Big Business & consumers' role in religious freedom

After caving to pressures from major companies like Disney and Apple that they would boycott his state, Georgia’s Republican Governor Nathan Deal vetoed a bill that would protect clergy from being forced to perform same-sex “weddings”.

Though LGBT activists insist they do not want to violate anyone’s religious freedoms, the vetoed Free Exercise Protection Act (H.B. 757) would have also specified that religious organizations do not have to rent out their facilities for such a ceremony, nor do they have to hire anyone if doing so would violate the group's sincerely held religious beliefs about human sexuality.

Politicians like Hillary Clinton love to remind Christians that she supports our “freedom to worship” within church grounds (they don’t ever say they support our Constitutional freedom of religion, a big difference), but now LGBT protectionist laws are invading the grounds of the church and directly seek to force those inside the church to go against their beliefs.

What stands out so vividly here is the power of the dollar. Just as Indiana lost an estimated $60 million in tourism revenues in the wake of its Religious Freedom bill episode last year, states like Georgia, North Carolina and others are facing economic boycotts from major players like the NFL, soft drink companies, airlines, movie studios and the like. Facing economic losses of this magnitude, governors are trembling under the powerful hand of Big Business, which itself trembles under the power of the consumer, especially the 18-34 demographic, the group most likely to support LGBT legislation despite, perhaps unbeknownst to them, that such legislation is increasingly at the expense of religious rights. Businesses are of course fearful of mass boycotts by this group and other consumers.

But consider what might happen if governors of all 50 states were to face similar religious freedom legislation and didn’t cower to economic threats. For every state that signed Religious Freedom bills into law that simply protect private citizens from being forced to violate their faith (or in North Carolina’s case, to protect citizens from sharing a public restroom with someone who could be pretending to identify as a different gender) some economic loss may occur at the onset. For instance, the NFL may have moved the Super Bowl out of Georgia to another state had Deal signed the bill. Yes, that would be a big loss initially for Georgia.

But as state after state were to sign into law basic religious protections (which simply enforce the Constitution, by the way), the NFL is going to still want to have a Super Bowl. Apple is still going to want to sell phones everywhere. Disney will still want to make movies. What would these organizations do if all 50 states had religious freedom bills? 

Maybe if governors stiffened their spines and stood up against economic bullying, eventually the bullies would back down. After all, it's not cheap to relocate headquarters, and companies no longer offering their products or services in a state would take a big revenue hit as well. 

As for consumer boycotts, perhaps it's up to Christians to not let the few control what most of us believe to be a violation of the Constitution. Imagine if all Christians and supporters of religious freedom were to stop using the products or services of companies that didn't support religious rights. I bet it wouldn't be long before these companies reversed their positions. In other words, let's use the power of the dollar to work for freedom, not against it. 

On the other hand, keep in mind what happened when Chick-fil-A was hounded because its founder voiced support for traditional marriage. Mass boycotts were called - but supporters outnumbered the boycotters and record sales were made. In other words, maybe businesses should look more closely at how mass amounts of Americans actually feel about the issue before voicing their threats to depart.

If the businesses did make good on their word, though, and left the state in question, at the very least, it would create an opening for entrepreneurs who would be more than willing to take on the market share for products and services abandoned by businesses who don’t want to fight for religious freedom. 

It's of course an overly simplistic speculation, but as I see it, it could be a win-win for both religious freedom and capitalism - the very two things that helped make America great in the first place. 

Holy Thursday: Love manifested in humility and sacrifice

Courtesy of Catholic News Agency....Except for the resurrection on Easter, Holy Thursday (a.k.a. Maundy Thursday) is possibly one of the most important, complex, and profound days of celebration in the Catholic Church. Holy Thursday celebrates the institution of the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Jesus Christ and the institution of the sacrament of the priesthood.

During the Last Supper, Jesus offers himself as the Passover sacrifice, the sacrificial lamb, and teaches that every ordained priest is to follow the same sacrifice in the exact same way. Christ also bids farewell to his followers and prophesizes that one of them will betray him and hand him over to the Roman soldiers.

