Fighting the Right

Sandy Rios Says Secular Jews Have Been 'The Worst Enemies of the Country'

The American Family Association recently hired Fox News contributor and former Concerned Women for America president Sandy Rios to host her own show on American Family Radio, and here’s what we get to look forward to: attacks on Jewish Americans for supporting President Obama. Earlier today she spoke with the AFA’s Tim Wildmon and Bryan Fischer, where she suggested that secular Jews are enemies of America. Rios bemoaned that “the Jewish vote in this country is so confused, so many of the Jews in this country are atheist and their hearts are with this President.” “They’re far-left,” Wildmon said, “Most of the Jews in this country are far left, unfortunately.” Rios said that “a lot of Jewish atheists are some of the ones who have done, just like former Christians or quasi Christians, people who have some dealing with Judeo-Christian ethics, sometimes turn out to be the worst enemies of the country.”

Later on in the show, Rios said that “there are very few” religious people in Israel, “by and large Israel is an atheistic country, they don’t really believe in the God of their fathers, there’s no question about that,” and maintained that Christians must “evangelize and pray for our Jewish brothers and sisters.”

Santorum Campaign Hails Support from 'Don't Say Gay' Bill Sponsor

Earlier today we reported that Rick Santorum’s campaign is promoting endorsements from anti-gay radicals like Sally Kern and Bobbi Radeck of Oklahoma and Ohio, respectively, and now the former Pennsylvania senator’s campaign is trumpeting the endorsement of Tennessee state legislator Joey Hensley, the chief House sponsor of the state’s “don’t say gay” bill. “We don’t want students to be exposed to alternate lifestyles,” Hensley said in defense of the legislation, which would prevent any discussion of homosexuality in K-8th grades classes. Hensley also criticized Modern Family because two of the show’s main characters are gay, calling it “inappropriate for children.”

Rick Joyner Apologized to Leading Islamic Clerics for America's Perversion, Filth, and Darkness

One of the most frequent attacks that the Right levels against President Obama is that he is constantly apologizing for America to nations around the world, and especially to our enemies, and vowing never to apologize for America has become an easy applause line for GOP presidential hopefuls.

So imagine our surprise as we were watching the last day of Rick Joyner's week-long series on the evils of Islam and heard Joyner recall apologizing to Islamic leaders for the filth, homosexuality, and darkness that America is exporting all over the world.

As Joyner explained, several years ago he attended a "World Public Forum on Civilizations and Religions" where he went out of his way to connect with top Mullahs and Imams from around the world in order to understand why they hated America so much.  In doing so, Joyner learned that foreign Muslims had no idea that there were Christians in America who hated our culture just as much as they did and so he took it upon himself to apologize for America:

I had an experience a few years ago when I was asked to be a delegate at the World Public Forum on Civilizations and Religions and it had the top Mullahs and Imams from every Islamic country ... and I spent all the time I could trying to understand ... and I wanted to hear their perspective; why did they hate America so much?

They had no clue that there was such a thing as Christians in America that didn't like pornography. They saw what was coming out of Hollywood as American Christianity ... And I did apologize - I understand our Republican candidates all saying "I'll never apologize for America," well, I did apologize for America and I won't apologize for doing that!

I apologized for the filth and perversion coming out of Hollywood that I believe is spiritually and morally polluting multitudes all over the earth. This is one of the main reasons why Islam hates us so bad. They say "you put 'In God We Trust' on your money; look at this filth and perversion you're sending all over the world."

You know what? They hate this thing that has them in bondage and they see perverting their own people and they feel that there is nothing they can do but kill us. We've become too perverted. They think America's a homosexual nation, lead, ruled by homosexuals and that this perversion has gone too far, there's nothing to do but destroy America and Americans. That's why they think it's their duty to kill Americans.

