“Separation of Church and State” or How the KKK Got its Way

With Obama’s attacks on freedom of religion and Rick Santorum’s statements creating a stir, the topic of Separation of Church and State is once again taking a prominent place in our political debate.

But there’s something the Separation of Church and State crowd – who really want to put the church under the heel of the state – do not want you to know. The famous Everson ruling which enshrined “a wall of Separation of Church and State” has the fingerprints of the KKK and other anti-Catholic bigots all over it.

If you want to hear a good rant on the subject, listen to Mark Levin (who happens to be Jewish) from last night.

The author of Everson was the famous Justice Hugo Black, a (past?) Klansman who not only was a virulent anti-Catholic bigot but who helped a Klansman accused of murdering a priest get off scot-free. But there’s more:

Hugo Black: A former Democrat Senator from Alabama and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by FDR, Hugo Black had a lengthy history of hate group activism. Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920's and gained his legal fame defending Klansmen under prosecution for racial murders. In one prominent case, Black provided legal representation to Klansman Edwin Stephenson for the hate-induced murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham. A jury composed of several Klan members acquited Stephenson of the murder, reportedly after Black expressed Klan gestures to the jury during the trial. In 1926 Black sought and won election as a Democrat to the United States Senate after campaigning heavily to Klan membership. He is said to have told one Klan audience "I desire to impress upon you as representatives of the real Anglo-Saxon sentiment that must and will control the destinies of the stars and stripes, that I want your counsel." In the Senate Black became a stauch supporter of the liberal New Deal initiatives of FDR and a solid opponent of civil rights legislation, including a filibuster of an anti-lynching measure. Black led the push for several New Deal programs and was a key participant in FDR's court packing scandal. Roosevelt appointed Black, a loyal ally, to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the Senate confirmation of Black's nomination, the issue of his strong Klan affiliations caused a public controversy over his appointment. Following the confirmation Roosevelt claimed ignorance of Black's Klan past, though this claim was dubious at best. Black's first Senate election, which occurred with Klan support, had been covered nationally a decade earlier in 1926. Black's Klan affiliations were a well known part of his political background and recieved heavy coverage in the newspapers at the time of his appointment. On the court, Black became a liberal stalwart. He also continued his career of supporting racism by authoring the opinion in favor of FDR's Japanese internment program in the infamous Korematsu ruling.

So it’s not for nothing that I join those who say that in so-called Separation of Church and State, the KKK got its way.

If you wish a longer, slightly less heated history of “Separation of Church and State,” here is a good place to start.

+Robinson and Miriam Cavalcanti, RIP

I came across the tragic news just now. Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti and his wife Miriam were murdered last night, allegedly by their adopted son.

As the Bishop of Recife, he was a stalwart for orthodoxy and paid a price for that, including a wrongful deposal from the Anglican Episcopal “Church” of Brazil.

What I did not know is that he and his wife opened their hearts and their home to a troubled boy. And both have paid the ultimate price for that.

May these two saints indeed rest in peace and rise in glory.

Richard Dawkins says he’s really an agnostic. (I am not kidding.)

Last Fall, I attended a debate at the Sheldonian in which Richard Dawkins did not show up. I would have loved to attend the debate this week with Dr. Rowan Williams in which he did show up. Hearing this alone would be almost worth the plane fare.

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.
“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

This floors me. I can be slightly opinionated, but if I were only about 98.5% sure God does not exist, I sure as heck would not be as (What’s a nice word?) militant about it as Dawkins is. Granted, that is rather a high level of conviction but . . . wow, I am at a loss. What incredible hubris the man has.

But, to his credit, he admitted he was not entirely sure. And I guess he’d be an even greater fool if he was 100% sure. And it sounds like he and His Grace provided an interesting evening indeed.

I would love to hear from those who were there. Did anyone faint when the air went out of the room?