Around the world, Bishops and priests come together at their local Cathedrals on Holy Thursday morning to celebrate the institution of the priesthood. During the Mass, the bishop blesses the Oil of Chrism that will be used for Baptism, Confirmation, and Anointing of the sick or dying.

At this Mass, the bishop washes the feet of twelve priests to symbolize Christ’s washing of his twelve Apostles, our first bishops and priests.

Later that night, after sundown – because Passover began at sundown-  the Holy Thursday Liturgy takes place, marking the end of Lent and the beginning of the sacred "Triduum,” or three, of Holy Week. These days are the three holiest days in the Catholic Church.

This Mass stresses the importance Jesus puts on the humility of service, and the need for cleansing with water, a symbol of baptism. Also emphasized are the critical importance of the Eucharist and the sacrifice of Christ’s Body, which we now find present in the consecrated Host.

At the conclusion of the Mass, the faithful are invited to continue Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament throughout the night, just as the disciples were invited to stay up with the Lord during His agony in the garden before His betrayal by Judas.

There is such an abundance of symbolism in the solemn celebration of the events of Holy Thursday layer upon layer, in fact that we can no more than hint at it in these few words. For many centuries, the Last Supper of Our Lord has inspired great works of art and literature, such as the glorious stained glass window in Chartres cathedral, Leonardo da Vinci's ever popular (and much imitated) Last Supper in the 16th century, and the reminiscence called Holy Thursday, by the French novelist, Franasois Mauriac, written in the 1930s.

                                                  

After Holy Thursday, no Mass will be celebrated again in the Church until the Easter Vigil celebrates and proclaims the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

                                                     ***

I know not everyone reading this may practice the Catholic faith, but I just wanted to share this in the spirit of goodwill. May we all be reminded of the generosity and humility of Christ, and share those virtues with all those we meet as we continue to uphold and speak up for the Truth that God established in love, and manifested through His Son's tremendous and complete sacrifice. As we await His glorious Resurrection, God bless you all.

Global tax for abortion on its way

As reported by C-Fam, "UN radicals are clamoring for a global tax on financial transactions that will be an independent revenue stream for UN programs that promote abortion and 'various forms of the family.'

This is among the most dangerous ideas promoted at the UN and around the world in years.

A Global Tax for Abortion would inevitably result in forcing Christian countries to legalize abortion or liberalize existing laws restricting abortion.

C-Fam is partnering with LifeNews to fight back. Please go to www.c-fam.org/stop-un-global-tax and sign the petition and then send the link to your whole address book, to all of your friends and family. (Don't worry - it doesn't ask for any financial donation and takes literally about 20 seconds to complete.)

Is the Global Tax for Abortion real? It sure is. It has been discussed for years by global elites. Called the Tobin Tax, it would tax all international financial transactions, including airline tickets and when you change money when you travel. Under this initiative, the UN would also put pressure on corporations to increase  costs of goods and services and funnel those increases to the UN.

The Global Tax for Abortion was on the agenda of the World Humanitarian Summit that will bring government leaders to Istanbul this May. It is also a part of the Sustainable Development Goals that will be the biggest development  program in history that will end up costing trillions of dollars.

Please go here: www.c-fam.org/stop-un-global-tax and sign the petition now which will be presented to UN policy makers this fall. It will also be presented to members of the US Congress.

The Global Abortion Tax can be stopped, but not without your immediate help. Thousands of names are needed to have an impact."

Thank you!

Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes some women, but so what?

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin has filed a lawsuit against a Kentucky abortion facility, with state documents saying the premises were "filthy," used prescriptions that were nearly two decades past their due date, performed abortions without any state license, and had no ambulance agreement to transport women injured during botched abortion procedures.

The facility, EMW Women's Clinic in Lexington, serves no medical purpose aside from abortion, and does not have proper licenses to perform abortions, state inspectors said.

