Shining the light of the Catholic faith on the Culture of Death - paxchristi3's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Planned Parenthood: Then and Now

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:42:06 PST

The Creative Minority Report blog asks this question: Did the science change? Or did the organization's crazy thirst for abortion profit change?

This is from a Planned Parenthood pamphlet from 1952:

Religion of peace, indeed

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:56:53 PST

Bill Donohue of Catholic League once again dismantles the MSM, this time for obviously putting lipstick on a pig, presumably to ensure that liberal radicals who have a problem with Christianity don't lose face for defending their fellow fascists known for revering a thug who is dead and six feet under. Either that or to avoid being cut off at the knees over their belief that appeasement can go a long way toward averting the need to go after anyone who'd mess with us. Hopefully Bill has given the appeasers a reason to give thanks to God that this nation was founded by infidels.

MUSLIM MASSACRE OF CHRISTIANS

March 9, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue calls into question media coverage of Muslim violence against Christians in Nigeria:

According to The Australian, “dozens of bodies lined the streets” of three Christian villages in northern Nigeria. “Other victims of the weekend’s Muslim fury jammed a local morgue, the limbs of slaughtered children tangled in a grotesque mess.” Children were scalped, “most had severed hands and feet,” and “officials estimate that 500 people were massacred in night-time raids by rampaging Muslim gangs.” According to one eyewitness media account, “They then set homes on fire and attacked men, women and children. Many were decapitated.”

Now here is how CNN is reporting the story. “Gangs of machete-wielding Muslims have been blamed for the weekend slaughter of hundreds of Christian villagers in Nigeria, but analysts say it would be wrong to assume the conflict was rooted in religion.” Of course: When Muslims massacre Christians, religion never has anything to do with it.

“Some analysts,” the story continues, “believe the weekend slaughter was a revenge attack for the killing of around 150 members of the Hausa Muslim community by Christian mobs in Kuru Karama south of Jos, in January 2010.” Well, let’s see. Back in January, a U.N. media outlet reported that Muslim and Christian leaders in Kuru Karama, a predominantly Muslim village, “met to make a pact with the police to defend any attacks by outsiders.” But guess what happened? “Several hours later youths armed with machetes attacked the village.” And we know who likes machetes.

Back to CNN. It cited an ugly Muslim-Christian incident in 2001 in the same area. What started the Muslim massacre back then? “A Christian woman had tried to cross the road through a group of Muslims during Friday prayers.” Yeah, that’ll do it every time.

It’s time to stop viewing Muslim-Christian violence through the lens of moral equivalency.

Glenn Beck Tells Catholics to Leave the Church

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:27:29 PST

Since Randomfactor brought up this subject in my previous posting, I thought my response warrants a separate post since it's clear that both he and Glenn Beck have demonstrated invincible ignorance, which is always the case for the former and occurs once in a while for the latter. Leave it to the Catholic Knight blogger to school them:

I’m begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!”

read full story here

audio

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Here's the problem with Glenn Beck. He's a likable guy. He has good things to say. In fact, some of his material, both on radio and television, is very enlightening. Unfortunately, Beck has a problem similar to a lot of radio and television personalities both on the right and the left. He's prone to stereotyping and painting with a broad brush. This is one of those cases.

Now on the surface, Beck is right about "social justice" and "economic justice" being code words for left-wing Marxists. It's true they do use those terms frequently to cover their real agenda. It's also true that a lot of those people are operating from within Christian churches, both Catholic and Protestant, to whitewash Marxism with a Christian veneer. However, it is simultaneously true that Jesus taught Christians to care for the poor, and many churches have outlined their methods for doing this in what is typically called "social justice." The largest promoter of this kind of Biblical social justice is none other than the Catholic Church.

We can excuse Glenn Beck for his ignorance because he is not a Catholic. In fact, Beck is a Mormon, a convert to Mormonism at that, which by his own admission was the result of a "feeling of love" more than an informed doctrinal decision. I think it's safe to say Mr. Beck doesn't know a whole lot about Catholicism and for that reason we can give him a pass - this time.

Had Beck understood the basis of Christian "social justice" or "social doctrine" he would have known there are actually TWO KINDS. (1) The kind that employs the principle of subsidiarity and (2) the kind that does not.

The first kind, the kind that employs the principle of subsidiarity, is the kind promoted by the Catechism of the Catholic Church....

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

Subsidiarity has been described as the hinge upon which all of Catholic "social doctrine" or "social justice" turns. Catholic bishops who understand this have made it clear that without subsidiarity, there literally cannot be any "social justice." That's because without subsidiarity "social justice" is liable to become nothing more than "socialism."

This leads us to the other kind of "social justice" which is really no justice at all, and that is the kind that lacks subsidiarity. In the Catholic Church this has been defined as "Liberation Theology" which has been condemned as heresy by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. People have actually been excommunicated from the Church for teaching this. "Social Justice" lacking subsidiarity usually degenerates into a type of philosophy where all methods of bringing social and economic justice are relegated to the state, as if the state were God, and it's agents the Church. Of course this is Marxist socialism plain and simple.

Sadly, this latter form of "social justice" lacking subsidiarity, which is really no justice at all, has found it's way not only into some corners of the Catholic Church, but into many mainline Protestant denominations as well. I believe this is what Glenn Beck is trying to warn us about. Ironically, almost simultaneously with Beck's comments, came these comments from Pope Benedict XVI himself...

(LifeSiteNews.com) - “There is no just order in the state,” he said, “that eliminates the service of charity.”

He continued, “Whoever wants to eliminate charity is preparing to eliminate man.”
“Love of our neighbour cannot be delegated,” the pope said. “The State and politics, though with the necessary attention for welfare, cannot replace it.”

He reiterated a point made in his encyclical, “Deus caritas est,” saying, “Love will always be necessary, even in the most just society.” This, he said, “requires and will always require personal and volunteer commitment.”

read full story here

Perhaps in a future radio or television show Mr. Beck can elaborate on what he meant by his above comments on "social justice" and leaving one's church. I suspect his audience would be better served if Beck simply elaborated on what TRUE "social justice" is in regards to the principle of subsidiarity. I suspect if given the opportunity and the right information, Glenn Beck would be more than happy to correct himself. Right?

McCain 'birthers': ABC, CBS, NBC, FactCheck, N.Y. Times

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:01:28 PST

Eligibility issue was huge in 2008 when
Obama opponent was focus of attention

Posted: March 08, 2010
9:30 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi

WorldNetDaily

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Many of the same news organizations and research groups today dismissing concerns about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility were far more eager to cover the issue when Republican presidential candidate John McCain was the subject.

An archive search shows the question of McCain's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president was actively pursued by Democratic Party activists and the mainstream media in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, despite the ridicule now heaped upon those questioning Obama's qualifications under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

In an article published Feb. 28, 2008, months before McCain was nominated for president by the Republican Party, FactCheck.org, at the very center of Obama's defense against eligibility questions, was itself raising them about McCain.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

In a piece that led off with the question, "How can Panamanian-born McCain be elected president?" FactCheck.org conceded McCain did meet the natural-born citizen requirements. But the website qualified its answer, stating that if McCain did win the presidency, the issue could be challenged in court.

After the Republican and Democratic conventions, on, FactCheck.org weighed into the Obama eligibility debate Aug. 21, 2008," claiming its "staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." The certificate in question, however, was a short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, not a hospital-generated long-form birth certificate listing the hospital where Obama was born as well as other relevant birth information, including the name of the attending physician.

Almost coincident with the FactCheck.org article, a flurry of mainstream media news pieces popped up about McCain's eligibility to be president.

On Feb. 28, 2008, Carl Hulse wrote a New York Times article, "McCain's Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out."

"To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states," Hulse wrote.

Picking up on the Times piece,

MSNBC.com ran a feature on the same day posing the question, "Born in the USA?"

The Wall Street Journal the same day published a Law Blog column asking: "Does John McCain Have a Birthplace Problem?"

CBS News speculated McCain's eligibility question "could conceivably end up in before the Supreme Court," adding the comment, "And you thought counting chads was a circus."

The next day, the Times of London published a similar piece, "McCain's Panama birth prompts eligibility probe by his campaign."

NBC correspondent Pete Williams also published a piece Feb. 29, 2008, on the MSNBC website, "McCain's citizenship called into question."

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his advisers are doing their best to brush aside questions – raised in the liberal blogosphere – about whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be president," Williams wrote. "But many legal scholars and government lawyers say it's a serious question with no clear answer."

On April 10, 2008, ABC reporter Jake Tapper published a piece on the ABC News website in which he noted the Constitution "does not define 'natural born citizen,'" pointing out that "McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to parents who were U.S. citizens, but some scholars have questioned that it suffices."

Then, on April 11, 2008, the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog published a piece noting that Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced a non-binding resolution expressing McCain qualifies as a natural-born citizen under terms of the Constitution.

The Leahy-McCaskill resolution, ultimately passed by the Senate unanimously was co-sponsored by Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who at the time were competing for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Even this was not enough to stop liberal activists and the mainstream media from continuing to keep alive questions about McCain's eligibility.

In a Washington Post story May 2, 2008, reporter Michael Dobbs questioned whether the Senate's unanimously passed resolution was sufficient to settle the matter of whether McCain was a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.

Dismissing the Senate resolution, Dobbs wrote that the Senate vote "is simply an opinion that has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legal scholars for many weeks."

Dobbs noted at the time the article was published "three pending cases are challenging McCain's right to be president" because even though both his parents were U.S. citizens, his father was in the Navy, and McCain was born at the U.S. Naval Station based in Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone on Aug. 29, 1939.

While acknowledging that a senior official of the McCain campaign had shown reporters a copy of McCain's birth certificate issued by the Canal Zone hospital – something the Obama presidential campaign and presidency have so far refused to do – he questioned why McCain did not release the birth certificate to the press generally.

In addition to media scrutiny, McCain testified before a U.S. Senate committee and produced his long-form birth certificate for inspection.

On May 12, 2008, PolitiFact.com, a website that has dismissed questions about Obama's eligibility, published an article authored by Robert Farley, "Was McCain born in the USA?"

Noting that the question of McCain's eligibility is "rooted in legal opinions," not in facts, PolitiFact.org begged off giving McCain's eligibility question a truth rating, claiming its "customary True-False ratings don't quite fit here."

PolitiFact repeated the Washington Post complaint that McCain had not released his hospital-generated birth certificate publically, opting instead to "let a Washington Post reporter take a peek at it."