They were shocked; they had never heard of Evangelical Christianity, Christians that didn't like this stuff either. But I did apologize to them. I told them I was sorry for what is coming out and I'm sorry that I haven't been the salt that was salty enough or the light that was bright enough to keep that darkness from rising in our country the way it has.

Family Research Council Demands Elevation of 'Ex-Gay' Message in Schools

After a Maryland school district decided to reconsider its flyer policy after the “ex-gay” group PFOX distributed material promoting the discredited and dangerous reparative therapy, Family Research Council senior fellow and PFOX board member Peter Sprigg responded with a furious op-ed in the Washington Times and an appearance on Today’s Issues with FRC president Tony Perkins. During the interview, Perkins said that “the homosexual community” is trying to stop children from getting “the options or the help that’s available for them if they’re struggling with [sexuality] issues” by opposing the distribution of ex-gay material, and lamented that “government officials [are] increasingly becoming really patsies for the homosexual activists.” Sprigg said that unless the ex-gay “message gets out in the schools,” then more and more confused kids who “would end up being perfectly heterosexual” would be “told by their teachers and guidance counselors, ‘well you are probably gay.’”

Perkins: When you look across the board in different incidences where the homosexual community is involved, they simply want to shut down any discussion, they don’t want children to be aware of the options or the help that’s available for them if they’re struggling with these issues, and now you see government officials increasingly becoming really patsies for the homosexual activists.

Sprigg: Right. It’s especially important that this message gets out in the schools because it’s normal for young people, adolescents to experience some confusion about their sexual identity. An important statistic that I read once was that there’s a survey done of 12 year olds that found at age 12, 25 percent of the students were unsure of their sexual orientation. But we know from surveys of the adult population that only maybe 2 to 3 percent of the adult population will actually identify as homosexual or bisexual. So you have this population of young people that left to themselves, 9 out of 10 would end up being perfectly heterosexual, but now with the politically correct environment in the schools, those kids are being told by their teachers and guidance counselors, “well you are probably gay, you were born that way, you just have to accept it and embrace it.”

CWA’s Crouse: Violence Against Women Act Funds Feminist ‘Reeducating Programs for Judges’

Last month, the War on Women reached a new level when every single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against a reauthorization of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA has been reauthorized with broad bipartisan support twice since its original passage, but this year, Republicans objected to the inclusion of new provisions to protect LGBT people and immigrant women.

On her radio show last week, Janet Mefferd discussed the battle over VAWA reauthorization with Concerned Women for America’s Janice Crouse.

Crouse charged that VAWA – which grants funds to local communities to develop programs combatting domestic violence – mostly funds “reeducating programs for judges to try to train them in the principles of feminism and so-called ‘women’s rights.’”

Crouse and Mefferd were especially scornful of new provisions protecting immigrants and LGBT people and an eliminated provision making it easier to combat date rape on campuses, with Crouse warning that women would just abuse the system to get green cards and make false accusations of date rape.

Crouse: Quite frankly, much of the Violence Against Women funds reeducating programs for judges to try to train them in the principles of feminism and so-called ’women’s rights.’

Mefferd: Wow, that’s what we need, we need more indoctrination of judges, right?

Crouse: Right. [laughs]

...

Mefferd: So they’ve expanded this to cover more subgroups, but why can’t it just, if you’re going to have a domestic violence piece of legislation, why can’t it just cover anyone who’s affected by domestic violence? Is this just another one where they’re trotting out their typical liberal ways and, you know, ‘We’ve got to emphasize non-discrimination against sexual orientation, etc. etc.’ Is that just kind of the agenda here again?

Crouse: Exactly right. Plus, you have a number of women from other countries who marry Americans to come to this country, and then they want out of the marriage. Well, VAWA provides a way for them to get out, a very easy way for them to get out.

One of the things that I found particularly troubling, and thank goodness the Republicans stood up against this, was the effort to change dating rape to not require clear and convincing evidence, and that’s a legal term, clear and convincing evidence, but instead to require preponderance of evidence, which is a much lower standard and is not clear and convincing. So a girl the next morning could just say, ‘Well, I really made a mistake,’ and accuse a guy of date rape, or have any kind of regrets and accuse a guy of date rape.