"This does not comply with Kentucky law and jeopardizes women's safety and lives,” the governor's 10-page lawsuit says.

Meanwhile, last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a very brief order allowing several Louisiana abortion clinics to reopen after a federal appeals court forced them to shut down because of unsafe conditions that didn't meet or violated regulations. The Supreme Court's decision mirrors one made last summer about Texas's admitting privileges law which aimed to increase safety regulations at abortion clinics. 

Opponents of safety regulations at abortion clinics argue that women should not be forced to run to court year after year to protect their "fundamental rights". 

But it's time people understand that terminating a pregnancy for no other reason than "convenience" to the mother is not a fundamental right, and has nothing to do with reproductive health because no reproduction is taking place. Only intentional actions to end reproduction are taking place, often surgically, which, like any surgical procedure, always, always carries risks. 

And it should be noted that when a medical emergency arises where a baby's life may need to be forfeited in order to save the mother, that is not abortion as the term is widely used, because typical abortion is the deliberate ending of the baby's life for the sole sake of ending it. Doctors do everything they can to save both the mother and baby in these types of circumstances, which are considered tragic by all parties involved, and even the Catholic Church teaches that the mother's life need not be sacrificed for her baby's life (though some mothers do of course choose their baby's life over their own in certain cases, e.g., those with cancer who choose life for their child rather than undergoing risky chemotherapy that may harm their baby). Unfortunately abortion advocates who term abortion as "reproductive health" miss the whole point of reproduction. Sadly, it has become an over-used phrase to give the abortion industry cover in its practice of ending human lives for profit, while major safety violations are ignored.

In fact, one of the complaints about the Texas law is precisely because the law tried to require abortion clinics to undergo renovations in order to comply with safety and ambulatory surgical center regulations where women undergo surgical abortions, and to have physician admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. For some reason, abortion proponents believe that clean facilities at an abortion clinic and the ability to rush a woman to a hospital should an emergency occur undermine women's rights.

I would bet though that if a dental clinic had filthy conditions, rats, unsterilized instruments, no license to practice, and no admitting privileges to a nearby hospital should a patient suddenly start hemorrhaging uncontrollably and need transport to the nearest emergency room (as is the case of too many of these abortion clinics), these same so-called pro-women's health advocates would be screaming for tighter controls. 

But as long as a clinic exists for the main purpose of extracting, not a tooth, but a baby prematurely from the womb, carry on. What does it matter if the woman's very life may be at risk? After all, abortion advocates are not concerned if the baby lives (obviously). Why would anyone believe they really care about the woman's life, physically, emotionally or spiritually? I'm not seeing the evidence.

Presidential politics and the death of character

from Crisis Magazine....

In his 1974 book, The Roots of American Order, which he viewed as his contribution to America’s Bicentennial, the great scholar Russell Kirk said that the virtue and dignity of a great president like Lincoln was “still respected by the American democracy.” In the 2016 presidential campaign so far, it is not so clear that such considerations are still in the minds of many American voters.

The Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, has assembled a substantial following in the electorate that is so unwavering in its support that he boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of New York City and it wouldn’t hurt him. While his example is hyperbolic, it not only illustrates his point but also indicates the degree to which attention to character has slipped off the radar screen in our current politics.

Trump has not only had multiple marriages, but a background of serial adultery—which he virtually boasted about in his first book. He has made a sizable amount of his fortune on the back of human weakness, with gambling casinos. His Atlantic City casino featured a virtual strip club. His massive business successes have been accompanied by shady business practices (many of which have led to lawsuits), questionable associations, loan defaults, using political connections and maneuvering to get what he wants (as with the much-publicized attempt to have eminent domain invoked—he also did it elsewhere—against a widow who wouldn’t sell her property so he could expand his Atlantic City casino operation), and a tendency generally to use pressure tactics on those who get in his way.