++Kenya on the Millennium Development Goals

A week ago, I had some fun at the expense of --Schori pushing the UN Millennium Development Goals as a Lenten focus. But on a more serious note, the Anglican Archbishop of Kenya notes why that is not an appropriate Lenten focus in his pastoral letter for Lent. After advocating that God’s people should work “to transform society with the gospel,” he adds:

Some church leaders seem to think that the transformation of society will simply come through commitment to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, and at home in Kenya, the Vision 2030 initiative and the new constitution. While it is obvious that such good things as feeding the hungry, fighting disease, improving education and national prosperity are to be desired by all, by themselves any human dream can become a substitute gospel which renders repentance and the cross of Christ irrelevant.

Moreover, we need to be discerning about the values behind these visions. For instance the Millennium Development Goals have grown out of a secularised Western culture which is pushing Christianity to the margins and uses the language of human rights and equality to promote irresponsibility in social life and diminish personal responsibility.

Texas Defies Obama, Defunds Planned Parenthood

I am glad to see that Texas’ response to the Obama regime’s insistence that Medicaid Women’s Heath Program money goes to Planned Parenthood in Texas is . . . pound sand:

If there was any hope that the state was seeking a compromise with the federal government over Texas’ Women’s Health Program, it’s fading fast.

At the direction of lawmakers and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Texas Health and Human Services commissioner signed a rule on Thursday that formally bans Planned Parenthood clinics and other “affiliates of abortion providers” from participating in the program – something the Obama administration has said is a deal-breaker for the nearly $40 million-per-year state-federal Medicaid program.

The rule, signed by Commissioner Tom Suehs on Thursday, takes effect March 14.

“Under federal law, states administer Medicaid and have the right to set the criteria for providers in the program. That is what Texas is doing,” said Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the agency. “We have a state law that our Attorney General says is constitutional, and it clearly bans abortion providers from taking part in the Women’s Health Program. We can’t violate a perfectly valid state law just to appease Washington. We hope CMS will reverse its position and allow the program to continue.”

Unless some last-minute agreement is brokered, the program, which receives $9 in federal funds for every $1 in state funds, will be either phased out or cut off by the end of March.

I hope this will be one of many areas in which Texas and other red states just say NO to Planned Parenthood and to Fed tyranny.

TEC Diocese of Washington Closes Ordination Process Through 2012

The Diocese of Washington in The Episcopal Church is suspending its process for ordination to the priesthood through 2012.

The letter from the bishopess of the diocese is an interesting, honest read. The following stands out:

A Roman Catholic colleague once asked me if the Episcopal Church was also experiencing a clergy shortage. “No,” I said. “What we have is a shortage of lay people.”

So the diocese seems to have more than enough priests and postulants available even while its congregations shrink or stagnate.

The comments at the above link are also worth reading.

I do not have anything that profound or even snarky to say. I find this situation interesting and am passing it along to my inquiring readers.

What Ash Wednesday is Really About

Ash Wednesday is all about environmentalism, of course:

Rt Hon Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury; Rt Rev Richard Chartres, Bishop of London; Most Rev Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales; Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh and leaders of the Methodist, Baptist and URC churches are among those signing Operation Noah's Ash Wednesday Declaration.



A short public service of prayer and dedication to launch the Declaration will be held at St Mary-Le-Bow, Cheapside, London today (Wednesday 22 February at 5pm), and at numerous churches around the country.



"Traditionally, Christians commit themselves to repentance and renewed faith in Jesus Christ on Ash Wednesday," said David Atkinson, Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Southwark. "We must live out that faith in relation to our damaging consumer economy, over-dependence on fossil fuels and the devastation we, as a species, are inflicting on God's world. We believe that responsible care for God's creation is foundational to the Gospel and central to the Church's mission."

Leave it to Southwark to contort Christian practice to push a pet cause. But I am disappointed that even the Bishop of London is going along with this.

Do not get me wrong. I place a high priority on conservation and the environment and put my money (and my land) where my mouth is in that regard.

But I do not think that is what Ash Wednesday is about. Sorry.

----
Hat tip to Anglican Samizdat.

I Corinthians 13 and Preparation for Lent

I know I am repeating myself in saying so, but I appreciate the wisdom of the traditional lectionary in having 1 Corinthians 13 read on Quinquagesima, the Sunday before Lent.

