On Good Friday, God Bless The USA

On Good Friday, God Bless The USA

I want to observe one of the most significant days in the Christian calendar with three negatives and one positive. We know that religion of all stripes is under attack by the forces of secularism, faith-hate, and Marxist-Leninism. The only religion given a free pass by the left and the mainstream media (a combination of birds-of-a-feather and outright fear) is Islam.

Satan must be laughing with delight (hat tip to Don McLean).

First up—School Bans Singing of God Bless the USA. This song was first recorded by Lee Greenwood in 1984. It was a hit on the country stations, but got little notice from the rest of music fandom until it was re-released as a message of hope and defiance shortly after 9/11. One school in Massachusetts has gone through three transformations regarding the song which was planned for a program at the school before the Easter break (well, the Spring break). First, the forces of political-correctness caused the administration to require that the word “God” be dropped from the performance. Then, when that wasn’t enough to satisfy the religion-haters, it was dropped from the program entirely rather than risking causing an atheist or Muslim to suffer irreparable emotional distress.

The most recent news (which I have not yet confirmed) says that there was a third transformation. Apparently, there was such an outcry from traditional American parents about removing the song (not to mention God) from the program, that the school reinstated the song, but made it optional for students to sing or not sing the forbidden “G” word. Whatever the final result, it’s a lesson that we must remember. God is under attack by evil forces. But more importantly, good people without the courage of their convictions will cave nearly instantaneously to a demand that even a tangential reference to God be removed from the public’s hearing.

Second—Alleged Christian Barack Obama spoke to an Easter prayer breakfast attended by largely revisionist namby-pamby pastors and liberation theologists and announced his firm belief that “Jesus is a son of god.” Well, Obama is a son of a bitch. There are many sons of bitches, but there is only one Son of God. Sadly, even well thought-out modern English versions of John 3:16 have come to read: “. . . that he gave his son.” The King James version has it right: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Members of the Catholic and traditional Protestant Churches proclaim that we are all children of God. But they also know the distinction between us mere mortals and the Christ. In both the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds, these Christians recite “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father . . . begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.”

But if you expect the highly-dubious Christian Obama to understand or believe that fundamental creed, you will be sorely disappointed. Most of all, Obama must weaken traditional Christianity and throw in universalist beliefs in order to maintain his position as a messiah in his own right. Christ isn’t the Son of God. He can’t be, or Obama has competition for deity.

Finally, there is my favorite mentally and morally deficient Senator. He’s the one keeping a hold on the proposal in the Senate to override Messiah Obama’s ban on placing a plaque containing FDR’s D-Day prayer on the World War II memorial. His name—Al Franken, grinning geek and sort-of elected junior Senator from Minnesota. Joining with his colleague, an openly homosexual activist in the House, Franken has used procedural rules to prevent the proposal from ever coming to a vote. Our fallen heroes are insulted, a prayer by the President of the United States is banned, and Christ remains crucified.

So, for the uplifting message, instead of my usual short post of Good Friday wishes I’m giving you a link to FDR’s banned prayer. Though it is not a Good Friday-specific prayer, it does contain a Good Friday message. Those who fight and die in defense of the greatest nation on earth rarely are afraid to invoke the name of God, and have gone to their reward knowing that life eternal awaits them. D-Day Prayer.

To our Jewish friends, I also want to extend warm wishes for the celebration of Passover.

I want to observe one of the most significant days in the Christian calendar with three negatives and one positive. We know that religion of all stripes is under attack by the forces of secularism, faith-hate, and Marxist-Leninism. The only religion given a free pass by the left and the mainstream media (a combination of birds-of-a-feather and outright fear) is Islam.

Satan must be laughing with delight (hat tip to Don McLean).

First up—School Bans Singing of God Bless the USA. This song was first recorded by Lee Greenwood in 1984. It was a hit on the country stations, but got little notice from the rest of music fandom until it was re-released as a message of hope and defiance shortly after 9/11. One school in Massachusetts has gone through three transformations regarding the song which was planned for a program at the school before the Easter break (well, the Spring break). First, the forces of political-correctness caused the administration to require that the word “God” be dropped from the performance. Then, when that wasn’t enough to satisfy the religion-haters, it was dropped from the program entirely rather than risking causing an atheist or Muslim to suffer irreparable emotional distress.

The most recent news (which I have not yet confirmed) says that there was a third transformation. Apparently, there was such an outcry from traditional American parents about removing the song (not to mention God) from the program, that the school reinstated the song, but made it optional for students to sing or not sing the forbidden “G” word. Whatever the final result, it’s a lesson that we must remember. God is under attack by evil forces. But more importantly, good people without the courage of their convictions will cave nearly instantaneously to a demand that even a tangential reference to God be removed from the public’s hearing.

Second—Alleged Christian Barack Obama spoke to an Easter prayer breakfast attended by largely revisionist namby-pamby pastors and liberation theologists and announced his firm belief that “Jesus is a son of god.” Well, Obama is a son of a bitch. There are many sons of bitches, but there is only one Son of God. Sadly, even well thought-out modern English versions of John 3:16 have come to read: “. . . that he gave his son.” The King James version has it right: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Members of the Catholic and traditional Protestant Churches proclaim that we are all children of God. But they also know the distinction between us mere mortals and the Christ. In both the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds, these Christians recite “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father . . . begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.”

But if you expect the highly-dubious Christian Obama to understand or believe that fundamental creed, you will be sorely disappointed. Most of all, Obama must weaken traditional Christianity and throw in universalist beliefs in order to maintain his position as a messiah in his own right. Christ isn’t the Son of God. He can’t be, or Obama has competition for deity.

Finally, there is my favorite mentally and morally deficient Senator. He’s the one keeping a hold on the proposal in the Senate to override Messiah Obama’s ban on placing a plaque containing FDR’s D-Day prayer on the World War II memorial. His name—Al Franken, grinning geek and sort-of elected junior Senator from Minnesota. Joining with his colleague, an openly homosexual activist in the House, Franken has used procedural rules to prevent the proposal from ever coming to a vote. Our fallen heroes are insulted, a prayer by the President of the United States is banned, and Christ remains crucified.

So, for the uplifting message, instead of my usual short post of Good Friday wishes I’m giving you a link to FDR’s banned prayer. Though it is not a Good Friday-specific prayer, it does contain a Good Friday message. Those who fight and die in defense of the greatest nation on earth rarely are afraid to invoke the name of God, and have gone to their reward knowing that life eternal awaits them. D-Day Prayer.

To our Jewish friends, I also want to extend warm wishes for the celebration of Passover.

On Good Friday, God Bless The USA

View Detail

Obama Gets The Bible Wrong

Obama Gets The Bible Wrong

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama has once again tried to prove he understands Christians and Jews by using an example from the Bible to advance his socialist, fairness, eat-the-rich agenda to America. In Vermont, he offered the usual pap about “looking out for one another,” then announced “I am my brother’s keeper.” To remain politically-correct, he also added “I am my sister’s keeper.”

He seems to have misunderstood the story of Cain and Abel. After Cain murdered his brother in a jealous rage over an offering to God, God asked Cain where his brother was. Cain, being a good Democrat, lied. And then he asked the immortal question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The answer to that question has dogged Jews and Christians ever since and has brought on millennia of soul-searching. But Cain’s answer was not meant to mollify God. It was meant to put God off the track, maintaining that he couldn’t possibly know what had befallen his brother. God is not so easily fooled.

Obama was addressing a gathering of college students. It’s likely that most of them have Marx committed to memory, but have not read the Bible. The lesson Obama was pushing was that we are responsible for each other, in a Marxist sense, via government control. It was well-received among his audience who couldn’t distinguish between a job and Job.

Obama told the audience: “I hear politicians talking about values in an election year. I hear a lot about that. Let me tell you about values. Hard work, personal responsibility—those are values. But looking out for one another. That’s a value. The idea that we’re all in this together.” He then went out to point out his “accomplishments.” The bank bailouts, the takeover of Chrysler and General Motors, student loan relief, and of course, Obamacare. Each of those is the government looking out for his cronies and free-riders, and has nothing to do with individual responsibility, hard work, or self-help.

His administration doesn’t even comprehend what people looking out for each other means. His idea is not looking out for each other, but rather the government looking over your shoulder in order to decide outcomes. He’d have been more honest asking for alms for the love of Allah.

Then, so there would be no mistake about how much the government values taking care of each other, he launched into a vile and misleading attack on conservative values. “An economy built to last is one that supports scientists and researchers and science. Whether we’re talking about stem cell research or climate change, we don’t need science deniers. We need people to understand that America has always succeeded because of our belief in science, our investment in research.” Thank you, Dr. Frankenstein.

Obama doesn’t understand the difference between government imposing its agenda on an unwilling public and people helping each other. That last statement also proves that he doesn’t understand the difference between the scientific method and junk science supported by the government agenda. And then there’s that minor ethical question of destroying human embryos using the taxpayers money to perform Mengele-like research. If used as intended, those embryos might very well have been implanted in infertile women who truly wanted a child. At which point, they would have become our brothers and sisters.

Now get this: “We won’t win the race for new jobs and businesses and middle-class security if we were just applying some you’re-on-your-own economics. It’s been tried in our history and it hasn’t worked. It didn’t work when we tried it in the decade before the Depression. It didn’t work when we tried it in the last decade. We just tried this. What they’re peddling has been tried. It did not work." And socialism did?

Where to begin? Who’s proposing “you’re-on-your-own economics?” Conservatives promote free enterprise with government oversight to prevent cheating. The Founders even put an interstate commerce clause in the Constitution in order to prevent excess and interstate squabbling. It’s the difference between chaos and the concept of ordered liberty. It’s the liberals who want everyone to be able to “do his own thing” so long as it doesn’t bump up against the government agenda.

Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busters didn’t exactly stand back and allow the monopolies to control everything. It took his cousin Franklin to go over the line and create government agencies to interfere with private enterprise. Conservatives promote free enterprise, not unrestricted predation. The government has a proper role—as a fair referee. Progressives like Obama think that means changing the rules of the game while the game is still being played in order to produce a “fair” outcome.

At a time when the free-riders comprise 49% of the voting public and pay no income taxes at all, Obama’s next statement rings hollow: “Look, if somebody like me gets a tax break that they don’t need and the country can’t afford, then one of two things are [sic.] going to happen. Either it adds to our deficit, or we’re taking something away from somebody else.” The old socialist rant. If somebody prospers, somebody else must suffer. It’s nonsense, of course, but it appeals to those free-riders. So never mind telling the rich to pay more in income taxes until you first demand that everyone—everyone—shares the burden.

Obama is a would-be autocrat. He loves his people, and he knows what’s best for them, no matter how much they may not like it. So it seems to me that the proper question Americans should be asking Obama is “am I my keeper’s brother?”

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama has once again tried to prove he understands Christians and Jews by using an example from the Bible to advance his socialist, fairness, eat-the-rich agenda to America. In Vermont, he offered the usual pap about “looking out for one another,” then announced “I am my brother’s keeper.” To remain politically-correct, he also added “I am my sister’s keeper.”

He seems to have misunderstood the story of Cain and Abel. After Cain murdered his brother in a jealous rage over an offering to God, God asked Cain where his brother was. Cain, being a good Democrat, lied. And then he asked the immortal question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The answer to that question has dogged Jews and Christians ever since and has brought on millennia of soul-searching. But Cain’s answer was not meant to mollify God. It was meant to put God off the track, maintaining that he couldn’t possibly know what had befallen his brother. God is not so easily fooled.

Obama was addressing a gathering of college students. It’s likely that most of them have Marx committed to memory, but have not read the Bible. The lesson Obama was pushing was that we are responsible for each other, in a Marxist sense, via government control. It was well-received among his audience who couldn’t distinguish between a job and Job.

Obama told the audience: “I hear politicians talking about values in an election year. I hear a lot about that. Let me tell you about values. Hard work, personal responsibility—those are values. But looking out for one another. That’s a value. The idea that we’re all in this together.” He then went out to point out his “accomplishments.” The bank bailouts, the takeover of Chrysler and General Motors, student loan relief, and of course, Obamacare. Each of those is the government looking out for his cronies and free-riders, and has nothing to do with individual responsibility, hard work, or self-help.

His administration doesn’t even comprehend what people looking out for each other means. His idea is not looking out for each other, but rather the government looking over your shoulder in order to decide outcomes. He’d have been more honest asking for alms for the love of Allah.

Then, so there would be no mistake about how much the government values taking care of each other, he launched into a vile and misleading attack on conservative values. “An economy built to last is one that supports scientists and researchers and science. Whether we’re talking about stem cell research or climate change, we don’t need science deniers. We need people to understand that America has always succeeded because of our belief in science, our investment in research.” Thank you, Dr. Frankenstein.

Obama doesn’t understand the difference between government imposing its agenda on an unwilling public and people helping each other. That last statement also proves that he doesn’t understand the difference between the scientific method and junk science supported by the government agenda. And then there’s that minor ethical question of destroying human embryos using the taxpayers money to perform Mengele-like research. If used as intended, those embryos might very well have been implanted in infertile women who truly wanted a child. At which point, they would have become our brothers and sisters.

Now get this: “We won’t win the race for new jobs and businesses and middle-class security if we were just applying some you’re-on-your-own economics. It’s been tried in our history and it hasn’t worked. It didn’t work when we tried it in the decade before the Depression. It didn’t work when we tried it in the last decade. We just tried this. What they’re peddling has been tried. It did not work." And socialism did?

