Category Archives: Freedom of Religion
If the Tridentine Mass brings more Catholics to Mass, why would the Church ever restrict it?
The First Page of the Book of Genesis in the 1611 printing of the KJV, from Wikipedia. Click to enlarge.
I do know that my mother never took us to church after we got to Kentucky. My religious conscience was left to develop for itself, but somehow, I knew that I was Catholic. I did know that I had been baptized in the Catholic Church, because my mother told me, but that really was it.
In small town Mt Sterling, Kentucky, I certainly knew about the Protestant churches, and, for a while, when we lived off Richmond Avenue, there was a Pentecostalist church very close by, a church that took to heart raising a joyful noise unto the Lord, Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. Google maps Streetscape tells me that it’s still there, though the white-painted concrete block walls have now been covered with white vinyl siding. But one of the things I also remember were that there were several Protestant churches which advertised themselves as King James Only, arguing that “the KJV needs no further improvements because it is the greatest English translation of the Bible which was ever published, and they also believe that all other English translations of the Bible which were published after the KJV was published are corrupt.” They have their reasons, which I will not argue here, and which you can read if you follow the link.
But, regardless of their arguments, one thing is certain: the Elizabethan English used in the King James Version is lofty in a way that modern English simply is not, and I have to wonder: does the grandeur of the language itself inspire some English-speaking people?
Old Latin Mass Finds New American Audience, Despite Pope’s Disapproval
An ancient form of Catholic worship is drawing in young traditionalists and conservatives. But it signals a divide within the church.
by Ruth Graham | Tuesday, November 15, 2022
I suppose that I have to laugh here, given that the form of the Tridentine, or Traditional Latin Mass, dates from the Missal of 1962. I’m not quite sure how that can be called, in the subtitle, “an ancient form.” 🙂 Continue reading
What part of live and let live do the LGBTQ activists not understand?
Am I the only one who believes that the homosexual lobby would find more acceptance if they’d just leave people who don’t agree with their lifestyle and beliefs alone?
California court rules in favor of Christian baker who refused to bake cake for lesbian wedding
Jon Brown | Sunday, October 23, 2022
A California court ruled in favor of a Christian baker Friday following a years-long legal battle after she refused to bake a custom cake for a lesbian wedding in 2017, citing her religious beliefs.
“We applaud the court for this decision,” Thomas More Society Special Counsel Charles LiMandri said in a statement. “The freedom to practice one’s religion is enshrined in the First Amendment, and the United States Supreme Court has long upheld the freedom of artistic expression.”Text of the decision: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v Cathy’s Creations, Inc dba Tastries
Cathy Miller, a cake designer who owns the popular Tastries bakery in Bakersfield, California, won what her lawyers at the Thomas More Society called “a First Amendment victory” when Judge Eric Bradshaw of the Superior Court of California in Kern County ruled against California’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment, which had brought the lawsuit against her.
Miller was subject to multiple lawsuits after she referred a lesbian couple to another baker when they requested a cake for their wedding. Because of her Christian belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, Miller declined to design a custom cake for their ceremony, believing it would be tantamount to a tacit affirmation.
There’s more at the original.
Given that the bakery referred the couple to another baker who would — we assume; it isn’t specified in the article — bake the requested cake, there was no denial which would have prevented them from getting their ‘wedding’ cake. Rather, this was an attempt to force the Millers to go against their religious beliefs, or go bankrupt for holding them, because the homosexual activists want to use the power of government to compel compliance and obeisance to their lifestyles and belief. What part of live and let live do the activists not understand?
Oh, I’m sorry: it’s not that they don’t understand it, it’s that they feel that they have the power to force compliance, to force unquestioning acceptance, and they are damned well going to use it.
This was the problem with Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018): Rather than ruling broadly that religious liberty protected the owners of the bakery, the Supreme Court ruled on more narrow grounds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not use religious neutrality in taking their decision.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the real issue:
Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are “weddings” and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids.[1]Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Page 8 of Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, page 45 of the .pdf file.
Sadly, the Supreme Court did not rule on the baker’s freedom of religion and speech, but only on the failure of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to employ religious neutrality in taking their decision. Had the Court ruled more broadly, that it was Jack Phillips’ right to his free exercise of religion, subsequent cases trying to find edges in the law would not arise.