I cannot think of better preparation for Lent than a reflective reading of that famous chapter. For, point by point, it reveals aspects of godly love of which we all fall far short. For those wondering what traits to work on for Lent, 1 Corinthians 13 is a veritable catalogue for penitence.

With not a little trepidation, I intend to examine myself through the lens of that chapter. Feel free to bravely join me in that . . . to examine yourself, not me, that is.

By the way, Fr. Robert Hart’s Quinquagasima sermon this year is an excellent examination of the traditional English rendering, “charity.” I’ve oft dismissed that word as an unfortunate Elizabethan translation, but Fr. Hart says not so.

This is satire.

Inspired by the godly example of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, I, too will make a favorite hobby horse my Lenten focus.

I will reflect on the 2nd Amendment for Lent.

This is not satire.

I am not making this up for laughs. Really:

Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori invites a focus on the Millennium Development Goals for Lent 2012.

“I invite you to use the Millennium Development Goals as your focus for Lenten study and discipline and prayer and fasting this year,” Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori said. “The Millennium Development Goals are truly reflective of several of the Five Marks of Mission.”

I could make a snarky comment about The Episcopal Church becoming the religious arm of the UN (and of the Democrat Party for that matter). But you’ve got to hand it to TEC. They make satire really easy . . . or really hard depending how you look at it.


MORE: MCJ has some fun with this.

“Bishop” Bennison follows Neuhaus’ Law

Perhaps the most famous pronouncement of Richard John Neuhaus of blessed memory was Neuhaus’ Law – “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”

The Episcopal Church, particularly the Diocese of Pennsylvania, keeps proving that law correct. The “bishop” in said diocese, Charles E. Bennison, wrote a little note to the clergy under him.

In a note to the clergy on The Commemoration of Absalom Jones, Bennison wrote to "clergy colleagues" saying, "I am very concerned that to date only 43 of us have registered for the Conference on Rites for Blessing Same - Gender Relationships on February 21- a week from tomorrow.”

“Only 43 of you are registered for ze party meeting. I am vvverrry concerned about that.”

Is this the CCCP? Or is this the KGB? Or is this the DNC? I thought it was the TEC! (With apologies to Johnny Rotten.)

”This means that a large number of us may not be adequately prepared to respond pastorally, either to people's reactions to this summer's General Convention vote on rites proposed by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music in response to Resolution C-056 at the 2009 General Convention, or to same gender couples who may ask us to use the rites for the blessing of their relationships if, as seems likely, Convention adopts them.



"Unless the implementing resolution states otherwise, none of us, should we be asked to bless the relationship of a same-gender couple, may refuse to do so on the basis of their sexual orientation."


Mandatory gay blessings. Welcome to the future present of The Episcopal Church.

Dereliction of Duty

Although I had a bit of fun with it yesterday, Obama’s budget is indeed an outrage. The best summation I’ve seen of it so far comes from Yuval Levin who succinctly calls it a “dereliction of duty”:

Of course, this is par for the course for this president. His budget documents have all been studies in the dereliction of duty. And it’s true that this particular act of dereliction has in it more elements of class warfare and punitive and economically damaging targeted tax increases than the past ones. But as we take note of that added layer of misguided political economy, we should not lose sight of the underlying scandal—the president’s complete lack of interest in addressing the mounting fiscal crisis which his policies have so severely exacerbated, and his readiness to allow our government’s finances to collapse around him (or rather around his wretched successor) and to burden our children with an unprecedented and unbearable burden of debt.

Charles Krauthammer also goes yard on it and on Republicans who go too easy on Obama’s irresponsibility. (Unfortunately, the video embedding script is not working, but the video is available at the link.)

And Obama’s dereliction of duty extends beyond budgeting. Just this year so far, Obama has made illegal appointments in violation of the Constitution. He has attacked freedom of religion. He has repeatedly violated his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is an impeachable President.

The only reason I do not support impeachment is it is better that an election removes him.

Speaking of which – and I am sorry if this offends – heck, no, I am not – there is no longer any excuse for supporting Obama short of severe brain damage. He is willfully tearing up the Constitution and the fiscal future of this nation. Shame on those who support him as he does so.

It’s OBAMA’S Budget!