Where to begin? Who’s proposing “you’re-on-your-own economics?” Conservatives promote free enterprise with government oversight to prevent cheating. The Founders even put an interstate commerce clause in the Constitution in order to prevent excess and interstate squabbling. It’s the difference between chaos and the concept of ordered liberty. It’s the liberals who want everyone to be able to “do his own thing” so long as it doesn’t bump up against the government agenda.

Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busters didn’t exactly stand back and allow the monopolies to control everything. It took his cousin Franklin to go over the line and create government agencies to interfere with private enterprise. Conservatives promote free enterprise, not unrestricted predation. The government has a proper role—as a fair referee. Progressives like Obama think that means changing the rules of the game while the game is still being played in order to produce a “fair” outcome.

At a time when the free-riders comprise 49% of the voting public and pay no income taxes at all, Obama’s next statement rings hollow: “Look, if somebody like me gets a tax break that they don’t need and the country can’t afford, then one of two things are [sic.] going to happen. Either it adds to our deficit, or we’re taking something away from somebody else.” The old socialist rant. If somebody prospers, somebody else must suffer. It’s nonsense, of course, but it appeals to those free-riders. So never mind telling the rich to pay more in income taxes until you first demand that everyone—everyone—shares the burden.

Obama is a would-be autocrat. He loves his people, and he knows what’s best for them, no matter how much they may not like it. So it seems to me that the proper question Americans should be asking Obama is “am I my keeper’s brother?”

Obama Gets The Bible Wrong

View Detail

Ave Atque Vale, Rowan Williams

Ave Atque Vale, Rowan Williams

It’s Sunday, and time for our religious news. Never mind that I tend to get Rowan Williams mixed up with the guy who plays Blackadder on the BBC. Rowan Williams is actually the Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the Church of England. At least for now. Williams has announced that he will be stepping down at the end of this year. Rumor hath it that he might be replaced by a Christian (snark off).

For ten years, Williams has presided over the disintegration of the Anglican Communion, and has played a large part in its disarray. By his own self-description, he is a “hairy lefty.” He has made statements from the high pulpit which call into question the divinity of Jesus Christ. Now that’s just fine for atheists, agnostics, members of other religions, and even some theologians. But it is a strange thing indeed for the leader of a church which is founded on that very concept of Christ’s divinity and oneness with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Williams is known for his obtuse and secular-sounding sermons and homilies. That comes in large part from his interest more in history, economics and the works of Dostoevsky than in theology and church doctrine. Regardless of how one feels about his views on doctrine and dogma, it is impossible to deny that he has been both divisive and self-contradictory as a leader.

In America, the Episcopalian Church (directly derived from the Church of England) is deeply split over the issue of homosexuality and particularly homosexual priesthood. A successful leader would have worked hard to heal those divisions. But much like a certain resident of the White House, Williams is unable to take a clear stand and lead his people with a clear policy. He has recently denied a bishopric to Jeffrey John, a prominent gay priest, which stirred up the liberal wing of the church. But previously, as Archbishop of Wales, he ordained multiple gay men to the priesthood, which stirred up the traditionalist wing.

The same division is spread throughout the entire northern hemisphere’s Anglican Communion. On the other hand, in Africa and South America, where the Anglican faith is growing by leaps and bounds, the traditionalists have all but officially broken from the church in England on ordination of homosexual priests as well as female priests. Williams has waffled on the ordination of women as priests and bishops in almost as confusing a fashion as he has with gay priests. In fact, Williams has indicated that his final battle with ordination of women and elevation to bishoprics was a determining factor in his stepping down.

Williams’s friendly relationship with the Catholic Pope has produced another unexpected result. Those Anglicans who have a serious problem with the concept of gay and female priesthood have now shared Communion (the Holy Eucharist in both denominations) with Catholics and many have decided simply to go the whole way and convert to the Church of Rome. Once again, it has something to do with Williams’s lack of clarity on doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church both share the ancient doctrinal belief that at Communion, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ (a belief not shared by other Protestant Communions).

Williams has refused to be publicly committed to the pure Catholic or Protestant view, thereby creating more confusion. As a scholar, Williams might have made the problem a matter of church policy, but instead used the ambiguity of the English language translation of the meaning of transubstantiation to avoid taking a stand at all. Historically, one must remember that this has been an ongoing debate within the Anglican community for centuries. The “low church” Anglicans followed the teachings of Luther which denied the actual conversion of the elements of the Communion into the physical body and blood of Christ and instead stated that the conversion was mystical rather than physical. That group’s most famous and influential advocate was John Wesley who finally broke with the Church of England to form the Methodist Communion.

Aside from those who have converted to Catholicism during William’s tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury, there are those who have broken with the English Communion and joined the African bishops who espouse the more traditional Anglican views. Others, particularly in America, have formed their own group loosely calling themselves the Anglican Catholic Church.

The most recent blow to the prestige of the Archbishopric of Canterbury came with Williams’s confusing and somewhat ignorant advocacy of Islamic Sharia law in settling certain otherwise civil matters. He missed the fact that the high courts of England had already determined that in purely civil disputes which did not impose religious rules, Sharia law could be applied if it did not conflict with the existing civil statutes. Thus, in a divorce, Sharia law could be used to determine which mosque the Muslim children of a divorce should attend, but not how the custody of the children or the division of property is determined. Williams failed to understand or advocate the difference.

Overall, William’s success or failure as a theologian is entirely a matter of the consciences of his supporters and his detractors. But as a leader, it is hard to say that his tenure has been much more than a failure. As recently as last week, Williams met again with the Pope and Catholic leaders to ask Anglicans and Catholics to work and pray for unity, something he has failed to do very well within his own Church.

Williams is stepping down to become the master of Magdalene College at Cambridge. Perhaps while he is there, he will discover with clarity what the college’s namesake herself discovered.

It’s Sunday, and time for our religious news. Never mind that I tend to get Rowan Williams mixed up with the guy who plays Blackadder on the BBC. Rowan Williams is actually the Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the Church of England. At least for now. Williams has announced that he will be stepping down at the end of this year. Rumor hath it that he might be replaced by a Christian (snark off).

For ten years, Williams has presided over the disintegration of the Anglican Communion, and has played a large part in its disarray. By his own self-description, he is a “hairy lefty.” He has made statements from the high pulpit which call into question the divinity of Jesus Christ. Now that’s just fine for atheists, agnostics, members of other religions, and even some theologians. But it is a strange thing indeed for the leader of a church which is founded on that very concept of Christ’s divinity and oneness with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Williams is known for his obtuse and secular-sounding sermons and homilies. That comes in large part from his interest more in history, economics and the works of Dostoevsky than in theology and church doctrine. Regardless of how one feels about his views on doctrine and dogma, it is impossible to deny that he has been both divisive and self-contradictory as a leader.

In America, the Episcopalian Church (directly derived from the Church of England) is deeply split over the issue of homosexuality and particularly homosexual priesthood. A successful leader would have worked hard to heal those divisions. But much like a certain resident of the White House, Williams is unable to take a clear stand and lead his people with a clear policy. He has recently denied a bishopric to Jeffrey John, a prominent gay priest, which stirred up the liberal wing of the church. But previously, as Archbishop of Wales, he ordained multiple gay men to the priesthood, which stirred up the traditionalist wing.

The same division is spread throughout the entire northern hemisphere’s Anglican Communion. On the other hand, in Africa and South America, where the Anglican faith is growing by leaps and bounds, the traditionalists have all but officially broken from the church in England on ordination of homosexual priests as well as female priests. Williams has waffled on the ordination of women as priests and bishops in almost as confusing a fashion as he has with gay priests. In fact, Williams has indicated that his final battle with ordination of women and elevation to bishoprics was a determining factor in his stepping down.

Williams’s friendly relationship with the Catholic Pope has produced another unexpected result. Those Anglicans who have a serious problem with the concept of gay and female priesthood have now shared Communion (the Holy Eucharist in both denominations) with Catholics and many have decided simply to go the whole way and convert to the Church of Rome. Once again, it has something to do with Williams’s lack of clarity on doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church both share the ancient doctrinal belief that at Communion, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ (a belief not shared by other Protestant Communions).

Williams has refused to be publicly committed to the pure Catholic or Protestant view, thereby creating more confusion. As a scholar, Williams might have made the problem a matter of church policy, but instead used the ambiguity of the English language translation of the meaning of transubstantiation to avoid taking a stand at all. Historically, one must remember that this has been an ongoing debate within the Anglican community for centuries. The “low church” Anglicans followed the teachings of Luther which denied the actual conversion of the elements of the Communion into the physical body and blood of Christ and instead stated that the conversion was mystical rather than physical. That group’s most famous and influential advocate was John Wesley who finally broke with the Church of England to form the Methodist Communion.

Aside from those who have converted to Catholicism during William’s tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury, there are those who have broken with the English Communion and joined the African bishops who espouse the more traditional Anglican views. Others, particularly in America, have formed their own group loosely calling themselves the Anglican Catholic Church.

The most recent blow to the prestige of the Archbishopric of Canterbury came with Williams’s confusing and somewhat ignorant advocacy of Islamic Sharia law in settling certain otherwise civil matters. He missed the fact that the high courts of England had already determined that in purely civil disputes which did not impose religious rules, Sharia law could be applied if it did not conflict with the existing civil statutes. Thus, in a divorce, Sharia law could be used to determine which mosque the Muslim children of a divorce should attend, but not how the custody of the children or the division of property is determined. Williams failed to understand or advocate the difference.

Overall, William’s success or failure as a theologian is entirely a matter of the consciences of his supporters and his detractors. But as a leader, it is hard to say that his tenure has been much more than a failure. As recently as last week, Williams met again with the Pope and Catholic leaders to ask Anglicans and Catholics to work and pray for unity, something he has failed to do very well within his own Church.

Williams is stepping down to become the master of Magdalene College at Cambridge. Perhaps while he is there, he will discover with clarity what the college’s namesake herself discovered.

Ave Atque Vale, Rowan Williams

View Detail

Pelosi Praises Phony Witness

Pelosi Praises Phony Witness

The House Committee which was investigating the Obamacare mandate in relation to religious freedom completed its taking of testimony last week. Nine experts in two sessions (including two invisible women) stated their case. But one flaky witness was excluded. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a special session to listen to what this visible woman had to say.

The Congressional hearings on mandating religious organization participation in birth control and abortifacient insurance wasn't intended to be a discussion of medical procedures. Therefore, the majority voted to exclude testimony about experiences with birth control in order to concentrate on the religious issue. That meant that Pelosi's primary sob-story witness didn't get to pluck the harp strings and derail the actual purpose of the hearings. But San Fran Nan isn't anything if not annoyingly persistent. So Pelosi put on the dog and pony show at the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee instead.

Pelosi trotted out Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke. She hasn't apparently taken the evidence course yet, because Fluke's first sob story was: "Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget anymore." Objection, hearsay! But it's not only hearsay, it's utter nonsense. Then this future Democratic operative testified that "poor women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice as her anonymous fellow student."

She and her fellow student can afford Georgetown Law School, and probably a pretty good bottle of wine to go with dinner. But even if they couldn't, how much truth is there to her boo-hoo testimony? Next to none. There are three federally funded Planned Parenthood clinics near the Georgetown campus, none farther than 3.2 miles from the law school. Checking with Planned Parenthood's website, you find that condoms cost about $1.00 each, and if you can't afford that, you can get them for free.

Says Fluke: "Some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true." Well, the ones who respond that way are those armed with facts instead of sob-stories. In fact, it is true. Planned Parenthood is just one of multiple organizations which run free clinics, particularly in urban centers. Whether federally-funded, funded by private charity, or a combination of both, birth control is readily and cheaply available to the poor as well as to affluent law students who can't get their priorities straight.

Not only did Fluke's testimony entirely sidestep the religious issue, but it was lacking in facts, logic and supporting evidence. But it was a really good story. I've gone through an entire box of Kleenex over it.

I'll be out of town on business for most of the day. But I'd love to see what you think about this reprehensible attempt to replace good government with low drama and the First Amendment with secular mandates. I promise I'll respond to your comments as soon as I get home.

The House Committee which was investigating the Obamacare mandate in relation to religious freedom completed its taking of testimony last week. Nine experts in two sessions (including two invisible women) stated their case. But one flaky witness was excluded. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a special session to listen to what this visible woman had to say.

The Congressional hearings on mandating religious organization participation in birth control and abortifacient insurance wasn't intended to be a discussion of medical procedures. Therefore, the majority voted to exclude testimony about experiences with birth control in order to concentrate on the religious issue. That meant that Pelosi's primary sob-story witness didn't get to pluck the harp strings and derail the actual purpose of the hearings. But San Fran Nan isn't anything if not annoyingly persistent. So Pelosi put on the dog and pony show at the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee instead.

Pelosi trotted out Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke. She hasn't apparently taken the evidence course yet, because Fluke's first sob story was: "Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget anymore." Objection, hearsay! But it's not only hearsay, it's utter nonsense. Then this future Democratic operative testified that "poor women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice as her anonymous fellow student."

She and her fellow student can afford Georgetown Law School, and probably a pretty good bottle of wine to go with dinner. But even if they couldn't, how much truth is there to her boo-hoo testimony? Next to none. There are three federally funded Planned Parenthood clinics near the Georgetown campus, none farther than 3.2 miles from the law school. Checking with Planned Parenthood's website, you find that condoms cost about $1.00 each, and if you can't afford that, you can get them for free.