One notable example was the massive lawsuit he filed against the Miss USA beauty pageant contestant who went public with evidence that the results were predetermined. Trump has admitted that his life has not been one of moderation, and it certainly hasn’t been characterized by humility. When asked about why he was justified in receiving compensation of two million dollars per year for being board chairman of a company that went bankrupt, he said, “Because I’m a genius.” He has over the years made many similar statements. While he contributes to charity, it’s not so clear that being service-oriented has been a high priority for him. He said he got into real estate simply because it’s lucrative.

Trump is hardly the only 2016 presidential candidate that serious character questions can be raised about. The public widely views Hillary Clinton as dishonest, but she’s still the Democratic frontrunner. The Clinton shadiness is almost legendary. Her behavior in the Benghazi episode, the mounting evidence about misuse of her personal email accounts when Secretary of State in apparent violation of espionage laws (which would easily by now have gotten a lesser figure indicted), and the issues concerning foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation and influence buying seem to have done little to hurt her politically. It’s almost as if for a significant enough of a segment of the electorate all this is irrelevant.

Her opponent, Bernie Sanders, apart from his radical past, lived a “hippie” existence, divorced his first wife after giving her the life of living in a shack, fathered a child out of wedlock with another woman whom he cohabited with, had an irregular work history before being elected to public office when nearly forty, has a reputation for improvidence, and is now married to a woman who identifies as a Catholic and was also previously divorced and had children (I don’t know if she ever got an annulment or is practicing).

The fact that he has fervently clung to his socialism throughout his adult life perhaps says the most about his character. It indicates a resistance rooted in the will to getting a sound intellectual formation, being attentive to history, and properly shaping one’s views about the world. The literature about the evils of socialism and the historical record of its failures is abundant. Sanders, with his Catholic wife, could have started by reading the encyclicals Quod Apostolici Muneris and Quadragesimo Anno. I doubt he ever has.

The term of the year in the Republican race has been “liar.” While this is a serious charge to make against someone in any context, a few of the candidates don’t seem to blink an eye about it. They seem to be following one of “rules for radicals” of Barack Obama’s inspiration, Saul Alinsky: say something enough times so people will start to believe it whether it’s true or not. Actually, doing this says a lot more about the character of the accuser than about the person he’s trying to tarnish. It seems as if these candidates—who call themselves Christian—have never heard of the sins of calumny and disparagement. It seems as if Ted Cruz has been the most frequent target of the “liar” slur. Regardless of whether one supports him and whatever his other shortcomings, upon examining the subjects that have elicited this attack on him I’ve found, frankly, that it hasn’t been warranted. Is it good to have people who could become president making strident and untruthful attacks on their political opponents?

Cruz also took heat for his flyer that, in effect, “shamed” voters who haven’t turned out in the past as a way to get them to the Iowa caucuses. To be sure, it’s not a tactic I care for. However, both parties have used this approach in elections in various states, apparently to try to counter voter apathy. That didn’t stop Rubio from trying to convince voters that it shows Cruz is “unethical,” even though he did a similar thing. That would have been a perhaps deliberate case of rash judgment, not far from the sin of disparagement, even if it were not also hypocritical.

Charity, another quality of character, certainly hasn’t been a hallmark of this campaign season, either.

Confusion from a CNN report led to the Cruz campaign erroneously telling caucus-goers in Iowa that Ben Carson may be withdrawing given his decision not to actively campaign in New Hampshire after the Iowa caucuses. Even though it almost certainly didn’t affect the result and Cruz explained why it happened and publicly apologized to him—and even expressed his personal admiration of him—Carson kept hammering Cruz about it. It was hardly a charitable response.

Speaking of humility, while it’s understandable that candidates want to stress their accomplishments, all the candidates embellishing of themselves—such as by claiming to have led this or that fight in Congress—doesn’t exactly demonstrate it.

The campaign so far has been anything but an exercise in civility. That’s another thing that tells us something about the character of the candidates. At a time when the country cries out for civility, what we need are politicians who can promote it while at the same time standing unflinchingly for sound principles (a rare combination, to be sure).

Distinct character flaws clearly weakened or undermined three presidents of recent memory. LBJ’s egotism and unwillingness to take criticism led to a Vietnam policy that was his undoing. Nixon’s sense of insecurity, secretiveness, and tendency to see critics and opponents as enemies led to his Watergate disgrace and resignation. Bill Clinton’s inability to control his sexual impulses, along with his dishonesty, led to his impeachment.

Character, then, has made or broken various presidencies. Its deficiency has caused ensuing agony for the country. It is the essential starting point for any public man or woman and the basis of integrity in politics. So why do voters currently seem so oblivious to it?

Are Democrats really the champions of minorities?

Following Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, Hillary Clinton declared that any Republican opposition to President Barack Obama’s justice nominee is because of racism. Proof of this supposed racism isn’t necessary because Democrats have been doing it for years: Portraying their party as the enlightened, loving group that wants to help the black population, and Republicans as the heartless bigots. But depending on your definition of the word, just how are Democrats “helping” black Americans – or any American for that matter?

Ever since Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law, Democrats have represented themselves as the champions of the black race. But they never publicize the fact that it was Republicans who had to convince LBJ to sign the 1964 legislation, which passed with a higher percentage of Republican over Democratic votes.

Today’s Democrats also bury their own history that documents their fierce opposition to every law or amendment from 1862 to 1964 that would abolish slavery, lynching, and obstacles to citizenship for black people. Instead, it was the Democrats who gave us Dred Scott, the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws, and who opposed school desegregation.

Citing the “Southern Strategy”, some argue that ideologies have shifted, meaning today’s Republicans actually hold the racist views that history’s Democrats did. But they cannot speak for me and every other conservative Republican who identifies with Republicans precisely for their historical record on helping black citizens gain freedom and equality, and for conservative Republican support for the smaller government, lower taxes and border security that open the way toward justice and opportunity for all Americans.

Despite Democrats’ deplorable historical record, what about now? There is no doubt racism exists regardless of political affiliation or race itself, but what’s being addressed here is the co-opting of an issue in order to win votes. So what exactly are Democrats doing that helps the black American, or any American for that matter?

Just a few points to consider:

War on Poverty: While Republicans absolutely support help for the truly down and out, before Johnson’s War on Poverty launched in 1964 (about which he was famously reported as saying would cause black people to “vote Democrat for 200 years”), the black poverty rate was in decline. It began rising steadily after 1964’s launch of massive welfare, and then seven years after President Bill Clinton signed the Republican-sponsored Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which stipulated a work requirement, the U.S. Census Bureau reported black poverty declined to its lowest levels in history.

Under President Obama, however, who essentially gutted the welfare work requirement, black poverty in particular has again risen, according to Pew Research Center, from 25.8 percent in 2009 to 27.2% as of 2014, and welfare recipients in general are at an all-time high, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Worse is the devastating changes we’ve seen in the black family since 1964. Despite good intentions, welfare programs act as disincentives for parents to stay together. A single mother will receive far more from welfare if there is no employed husband. Over time, welfare effectively renders the father irrelevant.

The effect on black families is clear: As of 1964, 82% of black citizens lived in married, two-parent households. Today, the OECD reports that an astonishing 72% of black children are born into single-parent households, which, according to a 2009 U.S. Census Bureau report, significantly increases a child’s probability of living in poverty.

Unemployment/economy: While Obama likes to present himself as the anti-Reagan answer to, well, Reaganomics, the fact is that President Reagan reduced the maximum tax rate on job creators by 60%; Obama has increased it by 17%. According to a Cato Institute study, under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20%, but under Obama, it has increased by 42%; black teenage unemployment fell by 16% under Reagan, but has risen by 56% under Obama. Rather than scale back on the policies that are worsening things, however, Obama remains steadfast in his support for increased regulations, taxation and welfare spending.