Obama will release his proposed budget today . . . with a projected deficit of $1.33 trillion. That’s $1,330,000,000,000 for those who are counting. It will take a while to count that, just to let you know.

And it’s HIS proposed budget. He didn’t negotiate with Republicans to get to this point. No law requires him to have yet another trillion dollar deficit. Republicans in Congress did not take a break from doing nothing to force him to propose this budget. Eeeeeevil Bush and his sinister mastermind Cheney did not break into the Oval Office and force Obama to propose this budget. Obama’s fantasies aside, Jesus most emphatically did not tell him to propose this budget. The Bible does not command this budget. The Episcopalian Holy Spirit did not take a break from inspiring inclusion and holy listening to move Obama to propose this budget. The Devil did not make Obama propose this budget. Europeans did not tell Obama he must propose this budget or be recolonized. The evil rich, those “millionaires and billionaires,” did not force Obama to propose this budget. The evil dead did not force Obama to propose this budget. It may be worthy of zombies*, but this is Obama’s budget. Got it?

Obama and Democrats will surely make excuses and pass the blame to Bush/Europe/Congress/evilrich/Republicans/theeconomy/globalwarming. But THIS IS OBAMA’S BUDGET!

Do I have to repeat myself?


*On second thought, I am not aware of any zombies who have been irresponsible Socialist spendthrifts. I apologize to all zombies and their friends who were offended.

Report: Obama to Compromise on Birth Control Rule (Or sometimes, I’m good.) UPDATED

Last week, I predicted that, to preserve his re-election chances, Obama would try to appease Catholics angry over his Obamacare birth control rule.

Well, it looks like I’m right again.

But I doubt his efforts will succeed. This is likely not the end of this sordid episode.

Nor should it be. He is only doing this to get re-elected. He is not to be trusted with freedom of religion or just about any other Constitutional freedom.



UPDATE:
Obama has now announced the “accommodation” from on high. And it is hard to see just how it changes anything.

But as Charles Krauthammer reminds us, protecting freedom of religion isn’t really what this “accommodation” is about:

. . . the firestorm of protest was becoming a threat to his reelection. Sure, health care, good works, and religion are important. But reelection is divine.

“Come on guys.”

Ed Morrissey points out that Obama’s decision-making and conduct concerning his Obamacare church birth control rule is Obamateurish.

But this tops it off. As CBS reporter Norah O’Donnell tweeted, when Obama was asked if he stands by said rule, his answer was “Come on guys.”

A President steamrolls freedom of religion and when asked about it, all he says is “Come on guys”? Come on, Obama.

By the way, my hero Mark Levin sums up this situation very well:

This isn’t about women. It’s not about contraception. This is about a president of the United States who has no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the First Amendment, and also has no respect for people of faith – and I’m not trying to be controversial, but there’s no balancing involved here.

I didn’t know we were having a problem getting contraceptives in this country. I mean they fund Planned Parenthood who hands out this stuff like candy. So there’s really no problem in this country with access. What he’s trying to do is break down that line between church and state in reverse and it’s contemptible!

Bootlickers and Backbones

The MCJ posts a good summary of how “religious” of a more lefty bent are responding to the Obama regime’s attack on freedom of religion via Obamacare rules. First, there are the usual bootlickers:

"We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals' moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions. We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform -- as we value our nation's commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals' conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception."

The signees follow. They are rather predictable, but note them well. Sooner or later, history will place them with those clerics who collaborated with the French Revolution and with the Nazis in attacking life and freedom. When I call them bootlickers, I mean it.