Says Fluke: "Some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true." Well, the ones who respond that way are those armed with facts instead of sob-stories. In fact, it is true. Planned Parenthood is just one of multiple organizations which run free clinics, particularly in urban centers. Whether federally-funded, funded by private charity, or a combination of both, birth control is readily and cheaply available to the poor as well as to affluent law students who can't get their priorities straight.

Not only did Fluke's testimony entirely sidestep the religious issue, but it was lacking in facts, logic and supporting evidence. But it was a really good story. I've gone through an entire box of Kleenex over it.

I'll be out of town on business for most of the day. But I'd love to see what you think about this reprehensible attempt to replace good government with low drama and the First Amendment with secular mandates. I promise I'll respond to your comments as soon as I get home.

Pelosi Praises Phony Witness

View Detail

Nancy Goes Blind Over Religious Rights

Nancy Goes Blind Over Religious Rights

It's Sunday, so I'll be mercifully brief today. On Thursday, the House Committee hearing on religious liberty involved two panels of religious experts, each panel comprised of people discussing why the Obamacare mandate for religious institutions to provide free birth control and abortifacients should be tossed out. Following the lead of committee member Carolyn Maloney (D-New York), San Fran Nan looked at the panels and asked "where are the women?"

At least she didn't sing "where have all the women gone, long time passing." But there is a small problem with the question. It seems Pelosi and Maloney share the same optometrist. Somehow they couldn't see that Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University and Laura Champion MD from Calvin College Health Services were both on the panels and both testified. Yessir, they are both bona fide women--ladies, even.

It's not too difficult to figure out that the Democrats want to make this issue about "women's rights," while the actual subject is religious freedom protected by the First Amendment. And by their measure, it would be mighty convenient to attack the panel as unfriendly to women by the lack of women testifying. Men are by biological imperative unable to understand or properly discuss women's rights.

Whined Pelosi: "Where are the women women on that panel? Imagine, they are having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel." That proves that Pelosi is at least partially-blind both literally and metaphorically. She couldn't see the two women panelists, and she couldn't see that the entire committee hearing was about religious freedom, not women's rights.

Never daunted, the botox queen went on to ask the queston: "What is it that men don't understand about women's health, that how central the issue of family planning is to that? Not just if you're having families (well if you're not, you don't need to plan), but if you need those kinds of prescription drugs for your general health, which was the testimony they would have heard this morning if they had allowed a woman on the panel (emphasis added)." Maybe she's deaf, too.

And if you didn't get the message yet, she said: "I think it's really curiouser and curioser that as we get further into this debate the Republican leadership of this Congress thinks it's appropriate to have a hearing on a subject of women's health and purposefully exclude women from the panel." Perhaps she actually did see the women, but has the leftist view that conservative religious women are not really female. Just like black conservatives are not authentically black. So they don't count.

All of the panelists, including the women, were asked if they would risk going to jail for refusing to follow the Obama mandate. Each answered in turn, "I would." But they aren't willing to go to jail over an issue of women's rights. They are willing to go to jail to defend their religious beliefs from government interference. They have a lot of history to go with their bravery, from the Christian martyrs of Rome to the American Founders who considered religious freedom so important that they wrote it into the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it could just be that Pelosi is simply like the theater critic who leaves the show during the intermission and writes a review centering on the finale.

It's Sunday, so I'll be mercifully brief today. On Thursday, the House Committee hearing on religious liberty involved two panels of religious experts, each panel comprised of people discussing why the Obamacare mandate for religious institutions to provide free birth control and abortifacients should be tossed out. Following the lead of committee member Carolyn Maloney (D-New York), San Fran Nan looked at the panels and asked "where are the women?"

At least she didn't sing "where have all the women gone, long time passing." But there is a small problem with the question. It seems Pelosi and Maloney share the same optometrist. Somehow they couldn't see that Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University and Laura Champion MD from Calvin College Health Services were both on the panels and both testified. Yessir, they are both bona fide women--ladies, even.

It's not too difficult to figure out that the Democrats want to make this issue about "women's rights," while the actual subject is religious freedom protected by the First Amendment. And by their measure, it would be mighty convenient to attack the panel as unfriendly to women by the lack of women testifying. Men are by biological imperative unable to understand or properly discuss women's rights.

Whined Pelosi: "Where are the women women on that panel? Imagine, they are having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel." That proves that Pelosi is at least partially-blind both literally and metaphorically. She couldn't see the two women panelists, and she couldn't see that the entire committee hearing was about religious freedom, not women's rights.

Never daunted, the botox queen went on to ask the queston: "What is it that men don't understand about women's health, that how central the issue of family planning is to that? Not just if you're having families (well if you're not, you don't need to plan), but if you need those kinds of prescription drugs for your general health, which was the testimony they would have heard this morning if they had allowed a woman on the panel (emphasis added)." Maybe she's deaf, too.

And if you didn't get the message yet, she said: "I think it's really curiouser and curioser that as we get further into this debate the Republican leadership of this Congress thinks it's appropriate to have a hearing on a subject of women's health and purposefully exclude women from the panel." Perhaps she actually did see the women, but has the leftist view that conservative religious women are not really female. Just like black conservatives are not authentically black. So they don't count.

All of the panelists, including the women, were asked if they would risk going to jail for refusing to follow the Obama mandate. Each answered in turn, "I would." But they aren't willing to go to jail over an issue of women's rights. They are willing to go to jail to defend their religious beliefs from government interference. They have a lot of history to go with their bravery, from the Christian martyrs of Rome to the American Founders who considered religious freedom so important that they wrote it into the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it could just be that Pelosi is simply like the theater critic who leaves the show during the intermission and writes a review centering on the finale.

Nancy Goes Blind Over Religious Rights

View Detail

Film Friday: Paul (2011)

Film Friday: Paul (2011)

I’m a fan of Simon Pegg’s work. Shawn of the Dead was incredibly witty, clever and funny. It was a brilliant homage to zombie films. Hot Fuzz wasn’t quite up to Shawn’s standards, but was still well done and had great moments. Paul is flat. It also suffers from a giant liberal sucker punch.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

I’m a fan of Simon Pegg’s work. Shawn of the Dead was incredibly witty, clever and funny. It was a brilliant homage to zombie films. Hot Fuzz wasn’t quite up to Shawn’s standards, but was still well done and had great moments. Paul is flat. It also suffers from a giant liberal sucker punch.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Film Friday: Paul (2011)

View Detail

Despicable Newt

Despicable Newt

Romney’s win last night likely decided the Republican nomination. What I want to talk about today, however, is the damage being done to conservatism by the desperate and despicable creature that is Newt Gingrich. Specifically, he’s been smearing Romney and anyone he thinks supports Romney in ways which are causing long term harm to the cause of conservatism, and it’s time for conservatives to turn their backs on this troll.

Let’s start with Romney. Newt has been slandering Romney in ways that will make it very hard for Romney to beat Obama. Indeed, he’s engaged in a scorched earth policy premised on the idea that we better pick Newt or Newt will make sure Obama wins:

1. Newt has repeatedly called Romney a liar, dishonest and pathetic, when Newt’s actually the one who’s been lying. A reputation for dishonesty is nearly impossible for a politician to live down and harms everything they do because much in politics relies on trust.

2. Newt has made misleading attacks on Romney for investments made by the blind trust Romney is required to use to hold investments. These attacks are anti-capitalist, class warfare attacks and further suggest fraud or tax evasion on Romney’s part.

3. Newt promoted a ridiculous conspiracy theory involving Romney trying to unseat Allen West, suggesting that Romney seeks to destroy the Tea Party.

4. Newt has recycled Rick Perry’s vile “heartless” attack for Romney’s stance on deporting illegal immigrants, a stance shared by all conservatives.

5. And vilest of them all, Newt has tried to inflame religious bigotry while smearing Romney as anti-religion. Observe. Newt began this smear by suggesting that Romney hate religious freedom:

“I think Governor Romney is extraordinarily insensitive to religious freedom in America and the Obama administration is clearly engaged in a war on religion.”

He then told Fox News that Romney made a decision to cut Medicaid funding for health services which would benefit Jewish and Catholic facilities. This was an attempt to both claim Romney didn’t care about religion and to imply that Mormons could not be trusted to protect other religions. And if you think I’m overstating that, look at how he repeated this on CNN:

“You want a war on the Catholic Church by Obama? Guess what: Romney refused to allow Catholic hospitals to have conscience in their dealing with certain circumstances. . . . Romney cut off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare. Both of them [Romney and Obama] have the same lack of concern for religious liberty. . . I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every religion on the planet, I would like [Romney] to respect our religion.”

Note that Newt singles out a war on Catholics and Jews and then finishes with the suggestion that Romney is not a Christian and that he would protect other religions, but not Christianity. What Newt is doing here is playing on the religious bigotry of fundamentalists like Robert Jeffress who still view Mormonism as a non-Christian cult.

Gingrich then issued a truly despicable robocall claiming that Romney forced Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher foods:

“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney’s compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012.”

When confronted about this robocall, Newt denied having any knowledge of it and incredibly then said, “You might check and see whether the accusation is true.” Note the lack of condemnation of the call and, more interestingly, his adoption of the message.

This is all despicable and will not only dampen conservative support for Romney, but will hang around his neck in the general election and throughout his Presidency. These aren’t policy disputes, they are bigoted smears and slanders.

And it’s not just smears against Romney which are the problem. Indeed, Gingrich has been busy reinforcing generations of leftist attacks on the foundations of conservatism:

● His attacks on Romney’s wealth and investments and Wall Street bankers have been anti-capitalist.

● His attacks on Romney’s immigration policy play right into leftist claims that conservatives hate immigrants and are “heartless” on the issue.

● His attacks on Mormonism feed fundamentalists who oppose all but their own sects.

● His attacks on the Republican establishment, particularly his false description of them and the conspiratorial nature of his attempt to claim victimhood, widen the gap between Tea Partiers and the Republican party, again splitting natural allies.

● He undercut conservative attempts to reform Medicare and Social Security (the Chilean model), and on the flat tax.

Moreover, Newt’s surrogates are smearing anyone who disagrees. Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, and George Will, all solid conservatives, have been labeled RINOs. Elliot Abrams, who pointed out that Newt is lying about supporting Reagan in the 1980s and produced copies of Newt’s attacks on Reagan from the Congressional Record, where Newt did things like call the Reagan Administration “a failed presidency,” was smeared by a Newt surrogate who suggested with no proof that Abrams was lying because he had been offered a job in the Romney administration. Another Newt surrogate smeared Matt Drudge, who does more to help conservatives than a million Newts combined, for “bias” and “being in the tank for Romney.” Etc.

In a world where liberals already smear conservatives in this manner, and thereby try to rob them of their credibility, conservatives should never give aid and comfort to liberal smears. Yet that is what Newt is doing. He is systematically burning key conservatives and conservative principles to the ground and insanely destroying the foundations of conservatism all in the name of his own aggrandizement.

Further, Newt told us last night exactly what kind of administration he would run if elected. He demanded that the Republicans in Congress give him things that cannot be delivered, i.e. a repeal of ObamaCare on the first day, and he made it clear he would lump Republicans and Democrats into the same group and fight them all if he didn’t get his way.

This troll must be stopped.

Finally, let me say a word about Herman Cain. Cain endorse Newt this week. I find this extremely disappointing. When Cain left the race, it was clear he would endorse Newt because he and Newt are friends. But Cain didn’t do that. Instead, he created this rather corny, but oddly genuine political theater of endorsing the people. This rekindled the Tea Party’s love for him and was enough that they picked him to give the Tea Party response to the State of the Union.

Implicit in all of this was that he would represent the views of the Tea Party. As such, he should have worked to make sure each of the candidates acknowledged the Tea Party and agreed to address its concerns. Endorsing Newt (or anyone) was a violation of trust. This was like being appointed commissioner of a sports league and then cheering for one team. Cain should not have done it and should apologize for it now. You’re better than that Herm.

Romney’s win last night likely decided the Republican nomination. What I want to talk about today, however, is the damage being done to conservatism by the desperate and despicable creature that is Newt Gingrich. Specifically, he’s been smearing Romney and anyone he thinks supports Romney in ways which are causing long term harm to the cause of conservatism, and it’s time for conservatives to turn their backs on this troll.

Let’s start with Romney. Newt has been slandering Romney in ways that will make it very hard for Romney to beat Obama. Indeed, he’s engaged in a scorched earth policy premised on the idea that we better pick Newt or Newt will make sure Obama wins:

1. Newt has repeatedly called Romney a liar, dishonest and pathetic, when Newt’s actually the one who’s been lying. A reputation for dishonesty is nearly impossible for a politician to live down and harms everything they do because much in politics relies on trust.

2. Newt has made misleading attacks on Romney for investments made by the blind trust Romney is required to use to hold investments. These attacks are anti-capitalist, class warfare attacks and further suggest fraud or tax evasion on Romney’s part.

3. Newt promoted a ridiculous conspiracy theory involving Romney trying to unseat Allen West, suggesting that Romney seeks to destroy the Tea Party.

4. Newt has recycled Rick Perry’s vile “heartless” attack for Romney’s stance on deporting illegal immigrants, a stance shared by all conservatives.