PolitiFact, however, did not note that the Obama campaign refused all inquiries asking to see the Illinois senator's hospital-generated long-form birth certificate.

PolitiFact also dismissed congressional resolutions affirming McCain's eligibility to be president as a natural-born citizen, quoting Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor, who wrote a 20-year-old paper published in the Yale Law Journal in which she argued that Congress' interpretation of the natural-born citizen clause is not binding on the courts.

On June 12, 2008, the left-leaning DailyKos.com posted a piece by blogger "andyfoland", "The Bombshell on McCain's Birth Certificate," claiming McCain had "no interest in releasing his birth certificate" because he "actually wasn't born in the United States," and "McCain has done a good job keeping the public at large from catching on that he was born in Panama."

On June 20, 2008, editorial writer Todd Roberson wrote in a Dallas Morning News opinion blog that McCain's citizenship was "still in question," after a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District courts questioning the issue.

Displaying what he claimed was a copy of McCain's hospital-generated long-form birth certificate, Robberson wrote, "The argument is very strong against McCain being regarded 'a natural-born' citizen' as required by law."

Why?

"[McCain] was born in Panama in 1936, at a time when the State Department and the Hay-Bunau Treaty, which granted the U.S. access to the Panama Canal Zone, specifically stated that the Canal Zone was not sovereign U.S. territory," Robberson argued.

To drive home the point, a link in Robberson's piece displayed as a .pdf file the lawsuit papers filed by plaintiff Fred Hollander in the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire questioning McCain's eligibility.

The New York Times returned once again to McCain's eligibility in a July 11, 2008, article published by law reporter Adam Liptak, with contributions from Carl Hulse, "A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue."

The New York Times featured an analysis by University of Arizona law professor Gabriel J. Chin that asserted a 1937 law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 2004, arguing the law made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday.

"In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, insisted he had no political motive in raising the question," the Times wrote.

UPI published a story July 11, 2008, under the headline "McCain not natural-born citizen, prof says," repeating the New York Times story about Gabriel Chin's legal analysis.

A lawsuit challenging McCain's qualifications was pending in a federal court in Concord, N.H., the UPI story noted.

Newsbuster.org characterized Liptak's New York Times article as "a meaningless, but prominently placed, 900-word story to further chip away at John McCain's stature," noting the New York Times had yet to publish an article discussing Internet questioning about Obama's eligibility.

In July 2008, Snopes.com, which portrays itself as an independent fact-checker, classified as "undetermined" the claim that John McCain does not qualify to be president as a natural-born citizen.

"As much as we'd like to dismiss this one as just another frivolous election season rumor, it's impossible to make any definitive statement about Senator McCain's presidential eligibility because the issue is a matter of law rather than fact, and the law is ambiguous," Snopes.com wrote.

But only one month before, in June 2008, Snopes.com confidently disqualified as "false" the assertion that Barack Obama was not eligible to be president, affirming instead that he was a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II, Section 1.

With equal confidence, Snopes.com in the same month dismissed as "false" the claim that the short-form Certificate of Live Birth provided by the Obama presidential campaign was a forgery.

On Sept. 18, 2008, after McCain had won the Republican Party presidential nomination, Law.com reported a San Francisco federal judge ruled McCain's assertion of U.S. citizenship was "highly probable."

Third-party presidential candidate Alan Keyes was excoriated for bringing a federal lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility, but as the Law.com article pointed out, Keyes had also brought the U.S. District court challenge of McCain's eligibility.

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, the Web continued to buzz with stories questioning McCain's eligibility without reporting similar issues were being raised about Obama.

When greed is good

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:27:22 PST

I hadn't thought about this, but it looks like Sen. Ben Nelson actually did the opponents of Obamacare a favor by taking the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback." As Brian O'Connor of the Red Dog Report blog tells us, if only Ben had stuck to his guns on getting language in the Senate bill to bar public funding of abortion similar to that in the House bill, the ugly tentacles of the socialist health care system would have been unleashed by now. But now it looks like the Democrats may have outsmarted themselves, thanks to Ben:

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb)

It appears as if Senator Ben Nelson’s (D-Neb) willingness to compromise his morals, greedily accepting a $100 million White House bribe (the Cornhusker Kickback), might actually be the deciding factor that leads to Healthcare Reform failing in the House.

Early in December, Nelson introduced an amendment to the Senate’s Healthcare Reform legislation (similar to the Stupak Amendment in the House) that would place the same strong abortion restrictions found in the house bill, on the senate bill. The amendment failed 54-45.

At that time Sen Nelson told ABC’s Jonathan Karl;

“Federal taxpayer money ought not to be used to fund abortions. So whether it is subsidies on premiums or whether it is tax credits or whatever it is… it should not be used to fund abortions.”

Nelson was not willing to move forward on Healthcare Reform bill if it contained any provisions for abortion funding. At the same time, the more liberal Democrats in the Senate stated that they were unwilling vote in favor of a reform if the bill did not present the opportunity for government funding of abortions.

Enter President Obama and the Chicago thugocracy.

The White House convinced Senator Nelson to drop his abortion language demands in exchange for a $100 million exemption the state of Nebraska. This buyout effectively excluded the state of Nebraska from any increases in Medicare payments for the next 10 years. It has commonly referred to as the “Cornhusker Kickback”. Nelson caved on the abortion language deciding that it was better to stand on money than on morals.

“I have strongly held views and have fought hard to prevent federal funding for abortions, [but] I believe this legislation will stand the test of time and will be noted as one of the major reforms of the 21s century.”

Now it appears as if that Nelson’s compromise on abortion language might ultimately doom the bill. More than a dozen House Democrats have notified the White House that they cannot move forward on the Senate bill because it does allow for government funding of abortion. If Senator Nelson would have held his ground, standing on morals rather than money, it is more than likely that the Senate liberals would have had no choice but to cave on the abortion language rather entirely give up on their dreams of government run Healthcare.

It is ironic, but for one greedy day in the midst of December, the House would have easily passed the Senate’s Healthcare Reform bill and America would currently be a nation subject to a socialist healthcare system.

Maybe greed is good.

"Missing link" turns out to be bunk

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:53:32 PST

Ancient Primate Fossil Roils Scientific Community

Looks like the global warming frauds have company in those who would have us believe that "Ida" is our warm and fuzzy forebear. Wonder if they will change its scientific name from Darwinius masillae to Bunkumus bogusiae? Perhaps the neo-Darwinist may want to start thinking about trading in their porn for the Bible for a change: http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/healthcarehank/55394

(March 5) --Touted as "the missing link" between humans and early primates, a 47-million-year-old fossil turns out to have no such connection, a newly released study says. The debate, however, seems far from over, and it illuminates the often tricky relationship between science and the media.

Last spring, when Norwegian paleontologist Jorn Hurum and his colleagues announced the unveiling of "Ida," an unusually complete prehistoric primate fossil, it was portrayed in newspaper and television reports as a blockbuster discovery nothing short of an "eighth wonder of the world" that would offer a look at one of mankind's earliest evolutionary ancestors.

No small part of that excitement was due to Hurum himself, who had provided media outlets with a teasing press release ahead of the official announcement at New York's American Museum of Natural History that heralded the fossil as "a revolutionary scientific find that will change everything."

The hype surrounding Darwinius masillae, the scientific name given to Ida, preceded the publication of Hurum's research in a peer-reviewed journal. "Normally, you have the paper first, lots of scrutiny by other scientists and then the media enters the picture," Blythe Williams, a visiting professor of paleontology at Duke University, told AOL News.

Williams and three colleagues, writing in a paper published this week in the Journal of Human Evolution, found no evidence that Ida represents a missing link.

In the weeks leading up to Ida's May 19 museum debut, the media frenzy intensified. A&E purchased the rights to make a documentary about Ida, and ABC News signed a deal for an exclusive interview with Hurum to appear on "Good Morning America," "Nightline" and "World News With Diane Sawyer." Little Brown & Co. bought the publishing rights, and, according to The New York Times, pre-shipped 110,000 copies of the book, which, like A&E's film, is titled "The Link."

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and British television nature host David Attenborough attended the ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History, which was sponsored by the History Channel.

"Any pop band is doing the same thing," Hurum told the Times about the public relations campaign. "Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science."

Discovered in Germany, the fossil was bought by Hurum for $1 million 2007. Ida seemed poised to solve several outstanding evolutionary mysteries, and most of the guests assembled at the American Museum of Natural History seemed sold on its promise.

"Now people say, 'OK, we are primates. Show us the link.' The link they would have said up to now is missing -- well, it's no longer missing," Attenborough said at the event.

Meanwhile, other paleontologists were finally getting their first look at Hurum's paper on Ida, which was released for publication in the journal PloS One to coincide with the media blitz.

The first big challenge came from Erik Seiffert, a fossil hunter at New York's Stony Brook University. Seiffert had uncovered a 37-million-year-old fossil in Egypt remarkably similar to Ida that he said showed that Darwinius masillae was more akin to an extinct ancestor of lemurs and lorises than it was to a monkey or a man.

"Our analysis and results have convinced us that Ida was not an ancestor of monkeys, apes or humans, and if anything, has more relevance for our understanding of lemur and loris origins," Seiffert told The Guardian. Seiffert published his findings in the October issue of Nature.

At the time, Hurum defended his research. "We expected a challenge like this, and it's interesting it has taken five months for the first attack to come," he told The Guardian.

But another paleontologist perplexed by Hurum's claims was Blythe Williams. "The problems with the manuscript jumped out immediately," Williams said. "Yes, Darwinius masillae is, indeed, a very complete, 47-million-year-old fossil. But that doesn't mean it overthrows the incredibly extensive body of research that we have already built up."

Within two weeks of reading Hurum's paper, Williams and her colleagues penned their own point-by-point rebuttal to Hurum's work and reached the same conclusion as Seiffert.

"Many lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution," said Chris Kirk, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the new paper's authors.

Williams believes that Hurum's team selectively chose which data to include. "The animals they used in their study were living ones. So they ignored many of the fossil records that we have," she said.

But this latest study will probably not be the final salvo over the controversial fossil. "It's a relatively small community of scientists," Williams said. "And I understand that Hurum has already begun writing a formal response."