Catholics for Choice, Jon O'Brien, President
Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Jonathan Stein, President
Concerned Clergy for Choice, Rabbi Dennis Ross, Director
Disciples Justice Action Network, Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, Director
Episcopal Divinity School, The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President
Episcopal Women's Caucus, Rev. Dr Elizabeth Kaeton, Convener
Hadassah, Marcie Natan, National President
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Robert Barkin, Interim Executive Vice President
Jewish Women International, Lori Weinstein, Executive Director
Methodist Federation for Social Action, Jill Warren, Executive Director
Muslims for Progressive Values, Ani Zonneveld, President
National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy Kaufman, CEO
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board, Rev. Jane Emma Newall, Chair
Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, Executive Vice President
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Rev. Steve Clapp, Chair
Religious Institute, Rev. Dr. Debra W. Haffner, Executive Director
Society for Humanistic Judaism, M. Bonnie Cousens, Executive Director
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Steven Wernick, CEO
Union Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President
Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. Peter Morales, President
United Church of Christ, Rev. Geoffrey Black, General Minister and President
Women's League for Conservative Judaism, Rita L. Wertlieb, President; Sarrae G. Crane, Executive Director

However, there are those who once supported Obama but to their credit now see there should be no further collaboration with this regime as it attacks freedom of religion. 2008 Obama voter and Catholic Michael Winters rightly warns against compromise now that the Obama Administration is making noises about such.

The most troubling part of Axelrod’s comment was the idea that finding a compromise will take time. I read that to mean, let’s paper this thing over until after the election. Does he take us for fools? If there is a second Obama term, something that I suspect seems more in doubt because of this decision, which is why Axelrod is saying anything at all, what leverage will Catholic leaders have after the election? Clearly, we cannot count on this president to do the right thing, nor even to do the thing he promised to do.

Exactly. If Obama would do this before the accountability of an election, what the heck would he do afterward? Any pre-election soothing noises should be taken as just that and only that – and ignored. This regime is not to be trusted with freedom of religion or just about any Constitutional freedom for that matter. Obama has proven that well.

Winters also notes that the courts are likely to give churches a complete exemption from the birth control mandates. So why compromise? And he may be right although I would not depend on it.

Nevertheless, Winters, again a past Obama voter, is in a fighting mood.

Yes, I want a solution to this mess. But, I also want a victory by which I mean I want a really robust conscience exemption. I want any change by the White House not only to work in terms of resolving this issue but to send a clear and unambiguous statement that in this great diverse, pluralistic country of ours, there is room for us Catholics to be Catholic, with all of our quirks, and that the government recognizes that they have no business telling religious organizations what their mission is or how to manage it. I do not want the White House to cry “uncle” for the sake of crying uncle. But, when somebody punches me in the nose, and when someone punches my friends Sr. Carol Keehan and Father John Jenkins and countless others in the nose, I am not going to rush to make nice with them either. There needs to be an apology. And the President needs to go to the pro-choice caucus and explain that their stance imperils the entire Affordable Care Act, both politically and legally, and without that, they would not be discussing extending contraception to anyone.

Make no mistake about it - those who support denying Catholic institutions a more robust exemption have placed their commitment to pro-choice orthodoxy above their commitment to health care reform. Is that progressive? Is that something progressive Catholics, who fought so hard to pass the ACA, want to defend? It is time for so-called progressive Catholics to stop serving as chaplains to the political status quo and recognize a first principle when they see one. It is time for Catholics to insist that a conscience exemption that only applies to religion on Sunday and no help for the poor unless they are also Catholic is no conscience exemption at all. And, if the White House doesn't see it that way, let them pay the political price for it.

That’s backbone. And I can respect that every bit as much as I hold the bootlickers in contempt.

Archbishop Duncan and ACNA take a stand against Obamacare mandate.

I am very glad to see this statement from Archbishop Duncan:

Archbishop Robert Duncan released the following statement in support of the Catholic Church’s fight to maintain freedom of conscience in the midst of the U.S. federal government issuing a preventive care mandate in violation of its teaching.

“The Anglican Church in North America stands by our Catholic brothers and sisters as followers of Christ in a nation whose Constitution guarantees ‘the free exercise’ of religion. As Christians, our faith and doctrine are at the very heart of our service to others in our community. Therefore, it is extremely troubling to see our government mandate services contrary to Catholic Church teaching. I call on all members of the Anglican Church to stand by our Catholic brothers and sisters, and pray for our elected officials to have the courage to stand up for religious freedom and overturn this mandate,” said Archbishop Duncan.

Roman Catholic Bishops Have Themselves to Blame

My readers may have noticed my vociferous opposition to the Obama regime’s attack on the Roman Catholic Church and on freedom of religion. But do not think I hold American Catholic bishops and clerics blameless in this. Just the opposite.

