Worcester Diocese under attack from militant sodomites and Attorney General Martha Coakley

Writing for the Christian Post Reporter, Michael Gryboski notes that, "A Roman Catholic diocese in Massachusetts that refused to sell a historic mansion to a gay couple is facing mounting legal pressure. Massachusetts' Attorney General Martha Coakley recently filed a brief in support of the gay couple who are suing the Diocese of Worcester alleging discrimination. Filed before superior court earlier this month on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Coakley argued that the diocese's actions constituted 'sexual orientation discrimination.' 'The commonwealth's compelling interest in protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination derives from their status as a politically vulnerable minority that has suffered a history of discrimination, which continues to this day,' reads the brief in part. '… though the diocesan defendants assert a sincerely held religious belief, their free exercise claim fails the rest of the compelling interest test, and they are not entitled to an exemption.' The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General provided The Christian Post with a press release sent out last Thursday, wherein Coakley stated that her office respects the freedom of religion."  See here.

But what is tolerance? How do we define it? Dr. Montague Brown, a professor of philosophy at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, provides us with an excellent definition of tolerance. He writes, "Tolerance is the willingness to accept actions we believe to be inappropriate or even wrong because it would be worse to take action against them. Tolerance is community-oriented. Ideally, all bad behavior should cease, but it is unrealistic to think that society could succeed in enforcing this ideal. Tolerance understands this." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 166).

And how would we define relativism? Again, Dr. Montague: "Relativism is the assumption that there is no right or wrong. No action is considered better or worse than any other. If this is so, all actions are equally acceptable. Relativism is profoundly anti-community. If there are no standards of morality to which we should adhere, tolerance is no better than intolerance." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 167).

Does the Martha Coakley possess an adequate understanding of what constitutes tolerance?  Freedom of religion? Such would not appear to be the case.

As I've warned so many times before at this Blog, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000).

We are involved in a spiritual war.  Martha Coakley's legal brief - see here - really represents a thinly disguised totalitarianism.  The twilight has become darkness.

 

Sir Trevor Phillips: Christians, and only Christians, should be denied religious freedom and conscience rights

Saint Thomas Aquinas explains that a law is just if it corresponds to the divine law.  If civil law does conform to the divine law, then it has the power to bind us in conscience and to disobey such a law would be a sin.  But human law cannot exceed the power of its human authors.  Aquinas teaches that the law which is promulgated must correspond to the divine law.  No human authority can declare what is morally evil to be morally good.  For this reason, laws permitting slavery, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and "marriages" between persons of the same gender are immoral, and therefore unjust (Summa theologiae, I-II, q. 96, a.5).

In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Nos. 72-74, Pope John Paul II teaches that, "The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII’s Encyclical: 'Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently,laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order,and hence of the divine will,can have no binding force in conscience…;indeed,the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse'. This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas,who writes that 'human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason,it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence'. And again: 'Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law'.


Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good ;as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7;1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that 'we must obey God rather than men'(Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. 'They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live'(Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: 'the midwives feared God' (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for 'the endurance and faith of the saints' (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it'.

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions,in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion,often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned,when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official,whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions,which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust, but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive,can serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.

In order to shed light on this difficult question,it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint,it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs;no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6;14:12).

To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense,the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary,financial and professional plane."

Deacon Nick Donnelly over at Protect the Pope is reporting that Sir Trevor Phillips, the Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has stated categorically that freedom of religion and freedom of conscience is restricted to within the confines of church buildings if they conflict with secular law.  Sir Phillips has been quoted as having said that, "the law stops at the door of the temple as far as I am concerned."  He has accused Christians who insist upon following the teachings of Christ and their consciences of wanting to impose "sharia law"on the UK.

Deacon Nick comments, "The Equality Commissioner, like the Obama administration, is attempting to re-define freedom of religion as freedom to worship. It’s a verbal slight of hand that seeks to strip away our basic human rights as religious believers in public life and wider society. Basically he’s saying we’re free to practice our faith within our church buildings but nowhere else in society.

Trevor Phillips has already removed our right to practice the moral teachings of the faith within our own homes, because, for example, if we run a bed and breakfast we have to allow homosexuals to sleep together in rooms in our houses, or else be taken to court and fined.