It was not that long ago that homosexual activists claimed that what they did in their bedrooms was nobody else’s business, a position with which I agree. But, as Justice Thomas predicted, the decision in Obergefell v Hodges which required all states to allow homosexual ‘marriages’ would lead to real conflicts with the freedom of religion:
It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.[2]ibid, Page 14 of Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, page 51 of the .pdf file.
The activists could have avoided all of this if they would just live and let live, as they so loudly demanded before Obergefell and various other decisions protecting homosexual rights. But, for activists, allowing others to live as they wish is just not something of which they can approve. There’s an old maxim which holds that, eventually everything which is not forbidden becomes compulsory; that’s what the activists want, and that’s what we must deny them.
References
| ↑1 | Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Page 8 of Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, page 45 of the .pdf file. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | ibid, Page 14 of Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, page 51 of the .pdf file. |
The myth of “banning books”
Other than the Library of Congress, which is supposed to receive two copies of every copyrighted work, every library in the country exercises some discretion as to what books, magazines and other material to purchase and add to its collection. Discretion is what the Central Bucks School Board has mandated:
Central Bucks approves contentious library policy targeting ‘sexualized content’ in books amid community opposition
The policy, said the superintendent, would create a process for the selection of new books and for parents to challenge “gratuitous, salacious, over-the-top, unnecessary, sexualized content.”
by Oona Goodin-Smith | Tuesday, July 26, 2022
Facing heated community opposition, the Central Bucks School District on Tuesday approved a contentious library policy that takes aim at challenging books with “sexualized content” — guidelines the district’s superintendent says ensure students are reading “age-appropriate material,” but that the Pennsylvania Library Association calls one of the most restrictive in schools across the state.By US Census, Ruhrfisch – taken from US Census website [1] and modified by User:Ruhrfisch, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=808255
In a 6-3 vote, after a rally and more than an hour of public comment — most of which was vehemently opposing the policy — and questions by some board members about its origins, the Republican-dominated board voted to advance the policy that’s raised alarm among civil rights groups. . . . .
Wielding signs reading “dictators ban books, not democracies,” and “love not hate makes CB great,” dozens of parents, students, community members, educators, and advocates rallied outside the Doylestown school district headquarters Tuesday night ahead of the vote, calling for the board to strike the policy. Many repeated their remarks during public comment before the school board. Only a couple speakers voiced their approval for the policy.
“This is not a ban, this is not censorship, it’s common sense,” said one mother, who said she was “against minors being exposed to sexually explicit content.”
Full disclosure: before I retired, I did some work in Bucks County, and specifically in the Doylestown area, where the Central Bucks School District is located, though none for the schools specifically.
A very obvious point: attendance at school is compulsory for children in the United States, and the public schools have, in effect, a captive audience. Thus, when schools take decisions on what books and other materials are to be housed in their libraries, they are exposing that captive audience to those materials.
Another very obvious point: while the Central Bucks School Board can limit what materials are bought and housed in the schools’ libraries, they have exactly zero authority over library choices in any other place, or over bookstores, or amazon.com, or any other place which buys, sells, lends, or distributes anything. If the students in the district want to read about sex, it’s widely available, in other places, including, sometimes for free, over the internet. Central Bucks is not exactly a poverty-stricken area; it’s difficult to imagine that more than a handful of homes of school-aged children lack internet access.
The public schools do not exist, and should not exist, for sexualizing children. There should be no normalizing of homosexuality or ‘transgenderism,’ or of promiscuity. That’s what concerns normal parents, and that’s what concerned the elected school board. If some parents want their children to learn about abnormal sexuality, hey, that’s on them!
Karen Downer, president of the NAACP’s Bucks County branch, noted that books most frequently flagged for sexual content “tend to include certain themes,” including the history of Black people, LGBTQ topics or characters, and race and racism. The books also are often written by marginalized authors, she said.
Does Miss Debbie Downer mean books which stir up racial strife or that push the normalization of homosexuality? Guess what? Those should not be part of school libraries! If some parents want to stir up racial strife — and, despite bordering Philadelphia at its extreme southeastern end, Bucks County’s population are only 4.7% non-Hispanic black, 6.1% Hispanic, 5.5% Asian, and 82.4% non-Hispanic white — that’s their business, but it should not be what the public schools teach.
“The policy is vague and overbroad,” said Richard T. Ting, an attorney with the ACLU.
