The GOP would not be in control of the Senate if evangelicals did not to show up at the polls for the mid-term election.   More info from the Faith and Freedom Coalition:

Evangelical Vote Played Decisive Role in GOP Wave in 2014 According to Post-Election Survey

Self-Identified Conservative Christians Comprised Record Share of the Electorate, Backed GOP Candidates by 8 to 1 Margin

Conservative Christians made up almost one out of every three voters in the 2014 electorate, playing a decisive role in the Republican wave that resulted in control of the U.S. Senate, a record majority in the U.S. House, and critical victories in governors’ races, according to a post-election survey.

The poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, shows that self-identified conservative Christians made up 32 percent of the electorate and voted 86 percent Republican and only 12 percent Democrat. These voters contributed roughly 52.4 percent of all the votes received by Republican candidates. White evangelicals, meanwhile, made up 23 percent of the electorate and voted 82 percent Republican and 18 percent Democratic, according to the survey.

“Conservative voters of faith were the largest constituency in the electorate in 2014,” said Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition. “Their share of the electorate exceeded that of the African-American vote, Hispanic vote, and union vote combined. Religious conservative voters and the issues they care about are here to stay. They will be equally vital in 2016. Politicians of both parties ignore this constituency at their peril.”

Faithful Roman Catholic voters also contributed to the wave election, comprising 9 percent of the electorate and voting 70 percent Republican and 30 percent Democrat.
Glen Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies, which conducted the survey, commented on the findings. “Republicans rode the wave last night to stunning victories. Waves come from a committed base and a strong showing among swing voters,” Bolger said. “Voters of faith— Protestant and Catholic—are the foundation of the GOP. Without their overwhelming support, there is no GOP majority. With their support, Republicans are celebrating a high tide in the U.S. Senate, House, and around the country.”

Faith & Freedom Coalition made 102 million voter contacts in 2014 in key states, including mailing voter educational mail pieces to 6 million evangelical voters, making 10 million get-out-the-vote calls, distributing 20 million voter guides in 117,000 churches, emailing or texting 4.6 million voters, running 16 million online video advertisements, and deploying hundreds of volunteers who visited 500,000 homes of faith-based voters. It was the largest voter education and GOTV effort directed at faith-based voters in a midterm election in modern political history.

 I’d like to begin by emphasizing that I do not endorse bullying or violence by anyone, and that, I believe Councilwoman Rushefsky is correct in her suggestion that the Hobby Lobby case applies to the proposed ordinance, but, not  as a justification for extending exceptions to churches or church-based organizations. Rather, I believe, it applies because the U.S. Supreme Court found that the government cannot force individuals to act in violation of their religious beliefs. The IRS defines a corporation as a person, and Hobby Lobby, as a closely held corporation, which described its religious beliefs in its charter. As such, the government could not force the Hobby Lobby to act in a manner that violated its religious beliefs toward a specific type of contraception. The Court did not extend that reasoning to larger corporations that are not closely held. The connection is, that every small business owner in the room is a closely held corporation, and, like Hobby Lobby, cannot be forced to violate conscience by acting in a manner inconsistent with his or her religious beliefs.

Liberty, the unalienable right endowed by our Creator and protected by the 14^th amendment, is threatened by government, when administrators of that government limit liberty of conscience informed by one’s religion.

It is said, President George Washington warned that

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

When government uses the force of law to compel a citizen to act in a manner that violates his or her religious beliefs, that government is, indeed, dangerous. What this ordinance does, is compel the pastor you just heard, to tell his congregation that they cannot practice their religion outside the four walls of their church.

When speaking to the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches, Washington said,

If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure,  . . .  no one could be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.

This ordinance does exactly what Washington found abhorrent – it renders the liberty of conscience of a group of citizens insecure and perpetrates horrors of spiritual tyranny as well as religious persecution when they are punished for refusing to support an act forbidden by the teachings of their faith. When speaking of exercising religion, no just worship, and the obligation of even the unbelieving politician to defend liberty of conscience, in his farewell address, Washington said,

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them, . . . Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure [that is, whatever intellectual elitists might teach], reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Let it simply be asked, — where is the security of property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?

The truth of Washington’s statements, as well as, the traditional teachings of religious faiths represented in Springfield are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Council members have a decision to make about this flawed proposed ordinance that renders citizens’ liberty of conscience insecure. That is, members of the Springfield City Council must decide wither to be perpetrate “horrors of spiritual tyranny” on the members of their community as Washington described, or to uphold their oaths of office to protect the U. S. Constitution and the right of liberty. I urge you to vote against the proposed ordinance.

Mary Byrne, Springfield, MO 9-8-14