For those bishops as a group along with lefty clerics supported the passage of Obamacare. Did they really think that they could support the suppression of freedom inherent in Obamacare without endangering the freedom of their church? If so, they were fools:

Mr. Obama's allies among Catholic liberals are also professing shock — even the Catholic Health Association's Sister Carol Keehan, who lobbied for ObamaCare, and Notre Dame's Father John Jenkins, who invited Mr. Obama to speak on campus in 2009. But if they now claim they were taken for a ride by the secular left, the truth is that they wanted to be deceived in the name of their grander goal of government-enforced equity. The Catholic left was one of ObamaCare's great enablers.

They are not unlike those clerics who collaborated with the French Revolution only later to face the guillotine themselves. Those who collaborate with regimes that attack freedom endanger their own freedom as well.

(There is an excellent article on The French Revolution and clerics by James Hitchcock in the September/October issue of Touchstone. It is not available online at the moment, however.)

By the way, there are now noises from the Obama Administration that they are maybe, kinda, sorta willing to make some accommodation for the Roman Catholic Church. I think that just pre-election posturing. But in any case, I’m right again.

“Let us pray for those against women bishops.”

Peter Mullen sums up well the peril Church of England traditionalists find themselves in as General Synod votes on women bishops.

There is no question there will be women bishops. The issue is whether adequate provision will be made for those who cannot consciously recognize women bishops. And the feminazis and allies would much rather unchurch such bigots orthodox. Hell, they are even marching against providing for traditionalists.

Peter Mullen sums up such wolves well:

Campaigners for women bishops call themselves “liberal” and “inclusive”. But their liberality and inclusiveness extends only as far as those who agree with them. This is not liberalism at all, of course. Those bigots are like Trotskyists who work within an institution to subvert it and to turn it into its opposite. They are the Church Militant Tendency. I have seen (and worse, heard) their raucous and savage triumphalism, sneering and gloating at the discomfiture of traditionalists. These people who began their feminising movement by pleading for tolerance are themselves intolerable.

Indeed, they are “bigots.” And let us indeed pray for the faithful in danger of being unchurched by these shameless wolves.

On Crossing Lines and Personal Life

First off, I think I should say this is an unusual post from me and not that political a one although it may seem so at first.

I am wrestling with questions of when a political situation gets so toxic that one can no longer pretend it’s o.k. to be on the wrong side.

Allow me to spell this out. Obama with his illegal recess appointments and with his attack on freedom of religion is openly playing the tyrant and ignoring the Constitution. He has twice crossed very important Constitutional lines in recent days and willfully so. And I fear for the future. If he would do this before the accountability of an election, what would he do after?

And I’m beginning to relate to those who found themselves under the rise of Nazism and wondering what to do. Remember the road to the death camps was a gradual one. When one realized what was going on, it was too late to do anything about it. For too many, it was too late even to flee.

Yes, I know I may seem alarmist, and I am not expecting Leftist American death camps in my lifetime at least. But where does this attack on the Constitution and on our freedoms stop? If Obama is re-elected, it most certainly will not stop here. I have repeatedly warned that Obama has a totalitarian impulse, and I meant it. And events are proving me more right than I want to be.

But to the heart of my dilemma, at what point does one decide one cannot divorce the political and personal? And what does one do then?

An example: A supposedly Christian friend on Facebook openly cheered Obama’s illegal appointments. I knew he was of the Left, but I was so taken aback that he would support this that I wondered what else he was capable of. So I unfriended him. I do not want him involved in my personal life. He has broken my trust. And I pruned my friends list of a few others as well.

Yes, a small step, and I know some may find it petty. But if an evil regime crosses a line, should I ignore it and pretend it’s o. k. if someone cheerfully crosses that line as well? Remember that many apparently nice people who loved their families and were good neighbors and mowed their lawns worked for the Nazi death machine. And, again, that descent began gradually with lesser monstrosities first.

(Yes, I know some may find me violating Godwin’s Law. But what happened to Germany is the prototypical example of how a civilized people, even with a long history of the rule of law, can descend into almost pure evil. I can now very much relate to the ethical issues that confronted everyday people who lived in the midst of that darkness.)