The Doctrine of the Catholic Kennedy? Worthless

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:53:33 PST

A long read, to be sure, but one that should cause the tighty-whities of the secularists to go into a bunch:

In 1960, he theorized the most rigid separation between Church and state, in order to be acceptable as president. Half a century later, Archbishop Chaput is accusing him of causing serious damage. An essay by Professor Diotallevi on the limits and shortcomings of secularism

by Sandro Magister

ROME, March 2, 2010 – Precisely fifty years after the memorable speech, preserved in the anthologies, that John F. Kennedy gave to the Protestant pastors of Houston in order to convince them and the entire nation that as a Catholic he could be a good president (see photo), the archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, has returned to the scene of the crime, in Houston, for a Baptist conference on the role of Christians in public life.

The "crime" was precisely the one committed by Kennedy with that speech, Chaput maintained in his talk, given yesterday evening at Houston Baptist University and reproduced in its entirety further below.

"Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage," said Chaput, who of all the bishops of the United States is the one most active in the area of relations between the Church and political leadership. He has also written a book on this topic, "Render Unto Caesar," the central thesis of which is that Caesar must be given his due, but that a Christian serves his nation by living his faith in political life in complete consistency and visibility, without hiding or diluting it.

In Chaput's view, the rigid separation between Church and state exalted by Kennedy has nothing to do with the origin and history of the United States. It is a concept introduced only in the middle of the twentieth century by a secularist current. Kennedy submitted to this current, opening the way to the privatization of religious belief in the individual conscience and to its definitive collapse, even among Catholics.

Today the paradox of these Catholics in love with secularism in the United States and elsewhere is that they espouse and exalt this paradigm in an uncritical fashion, even applying it to the Church, precisely when it appears to be increasingly in crisis everywhere.

In contemporary culture, the word "secularism" can be traced back to the "laïcité" typical of France, highly aggressive toward religion and determined to exclude it from the public sphere or in any case subject it to its own command.

But this concept is under revision in France itself, and elsewhere it has been duplicated in significantly different versions, all of them rather unstable.

Not only that. In Europe itself, as well as in North America, "laïcité" has always had to face a very different model of relations between Church and state, the "religious freedom" of Anglo-Saxon origin that has thrived most in the United States.

Both of these models were born within Christianity, but they have produced different forms of the Church's role in society.

The United States is the nation where today the confrontation between "laïcité" and "religious freedom" is most vigorous and decisive. And the Catholic Church is part of it.

In Italy, the scholar who is most insistently calling attention to this confrontation is Luca Diotallevi, professor of sociology at the Università di Roma Tre, vice president of the scientific committee of the "Social Weeks" for Italian Catholics, and an expert in high demand among the leadership of the bishops' conference.

Diotallevi has entitled his latest essay, published by Rubbettino and in bookstores for a month, "Una alternativa alla laicità."

He published an enlightening preview of his essay, with references to Europe and America, in the magazine of the Catholic University of Milan, "Vita e Pensiero":

> Se possiamo non dirci laici

But here is the talk given by the archbishop of Denver on the evening of March 1, 2010, at the Baptist University of Houston:

__________

THE VOCATION OF CHRISTIANS IN AMERICAN PUBLIC LIFE

by Charles J. Chaput

One of the ironies in my talk tonight is this. I'm a Catholic bishop, speaking at a Baptist university in America's Protestant heartland. But I've been welcomed with more warmth and friendship than I might find at a number of Catholic venues. This is a fact worth discussing. I'll come back to it at the end of my comments. [...]

I need to offer a few caveats before I turn to the substance of our discussion.

The first caveat is this: My thoughts tonight are purely my own. I don't speak for the Holy See, or the American Catholic bishops, or the Houston Catholic community. In the Catholic tradition, the local bishop is the chief preacher and teacher of the faith, and the shepherd of the local Church. Here in Houston you have an outstanding bishop – a man of great Christian faith and intellect – in Cardinal Daniel DiNardo. In all things Catholic tonight, I'm glad to defer to his leadership.

Here's my second caveat: I'm here as a Catholic Christian and an American citizen – in that order. Both of these identities are important. They don't need to conflict. They are not, however, the same thing. And they do not have the same weight. I love my country. I revere the genius of its founding documents and its public institutions. But no nation, not even the one I love, has a right to my allegiance, or my silence, in matters that belong to God or that undermine the dignity of the human persons He created.

My third caveat is this: Catholics and Protestants have different memories of American history. The historian Paul Johnson once wrote that America was “born Protestant” (1). That's clearly true. Whatever America is today or may become tomorrow, its origin was deeply shaped by a Protestant Christian spirit, and the fruit of that spirit has been, on the balance, a great blessing for humanity. But it's also true that, while Catholics have always thrived in the United States, they lived through two centuries of discrimination, religious bigotry and occasional violence. Protestants of course will remember things quite differently. They will remember Catholic persecution of dissenters in Europe, the entanglements of the Roman Church and state power, and papal suspicion of democracy and religious liberty.

We can't erase those memories. And we cannot – nor should we try to – paper over the issues that still divide us as believers in terms of doctrine, authority and our understandings of the Church. Ecumenism based on good manners instead of truth is empty. It's also a form of lying. If we share a love of Jesus Christ and a familial bond in baptism and God’s Word, then on a fundamental level, we're brothers and sisters. Members of a family owe each other more than surface courtesies. We owe each other the kind of fraternal respect that “speak[s] the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). We also urgently owe each other solidarity and support in dealing with a culture that increasingly derides religious faith in general, and the Christian faith in particular. And that brings me to the heart of what I want to share with you.

*

Our theme tonight is the vocation of Christians in American public life. That’s a pretty broad canvas. Broad enough that I wrote a book about it. Tonight I want to focus in a special way on the role of Christians in our country’s civic and political life. The key to our discussion will be that word “vocation.” It comes from the Latin word "vocare," which means, “to call.” Christians believe that God calls each of us individually, and all of us as a believing community, to know, love and serve him in our daily lives.

But there’s more. He also asks us to make disciples of all nations. That means we have a duty to preach Jesus Christ. We have a mandate to share his Gospel of truth, mercy, justice and love. These are mission words; action words. They’re not optional. And they have practical consequences for the way we think, speak, make choices and live our lives, not just at home but in the public square. Real Christian faith is always personal, but it’s never private. And we need to think about that simple fact in light of an anniversary.

Fifty years ago this fall, in September 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate for president, spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. He had one purpose. He needed to convince 300 uneasy Protestant ministers, and the country at large, that a Catholic like himself could serve loyally as our nation’s chief executive. Kennedy convinced the country, if not the ministers, and went on to be elected. And his speech left a lasting mark on American politics. It was sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong. Not wrong about the patriotism of Catholics, but wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life. And he wasn’t merely “wrong.” His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.

Now those are strong statements. So I’ll try to explain them by doing three things. First, I want to look at the problems in what Kennedy actually said. Second, I want to reflect on what a proper Christian approach to politics and public service might look like. And last, I want to examine where Kennedy’s speech has led us – in other words, the realities we face today, and what Christians need to do about those realities.

*

John Kennedy was a great speaker. Ted Sorensen, who helped craft the Houston speech, was a gifted writer. As a result, it’s easy to speed-read Kennedy’s Houston remarks as a passionate appeal for tolerance. But the text has at least two big flaws (2). The first is political and historical. The second is religious.

Early in his remarks, Kennedy said: “I believe in an America where the separation of Church and state is absolute.” Given the distrust historically shown to Catholics in this country, his words were shrewdly chosen. The trouble is, the Constitution doesn’t say that. The Founders and Framers didn’t believe that. And the history of the United States contradicts that. Unlike revolutionary leaders in Europe, the American Founders looked quite favorably on religion. Many were believers themselves. In fact, one of the main reasons for writing the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause – the clause that bars any federally-endorsed Church – was that several of the Constitution’s Framers wanted to protect the publicly funded Protestant Churches they already had in their own states. John Adams actually preferred a “mild and equitable establishment of religion” and helped draft that into the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution (3).

America’s Founders encouraged mutual support between religion and government. Their reasons were practical. In their view, a republic like the United States needs a virtuous people to survive. Religious faith, rightly lived, forms virtuous people. Thus, the modern, drastic sense of the “separation of Church and state” had little force in American consciousness until Justice Hugo Black excavated it from a private letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association (4). Justice Black then used Jefferson’s phrase in the Supreme Court’s Everson v. Board of Education decision in 1947.

The date of that Court decision is important, because America’s Catholic bishops wrote a wonderful pastoral letter one year later – in 1948 – called “The Christian in Action.” It’s worth reading. In that letter, the bishops did two things. They strongly endorsed American democracy and religious freedom. They also strongly challenged Justice Black’s logic in Everson.

The bishops wrote that “it would be an utter distortion of American history and law” to force the nation’s public institutions into an “indifference to religion and the exclusion of cooperation between religion and government.” They rejected Justice Black’s harsh new sense of the separation of Church and state as a “shibboleth of doctrinaire secularism”(5). And the bishops argued their case from the facts of American history.

The value of remembering that pastoral statement tonight is this: Kennedy referenced the 1948 bishops’ letter in his Houston comments. He wanted to prove the deep Catholic support for American democracy. And rightly so. But he neglected to mention that the same bishops, in the same letter, repudiated the new and radical kind of separation doctrine he was preaching.

The Houston remarks also created a religious problem. To his credit, Kennedy said that if his duties as President should “ever require me to violate my conscience or violate the national interest, I would resign the office.” He also warned that he would not “disavow my views or my church in order to win this election.” But in its effect, the Houston speech did exactly that. It began the project of walling religion away from the process of governance in a new and aggressive way. It also divided a person’s private beliefs from his or her public duties. And it set “the national interest” over and against “outside religious pressures or dictates.”

For his audience of Protestant ministers, Kennedy’s stress on personal conscience may have sounded familiar and reassuring. But what Kennedy actually did, according to Jesuit scholar Mark Massa, was something quite alien and new. He “‘secularize[d] the American presidency in order to win it.” In other words, “[P]recisely because Kennedy was not an adherent of that mainstream Protestant religiosity that had created and buttressed the ‘plausibility structures’ of [American] political culture at least since Lincoln, he had to ‘privatize’ presidential religious belief – including and especially his own – in order to win that office” (6).

