“Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment but that is what they did and I don’t think we have to choose here.”

Here’s a transcript of the conversation between Henneberger and Matthews aired last night (2/8/12) from NewsBusters:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: There you have the ideological argument from the left, I suppose, the progressives in this country. You heard it well-spoken there, I believe, Melinda, they see it as an argument over whether you’re allowed to have birth control or getting covered as part of the insurance or not. The Catholic Church and those who are looking at the interests of the, well, the First Amendment if you will, as they see it look at it differently. Explain this distinction and how you look at the interests involved, the conflicts, the rights involved here.

MELINDA HENNEBERGER (Washington Post): I just think the two sides can’t hear each other, not that there is anything unusual about that. But I know in my own conversations with friends, I’m saying, "First Amendment, First Amendment, First Amendment." And what I hear back is, "Wow. I had no idea you, you didn’t believe in birth control." You know, this really is  seen widely among Catholics and people of other faiths as an attack on religious liberty. Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment, but that is what they did and I don’t think we have to choose here. The key is that I think there are ways we can go about this where, without infringing on any concern about a woman’s health, we can still guarantee religious liberty without which, I mean, there is no way this is going to stand in the court but it’s also a huge political liability.

MATTHEWS: Okay. You say there is no way it’s going to stand in the court. Let’s assume there is no legislation that gets signed by the President. Let’s assume it stands between this who’s going to blink thing. Let’s ask, will the Catholic Church, let’s ask, blink? Can you imagine them saying we give up. We’re going to provide full insurance coverage with no co-pay for everything now defined by the FDA as birth control. They’re going to do it. They’re going to go for this?

HENNEBERGER: That actually can never happen so they would have to literally go- I mean, what Sister Carol Keehan is saying who runs the Catholic Health association, do I really have to choose between the call that I think came from Jesus to serve the have nots in this world and the government telling me that I have to do something that goes against my faith? I mean, this really- that will never happen so what they’re doing is guaranteeing people, you know, these Catholic outfits and others can’t serve the populations that they were called to serve. But, it does not have to come to that.

Response: Remember WaPo editor Melinda Henneberger was defending the Catholic Church in the conversation and supporting the rights of the church to continue their allied ministries and looking for someway that religious freedom could be preserved while maintaining a woman’s right to choose and receive expanded healthcare.

The conversation is revealing on a number of different levels. Both Henneberger and Matthews are progressives and the issue is really about how they might be able to get around the Constitution which allows religious freedom and yet provide for a progressive agenda which supports a woman’s ‘right to choose’ and wants to provide for contraceptives, abortive next-day pills, and ultimately abortion through mandated health care insurance on the dime of employers, even religious ones.

Matthews sees the progressive ‘right to choose’ agenda as trumping religious rights. Henneberger points out here that the 1st amendment of Constitution will actually end up supporting the church in this matter therefore they must find a way around it.

The slip of the tongue here by the WaPo editor ( Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment) actually reveals an on-going  battle in progressive think tanks over what the 1st Amendment actually means and how to get around it in order to support a hierarchy of rights for homosexuals and women.

The current progressive thinking is that the ‘freedom of religion’ in this country needs to be re-interpreted and limited to a ‘freedom of worship’ instead. A ‘freedom of worship’ only affects what is happening within a religious worship center itself and does not include the public square. This seems to be the Obama Administration approach. If Barack Obama gets a 2nd term then the issue will be front and center as he chooses 100’s of federal judges which also reflect that view.

Here are links to a couple of articles I have written on the issue:

-Is the First Amendment In Danger of Being Overridden For the ‘Greater Good’? 

-What’s the Difference: ‘Freedom of Religion’ vs. ‘Freedom of Worship’

*Top

                      (Image via Wikipedia)

A 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling (2/7/12) declared California’s Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. Proposition 8 in effect banned gay marriage in the state by defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

2 out of the 3 judges on the panel concluded that the proposition served no purpose other than to discriminate against a minority and therefore it is unconstitutional. Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the majority opinion:

"Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships."