Trevor Phillips, and his like, have removed the rights of parents to bring their children up in the faith, because if our children, as young as 13, want contraception or abortion the State will provide it without parental knowledge or consent.

Trevor Phillips trivializes Catholic moral teaching on sexuality and parenthood by saying that we just 'decided we’re different’and that we need a different set of laws'. Catholics didn’t decide we’re different when parliament changed the law, we remained steadfast in upholding the moral law...
Trevor Phillips is also hypocritical by saying Christian demands to follow their teachings and consciences are equivalent to wanting to impose sharia law. Sharia law is being exercised in the UK, creating a parallel legal system with the support of the liberal establishment in this country as an expression of 'diversity'. Here’s the BBC’s support for sharia law in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234870.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9088957/Trevor-Phillips-stands-by-ridiculous-Sharia-comparison.html

Deacon Nick raises an excellent point here.  When the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said that it "seems unavoidable" that the UK will have to "face up to the fact" that millions of Muslims do not relate to the British legal system and implied that British law should accommodate Sharia law, where was Sir Phillips?  When the Archbishop said that, "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law," ("Sharia Law for UK is 'Unavoidable,'" BBC News, Feb 7, 2008), Sir Phillips was strangely silent.
It's obvious that Sir Phillip is anxious to strip Christians of their religious freedoms and to deny them - and apparently only them - of the right to follow their conscience.

Interesting no?

In France: No Conscientious Objection for Pharmacists Required to Sell RU-486

In France: A Rising Dictatorship of Relativism

Europe for Christ is reporting that:

"The pill to terminate intrauterine pregnancies known as RU-486 ['morning after pill'] has been available in France since May 1988. The French government has given the drug a non-prescription status under civl law, making it available on request from pharmacists who are required to have it in stock. The cost of the drug is 65% reimbursed under national health insurance, and available for free from family planning clinics. In December 2000, the French Assembly passed a law allowing public and parochial high school nurses to provide emergency contraception. In January 2002, French officials issued a decree allowing minors to obtain emergency contraceptives from a pharmacy at no cost and without parent's consent. Pharmacists are required to counsel young women and provide them with information about other forms of birth control. Since 1999, over 1.5 million such pills have been sold in France, 97% without a prescription. As of 2006, abortion using RU-486 was 46% of the total amount of abortions.


Catholic French pharmacists have tried to challenge the regulation under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of conscience and religion) with no success. The European Court of Human Rights in its ruling of October 2, 2001 described the refusal to sell RU-486 as 'illegal' because Article 9 does not always guarantee the right to act according to personal convictions in public, adding that if the sale of a product is legal, pharmacists should not impose their beliefs to refuse the sale of the product. The Direction Générale de la Santé (Health General Department) rejected the claim of conscientious objection based on the fact that pharmacists do not deliver the drug 'directly' to the patient, but it is the patient who actually takes it at home in exercise of her free will. The Catholic Association of French Pharmacist has underlined the right to work respecting life and the human person as stated in Article R4235-2 of the French Code of Public Health, and requested the amendment of Article L. 2212-8 to include pharmacist among health professionals entitled to claim conscientious objection.

This request is also supported by the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE) on its October 7, 2010 resolution which rejected Christine McCafferty's proposal to reduce conscientious objection. PACE understands the fundamental principle to defend and promote the right of medical personnel to conscientious objection. The new resolution now says that 'no hospital, institution or person can under pressure be responsible or suffer discrimination of any kind for refusing to perform, allow or assist an abortion, miscarriage caused or euthanasia, or to submit to, or for refusing to perform any action to cause the death of a fetus or an embryo, whatever be the reasons.'

This resolution applies to both individuals and institutions, hospitals and clinics, public and private. It also protects medical personnel objectors against the pressures and discrimination that can be exercised against them.

The European Parliament has also established a a new clause (Article L. 2151-7-1) on bioethics that states 'no scientist, no engineer, technician or research assistant of any kind, no medial doctor or auxiliary is required to participate in any capacity whatsoever to research on human embryos or embryonic cells.' Therefore, pharmacists should be allowed to claim the same rights granted to other health professionals." See here.

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, says that: "...in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practises. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.


As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere..." (No. 69).

In No. 74 of the same Encyclical Letter, the Holy Father warns that: "Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).


To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane."