Mefferd: Well, isn’t that unconstitutional, to lower the standard there on crime?

Crouse: Well, I’m not a constitutional specialist, but in terms of legal ramifications, it’s disastrous.

 

Pat Robertson Says People could have Stopped Deadly Tornadoes through Prayer

Pat Robertson, who earlier called tornadoes a sign of the End Times, was asked today on the 700 Club about the tornadoes that have ravaged parts the country and killed at least thirty-nine people. He said that the storms weren’t a malicious act of God and instead turned it around on the victims, asking, “why did you build houses where tornadoes were apt to happen?”

However, Robertson in 2010 did believe that God used natural disasters to hurt people, saying that Haiti’s earthquake was a result of the Haitian people’s alleged “pact to the Devil.”

Robertson continued that the tornadoes may not have happened if people had prayed for divine intervention, “If enough people were praying He would’ve intervened, you could pray, Jesus stilled the storm, you can still storms.” He also told people who live in areas prone to natural disasters that it’s “their fault, not God’s.”

Watch:

Rick Santorum Promotes Endorsement of Anti-Gay Extremists Sally Kern and Bobbi Radeck

Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern garnered national attention, and notoriety, in 2008 for maintaining that homosexuality is “the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam,” and last year doubling down on her claim by arguing that while homosexuality is “more dangerous” than terrorism because “it will tear down the moral fiber of this nation” and is something people “have to deal with every day” as “fortunately we don’t have to deal with a terrorist attack every day.”

Kern has also warned that greater rights for gays and lesbians will lead to approval of bestiality and pedophilia and is nostalgic for the time when homosexuality was illegal.

With such a severely anti-gay record, it comes as no surprise that she has endorsed Rick Santorum right before the Oklahoma primary, and that the Santorum campaign is promoting her endorsement.

But Kern isn’t Santorum’s only radical backer.

The Santorum campaign is also playing up his support from Bobbi Radeck of Concerned Women for America Ohio, whose claim to fame is working against the “homosexualists” behind the anti-bullying, anti-suicide Day of Silence:

The Day of Silence, which is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), is only two days away. GLSEN's Day of Silence, which began on college campuses and has now infiltrated middle schools, exploits anti-bullying sentiment to undermine the belief that homosexual acts are immoral. GLSEN shamelessly exploits teen suicide in order to create a climate of hysteria which they can then exploit to falsely impute culpability for teen suicide to conservative moral beliefs. GLSEN's end game is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social and political climate in which it is impossible to express them. Their cultural vehicle of choice for this radical social experiment is public education. What a strategic coup for homosexualists: use our money to capture the hearts and minds of our children.

And we do virtually nothing. Our complacence makes us complicit in the damage done to our children and our culture. Moreover, we teach our children by example to be cowardly conformists. It's time to resist and there's no easier way to resist than to call your children out of school on the Day of Silence.

Parents and Guardians: Call your children's middle and high schools and ask if students and/or teachers will be permitted to refuse to speak during class on Friday, April 15. If your administration allows students and/or teachers to refuse to speak during class, call your child out of school. Every student absence costs school districts money. When administrators refuse to listen to reason and when they allow the classroom to be exploited for political purposes, parents must take action. If they don't, the politicization of the classroom and curricula will increase.



Please call your children out of school if your administration permits students to refuse to speak on the Day of Silence. For further information, including parental instructions and a sample calling out letter, click here.

Romney Adds Ashcroft to List of Extreme Advisers

More mainstays of the Republican establishment announced their endorsement of Mitt Romney over the weekend. However, it’s not just the current faces of the party like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senator Tom Coburn who have tipped their hats; Romney is also registering the support of ghosts of GOP past: Bush Administration attorney general John Ashcroft.