In Massa’s view, the kind of secularity pushed by the Houston speech “represented a near total privatization of religious belief – so much a privatization that religious observers from both sides of the Catholic/Protestant fence commented on its remarkable atheistic implications for public life and discourse.” And the irony – again as told by Massa – is that some of the same people who worried publicly about Kennedy’s Catholic faith got a result very different from the one they expected. In effect, “the raising of the [Catholic] issue itself went a considerable way toward ‘secularizing’ the American public square by privatizing personal belief. The very effort to ‘safeguard’ the [essentially Protestant] religious aura of the presidency... contributed in significant ways to its secularization.”

Fifty years after Kennedy’s Houston speech, we have more Catholics in national public office than ever before. But I wonder if we’ve ever had fewer of them who can coherently explain how their faith informs their work, or who even feel obligated to try. The life of our country is no more “Catholic” or “Christian” than it was 100 years ago. In fact it's arguably less so. And at least one of the reasons for it is this: Too many Catholics confuse their personal opinions with a real Christian conscience. Too many live their faith as if it were a private idiosyncrasy – the kind that they’ll never allow to become a public nuisance. And too many just don't really believe. Maybe it’s different in Protestant circles. But I hope you’ll forgive me if I say, “I doubt it.”

*

John Kennedy didn’t create the trends in American life that I’ve described. But at least for Catholics, his Houston speech clearly fed them. Which brings me to the second point of my talk: What would a proper Christian approach to politics look like? John Courtney Murray, the Jesuit scholar who spoke so forcefully about the dignity of American democracy and religious freedom, once wrote: “The Holy Spirit does not descend into the City of Man in the form of a dove. He comes only in the endlessly energetic spirit of justice and love that dwells in the man of the City, the layman” (7).

Here's what that means. Christianity is not mainly – or even significantly –- about politics. It's about living and sharing the love of God. And Christian political engagement, when it happens, is never mainly the task of the clergy. That work belongs to lay believers who live most intensely in the world. Christian faith is not a set of ethics or doctrines. It's not a group of theories about social and economic justice. All these things have their place. All of them can be important. But a Christian life begins in a relationship with Jesus Christ; and it bears fruit in the justice, mercy and love we show to others because of that relationship.

Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Mt 22:37-40). That's the test of our faith, and without a passion for Jesus Christ in our hearts that reshapes our lives, Christianity is just a word game and a legend. Relationships have consequences. A married man will commit himself to certain actions and behaviors, no matter what the cost, out of the love he bears for his wife. Our relationship with God is the same. We need to live and prove our love by our actions, not just in our personal and family lives, but also in the public square. Therefore Christians individually and the Church as a believing community engage the political order as an obligation of the Word of God. Human law teaches and forms as well as regulates; and human politics is the exercise of power – which means both have moral implications that the Christian cannot ignore and still remain faithful to his vocation as a light to the world (Mt 5:14-16).

Robert Dodaro, the Augustinian priest and scholar, wrote a wonderful book a few years ago called "Christ and the Just Society in the Thought of Augustine". In his book and elsewhere, Dodaro makes four key points about Augustine's view of Christianity and politics (8).

First, Augustine never really offers a political theory, and there's a reason. He doesn't believe human beings can know or create perfect justice in this world. Our judgment is always flawed by our sinfulness. Therefore, the right starting point for any Christian politics is humility, modesty and a very sober realism.

Second, no political order, no matter how seemingly good, can ever constitute a just society. Errors in moral judgment can't be avoided. These errors also grow exponentially in their complexity as they move from lower to higher levels of society and governance. Therefore the Christian needs to be loyal to her nation and obedient to its legitimate rulers. But he also needs to cultivate a critical vigilance about both.

Third, despite these concerns, Christians still have a duty to take part in public life according to their God-given abilities, even when their faith brings them into conflict with public authority. We can’t simply ignore or withdraw from civic affairs. The reason is simple. The classic civic virtues named by Cicero – prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance – can be renewed and elevated, to the benefit of all citizens, by the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity. Therefore, political engagement is a worthy Christian task, and public office is an honorable Christian vocation.

Fourth, in governing as best they can, while conforming their lives and their judgment to the content of the Gospel, Christian leaders in public life can accomplish real good, and they can make a difference. Their success will always be limited and mixed. It will never be ideal. But with the help of God they can improve the moral quality of society, which makes the effort invaluable.

What Augustine believes about Christian leaders, we can reasonably extend to the vocation of all Christian citizens. The skills of the Christian citizen are finally very simple: a zeal for Jesus Christ and his Church; a conscience formed in humility and rooted in Scripture and the believing community; the prudence to see which issues in public life are vital and foundational to human dignity, and which ones are not; and the courage to work for what's right. We don't cultivate these skills alone. We develop them together as Christians, in prayer, on our knees, in the presence of Jesus Christ – and also in discussions like tonight.

*

Now before ending, I want to turn briefly to the third point I mentioned earlier in my talk: the realities we face today, and what Christians need to do about them. As I was preparing these comments for tonight, I listed all the urgent issues that demand our attention as believers: abortion; immigration; our obligations to the poor, the elderly and the disabled; questions of war and peace; our national confusion about sexual identity and human nature, and the attacks on marriage and family life that flow from this confusion; the growing disconnection of our science and technology from real moral reflection; the erosion of freedom of conscience in our national health-care debates; the content and quality of the schools that form our children.

The list is long. I believe abortion is the foundational human rights issue of our lifetime. We need to do everything we can to support women in their pregnancies and to end the legal killing of unborn children. We may want to remember that the Romans had a visceral hatred for Carthage not because Carthage was a commercial rival, or because its people had a different language and customs. The Romans hated Carthage above all because its people sacrificed their infants to Ba’al. For the Romans, who themselves were a hard people, that was a unique kind of wickedness and barbarism. As a nation, we might profitably ask ourselves whom and what we’ve really been worshipping in our 40 million “legal” abortions since 1973.

All of these issues that I’ve listed above divide our country and our Churches in a way Augustine would have found quite understandable. The City of God and the City of Man overlap in this world. Only God knows who finally belongs to which. But in the meantime, in seeking to live the Gospel we claim to believe, we find friends and brothers in unforeseen places, unlikely places; and when that happens, even a foreign place can seem like one’s home.

The vocation of Christians in American public life does not have a Baptist or Catholic or Greek Orthodox or any other brand-specific label. John 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me” – which is so key to the identity of Houston Baptist University, burns just as hot in this heart, and the heart of every Catholic who truly understands his faith. Our job is to love God, preach Jesus Christ, serve and defend God’s people, and sanctify the world as his agents. To do that work, we need to be one. Not “one” in pious words or good intentions, but really one, perfectly one, in mind and heart and action, as Christ intended. This is what Jesus meant when he said: “I do not pray for these only, but also those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn 17:20-21).

We live in a country that was once – despite its sins and flaws – deeply shaped by Christian faith. It can be so again. But we will do that together, or we won’t do it at all. We need to remember the words of St. Hilary from so long ago: "Unum sunt, qui invicem sunt", they are one, who are wholly for each other (9). May God grant us the grace to love each other, support each other and live wholly for each other in Jesus Christ – so that we might work together in renewing the nation that has served human freedom so well.

__________

(1) Paul Johnson, “An Almost-Chosen People,” First Things, June/July 2006; adapted from his Erasmus Lecture.

(2) Full text of the Kennedy Houston speech is available online from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.

(3) John Witte, Jr., “From Establishment to Freedom of Public Religion,” Emory University School of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 04-1, 2003, p. 5.

(4) Ibid., p. 2-3.

(5) U.S. Catholic bishops, pastoral letter, “The Christian in Action,” No. 11, 1948; see also Nos. 12-18; reprinted in "Pastoral Letters of the American Hierarchy, 1792-1970," Hugh J. Nolan, Our Sunday Visitor, 1971.

(6) Mark Massa, S.J.; quotations from Massa are from “A Catholic for President? John F. Kennedy and the ‘Secular’ Theology of the Houston Speech, 1960,” Journal of Church and State, Spring 1997.

(7) John Courtney Murray, S.J., “The Role of Faith in the Renovation of the World,” 1948; Murray’s works are available online from the Woodstock Theological Center Library.

(8) Robert Dodaro, O.S.A.; see private correspondence with speaker, along with "Christ and the Just Society in the Thought of Augustine," Cambridge University Press, 2008 (first published in 2004), and “Ecclesia and Res Publica: How Augustinian Are Neo-Augustinian Politics?,” collected in "Augustine and Post-Modern Thought: A New Alliance Against Modernity?," Peeters, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 2009.

(9) Referenced in Murray, “The Construction of a Christian Culture;” essay originally delivered as three talks in 1940, available as noted above.

__________

The complete text of the speech given by John F. Kennedy on September 12, 1960, to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association:

> "While the so called religious issue..."

__________

On the book "Render Unto Caesar" by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput:

> How to Conduct Politics as Catholics. The Denver Memorandum (13.8.2008)

__________

On a recent appeal from representatives of various Christian confessions of the United States:

> The "Manhattan Declaration": The Manifesto That's Shaking America (25.11.2009)

__________

The latest essay by Professor Diotallevi on these topics:

Luca Diotallevi, "Una alternativa alla laicità", Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, 2010, pp. 162, euro 14.00.

__________

An article from one year ago by www.chiesa on the question of secularism, with references to Nancy Pelosi's visit to Benedict XVI and to the case of Eluana Englaro, and with texts by cardinals Camillo Ruini and Angelo Scola, and by professors Ernesto Galli della Loggia and Pietro De Marco:

> Secularism in Danger. Two Cardinals Are Running to its Defense (23.2.2009)

__________

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

Black pro-life leader defends congressman on abortion-slavery comparison

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:22:44 PST

Since the latest incarnation of Joe Woodrow's posting on this subject was shot down quickly after it was put up, I thought I'd take the torch from him and restore it although I hope he won't mind if I use Lifenews.com's report:

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A prominent black pro-life leader is coming to the defense of Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, who has been slammed over the last few days in the mainstream media and on Internet blogs for his comments saying that abortion has been worse for the African-American community than slavery.

As LifeNews.com reported, Franks released a new video in which he makes the remarks and points out how abortion disproportionately targets the black community.

"And yet today, half of all black children are aborted. Half of all black children are aborted," Franks says. "Far more of the African American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by policies of slavery. And I think, What does it take to get us to wake up?"

Although abortion advocates and the media are calling Franks an extremist who should be ignored, Day Gardner, the president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, says he is right on track.

"Face it America, he's right. Abortion has exacted a greater toll on blacks than slavery," she told LifeNews.com.

