“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)

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)

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)

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’

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that it is illegal to display the following phrase from the Declaration of Independence in a public school:

“…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…”

Also equally problematic is the sign above containing the official US Motto, along with a phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance plus lines from 2 prominent patriotic songs I learned to sing when I was a kid in school.

What is the problem with these official and traditional American phrases and mottos? They all mention God or the Creator and therefore they are unacceptable in public schools according to 3 judges in the radical 9th Circuit.

Last week (Jan.24) the Thomas More Law Center announced that it was filing an appeal to this controversial decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Bradley Johnson v. Poway Unified School District, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case revolved around a math teacher, Brad Johnson, who displayed banners and signs with the offending phases on them for more than 25 years in the classrooms where he taught only to be asked to remove them by the school district in 2007.

Meanwhile, other teachers in the same school were allowed to keep non-Christian religious displays in their classrooms including:

“a 40-foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha hung across a classroom, a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins;” a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X; a poster of the Buddhist leader Dali Lama; and a poster containing the lyrics of John Lennon’s anti-religion song “Imagine,” which begins, Imagine there’s no Heaven.”

Thomas More Law Center, which defends the religious liberty of Christians, filed a federal lawsuit against the school district on behalf of Johnson and won in District Court in 2010. Then the Poway Unified School District appealed that decision and a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and ruled that the district was justified in removing banners that mentioned God.

Now, the Thomas More lawyers have appealed the case to the US Supreme Court after an appeal to be heard before the entire 9th Circuit was denied.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, said the follow about the case:

“This case is a prime example of how public schools across our nation are cleansing our classrooms of our Christian heritage while promoting atheism and other non–Christian religions under the guise of cultural diversity.”

“The Ninth Circuit Court’s rationale in allowing the Tibetan Prayer Flags and references to other religions while outlawing America’s patriotic slogans that mention God is unconvincing. Brad Johnson was simply exercising his free speech rights in a forum created by the school district to inform students of the religious foundations of our nation.”

Response: It is incredible to me that a part of The Declaration of Independence, the official US Motto, and a phrase from the US Pledge of Allegiance are all deemed to be unacceptable for display in a public school classroom because they mention God?

The Constitution is suppose to protect free speech and our freedom of religion but once more it is being stood on its ear and strangely interpreted to actually deny even any non-sectarian mention of God from official government documents in the classroom. Stranger still, it only seems to be a Judeo-Christian understanding of God and The Creator that is being censored by this decision.

Hopefully the US Supreme Court will take this case and resolve the confusion and inequity.                 *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -School Ban on Christmas Carols Upheld?
2. -4th Circuit Ruling Stands: Prayers in Jesus Name Are Out

                     (Image by elycefeliz via Flickr)

Last Sunday, Catholic churches all across America read a letter to congregants supporting the church’s stance against the Obama administration order that employers must include contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in their health-care coverage. Churches are exempt from the order but not allied ministries including hospitals, schools, and colleges regardless of faith-based opposition.

The Obama administration has given the Catholic ministries and other church-affiliated hospitals and organizations one year to comply. The Catholic bishops are saying that they ‘will not comply’ with the federal requirement devised by the current administration setting up a legal battle in the near future.

Response: This is a significant battle for religious freedom. Many churches have allied ministries that they support and they should not be required to violate the faith-based belief system that is the foundation for these allied organizations in the first place.

The Catholic Church stands firmly opposed to all medications and procedures that would terminate the life of an unborn child. Some of the contraceptives themselves are abortive in nature in that they can potentially eliminate already fertilized eggs contrary to Catholic beliefs.

The Catholic Bishops are taking a stand here that could help to clarify whether the First Amendment and ‘religious freedom’ in this country is going to be extended to associated religious ministries or limited only to official churches and worship centers. For many religions, schools are an official part of their ongoing ministry. Where is the line to be drawn

Recently the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a church firing a school teacher  but that person was also a licensed minister. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the years to come since many times Catholic Schools in particular are so closely identified with the church and the administration over the local church and school many times involves the same personnel.            *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -Catholic Bishops: Religious Liberty is Eroding in America
2. -NY Catholic Bishop Speaks Out Against Gay Marriage

                             (Image via Wikipedia)

It has become culturally fashionable to make the claim that “Jesus never said he was God.”

Lots of folks would like to claim Jesus as their own but his divinity gets in the way. The Muslims claim Jesus was a great prophet to the Jews but far less than even their prophet Muhammad. Some Jewish folks would like to acknowledge him as an ancient Jewish rabbi teacher if they could leave out the God thing and ignore the terrible treatment many Jews have received from some of his misguided followers over the centuries.

Even Hindu and eastern gurus like to make the claim that Jesus traveled to India and learned everything from them. Then there is the strange case of Richard Dawkins who wants to claim that Jesus Would Be An Atheist Today.

The real problem is that the Bible gets in the way and supports the divinity of Jesus. Not only that, but Jesus clearly indicated on a number of different occasions that he was the “I am” God of the Old testament. The response of those who heard him at the time confirms it.      <<Read the rest on my Apologetica page>>               *Top

Related Posts?:

1. ‘Gospel of Judas’: Is It Authentic? -The Theological Test
2. “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?”