The 3 judge panel did unanimously agree that ProtectMarriage, the backers of Proposition 8, had legal "standing" to appeal the 2010 ruling against the proposition in US District Court under Judge Vaughn R. Walker. However, they also unanimously rejected the challenge that Walker’s ruling should be set aside since the judge had a vested interest in the case as a homosexual who was himself in a long term same-sex relationship.

The 9th Circuit panel also decided to maintain a stay on gay marriage in the state until any appeals are complete.

Within the next 2 weeks the supporters of the proposition must decide where to go next with their appeal. They could ask for the entire 9th Circuit to consider the case or refer it on to the US Supreme Court.

Response: Is marriage between a man and a woman really ‘unconstitutional?’ That is all Prop 8 actually said – that marriage was between one man and one woman. Was the only purpose of the proposition to show “disapproval of them (gays and lesbians) and their relationships" or was it crafted to maintain traditional marriage as it had been defined for nearly the entire history of the state and the nation? The latter is really the case. 

The proposition itself was written and well on its way towards getting enough signatures for voter consideration before the California Supreme Court allowed gay marriages in the state. To declare that the proposition was written to reverse the court decision is not exactly correct. The decision of two 9th Circuit judges continues the judicial activism that has overturned the vote of millions of Californians.

While it is being celebrated in the media as a victory for Gay rights the case is far from over. It was a major victory that supporters of the proposition received legal standing at all.  The state Attorney General was supposed to support the vote of the people in court but refused leaving proposition without any legal support.

One legal scenario would have denied standing to the proposition supporters and therefore would have made it impossible to appeal the case. At least now it continues on hopefully to the Supreme Court. One should remember that the 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned Appeals Court in the land.               *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -Lawsuit Filed to Force California Attorney General to Defend Marriage Amendment
2. -Judge Declares US Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

                                                     (Image via Wikipedia)

This is a story that continues to escalate and shows no sign of going away anytime soon. Here’s a link to my first article on the confrontation between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church over a new requirement to provide for contraceptives and after-morning abortive pills in their health-care coverage of workers in the church’s allied ministries.

The Bishops sent out letters 2 weeks ago to be read in the churches all across America protesting the new requirement and laying down a gauntlet and drawing a line in the sand stating that the church has no intention of ever complying with the order.

At that point, President Obama who personally signed off on the HHS ( Department of Health and Human Services) order had to be wondering how he got himself into this mess during an election year. The administration did back off somewhat by giving the Catholics and others a year to comply with the order hoping to put off any confrontation till after the election. However, the issue continues to expand on many different levels.

One battle front was the military. Letters were sent out to be read by Catholic chaplains in the Army but the administration through the chain of command initially ordered the chaplains to stand down and not read the letter to Catholic soldiers. Some Catholic chaplains disobeyed the order and read the letter from their Bishops anyway. Then a new letter was crafted and approved that left off the part that seemed to encourage civil disobedience against the commander-in-chief.

This whole issue is now taking on a life of its own and becoming larger than just the original issue. Some protestant leaders are now joining the battle with concern over the Obama administrations penchant towards issuing executive orders that could well end up challenging everyone’s religious freedoms in the future.

Here’s a link to an article by Dr. Albert Mohler (President of  The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) who sees it as a larger issue -an attack on religious freedom itself:

The President, the Pill, and Religious Liberty in Peril

Here’s a couple of quotes from Mohler’s article:

“In actuality, the Obama Administration trampled religious liberty under the feet of the leviathan state, forcing religious employers to do what conscience will not allow. Religious organizations such as schools, colleges, and hospitals will be required to pay for services that they believe to be immoral and disobedient to God.”

…

“Every president faces decisions that test his character and principles. President Obama has failed this test, and the results will be tragic. He has trampled religious liberty underfoot and has announced his intention to force religious institutions to violate their consciences or go out of business.”