Romney is apparently trying to court as many extremists to his campaign as possible – the addition of Ashcroft dovetails closely with the fringe views of his legal adviser, the rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

As attorney general, Ashcroft oversaw a relentless assault on Americans’ civil liberties. He approved warrantless wiretapping, secret military tribunals, racial profiling, aggressively implemented the PATRIOT Act, and created the “enemy combatant” status in an attempt to justify ignoring the Constitution in order to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects without charges.

Many of Ashcroft’s longstanding views still sit squarely with current GOP priorities:

  • He singlehandedly sabotaged confirmation of judicial nominees he didn’t like and has helped pack the federal courts with extreme Right-Wing judges;
  • He perpetuates the War on Women and has sought to amend the Constitution and pass legislation that would eliminate a women’s right an abortion, even for rape and incest victims, and supported making common birth control methods illegal;
  • He opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, designed to protect vulnerable groups of Americans who have long experienced overt discrimination for reasons having nothing to do with their job qualifications; 
  • He opposed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would have amended federal law to recognize hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender and disability;
  • He opposed school desegregation in Missouri;
  • He disregards the separation of church and state by helping funnel government funds to religious organizations that discriminate based on religion and led daily prayer and Bible study sessions at the Justice Department;
  • He helped rig the vote by investigating Republican claims of voter fraud while ignoring charges of voter disenfranchisement.

Ashcroft’s own words perfectly sum up his policy positions:

“There are voices in the Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to reject those deceptions. If ever there was a time to unfurl the banner of unabashed conservatism, it is now.” --April 10, 1998

If Mitt Romney shares Ashcroft’s extremist sentiments, he will be unable to unite the country should he win the nomination. Ashcroft’s open hostility to the Bill of Rights has no place in this campaign.

However, singing lessons are always welcome.

 

 

The full video is here.

PFAW

Conservative 'Pro-Family' Groups Silent on Rush Limbaugh's Sexist Outbursts

The Media Research Center criticized everyone from Perez Hilton and Gossip Girl to the cast of Jersey Shore for using the word “slut,” but after right-wing talk show host tagged law student and women’s rights advocate Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute,” the group that claims to stand up for “people and institutions that hold traditional values” has repeatedly come to Limbaugh’s defense. MRC’s Scott Whitlock said NBC’s depiction of Limbaugh’s sexist remarks as “ugly” represented “a left-wing attack” and Brent Baker dubbed coverage of Limbaugh’s rant a “left-wing effort to impugn and silence Rush Limbaugh.” The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer and Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber even tweeted in defense of Limbaugh, Barber even saying that Limbaugh “showed class.”

Apparently, the word “slut” is only acceptable when it is used by a right-wing ally.

Concerned Women for America, which describes itself as committed to promoting “decency” in the media, has been completely silent about Limbaugh’s tirade. But the group is happy to post a statement regarding the talk show host’s praise for CWA, along with claims about the supposedly sexist treatment of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin by the media.

Focus on the Family considers the word “slut” a profanity and blamed “hip-hop/rap culture” for making it “become acceptable and even in vogue to be called a ‘slut,’” and urged people to stop buying music with words like “slut” that “objectify women.” But the organization still hasn’t commented on Limbaugh’s misogynist rants. In 2009 the group defended Limbaugh with a video, “When the liberals came for Rush.”

While these so-called “pro-family” organizations love to claim that they promote decency and values on the airwaves, they are either unwilling or uninterested in criticizing a prominent conservative who spent four days straight calling a student a “slut” on national radio

Fischer: 'Imam Obama' Issues 'Fatwa' Installing 'Secular Sharia'

Life in Bryan Fischer's America would be one in which all of our laws and public policies would be written and enforced in strict adherence to Biblical mandate, even going so far as to put whales to death and shooting bears on sight.