The Fathers of Vatican II, in their Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) stressed the importance of religious freedom and the right of the individual, or groups, to be free from coercion:

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.


The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed."

But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.


We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."

This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, our Holy Father explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."



In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.

Daniel Greenfield gets it...Obama does not.

Writing for the Canada Free Press, Daniel Greenfield notes how, "Obama has made the case for Islam in America, on the grounds that America’s religious diversity promotes the religious freedom of all. Islam no less than any other belief system. Yet if introducing Islam into America promotes religious freedom, then why is there no religious freedom in the Muslim world? Why are churches firebombed in Malaysia because Christians presumed to use the word Allah? Why are non-Muslims forbidden to enter the city of Mecca, from which Jews and Christians were ethnically cleansed by Mohammed? Why are Coptic Christians being oppressed and humiliated by the Egyptian government? Why are Muslims murdering Buddhist teachers in Thailand? There are a thousand examples, all of which add up to a single conclusion—Muslims demand religious freedom, yet are not willing to give it to others.

Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo’s 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.

Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that “It can’t happen here.” But the fate of Europe’s Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.

Religious freedom requires that the religions which enjoy it, agree to tolerate each other. If they do not, instead of religious freedom, there is a religious war.

Looking at the religious map of the world today, Islam has grown in non-Muslim countries, while non-Muslims continue to dwindle in Muslim countries. And even the number of non-Muslim religious believers in non-Muslim countries dwindles, when Muslims are introduced into the equation. If Islam were a fish in a fish tank, it’s clear that it would be a piranha. If you put it into the fish tank, very soon you have a lot of Islamic piranhas and only a handful of other fish that survive, only because the piranhas need to keep some of them alive in order to feed on them. If you don’t like that picture, take an honest look at the Muslim world, with its dominant Muslim caste and inferior non-Muslims living in the cracks of their walls, and draw a better one.

Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom The question is do we want to import this into the United States? Because history and current events show that there is no better way to insure the end of religious freedom in the United States, than to introduce Islam into the picture. Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom. And those who fail to learn from that past, will be doomed to repeat it.

Obama attempted to position his remarks as being against religious intolerance, but yet he spoke in defense of religious intolerance. Because what greater act of religious intolerance could there than building a mosque in a place where Muslims had previously murdered 3000 Americans? Nor are such actions unique on the part of Muslims, who have routinely hijacked other people’s sacred areas and structures to make a statement about Islamic supremacism. If Islam were truly as tolerant as Obama claims, its adherents would not attempt to build a massive mosque complex that they do not actually need in this place." (Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom, Canada Free Press, August 15, 2010).

While President Obama has nothing but respect for "peace-loving Islam" (even as the body-count continues to explode across the globe), he has described Christians in Pennsylvania and across the Midwest as people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." (See here). This says much about Barack Obama. But then, so did his assertion that Americans who disapprove of homosexuality [primarily Christians who accept Revelation and the Natural Law] are clinging to "worn arguments and old attitudes."

Homosexual Hate Movement: Radical Homosexual Activists Announce Plans to Violate Federal Law

Radical homosexual hate activists, members of the "Rainbow Sash Movement" within the larger Homosexual Hate Movement, have announced their plans to disrupt the celebration of the Holy Mass throughout the nation and to terrorize Catholic Churches. The Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section [United States Department of Justice], in conjunction with U.S. Attorney's Offices around the country, is responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal civil rights statutes.

These statutes include 18 U.S.C., 241 (conspiracy to deprive a person of his or her civil rights); 18 U.S.C., 245 (criminal interference with federally protected activities); and 18 U.S.C., 248, which makes it a crime to, "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship."

The Rainbow Sash Movement is conspiring to interfere with the First Amendment rights of Catholics at their places of worship. Will the Department of Justice treat this matter with the attention it deserves?

Related reading here and here.

