Category Archives: Religious Liberty

Franciscan U dropping health plan

Chrissy’s Site Bites @ http://news.webshots.com/photo/2254619320056011884frfDOV

Click on graphic to embiggen.

If you like this, you might also enjoy @ https://polination.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/taxed-enough-already-just-wait-until-ocare-kicks-in/

Source:
May 15, 2012: Obama Mandate Forces First Catholic College to Drop Insurance
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/15/obama-mandate-forces-catholic-college-to-drop-insurance/

4 Comments

Filed under Obamacare, Religious Liberty

Free speech takes back seat to PCism

Click on graphics to embiggen.

Chrissy’s Site Bites @ http://news.webshots.com/photo/2042550420056011884qQCZUn

Chrissy’s Site Bites @ http://news.webshots.com/photo/2425279210056011884DMJiny

We watched this excellent DVD from Netflix yesterday.

One of the four comedians did a segment on how the Left has redefined acceptable speech to mean anything that they don’t find offensive. He recounts a true story about an elementary Halloween costume party where kids were forbidden to dress as witches, because a local Wiccan had complained that she found the stereotyping offensive. If you can rent this, do it. It’s really funny, but also wise and uplifting.

If you like this, you might also enjoy @ https://polination.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/religious-discrimination-charges-filed/

H/t to Pete for shirt story:
http://patdollard.com/2012/05/canadian-student-suspended-for-wearing-life-is-wasted-without-jesus-t-shirt/

Comments Off on Free speech takes back seat to PCism

Filed under Academic Freedom, First Amendment, Funny Stuff, Religious Liberty

When the Archbishop Met the President

When the Archbishop Met the President By James Taranto – March 31, 2012
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577311800821270184.html

I just want to make sure all of you see the Archbishop Dolan interview in the Wall Street Journal. The whole thing is so good, I don’t even want to try to excerpt it. If you don’t have time to read it now, print it out. It’s really worth it.

More about Dolan @

https://polination.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/60-minutes-of-biased-reporting/

and

https://polination.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/dolan-one-of-new-cardinals/

2 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Catholic Church, Religious Liberty, Timothy Dolan

Establishment of Atheism


Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2513306460056011884iOSpZb
Click on graphic to embiggen.

On the establishment of religion:

What the Constitution really says

By Alan Keyes – August 26, 2003

http://www.wnd.com/2003/08/20465/

This is quite a long and detailed article, so I have made an outline to help you decide if you want to spend the time reading it in more detail or just trust that I’ve hit the high points correctly. 🙂

Introduction

Federal judges do NOT have the right to interfere with State actions that may or may not constitute an establishment of religion.

The first clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution plainly states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution plainly states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, is reserved to the States or to the people.

Taken together, the 1st and 10th Amendments clearly forbid federal judges from doing stuff like banning Ten Commandment displays on State property.

An erroneous premise

Federal judges and justices who do this stuff claim they have the right under the 14th Amendment:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

But, the 14th Amendment only restricts the legislative powers of the States where they deal with the rights of individual citizens.

And the first clause of the 1st Amendment deals with the rights of States, not individuals. Specifically, it reserves to each State the right to establish religion if a majority of the people of that State decide they want it.

Distinguishing rights of the people from individual rights

The first two clauses of the 1st Amendment are often treated as if they were one. This is incorrect.

The first clause — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — designates a power of government that is reserved to the States. Congress is forbidden to address the subject at all.

The second clause — “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — deals with an action or set of actions (the free exercise of religion) that cannot be free unless they originate in individual choice. This clause allows for some federal action, but severely restricts the character of such action in favor of free exercise by individuals.

When federal judges ban a Ten Commandments monument on State property, they are violating both the clearly stated right of any State to establish religion and the right of individuals to freely exercise religion.

Parallel rights and actions

The assumption made by the judges that do this stuff is that the right of a State to do something somehow means individuals cannot do that thing.  That is wrong.