"Our country brutally enslaved four million people, denying them their rights, their freedom and many times their lives. Rep. Franks is simply comparing that horrific truth to another horrific truth -- which is that abortion has killed more than 17 million black people," Gardner said.

"Slavery is a terrible stain on the fabric of America that can never be fully washed away," the black pro-life leader continued. "The stain of abortion is every bit as terrible and even more atrocious than slavery in light of the fact that the victims of abortion are totally helpless--they are unable to run away, unable hide or defend themselves."

Gardner calls the "devastation of abortion in the black community" a "hard truth" and she says "Franks and other members of Congress stand with us to right this terrible wrong."

She urged more of her black brothers and sisters "to speak up and stand up to those who would have us believe the lie--that poor, under privileged black children are expendable and worthless."

Gardner also went further than Franks and said the pro-life movement within the African-American community is " the underground railroad of our time and Congressman Trent Franks should be revered as a great modern day abolitionist."

Statistics from the federal government and the mainstream media appear to back up Franks' point that abortions target black women.

According to figures from the Centers for Disease Control, while black women represent 12.5% of American females they have 38.2% of all abortions, according to the authors.

The rate is so high that ABC News recently focused on it during a news feature.

The news outlet interviewed Catherine Davis of Georgia Right to Life, a black woman who is upset at how abortion adversely affects her community.

"My people are dying. My people are dying, and nobody cares that my people are dying. And I want people to be, to look at this. Is there any truth to what we are saying?" she said.

And ABC News correspondent Steve Osunsami admitted that even black Americans have historically been concerned about the racial component of abortion.

"Among African-Americans, this argument that abortion is bad for the race is an old one, but it’s not usually debated so openly. As far back as the 1940s, many black Americans resisted abortion, quietly fearing that abortion was an attempt at black extermination," he explained.

And in Georgia, a state with a higher percentage of blacks than most, he noted that abortions run high in the black community.

"It is true that, of the 35,000 women in Georgia who received abortions in 2008, nearly 21,000 were black women, more than twice the number of white women. Nationally, while black women are one and a half times more likely than white women to become pregnant, the CDC says black women are three times more likely to get an abortion," he explained.

Atheists turning on Richard Dawkins? How blasphemous!

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:09:26 PST

Aww. The Church of Dawkins First Schism

The First Evangelical Church of the Atheistic Promulgation of Richard Dawkins is having its first schism. Awwww. Isn't that so cute. And guess what, poor widdle Dawkins doesn't like to be called names. Poor thing. The Times Online reports:

Richard Dawkins is accustomed to provoking the wrath of religious communities, but now a schism seems to have opened up within the atheist community who make up his fan-base.

The split occurred after he announced that a discussion section on his website, considered one of the busiest online atheist forums, would in future be tightly moderated and “irrelevant postings and frivolous gossip” would no longer be allowed.

The change was scheduled for next month but such was the torrent of abuse after the announcement that the forum had to be locked down, deepening the rift between Professor Dawkins and his 85,000 online fans.

Writing on RichardDawkins.net yesterday, in a posting entitled “Outrage”, he said that there was “something rotten” in internet culture and pledged to rid his website of its abusive element.

“Imagine seeing your face described by an anonymous poster, as ‘a slack-jawed turd-in-the-mouth mug’,” he wrote. “Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, overreacting so spectacularly to something so trivial.

“Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical.”

Awww. Poor Dawkins. Some big bad bully atheist calling sweety-kins a mean name. Don't listen to them Richie. Hey, you know what it's kinda' like though. It's like when Dawkins hysterically called the Pope a stupid murderer. Remember Dawkins said:

"The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim. If people take his words seriously he will be responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of people."

Kind of ironic that Dawkins doesn't like to be called names, huh?

The best part is that Dawkins' followers are shocked...shocked I tell you...to discover that Dawkins sometimes paints with a bit of a broad brush. Because the atheist forum has been closed, his minions and even some website moderators have taken to other forums to denounce Dawkins' tactics.

“A lot of people have lost respect for Dawkins after this, although I do still support the work that he does,” said Peter Harrison, a former moderator.

“Thousands of loyal, intelligent, rational forum members have been misrepresented as a bunch of foul-mouthed, vitriolic thugs by the man who so inspired them.”

Another former fan said: “It may sound ridiculous to those not involved with online communities, but I feel hurt and displaced. It was like coming home to find the locks have been changed. My respect for Richard’s work is still intact but my respect for him as a person is in tatters.”

So from now on, all those freethinkers shouldn't be so free anymore, I guess. He said, “The forum is going to be more tightly controlled and will be under more central control. So it won’t be available for anyone who wants to sound off freely."

Who is Dawkins to silence atheists? Who is he to put limits on people who voluntarily join his club? Next he'll be telling them they have to be celibate or something.

So, in short, an atheist is complaining there's no uniform standard of decency. Hey, chin up Richie and remember:
Sticks and stones may break your bones
But nothing really matters anyway.

Arizona lawmakers: Verify citizenship of candidates

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:53:57 PST

Phil at the Right Side of Life blog posts a roundup of an Arizona legislative committee's passage of a bill sponsored by 40 of the state's 90 legislators to require that presidential candidates prove that they are natural-born citizens, which was reported by the media from Arizona all the way up to Seattle: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/02/24/az-state-rep-on-committee-approved-eligibility-bill-issue-needs-to-be-addressed/

It's edifying to learn that similar steps are being taken in several states.

Should these measures become law, it'll be interesting see what Barry the Undocumented One will do at the poker table. I'll bet he'll fold and slink outta here while the getting's good, hoping that he won't be ambushed by a slew of some serious federal charges: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126137

Stay tuned ...

Maryland's AG does a Jerry Brown on marriage

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:43:09 PST

Unbelievable ... another AG who thinks he knows better than we, the people. We all know that "Moonbeam," our attorney general, decided to fight Prop. 8 rather than defend it after the voters passed it to have the state's Constitution amended to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

Breaking email from the National Organization of Marriage:

(WASHINGTON, DC) – Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage issued the following statement in response to Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler’s decision yesterday to recognize same-sex marriages from other states:

“Maryland's statutory law clearly states that ‘Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid’ in Maryland. The Maryland Supreme Court upheld the law and stated clearly it was the province of the legislature to change it. What part of the law doesn't the Attorney General understand? What other laws is he unwilling to enforce? This is an outrageous example of running roughshod over the rights of the people of Maryland in pursuit of a private political agenda," said Brian Brown.

Women making sense of 'confusing sexual landscape'

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:26:48 PST

Nice to see them take the bull by the horns on a couple of fronts, once again vindicating what the Catholic Church teaches while being guided by the Holy Spirit and aided by the self-correcting features of nature as beautifully designed by God:

PRO-LIFE WOMEN LEADERS ADDRESS CPAC CONFERENCE: WE'RE WINNING ON ABORTION

WOMEN WANT ABSTINENCE-BASED EMPOWERMENT, NOT NOW AND CASUAL SEX

March on Washington to tell president to quit

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:59:15 PST

'It is time to motivate the citizens of U.S. to expose 'hoax' of Obama'

Posted: February 20, 2010
12:15 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh

WorldNetDaily

Organizers of a new march on Washington are offering Americans the opportunity to show President Obama their birth certificates and declare that unless he produces documentation of his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, he should quit.

The event is headed by Philip Berg, the first to bring court challenges to Obama's eligibility under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be a "natural born citizen."

While a number of cases, including several of his own, remain pending, Berg told WND today the issue needs to be pressed.

"Since the courts are taking their time to get to the point of allowing 'discovery,' it is time to motivate the citizens of the United States for a 'peaceful revolution' to expose the 'hoax' of Obama, the biggest 'hoax' in the history of our country, in over 230 years," he said.

Berg, who publicizes his cases through his ObamaCrimes.com website, said the planned "Birth Certificate March on Washington" will demand Obama resign.

A date and other logistical details of the march are to be announced within a few days, Berg told WND.

Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

He's also asking all citizens to e-mail, fax or mail a copy of their own birth certificates to him to present to Obama. The president should resign, he said, "because he has failed to produce his long form birth certificate to show he is 'constitutionally eligible' to be president." (He said if people choose, they could black out private information.)

The copies can be e-mailed, fax to 610-834-7659 or mailed to: 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531.

"We will be preparing them to deliver to Obama demanding that he resign from the office of president as he has not proven that he is 'constitutionally eligible' to be president," Berg said.

"I am proceeding for the 305 plus million people in 'our' U.S.A., for 'our' forefathers and for the 3.2 million men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution," Berg said.

Berg said the continuing challenges to Obama's eligibility are making an impact.

As WND reported, during the National Prayer Breakfast this year, Obama raised the issue himself.

"But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship," Obama said.

The video:

"WOW, it is about time!," said Berg. "This is great."

He said he knew if efforts to expose the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility were continued, the "fraud" eventually would be uncovered.

Berg said he's already gotten what he called a "fabulous" response to his plans. He said a march is something "people positively can do."

On his website, Berg explains he believes Obama obtained an Indonesian passport while he lived with his mother and stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia, and that his act of attending school in Indonesia required him to be an Indonesian citizen.

Further, he contends that as an adult, Obama chose to continue his Indonesian citizenship by renewing his passport.

"Renewing an Indonesian passport after the age of 18 is an affirmative act, as you are swearing allegiance to another country. Soetoro/Obama renewed his Indonesian passport when he traveled to Pakistan, that is why he had to stop in Indonesia first. Remember, in 1981, [his mother] was divorcing Soetoro in Hawaii and was not in Indonesia. Obama/Soetoro admits to traveling to Indonesia first and then onto Pakistan. Soetoro/Obama claims in his book 'Dreams from my Father' that he stopped in Indonesia to visit his mother. But again, his mother was not in Indonesia, she was in Hawaii with Maya, divorcing Lolo Soetoro. In addition, the State Department has stated in response to a FOIA request that they do not have a U.S. Passport application on file for Barack H. Obama," he explained.

"As a result of Soetoro/Obama's Indonesian 'natural' citizenship status, Soetoro/Obama could never regain U.S. 'natural born' status, if he in fact he ever held such, which we doubt. Soetoro/Obama could have only become 'naturalized' if the proper paperwork were filed with the U.S. State Department, after going through U.S. Immigration upon his return to the United States; in which case, Soetoro/Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship indicating 'naturalized,'" he said.