5. And vilest of them all, Newt has tried to inflame religious bigotry while smearing Romney as anti-religion. Observe. Newt began this smear by suggesting that Romney hate religious freedom:

“I think Governor Romney is extraordinarily insensitive to religious freedom in America and the Obama administration is clearly engaged in a war on religion.”

He then told Fox News that Romney made a decision to cut Medicaid funding for health services which would benefit Jewish and Catholic facilities. This was an attempt to both claim Romney didn’t care about religion and to imply that Mormons could not be trusted to protect other religions. And if you think I’m overstating that, look at how he repeated this on CNN:

“You want a war on the Catholic Church by Obama? Guess what: Romney refused to allow Catholic hospitals to have conscience in their dealing with certain circumstances. . . . Romney cut off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare. Both of them [Romney and Obama] have the same lack of concern for religious liberty. . . I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every religion on the planet, I would like [Romney] to respect our religion.”

Note that Newt singles out a war on Catholics and Jews and then finishes with the suggestion that Romney is not a Christian and that he would protect other religions, but not Christianity. What Newt is doing here is playing on the religious bigotry of fundamentalists like Robert Jeffress who still view Mormonism as a non-Christian cult.

Gingrich then issued a truly despicable robocall claiming that Romney forced Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher foods:

“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney’s compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012.”

When confronted about this robocall, Newt denied having any knowledge of it and incredibly then said, “You might check and see whether the accusation is true.” Note the lack of condemnation of the call and, more interestingly, his adoption of the message.

This is all despicable and will not only dampen conservative support for Romney, but will hang around his neck in the general election and throughout his Presidency. These aren’t policy disputes, they are bigoted smears and slanders.

And it’s not just smears against Romney which are the problem. Indeed, Gingrich has been busy reinforcing generations of leftist attacks on the foundations of conservatism:

● His attacks on Romney’s wealth and investments and Wall Street bankers have been anti-capitalist.

● His attacks on Romney’s immigration policy play right into leftist claims that conservatives hate immigrants and are “heartless” on the issue.

● His attacks on Mormonism feed fundamentalists who oppose all but their own sects.

● His attacks on the Republican establishment, particularly his false description of them and the conspiratorial nature of his attempt to claim victimhood, widen the gap between Tea Partiers and the Republican party, again splitting natural allies.

● He undercut conservative attempts to reform Medicare and Social Security (the Chilean model), and on the flat tax.

Moreover, Newt’s surrogates are smearing anyone who disagrees. Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, and George Will, all solid conservatives, have been labeled RINOs. Elliot Abrams, who pointed out that Newt is lying about supporting Reagan in the 1980s and produced copies of Newt’s attacks on Reagan from the Congressional Record, where Newt did things like call the Reagan Administration “a failed presidency,” was smeared by a Newt surrogate who suggested with no proof that Abrams was lying because he had been offered a job in the Romney administration. Another Newt surrogate smeared Matt Drudge, who does more to help conservatives than a million Newts combined, for “bias” and “being in the tank for Romney.” Etc.

In a world where liberals already smear conservatives in this manner, and thereby try to rob them of their credibility, conservatives should never give aid and comfort to liberal smears. Yet that is what Newt is doing. He is systematically burning key conservatives and conservative principles to the ground and insanely destroying the foundations of conservatism all in the name of his own aggrandizement.

Further, Newt told us last night exactly what kind of administration he would run if elected. He demanded that the Republicans in Congress give him things that cannot be delivered, i.e. a repeal of ObamaCare on the first day, and he made it clear he would lump Republicans and Democrats into the same group and fight them all if he didn’t get his way.

This troll must be stopped.

Finally, let me say a word about Herman Cain. Cain endorse Newt this week. I find this extremely disappointing. When Cain left the race, it was clear he would endorse Newt because he and Newt are friends. But Cain didn’t do that. Instead, he created this rather corny, but oddly genuine political theater of endorsing the people. This rekindled the Tea Party’s love for him and was enough that they picked him to give the Tea Party response to the State of the Union.

Implicit in all of this was that he would represent the views of the Tea Party. As such, he should have worked to make sure each of the candidates acknowledged the Tea Party and agreed to address its concerns. Endorsing Newt (or anyone) was a violation of trust. This was like being appointed commissioner of a sports league and then cheering for one team. Cain should not have done it and should apologize for it now. You’re better than that Herm.

Despicable Newt

View Detail

Obamacare Bureaucracy vs. Religious Belief

Obamacare Bureaucracy vs. Religious Belief

I recently introduced our readers to a small victory for religious freedom over bureaucratic absolutism (Score One for the Christians). In that case, the Supreme Court told the National Labor Relations Board that a religious organization has sole power to determine its own rules regarding hiring and firing based on religious belief. But Leviathan never sleeps, and the Obama administration is at it again.

This time, the issue is much larger than that in the employment case. It is a bold attack on religious freedom, and the attack is grounded on the idea that the mission of a religious institution can be entirely separated from its non-religious functions. The bureaucracy this time is Health and Human Services, its commander is Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and the law from which the conflict stems is nothing less than Obamacare.

Simply put, the Catholic Church and some Orthodox Jewish organizations are religiously opposed to contraception. Obamacare requires that all employers, including those groups, must provide health insurance which includes coverage for contraception, certain abortifacients and sterilization at no additional charge to the employee. Contraceptive services are controversial among those groups, but it is the mandate to provide coverage for abortifacients and sterilization that has brought the issue to a rolling boil.

Obamacare does allow for some exemptions, but they are narrowly-written and are being interpreted by a bureaucracy that demands universal health care coverage whether you like it or not. In describing which employees the "religious employer" may exempt from contraception, abortifacient and sterilization coverage, Sebelius and her people rely on the preliminary regulations (which will undoubtedly remain unchanged in the final version) that require four concurrent things to be true:

1. The inculcation of religious values is its purpose.
2. It primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets.
3. It primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.
4. It is a non-profit organization under sections of the code that refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.

Paying careful obeisance to and obfuscation of the ruling in the NLRB employment case, HHS has issued a statement that specifically says: "The Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions." By pretending to honor the unanimous decision in the NLRB case, HHS is actually carving out a rule that defeats religious belief outside the confines of the "ministry."

One student of the Department's position lays it out rather well. "The group insurance covering nuns in a Catholic religious order would probably not have to cover contraception. But insurance provided by the same order's elementary school probably would. The latter would also be true of a hospital established by the nuns."

The NLRB case was based on religious freedom ("the ministry"). This issue revolves more around religious worship and what information a religious organization must provide to non-members. So even in those cases where the Department may find the exemption applies, it will still require the organization to pass out information about "preventive" services which it does not provide under the exemption. Essentially, this means that the exempt religious organization must tell its employees where and how to obtain those services which are anathema to the organization and church teaching.

Sebelius's official statement explains how the new rule should be applied: "We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive and sterilization services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support." At its most basic it means that Father Flanagan will meet with his employee and tell her that the Church utterly opposes artificial contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, but since the Church's medical insurance doesn't cover it, here's a list of all the places that will provide the services we find abhorrent and contrary to scripture.

So as it stands, Catholic employees at non-Catholic institutions must pay for insurance for preventive services as part of their insurance package, but cannot be charged anything additional for them. Likewise, Catholic and non-Catholic employees of a Catholic institution may be required to purchase contraception and sterilization insurance through their employers depending on how the Department classifies the religious employer. In the latter case, both the religious institution and its employees are bound by entirely secular rules determining the religious status of the employer and employee.

Church charities, hospitals, universities and other non-church activities are affected. Current organizations preparing to challenge the HHS ruling are Catholic Charities USA, Notre Dame University and the Catholic hospital network. Regardless of the outcome, or even a later softening of its position for political gain, this is another example of how the Obama administration and its leftist supporters are innately hostile to religion. It also demonstrates how a bureaucracy can hide its anti-religious agenda in gentle-sounding legalese.

I recently introduced our readers to a small victory for religious freedom over bureaucratic absolutism (Score One for the Christians). In that case, the Supreme Court told the National Labor Relations Board that a religious organization has sole power to determine its own rules regarding hiring and firing based on religious belief. But Leviathan never sleeps, and the Obama administration is at it again.

This time, the issue is much larger than that in the employment case. It is a bold attack on religious freedom, and the attack is grounded on the idea that the mission of a religious institution can be entirely separated from its non-religious functions. The bureaucracy this time is Health and Human Services, its commander is Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and the law from which the conflict stems is nothing less than Obamacare.

Simply put, the Catholic Church and some Orthodox Jewish organizations are religiously opposed to contraception. Obamacare requires that all employers, including those groups, must provide health insurance which includes coverage for contraception, certain abortifacients and sterilization at no additional charge to the employee. Contraceptive services are controversial among those groups, but it is the mandate to provide coverage for abortifacients and sterilization that has brought the issue to a rolling boil.

Obamacare does allow for some exemptions, but they are narrowly-written and are being interpreted by a bureaucracy that demands universal health care coverage whether you like it or not. In describing which employees the "religious employer" may exempt from contraception, abortifacient and sterilization coverage, Sebelius and her people rely on the preliminary regulations (which will undoubtedly remain unchanged in the final version) that require four concurrent things to be true:

1. The inculcation of religious values is its purpose.
2. It primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets.
3. It primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.
4. It is a non-profit organization under sections of the code that refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.

Paying careful obeisance to and obfuscation of the ruling in the NLRB employment case, HHS has issued a statement that specifically says: "The Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions." By pretending to honor the unanimous decision in the NLRB case, HHS is actually carving out a rule that defeats religious belief outside the confines of the "ministry."

One student of the Department's position lays it out rather well. "The group insurance covering nuns in a Catholic religious order would probably not have to cover contraception. But insurance provided by the same order's elementary school probably would. The latter would also be true of a hospital established by the nuns."

The NLRB case was based on religious freedom ("the ministry"). This issue revolves more around religious worship and what information a religious organization must provide to non-members. So even in those cases where the Department may find the exemption applies, it will still require the organization to pass out information about "preventive" services which it does not provide under the exemption. Essentially, this means that the exempt religious organization must tell its employees where and how to obtain those services which are anathema to the organization and church teaching.

Sebelius's official statement explains how the new rule should be applied: "We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive and sterilization services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support." At its most basic it means that Father Flanagan will meet with his employee and tell her that the Church utterly opposes artificial contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, but since the Church's medical insurance doesn't cover it, here's a list of all the places that will provide the services we find abhorrent and contrary to scripture.

So as it stands, Catholic employees at non-Catholic institutions must pay for insurance for preventive services as part of their insurance package, but cannot be charged anything additional for them. Likewise, Catholic and non-Catholic employees of a Catholic institution may be required to purchase contraception and sterilization insurance through their employers depending on how the Department classifies the religious employer. In the latter case, both the religious institution and its employees are bound by entirely secular rules determining the religious status of the employer and employee.

Church charities, hospitals, universities and other non-church activities are affected. Current organizations preparing to challenge the HHS ruling are Catholic Charities USA, Notre Dame University and the Catholic hospital network. Regardless of the outcome, or even a later softening of its position for political gain, this is another example of how the Obama administration and its leftist supporters are innately hostile to religion. It also demonstrates how a bureaucracy can hide its anti-religious agenda in gentle-sounding legalese.

Obamacare Bureaucracy vs. Religious Belief

View Detail

Question: Is Atheism a Religion?

Question: Is Atheism a Religion?

It is no secret that I spend a fair amount of time at the Huffington Post website deep in discussion with those with whom I politely describe as believing "differently". One of the topics that keeps coming up over and over is the First Amendment battle being wages between Christianity and Atheism. The premise is always that Christians (those who believe in superstitions and "creation myths") or "Believers" are always trying to force their beliefs on the Atheists (those who do not believe in superstitions or "creation myths") or "Non-Believers".

Lately the discussions have revolved around a Rhode Island high schooler, the Atheist in this story, who was distraught at being force to have gaze upon a banner containing a prayer that was hanging in the cafeteria of her public high school**. It upset her so much that she had to sue the school system to have it removed. Of course, we all know that this case is based on the First Amendment argument of separation of church and state. But, as is becoming more common today, the argument is being distorted to include a much broader interpretation of separation of all perceived religious beliefs or religious references from any state-funded institution.

These kinds of cases always baffle me, because I see this young woman imposing her religious belief on others too. So I need your help in defining exactly what "religion" is exactly:

Discussion: Using the same broad interpretation, if one defines "religion" as a system of strongly-held beliefs, should Atheism be considered a religion too?


**FYI - Did I mention that this banner has been hanging in the cafeteria of her high school without incident since 1963?

It is no secret that I spend a fair amount of time at the Huffington Post website deep in discussion with those with whom I politely describe as believing "differently". One of the topics that keeps coming up over and over is the First Amendment battle being wages between Christianity and Atheism. The premise is always that Christians (those who believe in superstitions and "creation myths") or "Believers" are always trying to force their beliefs on the Atheists (those who do not believe in superstitions or "creation myths") or "Non-Believers".

Lately the discussions have revolved around a Rhode Island high schooler, the Atheist in this story, who was distraught at being force to have gaze upon a banner containing a prayer that was hanging in the cafeteria of her public high school**. It upset her so much that she had to sue the school system to have it removed. Of course, we all know that this case is based on the First Amendment argument of separation of church and state. But, as is becoming more common today, the argument is being distorted to include a much broader interpretation of separation of all perceived religious beliefs or religious references from any state-funded institution.