Archbishop Chaput warns of religious freedom loss

"Salvation history, the only history that can adequately depict the actions of man in the concrete, that is, man created in a supernatural order, fallen and then redeemed by Christ, begins and ends in the vision of Mary. The Antichrist is sure to come on earth in the last days. He will make a final, useless assault on God and his saints. He will attempt to rip the very idea of God from the consciousness of men. It seems indicated in Scripture that he will have great success in seducing the vast majority of believers away from Christ and into his own ranks of idolators. Christian fantasy has not created the fable of the Antichrist, nor playfully painted him in the fiery hues of hell. The Antichrist...is not a product of theology fiction. He is really foretold and confirmed by the prophets, the Evangelists, the Apostles, all of them bearers, preachers and writers of the infallible revelations of God from Genesis to the Apocalypse. And then too, the whole living tradition of Christianity, guided by the Holy Spirit, has witnessed to the reality of the Antichrist. The power of the Antichrist will be vast, his skill at persuasion so great that he would fain suck into error many of the elect. The miracles performed by him will be so thrilling and spectacular that he will be followed and adored by many as a god. Yet the Antichrist will be the greatest threat and adversary the Church has ever encountered. Who will save the Church from the power and 'lying wonders' of the Antichrist? Mary, Mother of the Church, will be her omnicompetent protectress. For from the beginning in the Garden of Eden, the Serpent-Dragon lay in waiting for the coming of the Woman who would crush his head." (Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, The Antichrist, pp. 267-268).

The way is being prepared for the entrance of the Man of Sin. Many do not see this. They are incapable of seeing this because they are not people of prayer. Those who are spiritually awake will note that while things have the appearance of remaining the same, in reality the darkness is advancing.

Judge Bork warns of threats to religious freedom

From Catholic News Agency
January 21, 2009:


Jurist Predicts "Terrible Conflict" Will Endanger U.S. Catholics’ Religious Freedom
Washington DC, Jan 21, 2009 (CNA).- Former Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork has predicted that upcoming legal battles will have significant ramifications for religious freedom. He names as issues of major concern the continued freedom of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions and the likely “terrible conflict” resulting from the advancement of homosexual rights.

Speaking in an interview published Tuesday by Cybercast News Service, Judge Bork discussed the contentious nature of modern politics.

“Everything is up for debate these days. I can’t think of anything that isn’t,” he said.
“You are going to get Catholic hospitals that are going to be required as a matter of law to perform abortions,” he claimed.

“We are going to see in the near future a terrible conflict between claimed rights of homosexuals and religious freedom… You are going to get Catholic or other groups’ relief services that are going to be required to allow adoption of a child by homosexual couples. We are going to have a real conflict that goes right to the heart of the society.”

Asked whether there was a freedom of conscience clause anywhere in the Constitution that might prohibit the U.S. government from compelling a religious hospital to perform abortions, he replied: “Well, the free exercise of religion clause might fulfill that role.”

He agreed with the CNS interviewer, Editor in Chief Terry Jeffrey, that such coercion forces someone to act against their religion and could be construed as a violation of the right to free exercise of religion. However, Judge Bork was unsure about whether the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold such a right. He predicted the decision would rest with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in some cases sides with liberals and at other times with “originalists,” those who profess to hold a more tradition-minded interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
“It depends upon Anthony Kennedy,” Judge Bork told CNS. “Now, it’s a funny situation in which the moral life of a nation is in effect decided by one judge, because you have four solid liberal votes, four solid originalist votes, and one vote you can’t predict too accurately in advance.”

Though Justice Kennedy is a Catholic, he sided with the majority who upheld the pro-abortion rights Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Judge Bork said that a decision involving the freedom of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions would split by a 5-4 vote. “But I don’t know which way,” he added.

The Cybercast News interview with the jurist also touched upon the place of religion in public life. “I don’t think the disputants talk much about God anymore,” Judge Bork commented. “That’s one of the things that I think is regrettable--and I know liberals have said the same thing, it is not a conservative position particularly--but it is regrettable that religion has dropped out of our public discourse. I think it impoverishes it and makes it more violent.”

He explained that he believed this violence was not armed conflict, but rather “violent language and propaganda.” Judge Bork said he also thought that America is “now going down a path towards kind of a happy-go-lucky nihilism.” “A lot of people are nihilists,” he continued. “They don’t think about religion. They don’t think about ultimate questions. They go along. They worry about consumer goods, comfort, and so forth.

“As a matter of fact, the abortion question is largely a question about convenience. If you look at the polls about why people have abortions, 90 percent of it has nothing to do with medical conditions. It’s convenience. And that’s I think an example of the secularization of an issue that ought to have a religious dimension.”

When asked whether a nihilistic society can remain “happy-go-lucky” for long, Judge Bork replied: “I don’t know. I guess we are going to find out.”