Berg told WND he's convinced that's why Obama has been so adamant in refusing to release his school, college and university records. He said he believes they would show Obama received aid for school as a foreign national.

WND previously reported on instructions to Democrats that they start asking their GOP opponents for their position on the eligibility controversy.

And WND has reported on efforts to raise the question of Obama's eligibility at the state and national levels. Several state legislatures are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility.

Since Obama's election, numerous lawsuits have been filed by Berg and others alleging he did not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits primarily have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.

In addition to state initiatives, a federal measure has been proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

Posey's H.R. 1503 states:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

Key to the arguments over Obama is the fact is original long-form birth certificate never has been released. A second significant factor is the multitude of documents that Obama has kept from the public.

Besides his actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Thirdly, another significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases to prevent any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.

Gays are to blame for Catholic Charities' "dumping" of foster children

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:49:04 PST

Brian Brown of the National Organization of Marriage is spot on in faulting the selfishness of those who trample religious freedom in the name of equality for Catholic Charities' decision to end adoption and foster care services in D.C. rather than compromise its teachings:

The National Organization for Marriage is at CPAC this week--the annual gathering of political conservatives across this country. NOM's booth is awesome! If you are around in D.C. today (and a member) stop by and visit us!

MSNBC's uber-liberal pundit Rachel Maddow just stopped by. She grabbed a National Organization for Marriage pen and said, "Wow. You guys have great pens. Can I have one?" "Sure," I told her. And then Rachel said: "I got to go tell the NRA guys they really should get your pens." A few moments later an NRA guy shows up and says, "Rachel Maddow says NOM has the best pens. ...Can we have one?"

Surreal, huh?

Not as surreal, though, as what just happened in the District of Columbia. The local city council not only passed gay marriage, but relentlessly refused to even attempt any real religious liberty protection.

And so this week, sadly, the Archdiocese of Washington announced that the Catholic Church was ending adoption and foster care services in D.C. The Catholic Charities adoption and foster care services will be handed over intact--so as not to hurt any kids--to a third party.

Maggie Gallagher was at the Cato Institute this week debating Andrew Sullivan, who said the city council is right. He said taxpayer funds shouldn't be used to "discriminate" against gay couples. But who is it that is getting hurt here? Who is being helped by driving one of the best charities for deprived children out of the public square? Will one gay couple really be better off because no Catholic adoption and foster care service exists?

And yet the politician in the D.C. city council ruled that to let a Catholic institution be Catholic, and still help in the public square, would be "aiding discrimination."

I said it is sad, and it is, but truthfully my blood boils when I think about it. I never imagined living in an America where the government would tell the church how to run its charities. Remember this day the next time someone tells you that gay marriage is about love and tolerance, that it won't have any consequences.

The featured speaker at Cato on the panel with Maggie and Andrew Sullivan was Nick Herbert, a British member of Parliament who proudly noted that there is no political party in Britain anymore who would defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman. All parties are devoted to what he calls "gay equality." He laid out very clearly, in far more measured tones than Andrew, that this vision includes a massive expansion of government power to repress the forces of intolerance and inequality, everywhere from the sports arena to the schools. (Including, Nick said incredibly, faith schools.) I don't know many Americans who want to head in the direction that Great Britain is pioneering, where the government tells Catholic bishops they may not fire school principals who enter a same-sex civil union, or fined an Anglican bishop more than $100,000 for refusing to hire a proudly and actively gay youth minister for his diocese.

Noelle wrote to us the next day to tell us what a difference NOM’s work has made for her:

I have been reading and admiring your work since early 2008, when, as a California voter tasked with voting on Prop 8, my intellectual instincts told me to vote for it in defiance of my exclusively left-liberal education, San Francisco cultural inheritance, and entirely opposed twenty-something peer group. Nagged by a guilty conscience about this, I began researching the marriage question, and your rigorous, fair-minded, arguments single-handedly confirmed me to the cause of preserving traditional marriage and the unique public goods it provides society.

Noelle added, "P.S. I’m also a fan of everything your NOM has done and will donate what little I can spare."

Wow, Noelle. Thank you. NOM exists because of people like you. Because you care. You care about truth. You care about civility, democracy, about justice and the common good. Against all probabilities you first felt the truth and then you found the truth, and knowing you are not alone, you are standing your ground for marriage. Thank you for making our day here at NOM with your letter.

I have to get back to manning the booth at CPAC. Until next week, semper fi!

God bless you and your family, always,

Brian S. Brown

Executive Director

The true journalist of our time: Joseph Farah

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:16:35 PST

Ladies and gentlemen, behold the last of a dying breed of politically incorrect, old-school journalist, WorldNetDaily's founder who is anything but a shill for government. His latest pair of commentaries makes me thankful that there is at least one journalist on this planet worth his salt--one who is not afraid to take on the conservatives as well as the liberals:

The inglorious, uncurious media
Exclusive: Joseph Farah points out 1 prediction about journalism that wasn't fulfilled

Posted: February 18, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By Joseph Farah

Once upon a time, I aspired to work within a great institution – the American free press.

Inspired by the Watergate scandals of the early 1970s and, more importantly, the coverage provided by two reporters from the Washington Post, I set out to become a newspaperman.

While still in college, I began practicing the craft – exposing a series of scandals that forced the president of the institution to resign.

In my first professional tours, my passion for newspapering was noticed by my employers. I quickly rose through the ranks and got the plum assignments I wanted.

I studied at the feet of one of the great newspapermen of the 20th century, Jim Bellows, late of the New York Herald Tribune, Washington Star, Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Herald Examiner.

And, eventually, I got to run my own daily newspapers, fulfilling my lifetime dream – all long before my 40th birthday.

It was a lifetime of journalistic experience crammed into less than 20 years.

But it was a momentous 20 years.

During those two decades, I watched my beloved news industry lose its moorings. I witnessed it lose its sense of mission. I saw it lose its ethics and morality. I observed in horror as it was taken over by people completely out of touch with their audience, their country's values and the central role of a free press in a free society.

Today I am 55 years old and have been running the world's first independent Internet news source for 13 years.

When I started WND back in 1997, I had hoped that it would lead to a renaissance of good journalism on and off the Net. Just the opposite has happened. Traditional American journalism has all but collapsed. What stands in its place today, whether it's the New York Times, MSNBC or the Huffington Puffington Post, quite resembles the institutions known as Pravda and Izvestia back in the Cold War days – without the official government control. It isn't needed with the denizens of today's excuse for journalism. They eagerly serve not as a watchdog on government, which was the calling of journalists for the first 200 years of American history, but as shills for government power.

After 13 years, I really believed WND would have inspired all kinds of competition doing what we are doing – returning to the old-fashioned American roots of journalism, and prospering as a result.

Yet today there is still nothing like WND anywhere else – on the Internet, on TV, in print or in any other venue.

Alone we took on the Muslim Mafia, both in a well-received book of the same name and in the courtroom, without any help from any other media and practically without their notice. For that we have been labeled "Islamophobes" and "Zionist pigs."
Alone we took on the president of the United States for his refusal to prove his constitutional eligibility for office to the American people, persistence and dogged reporting that has won the hearts and minds of about half the populace. For that we have been labeled "racists," "conspiracy theorists" and "loons" – and those are the nicer names.
Alone we reported thoroughly and comprehensively on the biggest grass-roots political movement of the 21st century, the tea-party phenomenon, until other media were forced to notice. Then the tea-party participants bore the brunt of the name-calling attacks.
Alone we challenged the Congress of the United States for its unconstitutional actions through 2009 with an unprecedented 9 million "pink slips" delivered to the Capitol, again without any notice from any other media.

WND really is different from any other website out there. Yes, there are other news-oriented imitators. But they don't have the reporters and the editors and the professional experience and the standards WND has. That's a plain fact. Nobody, but nobody, does what we do.

All the while, bloggers and pundits on the left and on the right take their shots at WND in hopes, perhaps, of capturing a tiny portion of our audience or some validation by the old media, which bears so much resentment toward WND.

Make no mistake about it, WND is under siege – from the left and what I call "the soft right."

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't trade what we do for all the accolades and awards in the world. For us, the rewards are in the impact we have, the results we get and the appreciative audience we build.

Pardon me for blowing our own horn. But it's clear no one else with a horn is going to blow it for us.

Conservatives practice political correctness, too
Exclusive: Joseph Farah offers reasons why media types ridicule eligibility concerns

Posted: February 17, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By Joseph Farah

It doesn't surprise me when my colleagues in the establishment press practice political correctness – refusing to take seriously stories about the questionable constitutional eligibility of the president of the United States.

I worked in the establishment press for 25 years before launching WND. I understand the worldview at work there. It's no longer about being a watchdog on government and other powerful institutions. It's about conformity. It's about statism. It's about promoting "progressive" ideas. It's about being contemptuous of American ideals.

But, given self-proclaimed "conservatives" have been so vocal in denouncing political correctness, it's a little surprising to see some of them practicing it.

From Glenn Beck to Andrew Breitbart to Conservative Political Action Conference organizers to social climbing bloggers with little actual audience, some of the right have becoming increasingly hostile to continued calls for Barack Obama to release documents that would prove his eligibility and provide the transparency he promised with regard to his travels, health history, schooling, etc.

One of the most frequent questions I hear is why – why do folks like this insist on berating others for pursuing these legitimate concerns?

Here's what I think about that – and, granted, my theory requires a little amateur psychoanalysis:

For the most part, there is almost no appreciation for good journalism in the "conservative movement." It is comprised mainly of people who look at the press as it exists today, with its biases and laziness and its worldview so at odds with most Americans, and don't understand how a truly free press is critical to the maintenance of a free republic. "Journalism" to them is indistinguishable from pontificating. They don't appreciate the hard work and sacrifice real investigative journalism requires and how important it is to the future of our country.
Just as most people want to be "accepted" and "validated," so do conservatives – even if it is at someone else's expense. It's funny how the same folks who are always grousing about the media long for their approval. The idea of being uniformly shunned and ridiculed by the press and other elitists is more than some of these conservatives can bear.
Some of these folks just don't get why the constitutional eligibility of the president is a foundational issue. Whenever the Constitution is ignored or subverted, you would expect "conservatives," of all people, to be incensed. When it is ignored and subverted on a matter as clear as the constitutional eligibility of the president of the United States, the Constitution becomes a truly endangered founding document.
Then there are those who don't see it as a "winning issue" – despite the fact that close to 50 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want to see the original long-form birth certificate, the health records, the education files and the travel documents. This despite the fact that only one news agency in the entire country, this one, has taken the matter of eligibility and documentation seriously.
Some of them just plain don't understand the evidence for the concerns of so-called "birthers." They accept at face value the word of one virtually unknown Hawaiian bureaucrat who has proclaimed Obama as a "natural born citizen" – despite the fact that this political appointee has never faced serious questions or provided any documentation for her claim. They cite the digital certification of live birth as proof, despite the fact that there were any number of ways to obtain such a document without an actual Hawaiian birth. And, lastly, these folks who have so little understanding of the way birth information finds its way into major newspapers, cite the announcements of Obama's "birth" in the Honolulu dailies.