These kinds of cases always baffle me, because I see this young woman imposing her religious belief on others too. So I need your help in defining exactly what "religion" is exactly:

Discussion: Using the same broad interpretation, if one defines "religion" as a system of strongly-held beliefs, should Atheism be considered a religion too?


**FYI - Did I mention that this banner has been hanging in the cafeteria of her high school without incident since 1963?

Question: Is Atheism a Religion?

View Detail

Score One For The Christians

Score One For The Christians

I figured that Sunday was a good day to celebrate one small but significant victory for Christianity (and all religions) in the ongoing government war against faith. And maybe the victory wasn't so small. In a 9-0 decision, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of religious institutions to determine whether a minister's services should be terminated without being trumped by employment discrimination law.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had used the Americans with Disabilities Act to require Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church to re-hire a former church school teacher. When originally filed with the lower court (during the Bush administration), the court held that it had no jurisdiction over such religious matters, and dismissed the case. The EEOC appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court decision was reversed, and the EEOC demanded the employee be re-hired. The church appealed to the Supreme Court. The Holder Department of Justice enthusiastically pursued the interests of the EEOC.

I'll keep the facts as simple as possible. The employee, Cheryl Perich, was hired as a "called" church school teacher. Most Christian denominations have the same or a similar designation for teachers who have completed training in church doctrine and have agreed to teach according to those principles. They are distinguished from "lay" teachers who are free to teach their subjects but are not required to insert church doctrine into the class curriculum. A very long line of court cases below the Supreme Court level, in nearly every federal appellate district, has included "called" teachers under the "ministerial exception" exempting religious trainers from general employment law.

Perich had developed a debilitating case of narcolepsy. Her doctors advised the school that she would be ready to come back to work after therapy and medications some time in late 2005. The school advised Perich that she should go on disability leave for the 2004-2005 school year, they would pay her medical insurance premiums, and when she was well enough to return for the 2005-2006 school year, she would have her job back.

But Perich decided on her own that she was well enough to return for the 2004-2005 term, and showed up for work. The school refused to replace the lay teacher who had taken over her duties on the grounds that Perich had not been properly medically released and that she could not at that time perform her proper "called" (religious) teacher's duties.

Perich then filed a complaint with the EEOC, after threatening the school with a lawsuit. The school responded by terminating her "ministry" because the church determined that her threats and the EEOC complaint were inconsistent with church doctrine and policy. They further noted that if she had been a lay teacher, they might still have refused to allow her to return for the 2004-2005 school year, but would not necessarily have felt it their religious duty to terminate her services for the following school year.

Many fair-minded people might think that the EEOC and Perich should have won. After all, that's what the ADA was designed to protect against, and the termination does seem a bit unfair and perhaps even retaliatory. But that's not the issue, and the Supreme Court got it exactly right. The question that had to be answered was "does the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion override statutory labor and discrimination law?" The high court answered "yes." And it did so unanimously.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took the case originally, recognizing that this was one small employment issue at one small Michigan church which contained huge implications for religious freedom nationwide. It was a David vs. Goliath battle between one congregation and the secular federal bureaucracy. And David won. The principle established is that if a religious institution makes a decision based on a religious belief that it has the right to control its own ministry, then civil anti-discrimination law cannot interfere unless there is an even stronger fundamental constitutional right which clearly conflicts with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court found no such conflicting right.

Had Perich been a janitor or a lay teacher, the result would likely have gone the other way. But God love the Supremes. They found that even if the termination violated secular statutes, the religious element outweighed the civil interest. And so said they all.

Douglas Laycock, a law professor, argued the case for the church and the Becket Fund. He summed up the Supreme Court decision this way: "This is a huge win for religious liberty. The Court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders." This is a landmark decision that the average layman may not be aware of in the future, and its announcement was made right in the middle of the returns from the New Hampshire primary, thereby producing zero mainstream media coverage.

This may all sound a little obscure, with no implications for future litigation. But is it really? The Supreme Court may very well have fired a shot across the secularist bow with this decision which will be reflected later in a much more public and contentious issue working its way to the high court. If the Supreme Court were to decide that gay marriage is a valid exercise in government power and that state or federal government cannot forbid it, this present decision would go a long way toward allaying the fears of those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (myself included).

Despite promises to the contrary, the states supporting gay marriage will be very likely to attempt to impose anti-discrimination statutes on religious organizations which preach against gay marriage and/or refuse to perform them. Even if they don't, the ACLU will surely find some gay couple that wishes to challenge the churches on gay marriage using existing anti-discrimination law. This case holds that religious institutions have a near-absolute right to determine their own doctrine and how it is to be implemented.

So when Pastor John preaches that homosexuality is a sin, Father James condemns sexual relationships outside traditional one man-one woman marriage, and Rabbi Joe refuses to perform a gay marriage, they cannot be persecuted a la Canada. No labor or anti-discrimination statute can force a conservative religious institution to ignore its own doctrines or force it to hire clerics who oppose the church's religious beliefs. They are now also free to fire any holder of the pulpit who has some sort of secular epiphany and decides he or she is in favor of gay marriage after all.

That's how the legal mind works. And it's how a small employment case in Michigan could conceivably affect a hotly-contested national issue despite the case's seeming dissimilarities with that national issue. This case will undoubtedly be cited as precedent the very first time some state or federal authority attempts to punish a church or synagogue for violating anti-discrimination law by refusing to perform or condone gay marriage. And any lawyer worth his salt will point out that the Supreme Court decision was unanimous, including the concurring opinions of four very liberal Justices.

I figured that Sunday was a good day to celebrate one small but significant victory for Christianity (and all religions) in the ongoing government war against faith. And maybe the victory wasn't so small. In a 9-0 decision, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of religious institutions to determine whether a minister's services should be terminated without being trumped by employment discrimination law.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had used the Americans with Disabilities Act to require Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church to re-hire a former church school teacher. When originally filed with the lower court (during the Bush administration), the court held that it had no jurisdiction over such religious matters, and dismissed the case. The EEOC appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court decision was reversed, and the EEOC demanded the employee be re-hired. The church appealed to the Supreme Court. The Holder Department of Justice enthusiastically pursued the interests of the EEOC.

I'll keep the facts as simple as possible. The employee, Cheryl Perich, was hired as a "called" church school teacher. Most Christian denominations have the same or a similar designation for teachers who have completed training in church doctrine and have agreed to teach according to those principles. They are distinguished from "lay" teachers who are free to teach their subjects but are not required to insert church doctrine into the class curriculum. A very long line of court cases below the Supreme Court level, in nearly every federal appellate district, has included "called" teachers under the "ministerial exception" exempting religious trainers from general employment law.

Perich had developed a debilitating case of narcolepsy. Her doctors advised the school that she would be ready to come back to work after therapy and medications some time in late 2005. The school advised Perich that she should go on disability leave for the 2004-2005 school year, they would pay her medical insurance premiums, and when she was well enough to return for the 2005-2006 school year, she would have her job back.

But Perich decided on her own that she was well enough to return for the 2004-2005 term, and showed up for work. The school refused to replace the lay teacher who had taken over her duties on the grounds that Perich had not been properly medically released and that she could not at that time perform her proper "called" (religious) teacher's duties.

Perich then filed a complaint with the EEOC, after threatening the school with a lawsuit. The school responded by terminating her "ministry" because the church determined that her threats and the EEOC complaint were inconsistent with church doctrine and policy. They further noted that if she had been a lay teacher, they might still have refused to allow her to return for the 2004-2005 school year, but would not necessarily have felt it their religious duty to terminate her services for the following school year.

Many fair-minded people might think that the EEOC and Perich should have won. After all, that's what the ADA was designed to protect against, and the termination does seem a bit unfair and perhaps even retaliatory. But that's not the issue, and the Supreme Court got it exactly right. The question that had to be answered was "does the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion override statutory labor and discrimination law?" The high court answered "yes." And it did so unanimously.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took the case originally, recognizing that this was one small employment issue at one small Michigan church which contained huge implications for religious freedom nationwide. It was a David vs. Goliath battle between one congregation and the secular federal bureaucracy. And David won. The principle established is that if a religious institution makes a decision based on a religious belief that it has the right to control its own ministry, then civil anti-discrimination law cannot interfere unless there is an even stronger fundamental constitutional right which clearly conflicts with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court found no such conflicting right.

Had Perich been a janitor or a lay teacher, the result would likely have gone the other way. But God love the Supremes. They found that even if the termination violated secular statutes, the religious element outweighed the civil interest. And so said they all.

Douglas Laycock, a law professor, argued the case for the church and the Becket Fund. He summed up the Supreme Court decision this way: "This is a huge win for religious liberty. The Court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders." This is a landmark decision that the average layman may not be aware of in the future, and its announcement was made right in the middle of the returns from the New Hampshire primary, thereby producing zero mainstream media coverage.

This may all sound a little obscure, with no implications for future litigation. But is it really? The Supreme Court may very well have fired a shot across the secularist bow with this decision which will be reflected later in a much more public and contentious issue working its way to the high court. If the Supreme Court were to decide that gay marriage is a valid exercise in government power and that state or federal government cannot forbid it, this present decision would go a long way toward allaying the fears of those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (myself included).

Despite promises to the contrary, the states supporting gay marriage will be very likely to attempt to impose anti-discrimination statutes on religious organizations which preach against gay marriage and/or refuse to perform them. Even if they don't, the ACLU will surely find some gay couple that wishes to challenge the churches on gay marriage using existing anti-discrimination law. This case holds that religious institutions have a near-absolute right to determine their own doctrine and how it is to be implemented.

So when Pastor John preaches that homosexuality is a sin, Father James condemns sexual relationships outside traditional one man-one woman marriage, and Rabbi Joe refuses to perform a gay marriage, they cannot be persecuted a la Canada. No labor or anti-discrimination statute can force a conservative religious institution to ignore its own doctrines or force it to hire clerics who oppose the church's religious beliefs. They are now also free to fire any holder of the pulpit who has some sort of secular epiphany and decides he or she is in favor of gay marriage after all.

That's how the legal mind works. And it's how a small employment case in Michigan could conceivably affect a hotly-contested national issue despite the case's seeming dissimilarities with that national issue. This case will undoubtedly be cited as precedent the very first time some state or federal authority attempts to punish a church or synagogue for violating anti-discrimination law by refusing to perform or condone gay marriage. And any lawyer worth his salt will point out that the Supreme Court decision was unanimous, including the concurring opinions of four very liberal Justices.

Score One For The Christians

View Detail

The Economist: Religious Jews Are The Real Evil

The Economist: Religious Jews Are The Real Evil

Sometimes The Economist has to be read to be believed. In December, The Economist began worrying for the first time that things weren’t going right in Egypt because “inexplicably” some religious types were winning the elections. How bad are these religious types? Almost as bad as ultra-Orthodox Jews. . . the worst of the worst.

When the Arab Spring hit Egypt, there were plenty of reasons to hope the country would move in the right direction. Egypt had a history of religious tolerance before the modern era. The country is relatively modern. The country has a huge Christian population who would presumably be a moderating force. The Army was definitely a moderating force. And the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly forsworn violence and any intention of imposing strict Sharia law on the people. It seemed very possible Egypt could become a Turkish-style moderate-Islamic democracy.

But there were also plenty of reasons to believe things would go wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood’s political history is more radical than they admit. Islam would not see subjugating a Christian population as much of a moral dilemma, see e.g. anywhere in the Middle East, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc. And there is another group, the Salafists, who are openly pushing for a Taliban-like puritanical interpretation of Islam to become the law of the land.

People with brains saw the potential for good in this and the potential for bad, and they waited to see how the middle class and youth would respond. Idiots, i.e. liberals like The Economist, saw only the good parts.

With the first round of the elections in the books, the bad appears to be winning. The Muslim Brotherhood have become the big winners with 46%. Even worse, the Salafists got 24%. The question now is whether the Brotherhood will team with the Salafists, which they originally promised they wouldn’t. That will decide Egypt’s future.

And now that things appear to be going wrong, liberals are shocked to discover there was ever a potential for bad. Who knew there were Muslims who really meant it when they said they want to stop women from driving, going to school, and fondling vegetables, when they said they want to murder Christians who won’t convert, and when they said they want to go to war with Israel? Who could have known this, whined The Economist when it confessed to being misled by all the Egyptian Facebook pages that seemed so hopeful and so liberal.

Anyway, The Economist is now trying to save face by equating the Salafists with ultra-orthodox Jews. Indeed, according to The Economist religious Jews are just like the Muslim Brotherhood and the ultra-orthodox are just like the Salafists. Let’s compare:

● Religious Jews are “carving out no-go areas for the authorities with their own legal and morality police.”

Yep, that’s just completely evil. It’s kind of like how it’s a death sentence for non-Muslims to be in places like Mecca and Medina and how Jews aren’t allowed in Saudi Arabia and how the Muslims in places like Sudan and Ethiopia slaughtered their Jewish and Christian neighbors. Yeah, those imaginary no-go areas are about as bad as it can get.

● Religious Jews are “using their power as parliamentary kingmakers [and] religious Jews are the state.”

Oh, so they’ve imposed Torah law and Rabbis select political leaders now? Oh wait, no, that still only happens in Muslim countries.