 Minimum wage laws: For a long period after the Civil War, white unemployment exceeded black unemployment. That changed with the first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which was used openly to price black workers out of the job market. Today, it continues to do harm because wage laws can only set wages, they cannot guarantee that employers can afford to offer jobs at those wages, which means young, low-skilled workers are less likely to get such jobs. In fact, the Employment Policies Institute reports that from 2007-2009, young black Americans lost more jobs because of minimum wage hikes than from the recession. 

Illegal immigration: Though black citizens face higher unemployment than whites, many Democrats actively encourage open borders and amnesty for illegal workers (a.k.a. potential Democratic voters). As attorney Peter Kirsanow states, “The obvious question is whether there are sufficient jobs in the low-skilled labor market for both African-Americans and illegal immigrants. The answer is no.”

Voter ID laws: Despite accusations of racism, a recent Rasmussen poll of various races found that 8 out of 10 voters support showing photo ID when voting to reduce voter fraud. If anything is racist, it’s depicting black people as incapable of obtaining photo ID – or that they’ve never withdrawn money from a bank, written a check at a store, or traveled on an airplane, all of which require photo ID.

Decimated cities: Look at the worst cities across America, including Detroit and Flint. Who has controlled them for decades? Democrats. Yet Democrats continue to blame Republicans for minorities trapped in these decaying communities while promoting the very Democratic policies that have led to their ruin. 

Crime: Every year thousands of black people are murdered by black people, predominantly in the inner cities run by Democrats. But rather than focusing on this very real problem, Democrats, like President Obama, prefer to sensationalize random stories that involve blacks being killed by non-blacks, such as the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, MO.   

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is campaigning on the idea of “systemic racism”. Besides promising “investments in education, healthcare and jobs” to combat the issue with little detail on what she actually would do, Hillary talks emotionally about the broken system, noting that “too many encounters with law enforcement end tragically.” Of course demonizing the police helps Democrats in their push for a nationalized police force, while the black people they claim to care about remain exposed to high rates of black-on-black murder. 

Abortion: Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, who notoriously launched the “Negro Project” to reduce the black population. Today, the Guttmacher Institute reports that nearly 80% of Planned Parenthood abortion mills are strategically planted in minority communities, and abortion is the leading cause of death among black people. Yet Democrats happily support funding Planned Parenthood with over one million dollars daily in taxpayer money. Apparently not all "Black Lives Matter". 

Disagreeing with a position based on principle isn’t racist or wrong. What is wrong is blaming Republicans for the problems brought on by Democratic policies and then calling Republicans racists for disagreeing with bad policies, all in order to court voter support. Isn’t it time we start holding Democrats accountable to this?

Golf, Cuba, Hawaii? Yes. Respect for Justice Scalia? No.

Obama has time to golf after Americans are publicly decapitated by Islamists. He has time to go to Hawaii. He has time to fly to L.A. to go on the Ellen Degeneres show. He has time to visit the vehemently anti-American Communist country of Cuba next month. But he’s not quite able to find the time to attend the funeral of a Supreme Court Justice. 

I am sure Obama and his wife feel that visiting Justice Antonin Scalia as he lay in state yesterday at the Great Hall of the Supreme Court was sufficient. 

But if that was enough, why are Obama's defenders scrambling to point out that a president or vice president have only attended four of the last seven funerals for a Supreme Court Justice? What Obama's henchmen leave out though is that six of those seven justices had already retired to private life when they died. Of the previous six - Rehnquist, Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun and Powell -- only Rehnquist was a sitting justice at the time of his death. President George W. Bush made a point of attending his funeral, not only out of respect, but out of presidential duty. 

Justice Scalia was of course also a sitting justice, but Obama has better things to do with his time. If Obama doesn't respect the man, that's his prerogative. But as president, he should at least respect the office. 

For a man who talks so frequently about healing the divide in America and how respect is key to that goal, Obama shows once again that he has absolutely no desire to heal anything. What a disgrace.