So why do I continue to push this issue?

Because I don't make decisions about news coverage based on which issues are "winning" issues. I look at news coverage as a search for truth.
I don't care what the rest of the media think about me or the stories I choose to cover. If I did, I never would have left the establishment press in the first place. There would have been no need for me to do so.
While I like to be liked by others, I don't expect to be liked by everyone in the rough-and-tumble world of real politics and the media. My main concern, again, is the pursuit of the truth without fear or favor.
I don't believe the concerns of tens of millions of hard-working Americans should be reviled and ridiculed.
When politicians go to extraordinary lengths to avoid accountability, there is usually a reason. It's as sure as the old adage, "Where there's smoke there's fire."
And, most of all, I believe strongly in the sanctity of the Constitution. Without it, this nation loses its moorings.

The Baby Gianna story

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:28:10 PST

With the 40 Days for Life campaign kicking off to run concurrently with the Lenten season, the Creative Minority Report is deviating from its usual humorous take on things to share a powerful story:

The Baby Gianna Story Part 1

Part I: Answering the Call

Jessica Chominski fights for the lives of others. Little lives. The ones many don’t think are worth fighting for. She is the sole full time employee of the Bucks County Community Women’s Center, a crisis pregnancy center in Pennsylvania.

About once a week a woman calls or walks into the center asking about abortion and Jessica asks them why they feel the need to abort their child, she tells them about other options, explains what abortion is, and tells them about the dignity of every human life. “Hopefully they leave thinking twice,” she says.

It’s nerve-wracking work. At 24 years old, Jessica works daily under the weight that lives depend on her. Every phone call. Every conversation. And she knows that she can’t control what a woman does when she walks out of the center so she just does all she can. And when there's no more she can do she prays. But to her it’s all worth it because in the end Jessica knows, “there are babies crawling around right now because of the work we do. And that is miraculous.”

Last June Jessica's phone rang. It was the call that would change her life. Jessica had no idea how her struggle for one baby would change her forever. And in the end, that one little baby may change many more lives than hers. All Jessica knew was that every time the phone rang a life might depend on her. She simply answered the call.

“Do you guys help out with abortion?” a woman nervously asked.

Jessica informed the woman that they didn’t perform abortions at the center. She offered to discuss options. “We can provide information,” she said. “Would you like to come by?”

Silence.

Sometimes Jessica fills the silence. Sometimes she just gives space. Jessica waited for a response. She heard breathing. But she knew that as long as the woman stayed on the phone there was hope. She knew what a sudden dial tone would likely mean. She listened to the breathing on the other end of the line until she heard a barely breathed “OK.”

When meeting with a pregnant woman Jessica says the first thing she tries to understand is why the woman feels an abortion is her only option. When Rebecca (not her real name) came in she explained she was already a mother of three and her boyfriend, the father of her unborn child, was adamant she have an abortion.

Jessica told Rebecca about fetal development. She talked about adoption. She told her there were other options. But Jessica couldn't tell if she was getting through. And when Rebecca left that day, Jessica’s hopes were not high. “I know she was a little unsure," she said.

And then she didn’t hear from Rebecca for weeks. Standard policy for the center is they follow up with two phone calls but Rebecca didn’t answer or return the calls. Jessica thought she’d never hear from Rebecca again.

But weeks later, a cousin of Rebecca’s, a former client of the center who’d considered abortion but eventually chose life, brought Rebecca back to the center because she was trying to talk her out of aborting her child.

Rebecca and Jessica spoke for hours. Rebecca told her about her boyfriend’s abuse and her estranged relationship with her religious mother. And how she felt she had nowhere to turn. And that started a period of two months where Rebecca vacillated back and forth on whether to abort. At one point, Rebecca actually scheduled an abortion for the following Friday at a local abortion clinic in nearby Warminster. That week, Jessica was on pins and needles.

The two women spoke often. Jessica could just be there for her, a voice urging life. Volunteers at the clinic babysat her children while they spoke. Jessica said, "When she had scheduled the appointment...I initiated my prayer-chain of family and friends. I emailed about 40 people at first, but the story ended up spreading literally across the country. These people were amazing- they did novenas, they fasted, they prayed, a bunch of priest friends offered Masses, I contacted a few deeply prayerful orders of religious sisters and we stormed the Heavens for 4 days. Local parishioners offered to be at the clinic. The prayer support was astronomical. That is why she didn't have the abortion on Friday."

Just to make sure though Jessica gaves Rebecca and her cousin grocery cards to keep her away from the clinic all day while she babysat both their kids. But she insists it was the prayers are what did it.

Rebecca didn’t keep the appointment at the Planned Parenthood clinic that Friday. And finally Rebecca told Jessica that she chose to keep the baby. “We all breathed a sigh of relief,” she said. “It had been such a long process but she made a decision for life.”

But the relief would be short lived. When Rebecca's boyfriend learned of her decision he repeatedly and savagely kicked her in the stomach. While examining her, hospital doctors said they saw something alarming in the baby. There was no amniotic fluid which would likely cause the baby's lungs to not develop properly.

Jessica and Rebecca decided to have the baby checked out together at St. Mary’s Medical Center, a Catholic hospital in Langhorne, Pennsylvania. Jessica was worried about the baby but she was also worried about how Rebecca would take any news. Would she consider aborting the baby again, she wondered.

Jessica explained that often when a woman makes a decision for life, it's not a one-time decision. It's a decision made dozens of time. Maybe more. Any difficulty can make the woman make and remake her decision. Jessica simply tries to be there to guide.

The appointment they headed to that day would surely be a difficult one. “But I was excited she was going to a Catholic hospital,” said Jessica. “I thought this will be difficult but at least they’ll have compassion for life of the baby.”

Rebecca, at 18 weeks pregnant, had an ultrasound done. The two women held hands while waiting together. Unfortunately, after the ultrasound, Doctor Stephen Smith had some terrible news. The baby was sick. Very sick. The baby was also diagnosed with polycystic kidneys –a fatal disease that assured the baby likely wouldn’t make it to term and would most assuredly die shortly after birth from its underdeveloped lungs.

And then it happened.

While the women wept together the doctor coolly added that he could schedule a “termination” because there was no reason Rebecca should go through a pregnancy and deliver a child since it would die almost immediately after.

Jessica couldn’t believe what she was hearing.

“The worst part is he just told her that her baby was going to die and we’re both crying. And the next thing out of his mouth was termination. I know I kind of gave him a look and I said ‘We are in a Catholic hospital.’ I probably looked pretty angry,” said Jessica. “And he just said ‘I know but she can come over to my office in Abington.’”

Abortion was back on the table...

Read The Baby Gianna Story Part II
Read The Baby Gianna Story Part III

Hathaway says she left church over gay brother

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:34:41 PST

From the Ignatius Press blog, the Insight Scoop:

Actress angry the Catholic Church intolerantly singled out her "gay" brother

Or something like that. Here's the curious headline, from USA Today: Anne Hathaway quits Catholicism for gay brother

The article states:

Anne Hathaway, who was among the stars hitting the red carpet in Hollywood last night for the premiere of Valentine's Day, says in the new British GQ that her family left the Catholic Church over its intolerant views on homosexuality.

Those intolerant views, of course, were only added recently, after a number of close votes and—oh, wait, it appears the Catholic Church's teachings about homosexuality have been around for quite a long while. Even longer than Hathaway's brother has been alive! Shocking, but true.

Anne grew up wanting to become a nun but shunned Catholicism when she learned her older brother, Michael, was gay.

And I grew up wanting to be an insanely talented, eccentric jazz musician but eventually shunned the music industry when I learned my uncle was tone deaf and my dad didn't care for the mid-Sixties Miles Davis' quintet. Bummer.

"The whole family converted to Episcopalianism after my elder brother came out," she tells the magazine. "Why should I support an organization that has a limited view of my beloved brother?"

Yes, exactly—how could she? Of course, it's actually not an issue, since the Catholic Church doesn't have "a limited view" of her brother. Rather, the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are "acts of grave depravity" and "are intrinsically disordered." The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not, as best I can tell, specifically mention Michael Hathaway, but does state:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (par. 2538)

The Hathaway situation becomes a bit more perplexing in light of this headline on the New York Daily News site:

Gay brother makes Anne Hathaway quit Catholic Church for Episcopalianism

Wow. So...who, exactly, is being intolerant: the Church with the 2,000-year-old teaching about homosexual acts being sinful and contrary to the natural law, or the homosexual brother who makes his sister (who once wanted to be a Catholic nun, for goodness sake!) become Episcopalian? Hmmmm...

Polish priests are having a devil of a time as demand for exorcists rises

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:06:32 PST

I just couldn't pass up posting on this article, if nothing else than to cause a few progressive heads to spin. This kind of stuff was routine for Jesus and his followers, so it's nice to see it making a comeback. God knows Europe can benefit from it, and how convenient is that to have these exorcists pouring out from the land of my ancestors and fellow European Union member Poland?

Not only did John Paul the Great hail from Poland, but so did St. Faustina Kowalska, who may have been referring to him when she wrote in her diary:

As I was praying for Poland, I heard the words: I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My will, I will exalt her in might and holiness. From her will come forth the spark that will prepare the world for My final coming.

Published Date: 13 February 2010

By Matthew Day in Warsaw

THE number of priests in Poland willing to do battle with Satan and rid people of evil spirits has soared as a result of growing public demand for exorcisms, say Catholic Church figures.

As Polish exorcists gathered yesterday for their annual conference, few failed to notice the swollen ranks of clergy.

In the early 1990s, there were just three exorcists for the whole country. Now there are more than 100, and each year the number gets higher. In Europe, Poland now trails only Italy in the number of its registered exorcists.