Response: This issue is way bigger than I initially thought. I believe that Dr. Mohler and others are correct in framing it in the context of the larger issue of religious freedom and liberty in America. If Catholics do not have the right to follow their own conscience in matters related to their allied ministries than religious liberty has been diminished on our watch.             *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -Catholic Bishops: “Will Not Comply” with Obama Administration Contraceptives Order
2. -USCIRF Shutdown: Obama Administration No Longer Cares About Religious Freedom?

                                  (Image via Wikipedia)

I don’t know if you have been following events in the Middle east lately or not but the ‘war of words’ has been heating up in the last week or so in regard to Israel and Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Last week US Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta said that he expected Israel to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities soon –sometime between April and July. At the same time, it was estimated that Iran now probably had enough weapon’s grade nuclear material for at least 4-6 bombs.

Then over the weekend the Iranians tested their new 2-stage intercontinental Ballistic missile and claimed to have put a satellite into space. So the game is a foot so to speak and a very dangerous one indeed.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to hold back the Israelis from making a pre-emptive strike on Iran while trying to solve the threat through diplomatic means. However, statements made over the weekend by Iran’s supreme leader  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and on official websites associated with the leader seem to indicate that the time for diplomacy may have passed.

An article written by Iranian Islamist Alireza Forghani showed up over the weekend on official websites mapping out a justification and plan for making a pre-emptive strike on Israel and naming which cities, those with a majority Jewish population, would be the best to assign for destruction. The article also included a teaching that all the Jewish people around the world needed to be finally wiped out for Islam to be secure. The writer put forth that it was imperative to take action soon:

“…the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a ‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

Response: The world just became a far more dangerous place while we were all watching the Super Bowl. How much of that article by Forghani really reflects the current thinking of the Iranian leadership cannot be completely known. But the fact it was put up on a number of official sites shows that they are at least seriously considering the teaching and may be planning a pre-emptive strike of their own.

The Obama administration is playing a dangerous game with the Iranians. Just a couple of weeks ago Iran was talking about closing the strait of Hormuz and shutting down the major source of oil to the world. The US called their bluff and sent another aircraft carrier back into the gulf and the Iranians blinked.

The Obama administration also seems to believe that Iran is just bluffing when it comes to destroying Israel by nuclear annihilation. However, the Israelis cannot afford to play the game and must assume that the Ayatollah and the Iranian regime is serious.

Regardless of what the US may think about it all, something is bound to happen this year one way or another. Meanwhile, the American administration feels rather secure in Washington DC and wants to continue to play the game solely through diplomatic means which has never worked with the Iranian regime in the last 33 years or so and has no real hope of working now.   A good time to pray for the peace of Jerusalem and Israel.             *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -Iranian General: “We Have No Option but to Destroy Israel”
2. -Obama Backs UN Resolution Calling for Israel to Receive Nuclear Inspections

   (Image via Wikipedia)

A high school principal blocked a Jewish student from wearing a yarmulke in school until he received written support from his rabbi. It was not enough that the student’s parents approved of the religious wear of their son when queried by the school administrator. Here’s a link to the story in the Washington Post.

The school and the district does not have a policy against religious headwear and usually makes an allowance for it. According to the principal:

“We usually don’t question any student’s religion or their head coverings. But when you have all these different kids, and all these different religions and cultures, we have to validate sometimes — is this religious or is it just something you are trying to wear because it’s a fad.”

Response: I am posting about this story because it seems like schools all around the country are beginning to try to discourage students from outwardly displaying certain religious preferences. Many school administrators are overly sensitive to any kind of religious display by students particularly praying or scripture reading.

However, it does seem to be rather selective at times. Muslim students are rarely challenged. In fact, many schools go out of their way to accommodate Muslim prayers during school time. Meanwhile, one can find a story almost every week about Christian students receiving some kind of grief concerning their religious practice or beliefs. Now here’s a story about a Jewish student being challenged to justify his religious practice.