So it is a little ironic to see Fischer ranting on his radio program last week that Obama Administration's contraception mandate means that "Imam Obama" has issued a "fatwa" installing "secular Sharia":

Essentially what President Obama has done is he's issued a fatwa on behalf of secular Sharia, this religion of secular fundamentalism. There are fundamentalists who are followers of secular fundamentalism; it's every bit as much a religious view as Christianity is.

And so President Obama has issued this fatwa, as Imam Obama, the head of secular Sharia, that Christians have the same choice as Christians have when Muslim armies come to town ... Muslims armies come into a land and they give Christians three choices: you convert, you submit, or you die; those are your choices.

Now President Obama has issued a secular version of the same thing because those are the choices now that Christians face.

Blinded by the Hate: The Real Problem With Judge Cebull's Email

This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

Earlier this week a Great Falls Tribune reporter found something startling in his inbox: a shockingly racist and misogynistic email forwarded from the most powerful federal judge in Montana, which "joked" that the president of the United States was the product of his mother having sex with a dog. The story soon became national news, with groups like ours calling on Judge Richard Cebull to resign. Cebull quickly apologized to the president and submitted himself to a formal ethics review, somewhat quelling the story. But the story is about more than one judge doing something wildly inappropriate and deeply disturbing. It's about a conservative movement in which the bile and animosity directed at the president -- and even his family -- are so poisonous that even someone who should know better easily confuses political criticism and sick personal attack. Come on: going after the president's late mother? Attempting to explain his email forward, Judge Cebull told the reporter, John S. Adams,

The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan. I didn't send it as racist, although that's what it is. Is sent it out because it's anti-Obama.

Judge Cebull is hardly alone in using the old "I'm not racist, but..." line. In fact, his email was the result of an entire movement built on "I'm not racist, but..." logic that equates disagreement with and dislike of the president with broad-based, racially charged smears. These smears, tacitly embraced by the GOP establishment, are more than personal shots at the president -- they're attacks on the millions of Americans who make up our growing and changing country. Mainstream conservatives have genuine objections to President Obama's priorities and policies. But since he started running for president, a parallel movement has sprung up trying to paint Obama as an outsider and an imposter -- in unmistakably racially charged terms. Too often, the two movements have intersected. The effort to paint Obama as a threatening foreigner sprung up around the right-wing fringe in the run-up to the 2008 election with the typically muddled conspiracy theory that painted him as both a secret Muslim and a member of an America-hating church. They soon coalesced in the birther movement, which even today is championed by a strong coalition of state legislators and a certain bombastic Arizona sheriff. But the birther movement, the "secret Muslim" meme and the idea that the president of the United States somehow hates his own country are no longer confined to the less visible right-wing fringe. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, until recently a frontrunner in the GOP presidential race, continually hammers on the president's otherness, most notably criticizing his "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior." Rick Santorum flatly claims that Obama does not have the Christian faith that he professes, and eagerly courted the endorsement of birther leader Sheriff Joe Arpaio. And before they dropped out, Rick Perry and Herman Cain couldn't resist flirting with birtherism. But perhaps more than either of these fringe-candidates-turned-frontrunners, Mitt Romney has been catering to the strain of conservatism that deliberately confuses policy disagreements with racially-charged personal animosity. Romney went in front of TV cameras to smilingly accept the endorsement of Donald Trump, whose own failed presidential campaign was based on demanding the president's readily available birth certificate. And Gov. Romney continually attacks Obama -- falsely -- for going around the world "apologizing for America." Judge Cebull needs to take responsibility for his own actions. And if the GOP has any aspirations of providing real leadership to this country, it needs to jettison the deeply personal vitriol being direct against Barack Obama and start talking about real issues. When a federal judge has seen so much racially-charged propaganda against the president of the United States that he can claim not to know the difference between genuine disagreement and offensive personal smears, something in our discourse has gone terribly awry.