● “The hotter-headed religious soldiers boycott military pageants at which women perform,” . . . “Municipalities cancel concerts with female artists or insist that they fully cover their bodies and remove advertising of even modestly-clad women from streets and buses.” . . . and “Hillary Clinton recently said she was worried that women’s rights in Israel were being eroded.”

Wow, if Hillary says it, then it must true. Of course, boycotting parades and demanding that scantily-clad women be covered up isn’t quite the same as requiring women to wear veils head to toe, sentencing women to be stoned for having sexy eyes, attacking male doctors who try to help women, sentencing women to death for adultery or sorcery or being raped, allowing instant divorce by husbands, not letting women vote, hold office, drive, work, go to the same churches, go to school, etc. etc. But yeah, I TOTALLY see how you could equate these things.

● “In ultra-Orthodox suburbs of Tel Aviv, women, like their Saudi counterparts, do not drive.”

Of course, in Israel, it’s a choice. In Saudi Arabia, it’s a law and women drivers get a death sentence. Also, it’s not just Saudi Arabia. It’s all over the Gulf and spreading.

● “Religious Jews tend to be more dismissive of Arabs than their secular compatriots.”

Yep, that’s bad. There’s nothing worse than being dismissive. . . like how the left is dismissive of Christians. Of course, Muslims aren’t really dismissive of Jews so much as “murderous of.” Tomato... tomato I guess.

● “Polls suggest that a high percentage of religious Jews would deny non-Jews the vote.”

But they can vote. Show me a Muslim country where non-Muslims can vote? In fact, in several Muslim countries (e.g. Pakistan) being a Jew or Christian gets you a death sentence.

Oh, those evil Jews! Won’t someone rid us of their terror?!

This is shameful, but it’s also par for the course these days among liberal journalists for whom anti-Semitism and stupidity are tools of the trade. They casually mix anti-Semitism with their bizarre language of equivalency to come up with stunning comparisons like this, where a blood thirsty murderer can be equated to someone shushing you at a theater. Nice work Economist.

Sometimes The Economist has to be read to be believed. In December, The Economist began worrying for the first time that things weren’t going right in Egypt because “inexplicably” some religious types were winning the elections. How bad are these religious types? Almost as bad as ultra-Orthodox Jews. . . the worst of the worst.

When the Arab Spring hit Egypt, there were plenty of reasons to hope the country would move in the right direction. Egypt had a history of religious tolerance before the modern era. The country is relatively modern. The country has a huge Christian population who would presumably be a moderating force. The Army was definitely a moderating force. And the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly forsworn violence and any intention of imposing strict Sharia law on the people. It seemed very possible Egypt could become a Turkish-style moderate-Islamic democracy.

But there were also plenty of reasons to believe things would go wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood’s political history is more radical than they admit. Islam would not see subjugating a Christian population as much of a moral dilemma, see e.g. anywhere in the Middle East, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc. And there is another group, the Salafists, who are openly pushing for a Taliban-like puritanical interpretation of Islam to become the law of the land.

People with brains saw the potential for good in this and the potential for bad, and they waited to see how the middle class and youth would respond. Idiots, i.e. liberals like The Economist, saw only the good parts.

With the first round of the elections in the books, the bad appears to be winning. The Muslim Brotherhood have become the big winners with 46%. Even worse, the Salafists got 24%. The question now is whether the Brotherhood will team with the Salafists, which they originally promised they wouldn’t. That will decide Egypt’s future.

And now that things appear to be going wrong, liberals are shocked to discover there was ever a potential for bad. Who knew there were Muslims who really meant it when they said they want to stop women from driving, going to school, and fondling vegetables, when they said they want to murder Christians who won’t convert, and when they said they want to go to war with Israel? Who could have known this, whined The Economist when it confessed to being misled by all the Egyptian Facebook pages that seemed so hopeful and so liberal.

Anyway, The Economist is now trying to save face by equating the Salafists with ultra-orthodox Jews. Indeed, according to The Economist religious Jews are just like the Muslim Brotherhood and the ultra-orthodox are just like the Salafists. Let’s compare:

● Religious Jews are “carving out no-go areas for the authorities with their own legal and morality police.”

Yep, that’s just completely evil. It’s kind of like how it’s a death sentence for non-Muslims to be in places like Mecca and Medina and how Jews aren’t allowed in Saudi Arabia and how the Muslims in places like Sudan and Ethiopia slaughtered their Jewish and Christian neighbors. Yeah, those imaginary no-go areas are about as bad as it can get.

● Religious Jews are “using their power as parliamentary kingmakers [and] religious Jews are the state.”

Oh, so they’ve imposed Torah law and Rabbis select political leaders now? Oh wait, no, that still only happens in Muslim countries.

● “The hotter-headed religious soldiers boycott military pageants at which women perform,” . . . “Municipalities cancel concerts with female artists or insist that they fully cover their bodies and remove advertising of even modestly-clad women from streets and buses.” . . . and “Hillary Clinton recently said she was worried that women’s rights in Israel were being eroded.”

Wow, if Hillary says it, then it must true. Of course, boycotting parades and demanding that scantily-clad women be covered up isn’t quite the same as requiring women to wear veils head to toe, sentencing women to be stoned for having sexy eyes, attacking male doctors who try to help women, sentencing women to death for adultery or sorcery or being raped, allowing instant divorce by husbands, not letting women vote, hold office, drive, work, go to the same churches, go to school, etc. etc. But yeah, I TOTALLY see how you could equate these things.

● “In ultra-Orthodox suburbs of Tel Aviv, women, like their Saudi counterparts, do not drive.”

Of course, in Israel, it’s a choice. In Saudi Arabia, it’s a law and women drivers get a death sentence. Also, it’s not just Saudi Arabia. It’s all over the Gulf and spreading.

● “Religious Jews tend to be more dismissive of Arabs than their secular compatriots.”

Yep, that’s bad. There’s nothing worse than being dismissive. . . like how the left is dismissive of Christians. Of course, Muslims aren’t really dismissive of Jews so much as “murderous of.” Tomato... tomato I guess.

● “Polls suggest that a high percentage of religious Jews would deny non-Jews the vote.”

But they can vote. Show me a Muslim country where non-Muslims can vote? In fact, in several Muslim countries (e.g. Pakistan) being a Jew or Christian gets you a death sentence.

Oh, those evil Jews! Won’t someone rid us of their terror?!

This is shameful, but it’s also par for the course these days among liberal journalists for whom anti-Semitism and stupidity are tools of the trade. They casually mix anti-Semitism with their bizarre language of equivalency to come up with stunning comparisons like this, where a blood thirsty murderer can be equated to someone shushing you at a theater. Nice work Economist.

The Economist: Religious Jews Are The Real Evil

View Detail

Guest Article: Jesus Was Not A Socialist

Guest Article: Jesus Was Not A Socialist

by Rob (aka ArmChairGeneral)

"...and Jesus Christ forcibly took the money from all of the people gathered and gave it to the Pharisees to distribute as they felt. Thereafter the people rejoiced in the good deeds done by Jesus as they lived on socialized programs ran by benevolent governments."

No matter how hard you look for the above passage in the Holy Bible you will not find it. Not in the New International Version, New American Translation, King James, Living Word, The Message, Quest Bible, the Amplified no not even the 'hidden books' made popular by the Da Vinci Code. Why? To put it quite simply Jesus did not operate that way. In fact His message was pretty clear to the Tax Collectors and the People of the Law. I will use a bit of artistic license and paraphrase what He was saying to them - 'Stop stealing from my people.'

Jesus never advocated full governmental control nor was he suggesting that we give all of our money to the Pharisees. Instead, Jesus was trying to encourage normal people that they could make a difference by just helping with what they had by giving and not through the governmental takeover of all of their assets.

I give. I am glad to do it. We have many charities that the church sponsors such as Tiburon Haiti, Windy Hill Elementary, Costa Rica as well as the local food bank and Family Promise. The church is involved with a good deal more missions besides and I personally give to other missions.

The problem that I have with a government taking more money away from my family to give to whomever they feel deserves it is that the government has never been good at holding onto money and giving it to those that need it. For instance, every dollar the government takes from you ends up being only about 15 cents of actual money that is distributed to people who are on food stamps and into other social programs. The rest of the money goes to pay for the salaries of Congress, the bureaucracies involved in ensuring the money is properly counted (IRS), the bureaucracies involved in ensuring the money is properly distributed (Social Security) and the bureaucracies involved in ensuring that the regulations are maintained (EPA, FAA, FTC, RIAA, UDMC, etc). The rest of what is left over that is supposed be used to care for the needy and to protect the people of this country go to special interest groups and further perks for Congress. Would not it be better to give that dollar to a non-profit organization that would take the majority of the money and give it to the needy? Furthermore, if the government increases my taxes I will have less to offer.

I realize Jesus told one man to give up all of his possessions and follow him. In the Holy Bible there are many accounts where Jesus challenges people to drop what they are doing and follow Him. When another man approached and asked to follow Him, he said he needed to bury his dead father to which Jesus replied to let the dead bury their own dead. Another man wanted to follow Jesus but needed to tend to his field but Jesus told him that anyone who looks back at the field is not fit to follow. (I am paraphrasing - if you want to know more, read the Gospels.)

What Jesus says to these people has nothing to do with what he said about the government. In fact, the only time he really addresses the government is when he asks whose face is on the Denarius and then answers, "Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s and to God what is God’s." If Cesar decides he wants to increase our taxes that is up to Cesar but as a supposedly free country I believe that we have a right to decide what is fair and what is not fair.

I think it is fair for me to decide what to give charity. It is my obligation as a steward of what God provides. I think the government does us all a disservice when it begins to take more and more money and mismanages it by giving it away to delta smelt. Our money has gone to protect so-called minority interests that are really nothing more than gangs of union thugs, k-street lobbyists who petition the government for more and more control so that big business is able to destroy the competition using a thinly veiled illusion that they are putting regulations in place to ‘help the consumer’. The biggest insult has been that our money has gone to the businesses that ‘are too big to fail’ such as banks, auto companies, etc. and the government now has a majority of stock in these industries.

The last time any government was in business it borrowed from other countries similarly to what we have done with China. Instead of paying these countries back, the government decided to start a war. I will let you figure out exactly what government I am referring too but any student of history should already know.

Our government supports special interests and big business in the direct opposition to what we as a country stand for which is freedom and the opportunity to make more of ourselves. It is already difficult enough for small businesses to stay in business. Why do we need more regulation and red tape?

We the people need to take a stand against the government both the so-called conservatives and the liberals and find our voice to cry out at the injustices that the government does to people who would otherwise be helped by our donations and gifts had they not stolen more than was their share. This is what the TEA party really stands for. This is what our constitution demands and this is what we as a nation deserve.

by Rob (aka ArmChairGeneral)

"...and Jesus Christ forcibly took the money from all of the people gathered and gave it to the Pharisees to distribute as they felt. Thereafter the people rejoiced in the good deeds done by Jesus as they lived on socialized programs ran by benevolent governments."

No matter how hard you look for the above passage in the Holy Bible you will not find it. Not in the New International Version, New American Translation, King James, Living Word, The Message, Quest Bible, the Amplified no not even the 'hidden books' made popular by the Da Vinci Code. Why? To put it quite simply Jesus did not operate that way. In fact His message was pretty clear to the Tax Collectors and the People of the Law. I will use a bit of artistic license and paraphrase what He was saying to them - 'Stop stealing from my people.'

Jesus never advocated full governmental control nor was he suggesting that we give all of our money to the Pharisees. Instead, Jesus was trying to encourage normal people that they could make a difference by just helping with what they had by giving and not through the governmental takeover of all of their assets.

I give. I am glad to do it. We have many charities that the church sponsors such as Tiburon Haiti, Windy Hill Elementary, Costa Rica as well as the local food bank and Family Promise. The church is involved with a good deal more missions besides and I personally give to other missions.

The problem that I have with a government taking more money away from my family to give to whomever they feel deserves it is that the government has never been good at holding onto money and giving it to those that need it. For instance, every dollar the government takes from you ends up being only about 15 cents of actual money that is distributed to people who are on food stamps and into other social programs. The rest of the money goes to pay for the salaries of Congress, the bureaucracies involved in ensuring the money is properly counted (IRS), the bureaucracies involved in ensuring the money is properly distributed (Social Security) and the bureaucracies involved in ensuring that the regulations are maintained (EPA, FAA, FTC, RIAA, UDMC, etc). The rest of what is left over that is supposed be used to care for the needy and to protect the people of this country go to special interest groups and further perks for Congress. Would not it be better to give that dollar to a non-profit organization that would take the majority of the money and give it to the needy? Furthermore, if the government increases my taxes I will have less to offer.

I realize Jesus told one man to give up all of his possessions and follow him. In the Holy Bible there are many accounts where Jesus challenges people to drop what they are doing and follow Him. When another man approached and asked to follow Him, he said he needed to bury his dead father to which Jesus replied to let the dead bury their own dead. Another man wanted to follow Jesus but needed to tend to his field but Jesus told him that anyone who looks back at the field is not fit to follow. (I am paraphrasing - if you want to know more, read the Gospels.)

What Jesus says to these people has nothing to do with what he said about the government. In fact, the only time he really addresses the government is when he asks whose face is on the Denarius and then answers, "Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s and to God what is God’s." If Cesar decides he wants to increase our taxes that is up to Cesar but as a supposedly free country I believe that we have a right to decide what is fair and what is not fair.