“We’re also talking about library books, …not required reading for classwork. This is just books in the library that are there for students, and students should be free to choose what they read. Families should be able to discuss those things with their kids, as well. It shouldn’t be up to a few people … to decide what everyone else gets access to.”
But that’s just it: in any library, “a few people . . . decide what everyone else gets access to,” as far as their collection is concerned. Any materials not present in the school libraries can be found elsewhere, often by an internet search, so that people don’t have to leave home to do so. If families wish to discuss “those things,” with their children, they can find “those things” on amazon.com, and download them onto their computers or Kindles immediately.
Let’s face it: the “groomers” want to normalize the abnormal, and want to use the public schools to help them with that. Let’s face it: the “groomers” want to normalize the abnormal, and want to use the public schools to help them with that. Not just no, but Hell no!
Cardinal Wilton Gregory gains a very nice church and grounds to sell
St Mary Mother of God Church, Washington DC. Photo by Farragut, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
DC parish rues Latin Mass ban, warns of financial and membership losses
By John Lavenburg | Monday, July 25, 2022
NEW YORK – The community at St. Mary Mother of God appealed to Cardinal Wilton Gregory during an archdiocesan synod listening session not to ban the Traditional Latin Mass at the parish, mainly because it would mean potentially losing about half of the parishioners.
That appeal failed. The listening sessions concluded in May, and Gregory announced July 22 that the Traditional Latin Mass would be restricted in the archdiocese to three non-parochial churches. The plan goes into effect on September 21.
For St. Mary’s, the change will be more than simply replacing a Mass in the Old Rite with a Mass in the New Rite. Parish vitality – in both the pews and community – is now a question mark, and closure isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
Skipping down, here’s the money line:
The present St. Mary’s church was built in 1890 and has served downtown Washington, D.C. ever since. Currently, it serves three distinct communities. It has about 200 Traditional Latin Mass parishioners, 120 parishioners who attend Mass in the ordinary form in English, and about 100 Chinese parishioners who are ministered to autonomously.
Assuming that those numbers are reasonably accurate, that means that St Mary’s could lose roughly 48%, almost half, of its parishioners, parishioners who contribute roughly 60% of St Mary’s collections.
In the 25-minute homily, De Rosa also called it “unjust” that none of the people involved in this decision ever visited the St. Mary’s Traditional Latin Mass parishioners. De Rosa requested that Gregory visit the parish in the spring, and was told by Father Anthony Lickteig, the episcopal vicar for clergy, that “the Cardinal will not be able to visit St. Mary’s at this time due to his schedule,” according to a copy of the email obtained by Crux.
In other words, His Eminence, Wilton Cardinal Gregory, Archbishop of Washington, just plain didn’t care about the 200 parishioners who attend the Tridentine Mass at St Mary’s. You can try to explain it any other way you wish, but that’s what it all comes down to, he just didn’t care.
According to Fr De Rosa’s letter to his parishioners, the Tridentine Mass will now be celebrated at the Franciscan Monastery in Brookland, which is 3.8 miles from St Mary’s, about a 16 minute drive along US Route 1 North, not too far to drive, which means that many of the Old Rite parishioners might not be too put out, and able to make the trip.
It also means that for most of the Tridentine Mass parishioners, it won’t be too difficult to abandon their home parish. And it means that Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the Archbishop of Washington, will have a very nice church building and grounds to sell, when parish membership dwindles to 220 people.
Gun Control Laws and Our First and Second Amendment Rights Beware: if you are a faithful Roman Catholic, some states would deny your right to keep and bear arms
Robert Crimo III, via Twitter.
In the wake of the Uvalde school shooting, several Republicans in the Senate got all wobbly-kneed and agreed to a Democratic ‘gun control’ bill. Among other things, it provides financial incentives for states without a so-called ‘red flag’ law to pass one.
Well, the solidly Democratic state of Illinois had a red flag law, and guess what? It didn’t stop alleged Highland Park shooter Robert Crimo III[1]Some people hold that publishing photos and the names of accused serial killers somehow encourages other potential serial killers. Personally, I cannot see how such an obviously incel-looking man … Continue reading from obtaining a firearm:
Highland Park suspect’s father sponsored gun permit application, police say
By Reis Thebault and Timothy Bella | Wednesday, July 6, 2022 | 10:18 AM EDT
The Illinois State Police confirmed on Tuesday that the father of the Highland Park parade shooting suspect sponsored his son’s application for a gun permit months after relatives reported that Robert E. Crimo III had threatened to “kill everyone,” and that authorities had “insufficient basis” to deny the application.