"There are so many of us because the problem (of possession] is growing," Father Andrzej Grefkowicz told a press conference that shed a rare light on a practice which remains a mystery to many.

"This isn't funny," he added. "Anybody who has come into contact with somebody who is possessed, or enslaved, knows that this is not a joke."

Despite the spread of secular thought in Poland, according to the Polish Catholic Church, each year the number of people in "torment or enslaved by an evil spirit" increases.

"In Poland, there is a growing human awareness that different types of depression and anxiety can have a spiritual cause. There wouldn't be so many of us, if this wasn't the case," said Fr Grefkowicz by way of explanation.

Another reason cited by priests for the rise in exorcists is increasing public awareness of their role, and more people looking for explanations and cures to behaviour that conventional science struggles to deliver.

But despite the age-old struggle between faith and science, trained exorcists refer people to psychologists if they feel the person suffers from a clinical, rather than spiritual problem.

"So how do we recognise if someone is possessed?" said Fr Grefkowicz. "A person may hear voices, and it may be a medical problem, but experience allows us to conclude it is a possession. Exorcists are looking for reasons."

Other ways of discovering if somebody has an evil spirit in them appear more direct.

"In Italy, there is a good way," said Fr Antony Zielinski. "You have three white envelopes, two of which contain cards, while the third has a holy image. A person possessed will behave abnormally in contact with the envelope holding the holy picture."

Aware that talk of cards and evil spirits may invoke a negative reaction from the cynical, and that many people's knowledge of exorcism is based on Hollywood horror films, Poland's exorcists are cautiously trying to demystify their work.

"We really need to shed light on the whole subject," said Dr Alexander Posacki, a Jesuit theologian and exorcism expert.

"There are a lot of unnecessary myths surrounding it, but exorcism is based on the cast-iron rules of the Church," he added. "Everything is consistent with its tradition and its teachings."

In an effort to undermine the dramatic movie image of priests locked in tumultuous battles with evil spirits, Fr Grefkowicz said most exorcisms are more sedate affairs, rather than dramatic scenarios.

"Our work is based mainly on prayers and psalms, and that is how I cast out an evil spirit," he said.

Latest news from National Organization for Marriage

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:57:23 PST

The San Francisco Chronicle broke the news that Judge Vaughn Walker is gay. I don't know if it's true or not, but here's the really big indisputable fact the mainstream media should be focusing on: Judge Walker has been incredibly biased in his rulings from start to finish.

He ordered an expensive trial over the objections of Protect Marriage, in a case where frankly the issues are primarily matters of law. He further ruled that the private and personal feelings and attitudes of Protect Marriage folks and their campaign consultants--things by definition never communicated to voters--were properly subjected to subpoena power. This was a fishing expedition of a major order: Judge Walker tried to give gay-marriage advocates access to more than a million emails by ordinary Californians who worked on the campaign, and also to internal campaign strategy memos. (The Ninth Circuit rapped his knuckles on that one.) He refused to play fair by ordering opponents of Prop 8 to open up their strategy, too. Worst of all, he broke all the rules to try to get this case televised, over the objections of Protect Marriage (who are the defendants in this case).

The Supreme Court had to step in to rap his knuckles on that one, acknowledging the reasonable fears of intimidation--but by then two-thirds of the expert witnesses in this case had withdrawn.

So why did Bill O'Reilly say on "The Factor" that Judge Walker is a "straight shooter"? I’m a big fan of "The Factor." I’m sure if Bill knew the real story, he wouldn't have called Judge Walker a "straight shooter." Instead he would've told the real, no-spin truth: Judge Walker has acted like a biased partisan, not a neutral referee in this case. Why? Only God and Judge Walker know for sure.

The 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8 deserve a fair shake and so far their rights have been profoundly disregarded and disrespected by this judge. And that's just a plain and simple fact.

Check out Sen Rick Santorum's op-ed on the subject in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which you can read below. He's been a brave spokesman for marriage at a time when few elected officials dare to face the Gill machine and the mainstream media. Kudos and thank you, Rick!

And kudos to Kevin Smith of Cornerstone Policy Research, who helped bring some good news out of New Hampshire this week. According to the Union Leader,

Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, is spearheading the petition drive [to allow New Hampshire to vote on repealing gay marriage] and has formed the group "Let NH Vote" to promote the effort in towns across the state. Yesterday, Bates said he expects votes will take place in at least 125 towns, and he is waiting to hear from more.

Towns in some remote areas have gone ahead and gathered petitions without any help from Let NH Vote, he said.

"It's all over the state. Every county will have (towns with) a question on the ballot," Bates said.

Gill money flowed big time into New Hampshire to push a gay marriage bill voters did not want--just as the Gill money flowed into Iowa, where the Democrats continue to block the people's rights to vote. I got a call recently from Indiana, where a frustrated marriage supporter complained that the speaker there is blocking a vote on a state marriage amendment that more than two-thirds of the representatives and senators would support. And this week in D.C., a new Washington Post poll showed that by a 2-1 margin the people of D.C. want the right to vote on marriage--that includes, by the way, a big chunk of pro-gay-marriage voters who believe in democracy and the civil right to vote guaranteed by the D.C. Charter.

Finally, a word about that new non-monogamy study, which according to the New York Times shows that half of gay male couples interviewed are in open relationships (and other research suggests men in three-quarters of the theoretically closed relationships "cheat"). The Baptist Press filed a story this week suggesting something worth thinking about: How will the "planned infidelity" of gay couples reshape our marriage culture?

The first step is to claim that gay couples are just the same as married couples. But even an anti-Prop 8 expert witness had to concede that monogamy--sexual fidelity--just isn't the norm in the gay male community.

"The study demonstrates clearly what we've been arguing: That gays bring a different definition to marriage," Glenn T. Stanton, a sociologist who is the director for family formation studies at Focus on the Family, told Baptist Press. "And it's not just a different definition that male and female become optional, but that monogamy becomes optional as well. They are coming into marriage with a wholly different view of marriage than anybody has -- left, right, conservative, liberal.... They come in with that understanding of openness. These are people who come into marriage with a wholly different and really radical definition of what marriage is about."

The Baptist Press quotes other prominent gay men who've acknowledged this obvious truth: "Gay male couples generally don't view monogamy as the defining characteristic of a loving, committed relationship," gay columnist Dan Savage wrote. Troy Perry, founder of the Metropolitan Christian Churches, an organization of homosexual churches, said the same thing: "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Perry told the Dallas Morning News in 2003.

"Marriage Equality" will be a two-step dance. The first step is to claim that gay unions are just like opposite-sex unions. The next step will be to say, "Gay marriages are just as much marriages as yours, so if gay men don't want fidelity, then fidelity shouldn’t be considered a basic part of marriage." Making fidelity an optional part of the cultural perception of what marriage means is already on the gay rights agenda. Consider when Andrew Sullivan first made this argument back in 1993. The uproar caused him to immediately recant and say that gay marriage would be sexually exclusive like other marriages.

Now the groundwork is being laid in the pages of the New York Times for a "fidelity-optional" version of marriage. Look for it to be taught in a public school near you soon.

Thank you again for your letters of encouragement, your prayers and your financial sacrifices. Without you, we would be nothing. Together we can make a difference.

God's blessing,

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org

NOM Featured Article
"No Way to Preach Tolerance"

Rick Santorum

Philadelphia Inquirer

February 10, 2010

Kids need a mom and a dad. Californians who think the state's marriage law should reflect this deeply held belief were forced to appeal directly to the people, with a 2008 referendum to overturn a state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, passed easily.

NOM in the News
"'Outed' Judge Accused of Bias in Prop 8 Trial"

NBC Bay Area

February 10, 2010

While not suggesting that there's anything wrong with 9th District Court of Appeals Justice Vaughn Walker

being gay, if that's true,

National Organization for Marriage Director Brian Brown

accuses Walker of bias against the defense in the

Proposition 8

trial anyway.

"Don't Ask, Don't Judge?"

Ruth Marcus

Washington Post

February 10, 2010

Does it matter if the judge hearing the lawsuit challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage is gay? Would his sexual orientation interfere with his ability to render an impartial judgment in the case, or the public's confidence that he could decide the case fairly?

"Judge in High-Profile Prop 8 Case Is Gay"

Baptist Press

February 9, 2010

"We have no idea whether the report is true or not," Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, an organization that supports Prop 8, wrote in an e-mail to constituents. "But we do know one really big important fact about Judge Walker: He's been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That's no secret at all."

"Prop 8's Gay Judge"

The Week.com

February 9, 2010

The legal fight over California's gay marriage ban is exploding, as new revelations bring the trial's simmering controversies to a boil.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle,

the judge overseeing the federal challenge to the state's Proposition 8 is himself homosexual. Prop 8 supporters are accusing Judge Vaughn Walker of bias--but is Walker being unfairly maligned?

"Countering NOM's Missive on Prop 8 Judge Walker with the Facts"

Karen Ocamb

Huffington Post

What's that adage about spin - say it long enough, hard enough, loud enough and eventually it will take on the cloak of truth? Well, the latest missive from National Organization Executive Director Brian Brown reads more like a fairy tale - showing that this Emperor has no clothes.

"Marriage Equality Low Priority for Iowans"

The Edge Boston

February 8, 2010

Though national anti-gay organizations such as the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) have targeted marriage equality for repeal in Iowa, as in other states that extend legal parity to gay and lesbian families, Iowans themselves are largely unconcerned with the issue, rating the problem of drivers texting while at the wheel as being of greater significance than attempts to wrest marriage away from same-sex families, according to a Feb. 8 article at the Des Moines Register.

"RI Gubernatorial Candidates Pledge to Sign Gay Marriage Bill"

On Top Magazine

February 9, 2010

Carcieri publicly supports placing a gay marriage ban in the Rhode Island Constitution. And last spring, he and his wife, Sue, joined the state's newly minted chapter of the National Organization for Marriage, the nation's most vociferous opponent of gay marriage.

Is the left beginning to take Palin seriously?

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:32:03 PST

From none other than the so-called "Dean of the Washington press corps," David Broder:

Those who want to stop her will need more ammunition than deriding her habit of writing on her hand. The lady is good.

Hat tip to a former ultraradical-turned-conservative Catholic mom and Jay Anderson of the Pro Ecclesia blog for publicizing Broder's column:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021002451.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

More praise for Palin comes from an unlikely source, Joan Williams of HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-williams/sarah-palin-plays-chess_b_457196.html