I think it is fair for me to decide what to give charity. It is my obligation as a steward of what God provides. I think the government does us all a disservice when it begins to take more and more money and mismanages it by giving it away to delta smelt. Our money has gone to protect so-called minority interests that are really nothing more than gangs of union thugs, k-street lobbyists who petition the government for more and more control so that big business is able to destroy the competition using a thinly veiled illusion that they are putting regulations in place to ‘help the consumer’. The biggest insult has been that our money has gone to the businesses that ‘are too big to fail’ such as banks, auto companies, etc. and the government now has a majority of stock in these industries.

The last time any government was in business it borrowed from other countries similarly to what we have done with China. Instead of paying these countries back, the government decided to start a war. I will let you figure out exactly what government I am referring too but any student of history should already know.

Our government supports special interests and big business in the direct opposition to what we as a country stand for which is freedom and the opportunity to make more of ourselves. It is already difficult enough for small businesses to stay in business. Why do we need more regulation and red tape?

We the people need to take a stand against the government both the so-called conservatives and the liberals and find our voice to cry out at the injustices that the government does to people who would otherwise be helped by our donations and gifts had they not stolen more than was their share. This is what the TEA party really stands for. This is what our constitution demands and this is what we as a nation deserve.

Guest Article: Jesus Was Not A Socialist

View Detail

Happy Post-Thanksgiving!

Happy Post-Thanksgiving!

Thanksgiving was nice. In fact, I still feel a little full as I’m sure many of you do. So let’s ease back into the political scene with a quick catch-up post on what you missed over the holidays.

Item One: There Is No God! Guess who left “God” out of the annual Thanksgiving Day address? If you guessed Obama, then you win a prize. So Obama makes sure the White House honors Islamic holidays, but he won’t mention God on a holiday that honors Christians who came to the New World to find religious freedom? I guess we shouldn’t really be surprised, the left has waged a war against religion for decades now.

Item Two: Let’s Not Be Frank. Barney Frank announced today he will retire. His reasons were the usual, wanted to spend more time at gay bars and politics is too nasty now that the Republicans are in charge. He also hinted at the real reason: he was going to lose. Last election he almost lost his seat to a no-named token Republican. Since that time, his district has been re-districted so that he lost a chunk of supporters. Rather than blow his money in a possibly embarrassing loss, he decided to abandon ship and make off with his ill-gotten booty.

Item Three: Colon Powell. Did I misspell that? Nope. Old Rectum’s latest bit of stupidity is to blame the Tea Party for the “divisive tone” in Washington. Forget that this has been the case since the MSM went to war against Nixon and went full-retard against Reagan and almost went blind from their hate against Bush II. . . yep, forget all that. It’s the Tea Party! Those average Americans who want their government to stop spending so much, are the reason everyone in DC hates each other.

We should be thankful the Republicans never fell for the idiotic idea of drafting Powell to run for President. Powell is a turkey. He’s not a great general (in fact, he was the guy who whined we would lose 60,000 troops if we attacked Iraq), he has never shown much in the way of brains, he’s liberal on all issues, and he’s shown tremendous disloyalty. In other words, he’s the ideal RINO and should be tossed out of the party.

Item Four: Tebowmania. Speaking of the war against religion, I have to mention Tim Tebow. I’m not a Florida Gators fan, nor a Denver Broncos fan. I knew little about Tebow before he was drafted and I cared even less. And I don’t care what anyone’s religious beliefs are. That’s all up to you and it’s none of my business.

But I don’t like the way Tebow’s being treated. From the very beginning there was a real wave of venom aimed at him. People, especially sportswriters, HATED him. Why did they hate him? Here's a clue: every single article they wrote or comment they made on the air went out of its way to attack him for being religious. Sure, they denied religious bias, but they couldn’t help themselves. . . they had to keep mentioning it. Now they’re even trying to project their obsession onto his fans by claiming the fans are the ones who keep bringing up his religion, which just isn’t true. They keep saying the fans are claiming that just because Tebow is religious, he should be allowed to play quarterback. Only, no one has ever said this. To the contrary, it’s the sportswriters who are saying he shouldn’t be allowed to play quarterback precisely because he is religious.

I know obsession when I see it, and this is obsession.

What’s interesting is that if Tebow were black none of this would be a problem. Ray Lewis (who has murdered a man) and others regularly profess their faith in all their interviews and the media praises them for it. But let Tebow be seen giving a quick prayer and heads begin to explode.

Moreover, I find the criticism stunningly hypocritical. Tebow is now 5-1 as a starter. That’s better than most black quarterbacks in their rookie years, yet criticism of those quarterbacks for failing to win was called “racist.” We're told Tebow can’t throw, yet he has a higher completion percentage than Mike Vick did in two of his seasons and has already thrown for more yards than Mike Vick did in his rookie year -- yet the same people who hate Tebow and say he can’t play were verbally fellating Vick and calling his critics “racists.” These are also the same people who now write articles condemning the rest of us for not forgiving Vick for his dog fighting crimes even though he never showed any contrition. So we're the intolerant ones, huh?

What is going on here is liberalism in action. The affirmative action mentality says that any criticism of black quarterbacks is racist and must be shouted down. And Christianity is oppressive, so it must be oppressed. How else do you explain that full-on obsessive, public hatred of a white Christian kid simply because of his religion is suddenly acceptable? It's despicable.

Item Five: Supercommittee Fails. And no one cares. In fact, Pat Toomey pointed out they can just ignore the deal’s requirements to impose the draconian cuts. More false Washington drama.

Welcome back!

Thanksgiving was nice. In fact, I still feel a little full as I’m sure many of you do. So let’s ease back into the political scene with a quick catch-up post on what you missed over the holidays.

Item One: There Is No God! Guess who left “God” out of the annual Thanksgiving Day address? If you guessed Obama, then you win a prize. So Obama makes sure the White House honors Islamic holidays, but he won’t mention God on a holiday that honors Christians who came to the New World to find religious freedom? I guess we shouldn’t really be surprised, the left has waged a war against religion for decades now.

Item Two: Let’s Not Be Frank. Barney Frank announced today he will retire. His reasons were the usual, wanted to spend more time at gay bars and politics is too nasty now that the Republicans are in charge. He also hinted at the real reason: he was going to lose. Last election he almost lost his seat to a no-named token Republican. Since that time, his district has been re-districted so that he lost a chunk of supporters. Rather than blow his money in a possibly embarrassing loss, he decided to abandon ship and make off with his ill-gotten booty.

Item Three: Colon Powell. Did I misspell that? Nope. Old Rectum’s latest bit of stupidity is to blame the Tea Party for the “divisive tone” in Washington. Forget that this has been the case since the MSM went to war against Nixon and went full-retard against Reagan and almost went blind from their hate against Bush II. . . yep, forget all that. It’s the Tea Party! Those average Americans who want their government to stop spending so much, are the reason everyone in DC hates each other.

We should be thankful the Republicans never fell for the idiotic idea of drafting Powell to run for President. Powell is a turkey. He’s not a great general (in fact, he was the guy who whined we would lose 60,000 troops if we attacked Iraq), he has never shown much in the way of brains, he’s liberal on all issues, and he’s shown tremendous disloyalty. In other words, he’s the ideal RINO and should be tossed out of the party.

Item Four: Tebowmania. Speaking of the war against religion, I have to mention Tim Tebow. I’m not a Florida Gators fan, nor a Denver Broncos fan. I knew little about Tebow before he was drafted and I cared even less. And I don’t care what anyone’s religious beliefs are. That’s all up to you and it’s none of my business.

But I don’t like the way Tebow’s being treated. From the very beginning there was a real wave of venom aimed at him. People, especially sportswriters, HATED him. Why did they hate him? Here's a clue: every single article they wrote or comment they made on the air went out of its way to attack him for being religious. Sure, they denied religious bias, but they couldn’t help themselves. . . they had to keep mentioning it. Now they’re even trying to project their obsession onto his fans by claiming the fans are the ones who keep bringing up his religion, which just isn’t true. They keep saying the fans are claiming that just because Tebow is religious, he should be allowed to play quarterback. Only, no one has ever said this. To the contrary, it’s the sportswriters who are saying he shouldn’t be allowed to play quarterback precisely because he is religious.

I know obsession when I see it, and this is obsession.

What’s interesting is that if Tebow were black none of this would be a problem. Ray Lewis (who has murdered a man) and others regularly profess their faith in all their interviews and the media praises them for it. But let Tebow be seen giving a quick prayer and heads begin to explode.

Moreover, I find the criticism stunningly hypocritical. Tebow is now 5-1 as a starter. That’s better than most black quarterbacks in their rookie years, yet criticism of those quarterbacks for failing to win was called “racist.” We're told Tebow can’t throw, yet he has a higher completion percentage than Mike Vick did in two of his seasons and has already thrown for more yards than Mike Vick did in his rookie year -- yet the same people who hate Tebow and say he can’t play were verbally fellating Vick and calling his critics “racists.” These are also the same people who now write articles condemning the rest of us for not forgiving Vick for his dog fighting crimes even though he never showed any contrition. So we're the intolerant ones, huh?

What is going on here is liberalism in action. The affirmative action mentality says that any criticism of black quarterbacks is racist and must be shouted down. And Christianity is oppressive, so it must be oppressed. How else do you explain that full-on obsessive, public hatred of a white Christian kid simply because of his religion is suddenly acceptable? It's despicable.

Item Five: Supercommittee Fails. And no one cares. In fact, Pat Toomey pointed out they can just ignore the deal’s requirements to impose the draconian cuts. More false Washington drama.

Welcome back!

Happy Post-Thanksgiving!

View Detail

God Allowed Back At Military Funerals

God Allowed Back At Military Funerals

After facing multiple lawsuits, the Obama Department of Veterans Affairs has entered into a consent decree whereby it must abandon its ban on prayers and references to God at funerals conducted at national cemeteries. God and His servants are now allowed back at military funerals.

The atheists and secularists in the Obama administration had drafted an entire funeral manual which specifically took all religious expression out of military funerals, even from a non-military pastor or the fallen warrior's family. Though there had been some confrontations at several national cemeteries nationwide, the real battle to bring back tradition as old as the United States itself took place not a a funeral but at a privately-hosted Memorial Day ceremony on military property. Houston National Cemetery Director Arleen Ocasio told Pastor Scott Rainey that all references to God or Jesus must be stricken from his invocation. Without those, exactly whom or what did Ocasio think Rainey was invoking?

For Rainey, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ocasio had redesignated the cemetery chapel as a "meeting facility" which she closed to anything but official [secular] business. Since the chapel had first been built, the chapel bells had rung out twice every day, and more often for special occasions. After silencing the bells, Ocasio also removed the Bibles and cross from the chapel. The seating space for congregants, celebrants and mourners was cut drastically as Ocasio filled the back pews with old storage boxes.

Military-related organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion were told that if they provided honor guards at funerals, they must not include prayer or religious speech in the burial rites. The only possible exception was if the family itself submitted the proposed prayer to Ocasio, in advance, for her approval or disapproval. Sounds a lot like freedom of religion in China.

A solemn tradition among those having VFW ceremonies was the gathering of the brass casings from the military salute, placing them in a pouch, and handing the pouch to a family member with the words "I present you with these shell cases from the shots that were fired to honor our departed comrade. We ask that God grant you and your family grace, mercy and peace." Way too much for Ocasio. Banned! As were the place cards from the National Memorial Ladies which read "God bless you." How dare they?

Ocasio and her fellow-travelers claimed that their purpose was not to ban religion but rather to guarantee that the funeral services would be "inclusive." How lame is that? The only people who would be "excluded" would be those who didn't know the fallen warrior or those who had no respect for the deceased's beliefs and family. But even at that, there would be no formal exclusion. It would be self-exclusion. In reality, Jewish people often attend Christian funerals and vice-versa. Catholics attend Protestant funerals, Protestants attend Catholic funerals, and atheists of the non-militant kind attend them all. Somehow, nobody feels "excluded" by the mention of God or Jesus.

So several supporters of religion and ancient tradition filed suit against Ocasio and the Department of Veteran Affairs for interference with freedom of religion and freedom of expression. They also had the support of Texas Republican House Member John Culberson. Earlier, he had attended a veteran's funeral anonymously and quietly, and personally witnessed Ocasio hectoring VFW volunteers, demanding that they comply with her secularist orders or leave. The court granted Pastor Rainey a temporary restraining order, but prior to the court granting a permanent injunction against Ocasio's interference with religious ceremonies, the Department entered into the consent decree.

The Obama administration reluctantly gave up its attack on Christianity (and to a certain extent, Judaism). The chapel has been reopened, the cross has been returned to its rightful place, the bells ring again, and the trash in the back pews has been removed. Memos have gone out to other military districts to cool the censorship. Ocasio is still on the job, but is keeping a low profile. Aside from having her metaphorical teeth handed to her, the arrogant woman has something else to worry about. Rep. Culberson is working behind the scenes to see if he can find a way to reduce her salary to zero.

After facing multiple lawsuits, the Obama Department of Veterans Affairs has entered into a consent decree whereby it must abandon its ban on prayers and references to God at funerals conducted at national cemeteries. God and His servants are now allowed back at military funerals.

