attempt to replace God with the state by contending that that man exists for the State. Economically, communism abolishes private property, while fascism maintains it, but nationalizes the most important industries and the principal banks. (sound familiar?) When it come to religion, communism attempts to destroy all forms of religion. Fascism on the other hand could care less about most religions, but will ands must destroy Christianity, because it is the only religion who’s devout followers have proved through the years they will not reject their God.

That has been the greatest obstacle for those who have constantly tried to move America from capitalism to socialism. The fathers of this great nation based the constitution upon the values derived from Christianity. They started a tradition where they began all official government business with prayers to a Christian God. The children were raised to know and believe in the Christian God. For many years, the Bible was the only reading material in most of the schools of early America. Eventually, thanks to Hugo Black, the Bible, Christian literature, prayer and even the name of Christ have been banned from the schools our children attend. Now, our children will be told they cannot even go to church as long as they are taking government money to go to school, or if they volunteer for Obama’s Youth Brigade.

In my preparation for writing the article, I looked at two very important facts behind the creation of this Bill: 
1.) What most legislators probably thought the intent of the law was, compared to; 
2.) What was the original intent of the author and creators of the Bill. (Obama and his administration)

The intent of many of the legislators who voted for the Bill was to limit the volunteer services to completely secular endeavors - in keeping with the authors understanding of the constitutional requirement for religious neutrality. However the original intent of the Creators of the Bill was to ban all participation in religious activities regardless of when that activity took place. Remember Courts are constantly ruling upon "original Intent" when they interpret a law. 

In my article I should have pointed out the original language before it was changed to give the reader an understanding of the authors original intent. In court, a judge will look at original intent of the legislation like Justice Black claimed he did in his landmark case. In this present case of HR1388, the original intent of the authors was to ban all religious activity regardless of when it took place. 

You will notice that the original language in the Bill was as follows; 
‘SEC. 132A. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- "A participant in" an approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities:

Now in the revised legislation the phrase ""A participant in" was removed, and now says; 
(a) Prohibited Activities- An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities:

Now, I agree the original language was dropped from the final Bill, and that is where I made the error in my claim. I stand corrected on this. 

However, my point is when you look at the "Original Intent" of the legislation and you look at the history of the court since Justice Black wrote his majority opinion. Remember, Justice Black claimed that while it was not written in the constitution, Thomas Jefferson's letter proves what the intent of the Constitution was toward religion by the Founding fathers. Even though Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as a United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, Justice Black wrote his opinion on what Jefferson wrote in a letter to a church. 

So you can see how Justice Black used his understanding of what the "original intent" was, by making his opinion based on something that had no bearing at all on the writers of the constitution. That is how we got the "Separation of Church and State" clause we are bound by. Since then activist judges have gone out of their way to find any reason to claim the intent of a law is what they want it to be.

These activist judges have shown time and time again that they have no problem using non Constitutional literature to base their opinions on such intent, just as as Hugo Black did. For us those of us who pay attention to the Supreme Court, we only have to look at a few members of the current members of the Supreme Court who admit they look to foreign laws to base their opinions upon. (These Judges prove the saying that "some people are educated beyond their intelligence") I ask you, where in the constitution, or even in the federalist papers, does the Founding Fathers say we should look to foreign laws to interpret what they themselves wrote? That is why I worry what a court may rule about on this legislation. 

One more thing to think about on "original intent" and this legislation. Obama only needs one more liberal Judge on the Supreme Court to tip the balance in his favor. Now I admit that I made an error in my assertion about the extent of this Bill's control, but with the precarious balance on the Supreme Court, we are only one bad ruling away from being what I erroneously claimed in my article. 

Now I would like you to take in consideration this next bit of information that proves without a doubt that this legislation is unconstitutional already. The very wording in the portion of this bill in question makes it unconstitutional. 

When you look at what the EEOC says about limiting religious freedom in the workplace, you will come to the same conclusion I have. Courts have upheld the rights for free religious expression even in the workplace as long as they do not interfere with anyone's ability to properly carry out their task. Here is what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), says on religious freedom at the workplace. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964
(“Title VII”)
prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that: 
* Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
* Employees cannot be required to participate -- or refrain from participating – in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
* Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
* Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
* Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.3

Now, we know that liberals often claim that proselytizing at work is not allowed. However, while the law is constantly changing with every new court challenge, it is currently permissible to a point. An employee does have a right to engage in religious conduct to the extent that it is not an undue hardship on the employer. Harassing another employee is likely to be an undue hardship. The bar proving harassment is a fairly high - but not an impossible - standard. So, while the line between permissible proselytizing and workplace harassment is blurry, important factors that bear on the analysis include, 
* the pervasiveness of the proselytizing
* its impact on coworkers (e.g., harassing them) and work performance (including profitability)and
* the capacity and willingness of the employer to take steps to accommodate the aggrieved parties, such as by moving the proselytizing employee and the offended employee to different work stations.

The Supreme Court, and lower courts have routinely upheld the language of the EEOC regulations on Freedom of religion in the workplace. The language in the legislation that Obama signed into law is not only unconstitutional, but it goes against the very laws put forth by the EEOC. 

What this Bill represents is the over-reaching of an administration that wants to get it all done in the first 3 months, so we end up with an 86 page, shoddily written document that leaves way too much open for interpretation. It is my belief that this legislation is unconstitutional in the way it is written, and will face a court challenge in the future. If history is any indicator we can expect different judges to rule differently. I for one will not be surprised if this legislation eventually leads to more religious persecution by the government.