School teachers and administrators are products of our universities which are increasingly dominated by secularism and political correctness. Certain religions are far more tolerated than others and that PC bias seems to be finding its way into our public schools. 

Whether or not that is the case in this instance, the principal chose to disregard the parents and forced the issue instead. Other students including Muslims were allowed to wear religious headgear at the school and the student felt like he was being singled out for some reason.           *Top

                                          (Image via Wikipedia)

Escrow closed Friday (2/3/12) afternoon and the famous Crystal Cathedral is now owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange (CA). It completes a court-ordered sale of the edifice for $57.5 million in order to settle the bankrupt debts of the Robert H.Schuller family ministry.

The current congregation will be allowed to continue to use the building for 3 more years while plans are completed for its ultimate change from a protestant church to the new headquarters of the  Catholic diocese.

The building will not only be changed to conform to Catholic worship standards but also will be renamed in the process. Bishop Tod Brown will be asking the 1.2 million members of his diocese for suggestions.

Response: Many connected to the Schuller ministry were hoping against hope for some kind of miracle to save their church but it never came. The current ministry is but a shell of its former self and it has slowly died out due to numerous self-inflicted wounds that doomed the ministry which could not overcome the retirement of its famous leader Robert H. Schuller.

Of the current ministries at the Cathedral, only the Latino services and ministries were still growing and reaching out and touching the community with a lively charismatic ministry. Hopefully they will be able to make the ultimate transition unabated into a new facility and continue on the way they have been.

Personally I am sad to see it go. Our family went to many of the special pageants at the church. It had become a tradition in our family over the last 20 years or so to attend a Christmas Eve service at the famous cathedral. They were tremendous and always gave us a break from all of the holiday preparations and gave our family a moment to consider what  the Christmas season was really all about. Always a great message with wonderful music and a real blessing for us at Christmas time. Our family will miss that tradition and will need to find a substitute since our home church does not usually have Christmas Eve services.            *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -UPDATE: Catholic Diocese Ups Offer for Crystal Cathedral
2. -Catholic Church Sues For Crystal Cathedral

                         (Image via Wikipedia)

Vanderbilt University administrators held a town hall meeting on Tuesday, concerning the university enforcement of a ‘nondiscrimination policy’ for all on-campus student groups. 4 out of 5 Christian groups on campus have been found to be in violation of the policy which does not allow groups to require their leaders to adhere to a core standard of beliefs or conduct.

Apparently the meeting did not go all that well when a large crowd who wanted to attend was turned away and only 200 students were allowed in for the official forum.

According to this article, the controversy started when a gay student was kicked out of the leadership of a Christian fraternity:

Controversy ensued when the university asked nearly a dozen organizations to comply with their "all-comers" policy banning discrimination based on "race, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, military service, or genetic information" after a gay student was allegedly forced to resign from a Christian fraternity last year.

Five Christian groups including InterVarsity’s Graduate Christian Fellowship and the Christian Legal Society were put on "provisional status" for selecting their leaders based on their religious beliefs and values, a qualification the university said violated their policy.

Response: The controversy revolves around a so-called ‘nondiscrimination policy’ which ends up actually discriminating against all Christian groups who want to maintain a leadership which reflects their Christian beliefs and standards of conduct.

Universities all across the country are initiating similar policies for their on-campus groups which could be used to actually discriminate against Christian student groups all in the name of ‘nondiscrimination.’

What about Muslim groups, are they now subjected to these same rules as the Christians. I don’t see them mentioned at all. Also, Jewish and Buddhist organizations? Right now enforcement and extra scrutiny only seems to be directed against Christians groups even if it does apply to all.             *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -InterVarsity to be Revoked as a Student Group at SUNY Buffalo?
2. -Christian Counseling Student in Court Over View on ‘Gays’