The atheists and secularists in the Obama administration had drafted an entire funeral manual which specifically took all religious expression out of military funerals, even from a non-military pastor or the fallen warrior's family. Though there had been some confrontations at several national cemeteries nationwide, the real battle to bring back tradition as old as the United States itself took place not a a funeral but at a privately-hosted Memorial Day ceremony on military property. Houston National Cemetery Director Arleen Ocasio told Pastor Scott Rainey that all references to God or Jesus must be stricken from his invocation. Without those, exactly whom or what did Ocasio think Rainey was invoking?

For Rainey, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ocasio had redesignated the cemetery chapel as a "meeting facility" which she closed to anything but official [secular] business. Since the chapel had first been built, the chapel bells had rung out twice every day, and more often for special occasions. After silencing the bells, Ocasio also removed the Bibles and cross from the chapel. The seating space for congregants, celebrants and mourners was cut drastically as Ocasio filled the back pews with old storage boxes.

Military-related organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion were told that if they provided honor guards at funerals, they must not include prayer or religious speech in the burial rites. The only possible exception was if the family itself submitted the proposed prayer to Ocasio, in advance, for her approval or disapproval. Sounds a lot like freedom of religion in China.

A solemn tradition among those having VFW ceremonies was the gathering of the brass casings from the military salute, placing them in a pouch, and handing the pouch to a family member with the words "I present you with these shell cases from the shots that were fired to honor our departed comrade. We ask that God grant you and your family grace, mercy and peace." Way too much for Ocasio. Banned! As were the place cards from the National Memorial Ladies which read "God bless you." How dare they?

Ocasio and her fellow-travelers claimed that their purpose was not to ban religion but rather to guarantee that the funeral services would be "inclusive." How lame is that? The only people who would be "excluded" would be those who didn't know the fallen warrior or those who had no respect for the deceased's beliefs and family. But even at that, there would be no formal exclusion. It would be self-exclusion. In reality, Jewish people often attend Christian funerals and vice-versa. Catholics attend Protestant funerals, Protestants attend Catholic funerals, and atheists of the non-militant kind attend them all. Somehow, nobody feels "excluded" by the mention of God or Jesus.

So several supporters of religion and ancient tradition filed suit against Ocasio and the Department of Veteran Affairs for interference with freedom of religion and freedom of expression. They also had the support of Texas Republican House Member John Culberson. Earlier, he had attended a veteran's funeral anonymously and quietly, and personally witnessed Ocasio hectoring VFW volunteers, demanding that they comply with her secularist orders or leave. The court granted Pastor Rainey a temporary restraining order, but prior to the court granting a permanent injunction against Ocasio's interference with religious ceremonies, the Department entered into the consent decree.

The Obama administration reluctantly gave up its attack on Christianity (and to a certain extent, Judaism). The chapel has been reopened, the cross has been returned to its rightful place, the bells ring again, and the trash in the back pews has been removed. Memos have gone out to other military districts to cool the censorship. Ocasio is still on the job, but is keeping a low profile. Aside from having her metaphorical teeth handed to her, the arrogant woman has something else to worry about. Rep. Culberson is working behind the scenes to see if he can find a way to reduce her salary to zero.

God Allowed Back At Military Funerals

View Detail

Papist Oppressors Strike Again

Papist Oppressors Strike Again

I'm just curious. What part of Catholic University did they not understand? Basking in the glory of his earlier complaint against Catholic University of America for sexual discrimination after the school banned co-ed dormitories, vexatious litigator John Banzhaf filed a complaint with the Washington D.C. Office of Human Rights on behalf of Muslim students offended by crucifixes and statues of Jesus and Mary.

For those of you not conversant in Latin, the school's emblem (shown) reads: "Keep those Muslims down," or something like that. Banzhaf is a lawyer and a law instructor at neighboring George Washington University Law School. It's unclear what his beef is with Catholic University, but he seems to prefer it as a target of his wrath. It is also unclear whether or not he represents any actual Muslims attending Catholic University. In a real lawsuit, he could not file on his own behalf, but the bureaucratic meanderings of "human rights" commissions are not saddled with any such restrictions. As a human being, he automatically has standing to file a complaint.

Banzhaf claims that the Muslim students are offended because they have to meditate in the school's chapel, and at the cathedral that shines over the entire campus. That cathedral is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. "It shouldn't be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus," says Banzhaf. Gee, it also shouldn't be difficult for Muslims to find other universities which don't have "Catholic" in their name.

I sent my younger daughter to California Lutheran University, largely because it had a good curriculum, was semi-affordable and local, and, well, Lutheran. Had she chosen Catholic University, I would have expected her not to be offended by Catholic iconography. Even less would I have expected her to nail 95 Theses on the door of the cathedral. We already did that, we made our point, and besides, it would be just plain rude. I would also think it rude of her to demand that a special place be set aside on campus for her and her fellow religionists to contemplate Luther's sermon on grace or recite Luther's small catechism sans crucifixes.

But somehow Banzhaf thinks that Catholic University should strip the walls of Catholic iconography, cover up the crosses which adorn the larger buildings, and set up special rooms with footbaths and alcoves to worship Allah. At least he didn't object to the crescent moon embedded in the university's coat of arms. Never mind that there are three Muslim centers within two miles of the university. Banzhaf wants Catholic University to be more like Harvard, where secularism reins supreme. Of course he knows that Harvard was founded originally to train Anglican pastors and missionaries. And he also knows that if you work hard enough at it, you can alter the very foundations of a university.

It is important to note that Catholic University is a private school. How a private school can be regulated by state school standards is anyone's guess. The only argument that holds any water at all is that the school, like almost every other major private university in the nation, seeks and accepts funding from multiple sources including the federal government. So what? It doesn't impose religious demands on people who could choose hundreds of other schools to attend. Planned Parenthood finessed that issue fairly successfully by claiming any federal funds received are used for purposes other than abortion. Catholic University has the same argument available to it: Federal funds are used only for secular instruction, and the religious portions are funded by private and Church resources.

The federal funds argument doesn't work very well for Banzhaf. He doesn't want religion removed from the school, he simply wants a Catholic university to impose special privileges and spaces for a different religion. He appears to want to use secular reasoning and secular institutions to advance religion. Or so it seems. In actuality, he simply wants to harm a school dedicated to the Christian faith by using Muslims as his stalking-horses. The ultimate goal is to get God out of the universities entirely, or alternatively to impose Islam as a co-equal religion in private religious institutions.

Catholic University has so far avoided the full-blown secularization of some other Catholic universities such as Notre Dame, or Protestant schools such as Wesleyan. The school accepts qualified students with little consideration of their religion (it does give preference for those planning to enter the Catholic priesthood). More importantly, it does not refuse admission to anyone based on religion. The school clearly has a religious flavor throughout the campus, but it's hard to see how Muslims should be any more offended by the atmosphere than I would be during a visit to the Vatican.

At least one Muslim student at the university doesn't think that Banzhaf speaks for him. Wiaam Al Salmi praises the school for its diversity and tolerance, saying: "The community here is very respectful of other religions and I feel free to openly practice mine. Even though it's a Catholic school, a lot of its teachings are very similar to Islam. It teaches respect, community service, love worship, etc. which are things that Islam also teaches." I'm guessing that Banzhaf (and more than a few ayatollahs and imams) would say that Al Salmi is living proof that Catholicism is already working its nefarious plot on him.

I'm guessing that most of you reading this article are asking yourselves "is this complaint ridiculous or what?" I'm also willing to bet you came to that conclusion in about thirty seconds without a lot of agonizing over subtleties. But you and I are not dealing with the D.C. Office of Human Rights. Rather than simply rejecting the complaint on its face as it should have, the office has taken the complaint seriously and says it needs at least sixty days to think the whole thing over. I am praying (yes, praying) that for once a school will stand its ground and take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if the idiots at the Human Rights office make a finding in favor of Banzhaf and his Judas goats.

I'm just curious. What part of Catholic University did they not understand? Basking in the glory of his earlier complaint against Catholic University of America for sexual discrimination after the school banned co-ed dormitories, vexatious litigator John Banzhaf filed a complaint with the Washington D.C. Office of Human Rights on behalf of Muslim students offended by crucifixes and statues of Jesus and Mary.

For those of you not conversant in Latin, the school's emblem (shown) reads: "Keep those Muslims down," or something like that. Banzhaf is a lawyer and a law instructor at neighboring George Washington University Law School. It's unclear what his beef is with Catholic University, but he seems to prefer it as a target of his wrath. It is also unclear whether or not he represents any actual Muslims attending Catholic University. In a real lawsuit, he could not file on his own behalf, but the bureaucratic meanderings of "human rights" commissions are not saddled with any such restrictions. As a human being, he automatically has standing to file a complaint.

Banzhaf claims that the Muslim students are offended because they have to meditate in the school's chapel, and at the cathedral that shines over the entire campus. That cathedral is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. "It shouldn't be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus," says Banzhaf. Gee, it also shouldn't be difficult for Muslims to find other universities which don't have "Catholic" in their name.

I sent my younger daughter to California Lutheran University, largely because it had a good curriculum, was semi-affordable and local, and, well, Lutheran. Had she chosen Catholic University, I would have expected her not to be offended by Catholic iconography. Even less would I have expected her to nail 95 Theses on the door of the cathedral. We already did that, we made our point, and besides, it would be just plain rude. I would also think it rude of her to demand that a special place be set aside on campus for her and her fellow religionists to contemplate Luther's sermon on grace or recite Luther's small catechism sans crucifixes.

But somehow Banzhaf thinks that Catholic University should strip the walls of Catholic iconography, cover up the crosses which adorn the larger buildings, and set up special rooms with footbaths and alcoves to worship Allah. At least he didn't object to the crescent moon embedded in the university's coat of arms. Never mind that there are three Muslim centers within two miles of the university. Banzhaf wants Catholic University to be more like Harvard, where secularism reins supreme. Of course he knows that Harvard was founded originally to train Anglican pastors and missionaries. And he also knows that if you work hard enough at it, you can alter the very foundations of a university.

It is important to note that Catholic University is a private school. How a private school can be regulated by state school standards is anyone's guess. The only argument that holds any water at all is that the school, like almost every other major private university in the nation, seeks and accepts funding from multiple sources including the federal government. So what? It doesn't impose religious demands on people who could choose hundreds of other schools to attend. Planned Parenthood finessed that issue fairly successfully by claiming any federal funds received are used for purposes other than abortion. Catholic University has the same argument available to it: Federal funds are used only for secular instruction, and the religious portions are funded by private and Church resources.

The federal funds argument doesn't work very well for Banzhaf. He doesn't want religion removed from the school, he simply wants a Catholic university to impose special privileges and spaces for a different religion. He appears to want to use secular reasoning and secular institutions to advance religion. Or so it seems. In actuality, he simply wants to harm a school dedicated to the Christian faith by using Muslims as his stalking-horses. The ultimate goal is to get God out of the universities entirely, or alternatively to impose Islam as a co-equal religion in private religious institutions.

Catholic University has so far avoided the full-blown secularization of some other Catholic universities such as Notre Dame, or Protestant schools such as Wesleyan. The school accepts qualified students with little consideration of their religion (it does give preference for those planning to enter the Catholic priesthood). More importantly, it does not refuse admission to anyone based on religion. The school clearly has a religious flavor throughout the campus, but it's hard to see how Muslims should be any more offended by the atmosphere than I would be during a visit to the Vatican.

At least one Muslim student at the university doesn't think that Banzhaf speaks for him. Wiaam Al Salmi praises the school for its diversity and tolerance, saying: "The community here is very respectful of other religions and I feel free to openly practice mine. Even though it's a Catholic school, a lot of its teachings are very similar to Islam. It teaches respect, community service, love worship, etc. which are things that Islam also teaches." I'm guessing that Banzhaf (and more than a few ayatollahs and imams) would say that Al Salmi is living proof that Catholicism is already working its nefarious plot on him.

I'm guessing that most of you reading this article are asking yourselves "is this complaint ridiculous or what?" I'm also willing to bet you came to that conclusion in about thirty seconds without a lot of agonizing over subtleties. But you and I are not dealing with the D.C. Office of Human Rights. Rather than simply rejecting the complaint on its face as it should have, the office has taken the complaint seriously and says it needs at least sixty days to think the whole thing over. I am praying (yes, praying) that for once a school will stand its ground and take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if the idiots at the Human Rights office make a finding in favor of Banzhaf and his Judas goats.

Papist Oppressors Strike Again

View Detail

Film Friday: The Golden Compass (2007)

Film Friday: The Golden Compass (2007)

The left politicizes children’s stories. They’ve discovered that once kids learn ideas like personal responsibility, the value of families and cause and effect, it becomes rather difficult to brainwash them to believe leftist dogma. Thus, they attack centuries old fairy tales as sexist, racist and evil, and they churn out propaganda to replace them. The Golden Compass is propaganda. Indeed, Compass, the first book in Philip Pullman “His Dark Materials” trilogy, is anti-Catholic and anti-religion. “Ridiculous” screamed the left. But it's true. What's more, it's a bad film.



Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

The left politicizes children’s stories. They’ve discovered that once kids learn ideas like personal responsibility, the value of families and cause and effect, it becomes rather difficult to brainwash them to believe leftist dogma. Thus, they attack centuries old fairy tales as sexist, racist and evil, and they churn out propaganda to replace them. The Golden Compass is propaganda. Indeed, Compass, the first book in Philip Pullman “His Dark Materials” trilogy, is anti-Catholic and anti-religion. “Ridiculous” screamed the left. But it's true. What's more, it's a bad film.



Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Film Friday: The Golden Compass (2007)

View Detail