PFAW

Mefferd Lashes Out at Sandra Fluke, 'If You Want to go out and Fornicate, You Need to Pay for it'

Yesterday Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd ranted against Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who was barred from testifying at Darrell Issa’s hearing on the administration’s contraception policy and later spoke at a Democratic panel, for discussing how her university’s refusal to cover contraceptives is harmful to female students. Mefferd first joked about Fluke’s “whining” and then went on to say that Fluke was asking for taxpayers to cover her contraceptive costs, when she was actually just defending the administration’s plan to ensure that religiously-based universities cover contraception in their insurance plans. After twisting and poking fun at Fluke’s remarks, Mefferd told Fluke, “If you want to go out and fornicate, you need to pay for it.”

Democrats said the amendment, over at Politico, was too broad and would’ve been an attack on women’s health. Women’s health, women’s health…. It’s just like Sandra Fluke from yesterday when we were playing audio of that girl from Georgetown who was weeping, well I don’t know if she was weeping, but she was whining at least, you can say she was whining, to Nancy Pelosi and company.

‘Oh, all my friends are going broke at Georgetown Law School because we can’t afford birth control and we spent $3,000 over the course of our law school career on birth control’—$3,000?—‘We just can’t afford it and you need to pay for it, this is about women’s health.’ And of course everybody on the side of common sense is saying, you know what Sandra Fluke and company, nobody’s making you do it, nobody’s making you do it, you’re not asking for some sort of help with cancer drugs, you’re not asking for some sort of help with getting nitroglycerin pills for your heart condition, we would be moved, we would be very sympathetic, we would care, we would find some way to help if this were some dire emergency and you couldn’t afford it.

I got off the air yesterday as we were playing the clips of Sandra Fluke and her whining about needing taxpayers to cover her birth control and I thought; do you not have families? Whatever happened to the concept of a family? I guess that’s a broader issue we should tackle at another time in more detail, and we do talk about the family quite a bit as Christians as we ought to, but have you noticed increasingly the people on the left when they want someone or something to solve their problems it’s always the government, it’s always you, they always want to rob Peter to pay Paul, they always want to take the buck out of your pocket and apply it to whatever need they trump up.

Does anybody have a family anymore? Does anybody have anybody who they’re related to, who they could turn to in a moment of crisis and say ‘hey dad, I just can’t afford my contraception’? Of course not, I would think most people would never do that because it’s too embarrassing and it’s out of line or maybe they don’t have a father, I get all the objections, but why does the government always have to be the go-to-guy?

And it’s not even the government, that’s not even the right way of saying it, because we’re a government of the people, we the people are the people who are running this country, it’s not some king, we don’t live in a theocracy and we’re all going begging for bread from Obama, but that’s what these people are conditioned to do.

You have done a wonderful job Left in training the kids on how to be dependent on you and how to come to brother government and say, ‘please, give me another handout, I just don’t think I can do it on my own, I can’t afford my birth control, you need to pay for it.’ Wrong. Tough love baby, tough love. If you want to go out and fornicate, you need to pay for it.

Karen Handel Plays the Victim in Interview Attacking Planned Parenthood

Former Georgia Secretary of State and Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation vice president Karen Handel appeared on the 700 Club today where she blamed the controversy of Komen’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood’s clinical breast cancer screenings and mammogram referrals…on Planned Parenthood. Handel, who as an unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate in Georgia pledged to defund Planned Parenthood, acknowledged her role in convincing the organization to break ties with the women’s health group, but claimed that she was not the sole authority behind the decision.

While speaking with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Handel tried to blame Planned Parenthood for the controversy, even though it was the Komen foundation which ended its partnership with Planned Parenthood following pressure campaigns from anti-choice organizations. She attacked Planned Parenthood for leading a “premeditated, orchestrated attack” on the Komen foundation “not for sake of women’s health but for the sake of politics and a political agenda.” Later in the interview, she said Planned Parenthood’s actions were “nothing short of a shakedown” and that the media was biased in the group’s favor.