The revelation that Crimo, 21, had at least two previous encounters with law enforcement has raised new questions about how he was able to legally purchase his guns and whether more could have been done to prevent the massacre that killed seven people and injured more than 30.
In September 2019, a family member told Highland Park police that Crimo had threatened to “kill everyone,” said Christopher Covelli, a spokesman for the Lake County Major Crime Task Force. Officers visited Crimo’s home and confiscated 16 knives, a dagger and a sword, but made no arrest, Covelli said on Tuesday, because they lacked probable cause. However, they notified Illinois State Police, he said.
Months later, in December, Crimo applied for a firearm owner’s identification card, the document required to possess a gun in Illinois. Because Crimo was under 21 at the time, state law required him to have the consent of a parent or guardian before he could own a firearm or ammunition. According to state police, which issues the cards, Crimo’s father sponsored the permit application.
Also see: William Teach: Having Relatives Report Highland Park Shooter Threatened To Kill Everyone Is Apparently Not A Reason To Deny A Gun Permit
The Washington Post article continues to tell us that the state police had received a “clear and present danger” report on the younger Mr Crimo, but because there was no current request for a Firearms Owner’s Identification Card, there was no action the agency could take. Then, when he did apply for a FOID, the agency could not disapprove it because he had a sponsor.
“The subject was under 21 and the application was sponsored by the subject’s father,” Illinois State Police said in a statement. “Therefore, at the time of FOID application review in January of 2020, there was insufficient basis to establish a clear and present danger and deny the FOID application.”
So, what does this mean? It means that instates which are incentivized to establish ‘red flag’ laws, the pressure will be to make them more stringent, to suspend people’s Second Amendment rights for longer, possibly much longer.
I think back to the case of Nikolas Cruz, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter. Young Mr Cruz had many interactions with the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, all for mostly petty crimes, but the deputies kept giving him free passes, kept letting him off with admonishments to be a good boy. After Mr Cruz committed an in-school assault, the Broward County schools, which had greatly reduced references to law enforcement, because they wanted to stop the “school to prison pipeline,” following a January, 2017, in-school assault. Had Mr Cruz been charged with that assault, he could not have legally purchased the weapons he used in the attack.
A FOID card is required under Illinois law to possess guns. The cards issued by the Illinois State Police require “any qualified applicant” to meet at least 15 requirements listed on the agency’s website.
At a news conference announcing the initial criminal charges against Crimo, Lake County State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart said Illinois’s red-flag law, which allows loved ones to ask a court to temporarily remove guns from those deemed violent or threatening, is “very powerful.” Yet the law is rarely used.
“We must vastly increase awareness and education about this red-flag law,” Rinehart said.
In the days following the shooting, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) has vowed to strengthen state laws in an effort to prevent another tragedy like the one in Highland Park.
Translation: Illinois ‘red flag’ law did not work, so that Democrat-ruled state is going to make it stronger, restricting the rights of law-abiding Americans even further, because the state failed to act under the laws it had in place.
Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) said, “(I)n the state of New York, we’re now requiring social media networks to monitor and report hateful conduct on their platforms.” As Hannah Bleau noted on Breitbart:
It is a rather controversial move, given the varying interpretations of what constitutes “hate speech” in a world where far-left radicals consider “misgendering” someone an intrinsically “hateful” act.
In other words, because my site, The First Street Journal, states in the Stylebook,
Those who claim to be transgender will be referred to with the honorific and pronouns appropriate to the sex of their birth; the site owner does not agree with the cockamamie notion that anyone can simply ‘identify’ with a sex which is not his own, nor that any medical ‘treatment’ or surgery can change a person’s natural sex; all that it can do is physically mutilate a person.
I would be denied a firearms permit in the state of New York because my sincerely-held belief that girls can’t be boys and boys can’t be girls. I have no criminal record, and have never even been accused of assaulting anyone. But because my beliefs closely adhere to Roman Catholic teachings on ‘transgenderism,’ the state of New York — where I do not live, but many Catholics do — would deny my Second Amendment rights over First Amendment right of free exercise of religion. Had I kept my beliefs entirely to myself, not exercised another of my First Amendment rights, freedom of speech and of the press, I guess I could get that permit.