I am wrestling with such issues. And I am having not a little trouble putting it into words. But at what point does one refuse to agree to disagree? And just how should that affect one’s personal life?

I have no easy answers. I am not even sure just what I should do. Still, I do think the current regime is so toxic and so dangerous that we are at the point where divorcing the personal and the political is becoming more and more untenable.

And, yes, even as political as I am, I hate that.

Prediction: Obama will try to appease angry Catholics

I have not yet seen any poll numbers that reflect this, but make no mistake – the damage Obama has done to himself by deciding to force the Roman Catholic Church to fund birth control in its health insurance plans (or else) is bad, really bad.

Obama just put himself underwater with the Catholic vote. And winning the presidency with Catholics voting against you has not been done in modern history and is unlikely to be done now.

And the damage is across almost the whole spectrum of Catholics. Even liberal Catholics are furious with the president, even to the point of already vowing not to vote to re-elect the Dear Leader. Yes, shocking!

Without serious damage control or some economic miracle or some other kind of miracle out there, I am convinced the damage is so bad that Obama may have just lost the presidency. Catholics will vote against him at least 55-45 and that will be just about the ballgame.

Which leads to a prediction.

Any day now, Obama’s pollsters will run into the Oval Office with much wailing and gashing of themselves and lay before the One the extent of the damage.

And, since his re-election is so much more important than even the Most Perfect implementation of Holy Obamacare, the One will pull back on the decision, most likely by suspending it *coughuntilAFTERtheelectioncough* for further study and consultation, but possibly by giving church institutions the outright exemption they have asked for.

Remember that you heard it here first.

Obamacare and the Dangerous Moralism of the Left

Ace of Spades goes yard on Obama’s decision to force the Roman Catholic Church to pay for birth control and how said decision reveals the arrogant and dangerous moralism of the Left.

And Obama is a perfect example of this moralistic Leftism:

Obama is a moralist, and an arrogant one. For all the talk of Christians being rigid moralists, the dirty little secret is that the left is far more rigidly, arrogantly moralistic, and it is cheerleaded by our cultural institutions (media, academia) rather than pushed back against, so its arrogance is encouraged.

Obama is pushing, very hard, a rigid moral system, and attempting to "shove it down the throats" of people who do not seek nor need his moral instruction.


And Obama and the Left show little hesitation in using the power of the Holy State to impose their secularist morality, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience be damned. For the Left is oh-so-right . . .


. . . that of course the coercive power of the state -- with its machinery of stripping away the property and liberty of those who run afoul of it -- should be deployed to wipe out mendicants and heretics.

One of the most cherished rights, never expressed anywhere but truly central to any truly free society, is the right to be Wrong. By which I mean, you should not just be free to do the things which the hegemonic culture deems to be "right." No one ever tries to outlaw that which they themselves believe to be right.

What they attempt to do, of course, is outlaw that which they believe to be wrong.

If you do not respect a citizen's right to be wrong -- if your first impulse is to use the frightening machinery of state coercion to compel him to be "right," as you see "right" -- then you do not respect him at all.

This is the chief character flaw of the leftist movement -- their inability to respect anyone at all but their own. [ed. – I could have a good rant on that point alone, but I will desist.] A very provincial and solipisitically childish way to view the world, of course, which leads to a vicious arrogance in attempting to pound, pound, pound square pegs into the round holes the state has cut for them.

The left would just be wrong, and not dangerous, if it weren't so arrogant about disposing of people's freedom with a single thoughtless line of legislation.

It is that, the arrogance and the profound disrespect of anyone who does not wear the feathers and warpaint of their tribe, that makes them not just wrong but sinister.


Absolutely right. And I have little more to add except that this latest putsch to bulldoze basic freedoms to impose a secularist (im)morality is part of the totalitarian impulse of Obama and the Left about which I’ve warned again and again.

This isn’t about just health insurance, taxes, and the economy, as important as those subjects are. This is about freedom and how Obama and his allies are attacking freedom.

A hat tip to MCJ.