Watch:

Colson Rails Against Gay and Reproductive Rights as Threats to Freedom

Another day, another tirade from Chuck Colson about the supposed destruction of freedom in America. On his Breakpoint radio bulletin, Colson warned that Secretary Hillary Clinton’s pledge to fight for gay rights around the world is a threat to religious liberty and, once again, falsely maintained that she and other administration officials never use the phrase “freedom of religion.” In fact, the State Department just over a week ago released a statement calling the “freedom of religion” a “universal human right.” He said that gay rights, along with the President’s support of funding for non-abortion related health care by Planned Parenthood clinics and the mandate for contraception coverage in health insurance plans, are putting freedom in jeopardy. “Whether it’s ‘gay rights’ or ‘reproductive rights,’ Colson said, “the forces of secular liberalism are choosing sexual license over our religious liberty regarding human sexuality.”

For some time I have been warning you that the Obama administration has elevated so-called “gay rights” at the expense of religious liberty.

That may sound like an extreme statement, until you remember that Secretary of State Clinton has said “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” And she and other officials repeatedly use the term “freedom of worship” (a private act) versus “freedom of religion,” (which the Constitution protects, which is the freedom to live out one’s faith in public).

Administration officials have also said that in a contest “between religious liberty and sexual liberty,” sexual liberty triumphs. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, seeing this trend, is predicting “a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions.”

Friends, I wish I could tell you that gay rights were the only front in this threat to religious liberty. But as you know, the second front was opened up by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who decreed that, under ObamaCare, Catholic institutions will have to violate their religious beliefs and pay for contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees.



In one of his first acts as president, he rescinded the Mexico City policy, allowing federal dollars to go to organizations that promote abortion overseas, like Planned Parenthood. In the budget showdown with Republicans last summer, the president warned House Speaker John Boehner that he would allow the government to shut down rather than cut Planned Parenthood’s funding. And now, of course, the right to a contraceptive is being advanced over religious liberty.

Again, the question is why? I think Catholic scholar George Weigel has put his finger on it: “What began as a movement to liberate sexuality from the constraints of moral reason, custom, and law,” Weigel says, “has become a movement determined to use the instruments of law to impose its deconstruction of human sexuality and its moral relativism on all of society.” I urge you to read Weigel’s piece.

Friends, this is a clash of worldviews. Whether it’s “gay rights” or “reproductive rights” the forces of secular liberalism are choosing sexual license over our religious liberty regarding human sexuality.

Boykin: The Treasury Department is Funding Jihad

Yesterday we noted that Jerry Boykin was complaining that the United States government was practicing Sharia through the bailout of  AIG because the insurance giant offers some policies that are Sharia-compliant.

If that line of reasoning was too coherent for you, Boykin is back with an ever more convoluted claim about how the US Treasury Department is funding jihadists.

As Boykin sees it, the Treasury Department has been working for years to make our banking and financial systems Sharia-compliant.  Combine that with Zakat - one of the Five Pillars of Islam which calls for tithing to support the poor, those working for Islamic causes, and taxes on certain types of financial transactions - and it means that offering Sharia-compliant policies is a way of funding jihad: 

Andy Harris Compares Contraception Coverage Mandate to Communist 'Religious Persecution'

We have documented the extreme reactions to the Obama administration’s decision to ensure that women can receive coverage for contraception in their insurance plans, ranging from comparisons of President Obama to King George III, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin to warnings that the United States is moving closer to Nazi Germany. Now, freshman Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD) in an interview with the right-wing group Concerned Women for America has likened the contraception mandate to the “religious persecution” found in “Communist countries.”

Harris: What we need is—we need civil action. We need people to be talking about it, really expressing outrage to their friends and neighbors at how this could be happening in America. You know, my parents came from Communist countries, they actually escaped religious persecution like this, only now to have it happen here, right here in America.