There has been plenty of evidence that if law enforcement had acted on the laws already passed, some of these mass shootings could have been prevented, or at least made more difficult for the perpetrators; we could have prevented some of these cretins from obtaining firearms legally, but it seems that nothing can prevent a determined person from obtaining a firearm illegally. Instead, when existing laws have failed, due to bureaucratic mistakes and individual bungling, the response of the states is to further restrict the rights of people who have done nothing wrong. And now New York is attempting to remove people’s rights to keep and bear arms due to people’s religious and political beliefs.
References
| ↑1 | Some people hold that publishing photos and the names of accused serial killers somehow encourages other potential serial killers. Personally, I cannot see how such an obviously incel-looking |
|---|
The Editorial Board of the San Francisco Examiner are appalled that the Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco is actually Catholic!
It can get amusing when the Editorial Board of the San Francisco Examiner decides to appeal to His Holiness Pope Francis to get rid of a Catholic Archbishop who is actually, you know, Catholic!
Editorial: Attack on Nancy Pelosi should be San Francisco archbishop’s final act here
Cordileone denies Catholic Pelosi communion due to abortion right support
By The Examiner Editorial Board • May 21, 2022 • 6:00 AM PDT
In open defiance of Pope Francis, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone on Friday banned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from taking Holy Communion here in her home diocese. The reason? Her strong support of women’s abortion rights.
Cordileone’s decree was guaranteed to provoke deep chagrin among San Francisco Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Last year, Cordileone joined other bishops in the United States as they pushed to ban President Joe Biden from taking Communion. Pope Francis headed off that divisive idea, stating that Communion “is not the reward of saints, but is the bread of sinners.” He also told pro-choice President Biden that he is a “good Catholic.” Continue reading
Our Freedom of Religion vindicated!
St Elizabeth’s Catholic Church, where I attend Mass
On March 19, 2020 Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) unconstitutionally ordered all churches closed in the Bluegrass State. That order covered the Easter holiday, the most important day in the Christian calendar. When a couple of churches ignored the Governor’s order, he sent the Kentucky State Police to record license plates and vehicle identification numbers on vehicles in church parking lots, on Easter Sunday!
Two federal judges ruled against the Governor, allowing churches to reopen, but they did not rule until May 8, 2020.
Then, on July 24, 2020, he asked church leaders to suspend services for two Sundays, which most declined to do, and again on November 19th made another request that churches close, for “three or four weeks,” a request that would have taken them through Thanksgiving. Fortunately, that request was denied as well.
Now comes yet another court ruling, telling us that the Constitution means what it says, and that state Governors cannot restrict our freedom of religion: Continue reading
Senator Bob Casey lies through his scummy teeth! Another Catholic Democrat who finds being a Democrat more important than being Catholic
In 2004, Pennsylvania’s Auditor General, Bob Casey, Jr, ran for State Treasurer. Because I wanted to support declared pro-life candidates, and because I wanted to see more pro-life Democrats in the Democratic Party, I went ahead and cast my ballot for Mr Casey.
This was obviously a mistake.
Sen. Bob Casey said he’ll back a bill to ensure abortion access, a new marker for the ‘pro-life’ Democrat
Casey, and his family, have a long and complicated history with abortion laws, but the Democratic senator said he will vote for the Women’s Health Protection Act.
by Jonatham Tamari | Tuesday, May 10, 2022
WASHINGTON — Sen. Bob Casey will vote to support a bill to ensure access to abortion nationwide, he said Tuesday, taking a significant step in favor of abortion rights despite long describing himself as a “pro-life” Democrat.
Casey, whose namesake father was part of a landmark Supreme Court case on abortion restrictions, announced his stand Tuesday ahead of a Senate vote, expected as soon as Wednesday, that would attempt to write into law the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and blocking many bans.
While the vote is certain to fail in the face of opposition from Republicans and likely from West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, it represents Democrats’ first formal pushback against a forthcoming Supreme Court decision that appears poised to overturn the pivotal abortion ruling.
Casey, in a statement, said he has never voted for and would not support “a categorical ban on abortion” that could result from the expected ruling.
There’s more at the original.
What exactly does “pro-life” mean to someone who has claimed that definition, but who is planning to vote for a bill which would codify a ‘right’ to prenatal infanticide into federal law? Continue reading