  • The government’s power to arm soldiers does not interfere with an individual’s right to arm himself.
  • The government’s power to establish schools does not interfere with an individual’s right to educate his kids at home or start a private school.
  • The government’s power to run a postal service does not interfere with an individuals right to operate a messenger service or set up a company like UPS.

The way the Constitution is written puts religion into the same kind of category — i.e., a matter of parallel individual and governmental possibilities.

Federal and State governments are both forbidden to coerce or prohibit individual choice and action in matters of religion.

The Federal government is further forbidden to get involved in any way with a constitutional majority’s decision within a State to express or support religious beliefs or values. The point of this was to secure the right of the people of the States to live under a State government that reflects their religious inclination.

Subverting the wisdom of the Founders

Federal judges who over-turn State laws on religion violate Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

Federal judges who ban Ten Commandments displays on State property say the majority is not allowed to have that right, because some minority … possibly even one person … does not like the result of the vote.

But the Constitution protects the right of State majorities to choose on religious matters. Furthermore, it guarantees the rights of every individual in the losing minority to either stick around and try to convince fellow State citizens to change their votes or else move to some other State that upholds a value system they find more congenial.

What it does NOT do is allow federal judges to establish atheism as the official religion of the entire United States.

Unlawful usurpation and lawful resistance

These federal judges put the force of law and the punishment of force behind their orders. These are the very definition of what constitutes “establishment of religion.” Thus, while pretending to protect religious freedom, they actually destroy it.

Ordinarily, we have a duty to obey a court order. But where that order is unlawful, we may have a right or even a duty to disobey it. For example, if a federal judge orders the governor of a state to take actions that he conscientiously believes violates a fundamental and constitutionally protected right of the people of his State, that official is duty-bound to refuse the order.

An aside from CtH: For our military, this duty is encoded in the UCMJ; there is no “I was ordered to commit that crime” exemption allowed to American Soldiers. For Catholics, the moral rights to and limits on civil disobedience were defined by Pope Paul VI in section 74 of his 1965 encyclical Gaudium et Spes.

Judge Moore and the people of Alabama

The citizens of Alabama are justified in bringing suit against those State officials who carried out the judge’s unlawful order. But since the federal judiciary is the perpetrator, what chance do they have?

Judicial self-interest

Federal judges are human and humans are prone to look first to their own self-interest. Thus expanding their own power is likely to distract federal judges from the legal merits of the case.

The people and their representatives

This is why the U.S. Constitution did NOT make federal courts the ultimate judges of their own powers. That job rests with the Congress.

The right and duty of Congress

Congress must pass legislation that says “hands off” to federal courts on matters of State religious expression, such as the placement of a Ten Commandments monument on State property, which neither prevent nor coerce any individual’s practice of religion.

Comments Off on Establishment of Atheism

Filed under Constitution, First Amendment, Religious Liberty, U.S. Congress

They can’t justify supporting Democrats anymore

In 2008, we tried to talk to our liberal pastor about Obama’s pro-abortion history. She responded by giving us a 3-page article xeroxed from a liberal magazine about why the Democratic Party’s alleged support for civil rights and help for the poor made them the better choice than selfish, greedy Republicans.

We both read it carefully and found it to be an illogical, garbled list of Democrat talking points. There was not a shred of Catholic teaching or Biblical truth in it.

I bought her a copy of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism: Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters by Arthur C. Brooks.

She sent me a snippy email “thanking” me for the gift, saying she had no plans to read it “now or ever.”

So much for open-minded dialogue between people of faith.

The summer of 2009, when the Leftist media was reporting very negatively on ObamaCare protests … for example, neglecting to point out that the incidents of violence were perpetrated by the pro-ObamaCare protesters against the antis, not the other way around … our deacon published an illogical, garbled justification for why the antis were all greedy and selfish.

So much for non-judgmental dialogue between people of faith.

His only actual justification for supporting ObamaCare was this: “When my mother was dying, I was grateful for her Medicare.” He also said it was very bad when people bit each other at protests. (I always wondered if he knew that the biter was on his side, while the man who lost part of his finger to the oh-so-tolerant Democrat supporter was on my side.)

When the Catholic bishops finally got a clue and came out against ObamaCare, the liberal pastor at the next parish over gave the official statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops equal billing on the parish web-site with the pro-ObamaCare statement by a group of 40 nuns.

Am I being overly-judgmental in characterizing Pro-Choice Catholic arguments as “illogical” and “garbled”? I’ll let you be the judge. In the video, the off-camera voice notes that the Catholic bishops are opposed to the HHS mandate. The voice then asks if Pelosi will stand with her fellow Catholics in resisting this law OR stand with the administration to impose it?

Pelosi says “I will stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this.”

That’s not a typo. Listen for yourself.

“Illogical?” “Garbled?” Hell, yes.

Today, angelaisms sent me a link to this article:

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President By David Barton – February 29, 2012

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106938

David Barton is the historian who did the American Heritage DVDs I raved about a couple days ago.

The whole article is worth reading, but too long to share here in full.  I do want to copy-paste the section that deals with Obama’s pro-abortion, anti-life actions since becoming President of the United States:

  • January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations.
  • January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.
  • March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit.
  • March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.
  • March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.
  • May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities.
  • July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion.
  • September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
  • October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion.

This is not a comprehensive list. For example, there was the appointment of Catholic Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of HHS, the agency that formulated the famous HHS mandate to deprive Pro-Lifers of their First Amendment rights.

While Sebelius was governor of Kansas, she was buddies with George Tiller the Baby Killer. In this video interview, she calls him a “health care provider.”

How close were George and Kathleen?

During her time in office, Governor Sebelius used her veto power three times to protect late-term abortionists, which in Kansas meant George Tiller.

In April 2007, Sebelius held a party at the governor’s mansion to honor Tiller. Only Tiller, his wife, and his clinic staff were invited.

For his part, Tiller spent millions funding Sebelius and the Democratic Party — $1.2 million in the 2006 election cycle alone.

Like other Catholic Pro-Choicers (e.g., Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, Biden), Sebelius claims she can be a faithful Catholic and still take money from and hand out political favors to the abortion industry.

The Roman Catholic Church begs to differ. Here is just a sampling of quotations from http://old.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/prochoice.shtml:

  • John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.
  • There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture.
  • No Catholic can responsibly take a “pro-choice” stand when the “choice” in question involves the taking of innocent human life.
  • We urge those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin.
  • [N]o appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible.
  • Those who justify their inaction on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land need to recognize that there is a higher law, the law of God

Sebelius’ ordinary, Archbishop Joseph Naumann, has warned Sebelius several times of her infidelity to Church teaching. When she was nominated as head of HHS, Bishop Naumann called Obama’s choice “offensive” and wrote:

“Because of her long history both as a legislator and governor of consistently supporting legalized abortion and after many months of dialogue, I requested Governor Sebelius not to present herself for communion.”

Archbishop Raymond Burke, prefect of the Apostolic Signature in Rome, backed him up, stating publicly that Sebelius should not present herself for Holy Communion no matter where she was.

Comments Off on They can’t justify supporting Democrats anymore

Filed under Abortion, Barack Obama, Catholic Church, Democrats, HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, Nancy Pelosi, Religious Liberty, United Nations

Riffing on Sandra

This is a family site, so y’all are just going to have to click the linkies. (You’re already clicking on them, aren’t you? hee hee)

Graphic: 2012_03 08 Nancy shocked at bad words about Fluke > Values – Left v Right
Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2651819760056011884veLBmO
Thanks to http://terrellaftermath.com/ for permission to post.

I read what Fancy Nancy had to say about Fluke’s “courage” in coming forward. There was this one bit about how horrible it was for one student who was told right at the pharmacy counter that her insurance didn’t cover birth control and she was OMG embarrassed and OMG had to walk away.

Well, crap. I guess we just should take a big black Magic Marker to that damn First Amendment thing about religious freedom and force that damn Catholic college to pay for her damn birth control. Right? I mean, What Would Jesus Do? LET her be EMBARRASSED?! It’s unspeakable. It’s outrageous. It can’t be allowed!

Graphic: Fluke leading the Leftists > Values – Left v Right
Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2518786520056011884ifQNhw
H/t to angelaisms for idea about using Delacroix’s famous “Liberty Leading the People.”

6 Comments

Filed under Catholic Church, Constitution, First Amendment, Funny Stuff, Nancy Pelosi, Religious Liberty, Sandra Fluke

Senate says NO to Religious Liberty

Click on graphics to embiggen.

Democrats created the HHS mandate requiring ALL health insurance plans to provide birth control, sterilization and the morning-after abortion pill, thus forcing Americans who oppose these activities to choose between paying for them, which would violate their consciences, or else stop offering health insurance to their employees.


Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2425882000056011884ZKkTXM

Democrats and their lapdogs in the media lied about what the HHS mandate and the Blunt Amendment were about. Rather than admit the HHS mandate was a gross abrogation of our First Amendment rights, they claimed Catholics and Republicans were trying to deprive women of access to birth control, sterilization and the morning-after abortion pill.


Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2536756760056011884jzgFOz

SOURCES:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/01/senate-defeats-blunt-amendment-to-stop-obama-hhs-mandate/
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm

2 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Catholic Church, Democrats, First Amendment, HHS, Obamacare, Religious Liberty, Republicans, U.S. Senate

Protesting the HHS mandate

Click on graphic to embiggen.

The HHS Obamacare mandate will require all employers to provide contraception, sterilization and abortion-causing drugs in their insurance coverage (without co-payment). Both the religious exception and the so-called Obama compromise are so narrow that they don’t cover most religiously-based institutions.

A search of public records has shown that none of the 15 members of the HHS committee has ever demonstrated any support whatsoever for the pro-life position, despite the undeniable fact that this is the majority position in America.

Worse, the vast majority of the 15 members of the committee that created the mandate have strong relationships with pro-abortion groups and activities:

Claire Brindis – Member of NARAL’s Board of Directors and one of it’s “most steadfast and generous donors.”

Angela Diaz – Former board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice; former senior vice president of the International Women’s Health Coalition, an advocacy group dedicated to the premise that abortion and contraception are “universal and inalienable” human rights.

Paula A. Johnson – Chairwoman of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts; affiliated with (NOW); winner of NARAL’s 2011 “Champion for Choice” award.

Magda G. Peck – Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs (served as both vice chair and chair); associated with a host of other organizations that advocate for abortion and free access to contraception.

Alina Salganicoff – Vice President and Director of Women’s Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a major proponent of abortion and contraception on demand.

Donations to pro-abortion political campaigns: Linda Rosenstock (over $40,000); Kimberly Gregory ($35,200); Paula A. Johnson (more than $30,000); Francisco Garcia (between $11,750 and $13,000); Carol Weisman ($4,500); Roberta Ness (at least $2,500); E. Albert Reece ($1,000);  Alina Salganicoff ($950).

—————–
Source: Panel Behind Obama Mandate Dominated by Pro-Abortion Orgs
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/16/panel-behind-obama-mandate-dominated-by-pro-abortion-orgs/

1 Comment

Filed under Abortion, HHS, Obamacare, Religious Liberty

NY Rep thinks her constituents are idiots

My guess is that they think she needs to be replaced.

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2291609270056011884SFwzkK

Click on graphic to embiggen.

Comments Off on NY Rep thinks her constituents are idiots

Filed under Catholic Church, Obamacare, Religious Liberty

Defend Freedom of Religion

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2099581260056011884idWmEX

H/t to Angelaisms for the idea.

7 Comments

Filed under Religious Liberty