PFAW's Peter Montgomery: Republicans Using 'Religious Liberty' to Attack Obama, Women's Health

Attacking President Obama for his supposed “hostility” to religious liberty is the tactic du jour for congressional Republicans, according to a new piece in the Huffington Post by PFAW Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery.

After a widely-mocked hearing before the House Oversight Committee on contraceptive coverage, conservatives testifying before the Judiciary Committee continued to claim that the Obama Administration’s compromise on contraceptive coverage is not sufficient – and even if were, the Administration couldn’t be trusted to actually carry it out.

But many of their arguments relied on narrow definitions of the beginning of life that are at odds with medical standards and even with the rest of the religious community:

The arguments from Republican members and their witnesses boiled down to three main claims: the regulations requiring contraception coverage are unconstitutional burdens on religious organizations; the compromise to prevent religious organizations from having to pay for contraceptive coverage is only "an accounting gimmick" that does not resolve any of the moral or religious liberty issues; and the Obama administration has proven itself hostile to religious liberty and cannot be trusted to follow through on its promised accommodation.

...

Several Democratic members pointedly noted that Lori was not speaking for all Catholic leaders, placing into the record positive statements about the proposed compromise from the Catholic Health Association, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, and other Catholic groups. Meanwhile, outside the hearing, other Catholic voices challenged the credibility of the bishops' religious liberty alarmism.

Others cited fallacious examples to attempt to bolster their claim of lacking religious accomodation.

Also on hand: more nonsensical analogies to join Bishop Lori's previous testimony that the regulations were akin to forcing a Jewish deli to serve pork. Committee Chair Lamar Smith asked whether the government could force people to drink red wine for its health benefits. (As Rep. Zoe Lofgren noted, no one is being forced to use birth control.) Religious Right favorite Rep. Steve King lamented that in the past Christians had "submitted" to Supreme Court decision on prayer in schools and the Griswold decision and the right to privacy "manufactured" by the Supreme Court.

The piece goes on to discuss how religious liberty does require some accommodation of religious beliefs, and striking an appropriate balance is a delicate task. But whatever the outcome, Montgomery notes, the courts will evaluate the regulation of competing interests, and “religious liberty in America will survive.” You can read the entire article here.

PFAW

Linda Harvey Tells Parents Not to Send Children to Colleges with Gay Straight Alliances

Mission America president Linda Harvey has a stern warning for parents with college-bound children: don’t send your kid to a school with “a Gay Straight Alliance or any similar group” because “a faith-based school with a homosexual group has probably lost its first love for Jesus and His truth.” Harvey lamented that even evangelical and Catholic institutions are recognizing their gay and lesbian students that would make them stray from “God’s word” in order to “cave in to transient, trendy sexual preferences” and “aggressive homosexual activism.” She also railed against gender neutral campus policies and “deteriorating” standing of “moral judgment” in higher education:

Are you looking for guidance about where to send your son or daughter to college, well perhaps some recent news items about colleges will help. First, check out any trend toward gender neutrality on campus. More and more colleges are instituting bathrooms, showers and locker rooms for both males and females and whatever might me in-between, and you might be interested to know that there are now at least fifty-four colleges and universities in the U.S. with gender neutral housing. Yes, that means just what you’re thinking, students can be roommates regardless of their God-given genders. Another trend is toward bolder support for homosexuality, even at religious schools. We’ve been talking about the push to officially recognize homosexuals on the campuses of some evangelical colleges, which ones will remain faithful to God’s word and which will cave in to transient, trendy sexual preferences? It remains to be seen but if I were a parent I would check any potential college to see if a Gay Straight Alliance or any similar group comes up on a Google search.



Forty-three percent of Catholic colleges have some sort of homosexual group recognized on campus. This is recent news and another sign that moral judgment is deteriorating in the face of aggressive homosexual activism. So a faith-based school with a homosexual group has probably lost its first love for Jesus and His truth. Perhaps, parents, it’s a good idea to seek other alternatives.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious