Tag Archives: #FreedomOfReligion

Posted on by

Our Freedom of Religion vindicated!

St Elizabeth’s Catholic Church, where I attend Mass

We were critical, from the very beginning, of the authoritarian dictates of so many of our nation’s governors when the COVID-19 scare first erupted.

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 →

Posted on by

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 →

Posted on by

This is why we need the First Amendment!

We recently noted the Most Reverend John Stowe, OFM Conv., and his move which banned unvaccinated priests of the Diocese of Lexington from making visits to home or hospital-bound parishioners. The Bishop, has just said that such priests cannot visit the sick and the homebound, which, in effect, denies the sacraments to some ill or elderly parishioners who might want and need them. While, technically, a vaccinated priest from another parish could fill in, the Diocese is very large, and has relatively few priests to cover the area.

But at least Bishop Stowe did not ban actually ban people from receiving the sacraments, even if he did make it more difficult for some ill and elderly parishioners.

    Canadian archbishop: Only fully vaccinated can attend Mass

    By Kevin J. Jones | Denver Newsroom | September 18, 2021 | 10:48 PM MDT

    Anyone age 12 or over attending a gathering at Catholic churches, rectories or community centers under the responsibility of the Archdiocese of Moncton must present proof that they are fully vaccinated, the archdiocese announced Friday.

    The new policy applies to all religious celebrations, Sunday and weekday Masses, baptisms, wedding and funerals, parish and pastoral meetings, catechesis, and social meetings.

    The archdiocese’s announcement comes in the wake of new provincial government rules set to take effect Tuesday requiring proof of vaccination to access certain events, services, and businesses. Fewer than 50 people have died from COVID-19 in the province of New Brunswick since the pandemic began, out of a total population of more than 780,000, according to government statistics. But provincial officials say they are concerned about a recent uptick in cases and hospitalizations.

    The New Brunswick rules apply to those 12 and older seeking to attend “indoor organized gatherings,” including weddings, funerals, conferences, workshops and parties, excepting parties at a private dwelling.

There’s more at the original, but this shows why our First Amendment is so necessary: in New Brunswick, a province of Canada, freedom of religion is not protected from government interference, and the provincial Minister of Health ordered the Archbishop of Moncton to deny the sacraments to all Canadians in the archdiocese if those Canadians have not been vaccinated. Not only that, the Church has to be the policeman for these orders, and the Archbishop indicated that, after compiling lists of those who provide proof of vaccination, that “list may eventually be requested by the government.”

There’s a lot of internet talk blaming the Archbishop, but we don’t know how hard he fought against this. His letter to parishioners is long, so I’ve copied it as a footnote.[1]Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ Jesus, The provincial Minister of Health, Ms. Shephard, met with religious leaders in the province following the announcement of new measures regarding the … Continue reading Quite frankly, if this happened in Kentucky, I would not be at all surprised if Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) “requested” such lists as well. Fascists just love to keep tabs on the people.

In my home state, Governor Beshear ordered all churches closed in March of 2020. It took too long, but at least a federal judge overturned his order, and the Governor did not appeal it. In New Brunswick, the provincial government apparently has the authority to dictate to a Roman Catholic Archbishop how he can conduct his religion, ordering him, and the priests of his archdiocese, not to administer the sacraments to anyone who isn’t vaccinated. That means: no marriages, no Reconciliation, no Eucharist, no Anointing of the Sick, nothing, unless those parishioners have knuckled under and taken the jab.

The left, of course, want to weaken our First Amendment, want to restrict speech because some people’s precious little feelings have gotten hurt. Governor Beshear wasn’t the only Democrat state Governor who tried to restrict religion; restrictions were placed on church services in California and New York, among other places.

Today’s left believe that the state trumps religion, and for them, I’m sure it does, but for normal people, it does not and should not.

These are things we have to fight! Given an inch, the left will take miles and miles and miles.

References

References
↑1 Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ Jesus,

The provincial Minister of Health, Ms. Shephard, met with religious leaders in the province following the announcement of new measures regarding the pandemic. While explaining new guidelines, she indicated that they had only one goal: to increase the rate of people fully vaccinated in the province (two doses).

Vaccination remains the best way to counter the spread of the Delta virus and protect the population (especially the unvaccinated). The government is looking for a vaccination rate of around 90%. The minister made it clear to us that she does not require masks, sanitizing, or social distancing at our gatherings. These measures remain at the discretion of individuals.

Instead, she wishes to have gatherings of fully vaccinated people to keep people safe and to act as an incentive for the unvaccinated.  That is why going back to past health measures (mask, sanitizing, and social distancing) as a way to include unvaccinated people at our gatherings is not the measure promoted by the government.

Therefore, beginning Wednesday Sep 22nd,  at any gathering inside our churches, rectories or community centres under our supervision, those present must be doubly vaccinated.

  1. By gatherings we mean: religious celebrations (Sunday and weekly masses, prayer meetings, baptisms, weddings and funerals, Confirmation, First Reconciliation, First Communion), parish and pastoral meetings, catechesis meetings, management meetings, conferences, workshops, fraternal and social meetings, bingos, card games, etc.
  2. By those present we mean: priests, lay ministers, members of choirs, volunteers, the faithful and other participants. This also applies to family members or close friends at baptisms, weddings, or funerals. Young people under the age of 12 are naturally exempted by this measure, as they cannot currently be vaccinated.

How can these measures be put in place?

  1. At Masses next week, several volunteers are expected to be at the doors of each church to ask worshippers for full proof of vaccination and collect their names on a list of fully vaccinated people. This list will be used again on subsequent Sundays so our volunteers will avoid asking our parishioners for proof of vaccination each time. The request for proof of vaccination would then be required only for new people. This list may eventually be requested by the government.
  2. Inform the funeral home staff that family members and loved ones who come to church are to be doubly vaccinated. For baptisms and weddings, this task will fall to the parish office staff or to the person meeting the family to prepare for the celebration.  As with other masses and celebrations, it will be necessary to keep a list of participants in funerals, weddings and baptisms after ensuring that they are doubly vaccinated.
  3. For catechesis with children, we follow the rules in force in schools. For the safety of young people, catechists should be fully vaccinated. When parents (or another adult) attend the meetings, they will of course have to be doubly vaccinated. For a celebration in church, you will follow the rule in force now in our churches.
  4. As for parish employees, it is highly desirable that they be fully vaccinated. However, if this is not the case, they will have to wear a mask at all times and undergo a COVID test periodically according to government policy.
  5. We will accept anyone who comes to the parish offices for information or service. If this person is not vaccinated, they may be asked to wear a mask.

Questions:  Can we still accept a person who is not vaccinated or has a single dose inside our facilities for a celebration or a meeting?  Even with a mask and social distancing?
Answer:  The minister said “no” unless she had proof of exemption, which is rare.

We ask you to implement these new measures in each of your Christian communities not only to respect the government’s request but above all to help stop the spread of the virus among our population. We would not want one of our places of worship to be the location of a COVID exposure due to our negligence. The Minister of Health is counting on our cooperation.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us so that we can help you implement these new measures. I thank you in advance for all the efforts it requires to put in place this new protocol.May the Lord bless us and continue to watch over us.

Mgr Valery Vienneau.
Posted on by

Theodore McCarrick illustrates the problem, but he is not the only problem

I have said it before: the Catholic priesthood must be changed, and restricted to married, heterosexual men.

Mandatory celibacy for priests was not established until the Second Lateran Council in 1139, and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent in 1563. That means that, for 1,100 years, the majority of Church history, priests could be, and were mostly expected to be, married men.

With humans being naturally inclined to mate, the Church is expecting the priest to live an unnatural lifestyle. Human beings need to mate, they need to be married, and the celibacy discipline denies to Catholic priests that most basic normalcy in human life. Even St Paul, who stated that he was celibate, noted that marriage was the natural condition of life,[1]I Corinthians 7:1-11. And St Paul also set down the conditions that a man must meet to be a deacon, priest or bishop:

The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?[2]1 Timothy 3:1-5

St Peter, regarded as the first Pope, at least had been married at one point: Matthew 8:14-15 refers to his mother-in-law, though there is no reference to St Peter’s wife in the Bible.[3]1 Corinthians 9:5 has also been interpreted as confirming that not only was St Peter married, but that his wife accompanied him as he traveled with Jesus. Cephas, in the cited passage, refers to … Continue reading

The conditions for priests and deacon are similar. But clearly, St Paul expected those in Holy Orders to mostly be married.

Ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick pleads not guilty to child sex assault; some in crowd outside yell, ‘Shame on you!’

By Kurt Shillinger  and Michelle Boorstein | September 3, 2021 | 9:55 a.m. EDT

DEDHAM, Mass. — Disgraced ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick, 91, in street clothes, stooped and using a walker, was arraigned Friday in a suburban Boston courtroom on three counts of criminal child sex abuse.

It was the first time the former Catholic archbishop of Washington had appeared in public since 2018, when his fall began amid a wave of sex abuse allegations. Some in the crowd outside, including survivors of other assaults, screamed at the former global power-broker: “Shame on you! Prince of the church!”

Inside, McCarrick was charged with sexually assaulting a teen in the 1970s, the first time a U.S. cardinal has faced a criminal charge of abuse. He pleaded not guilty during the hearing that lasted less than 10 minutes. Judge Michael J. Pomarole ordered McCarrick to give up his passport and to stay away from people under the age of 18, as well as the victim.

There’s much more at the original, but the story of the former Cardinal is well-known: after scads of evidence, Pope Francis took away his title as Cardinal, and eventually he was laicized. Let’s be honest about it: Mr McCarrick was a predatory homosexual, using his power and position to abuse not just teenagers, but seminarians and subordinate priests.

We need to tell the truth here: while it is wholly politically incorrect to say, the sexual abuse of minors in the Church has been a problem of homosexuality: the vast majority of sexual abuse by Catholic priests has been against boys rather than girls. Several different Google searches have failed to turn up any notation concerning the number of victims in the recent Pennsylvania grand jury report divided by sex, something of obvious interest, because such would reinforce the rather obvious fact that most victims of an all-male clergy have been boys. The John Jay report noted that sexual abuse cases studied between 1950 and 2002 indicated that, rather than prepubescent children, abusers targeted older children:

The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.[4]The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, 1950-2002, page 12.

A celibate priesthood is a sexually immature priesthood. Sorry to tell the truth here, but if you have never, or only rarely, had sexual relations, you have simply not had time to mature in those relations.

There is no way that the Catholic Church could find a way to accommodate the sexual desires of its homosexual priests, when the Church holds that homosexuals cannot be married, that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful,[5]Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2353 that homosexual activity is “gravely depraved”,[6]Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2357 and that homosexuality itself is “objectively disordered.”[7]Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2358 This can mean only one thing: that Catholic priests must be heterosexual, and that they must be married.

This is a celibacy problem, in that priests are forced to live unnatural lives, but while it might be politically incorrect, it is also intellectually dishonest to deny that this is a homosexuality problem as well. We have a priesthood of sexually immature men who are far more heavily than the population homosexual in orientation. The statistics we do have indicate that they were preying on boys just entering puberty, not prepubescent children, and that is an indication that sexual orientation as opposed to pedophilia is the primary motivation.

We need a priesthood who understand and participate in normal, adult sexual relationships, and, given that the Church does not, and cannot, recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate, that can mean only one thing: a priesthood in normal, heterosexual marriages.

That will not eliminate all sexual abuse; Jerry Sandusky, were he available for comment — and cared to tell the truth — could tell us all about men in stable, heterosexual marriages who still had a preference for underaged boys. Nor will it prevent the inevitable, some priests being divorced by their wives, and some children or married priests turning out badly.

But it has to be better than what we have now, a priesthood with an out-of-proportion homosexual cohort, and all being denied the most natural of human impulses, that of mating.

This is what we must have, this is what the Catholic Church needs in order to survive to serve the faithful into the future. Denying it, because it is politically incorrect, is denying the truth.

Back to The Washington Post:

While shocking, due to the popularity and power of the sprightly, charismatic McCarrick, his case came two decades after the Catholic sex abuse scandal exploded in Boston and spread everywhere from high-level sports to the Boy Scouts. Forty-six U.S. bishops have been publicly accused of sexual misconduct with minors, according to BishopAccountability. Many thousands of complaints have been filed and multiple dioceses have filed for bankruptcy to cover costs of attorneys and settlements.

But McCarrick is one of only two U.S. bishops who have been criminally charged. The charges against former Springfield bishop Thomas Dupre were dropped the same day, in 2004, with prosecutors citing the statute of limitations.

Forty-six bishops, forty-six bishops! They might not all be guilty, and must be proven innocent until proven otherwise, at least legally.

Pope Francis has recognized the problem:

Pope Francis warned Italian bishops this week to vet carefully applicants to the priesthood and reject anyone they suspected might be homosexual, local media reported on Thursday.

‘Keep an eye on the admissions to seminaries, keep your eyes open,’ the pope was quoted as saying by newspaper La Stampa’s Vatican Insider service. ‘If in doubt, better not let them enter.’

The Vatican did not immediately respond to a request for a comment on the remarks, which Vatican Insider and Il Messaggero said were made at a closed-door gathering on Monday.”

Had the Pope’s admonition been put in place by Pope Pius XII, who was the Bishop of Rome when Mr McCarrick entered the seminary, perhaps he would never have become a priest, perhaps all of the disastrous behavior he exhibited while under Holy Orders would have been avoided. Had we a married priesthood, perhaps we would not have the shortage of priests we have now, and perhaps, just perhaps, we would not have had the scandals which have rocked the Church.

Mr McCarrick is an infirm, old man, who might not spend a minute in jail, who might not even survive until the end of his trial. Quite frankly, I don’t really care what happens to him at this point; his punishment is the disgrace he has suffered, and that will probably have to be enough.

But Mr McCarrick is the symbol of what has gone wrong in the Catholic Church, and tells us, if we are willing to look honestly at the problem, what the solution is: while not all homosexuals are predators going after minors, while some truly can remain celibate, their continued presence in the Church has been a persistent problem, and one which will not go away by simply ignoring it. Those who have done nothing wrong should not be somehow kicked out of the priesthood, but we must open the seminaries to married men, as we already have with permanent deacons, and restrict them to mature, married men.

References

References
↑1 I Corinthians 7:1-11.
↑2 1 Timothy 3:1-5
↑3 1 Corinthians 9:5 has also been interpreted as confirming that not only was St Peter married, but that his wife accompanied him as he traveled with Jesus. Cephas, in the cited passage, refers to Peter.
↑4 The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, 1950-2002, page 12.
↑5 Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2353
↑6 Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2357
↑7 Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2358
Posted on by

The Lord hears the cry of the poor So, why would Bishop John Stowe make some Catholic employees poorer?

One of the hymns sung frequently at Mass, at least in my parish, is The Lord hears the cry of the poor.

So, in a Church which is very concerned about the poorer among us, I have to ask: why would the Most Reverend John Stowe, O.F.M. Conv., Bishop of Lexington, throw people out of work if they refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

    The Most Reverend John Stowe, Bishop of Lexington

    Diocese Mandates COVID-19 Vaccination for Catholic Center Employees

    August 17, 2021

    LEXINGTON — Employees at the Catholic Center of the Catholic Diocese of Lexington will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of their employment, starting on Sept. 1, Bishop John Stowe, OFM Conv. of Lexington announced today. Pastors who choose to implement this policy at the parish level on Sept. 1 have his support; further mandates may be forthcoming. The bishop also reinstated the policy of requiring masks for all employees at work at the Catholic Center.

    “This is an urgent matter of public health and safety. There is no religious exemption for Catholics to being vaccinated, and Pope Francis has repeatedly called this a moral obligation,” said Bishop Stowe. “The health care system is now overwhelmed by a crisis caused primarily by those who refuse to protect themselves and others by getting vaccinated. This is unacceptable, and our diocese now joins those employers who have already made this basic commitment to the common good a requirement.”

    The Catholic Center is located on W. Main Street in Lexington. The Catholic Diocese of Lexington covers 50 counties in Central and Eastern Kentucky, with 59 parishes and missions serving some 46,000 Catholics.

It’s one thing to require COVID-19 vaccination of any new hires; it’s something entirely different for the Bishop of Lexington, who, supposedly, does hear the cry of the poor, to throw people out of work if they refuse to take the vaccine.

I will admit it; I have been critical of the political positions of Bishop Stowe. Wikipedia noted:

    In January 2019, Stowe wrote an op-ed that condemned Nick Sandmann and other students for sporting apparel supporting President Donald Trump during the 2019 March for Life rally in Washington, D.C. He said the slogan “Make America Great Again” “supports a president who denigrates the lives of immigrants, refugees and people from countries that he describes with indecent words and haphazardly endangers with life-threatening policies”.

While Bishop Roger Foys of Covington later apologized for jumping the gum in criticizing Mr Sandmann and his group, if the Most Reverend Stowe ever did, I have missed it.

The USCCB opposes the legislation due to the fact that it does not contain sufficient protection for matters of religion and conscience, and might require Catholic diocese and other organizations to hire or retain open homosexuals or transsexuals living in a state of open scandal. We have previously noted Bishop Stowe’s support for homosexuals, and that the diocese hosts St Paul’s Catholic Church, which is very openly “LGBTQ+” accepting, only a couple of miles from the cathedral parish, Cathedral of Christ the King, where the Bishop resides and has his seat. Bishop Stowe is fully aware of St Paul’s ‘mission.’

But now? The Bishop, who hears the cry of the poor, would, apparently, make any employees who decline to take the vaccine poorer, even though many other American bishops have recognized an exception for conscience. “John, our Bishop,” as our pastor says in Mass, would consign current employees who have moral objections to the vaccine to unemployment. While the linked article does not specifically state that they would be fired if they do not take the first dose of the vaccine in the next two weeks, making such a “condition of employment” can mean nothing else.

YouTube video of the hymn below the fold. Continue reading →

Posted on by

An expected OpEd in The Philadelphia Inquirer A special pleader doesn't like Fulton v Philadelphia

In my article noting the Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton v Philadelphia, I wrote, “I anticipate an editorial in The Philadelphia Inquirer denouncing this decision.”

I had anticipated a main editorial by the Inquirer’s Editorial Board, so I missed on that one, but there certainly was a significant OpEd piece:[1]Fairness requires me to note that the Inquirer also published, on the same day, in the same OpEd section, Supreme Court decision is a win for religious freedom: Religious actors shouldn’t be forced … Continue reading

Supreme Court was wrong. Religious beliefs can’t be a free pass for discrimination. | Opinion

As I can attest from personal experience, the process of becoming a parent is highly intense, personal, lengthy, and emotionally challenging.

by John Culhane, For The Inquirer | June 21, 2021

The United States Supreme Court has just ruled against Philadelphia, and in favor of Catholic Social Services (CSS), in a case asking whether the agency can discriminate against same-sex couples by refusing to certify them as foster parents. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a judicial sleight of hand, crafted a narrow opinion that can’t be readily exported to other cases. As both a law professor and a gay father with first-hand experience dealing with the city’s foster care system, I have a complicated reaction to this decision. In the end, though, businesses and agencies that offer services to the public must do so with an even hand. Religious beliefs can’t be a free pass for discrimination.

The author, John Culhane, is the H. Albert Young Professor of Law at Delaware Law School, and through roughly 700 words he makes his case. Being homosexual himself, I see him as a special pleader.[2]As a Mass-every-Sunday Catholic, I suppose it would only be fair to admit that I am a special pleader as well. His OpED is based on legal arguments, and he certainly made one very valid point: Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion left Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990), in place, where Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have overturned it.

The Smith case held that religion could be subjected to civil and criminal law if such subject was not aimed at religion, but was completely neutral in its application. But facts are stubborn things, and the Smith case was about the state of Oregon refusing unemployment benefits to two persons who were discharged for using the hallucinogenic drug peyote, containing mescaline. It did not compel any individual to take an action against his faith, but does not shield him from the consequences of his faith related actions.

Skipping down several paragraphs, Mr Culhane continued:

In distinguishing the services that foster placement agencies provide from other public services, the Supreme Court is not totally off the mark. As I can attest from personal experience, the process of becoming a parent is highly intense, personal, lengthy, and emotionally challenging. It’s vital for the prospective foster or adoptive parents to have a strong and trusting relationship with those working for the agency they’re assigned to. My husband and I would not have wanted to work with CSS under any circumstances. It’s hardly surprising that, according to the record in this case, “no same-sex couple [had] even sought certification from CSS.” And “if it did, CSS would direct the couple to one of the more than 20 other agencies . . . all of which currently certify same-sex couples.”

Should this reassignment move be permitted? This isn’t like the earlier Supreme Court case involving a cake shop baker who refused to design a “masterpiece” for a gay couple. Even if the couple could just walk down the street to a more accommodating bakery, the refusenik shouldn’t get a pass: If you’re open to the public, you need to bake cakes for all comers. But the relationship between a foster care agency and prospective parents is nothing like that. So it’s no wonder that gay and lesbian couples have avoided CSS, and the court’s ruling likely won’t make any practical difference.

Clearly, Mr Culhane was disappointed with the decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), in which baker Jack Phillips was not punished for refusing to bake a ‘wedding’ cake for a same-sex ‘marriage.'[3]Yes, you may infer from my placing the word ‘marriage’ in single quotation marks that I do not believe that, though legal, a homosexual ‘marriage’ constitutes a real marriage. But Mr Phillips was willing to bake cakes for all comers; he was simply unwilling to bake a cake with a particular message which was contrary to his religious beliefs; Mr Culhane did not address that distinction. Mr Culhane, I infer, would rather see Mr Phillips fined, or imprisoned, or at least driven out of business for his refusal to bake a cake with what he considered to be an objectional message.

More, Mr Culhane admitted that Catholic Social Services refusal to promote foster care or adoption to homosexual couples injured no one, because homosexual couples were not trying to avail themselves of CSS agency, and that there are more than twenty other agencies involved in the same area which would agree to provide foster care and adoption services to homosexual couples.

One wonders: were my wife and I trying to adopt a child, would Mr Culhane think it legally wrong of such an agency to take as a reason for blanket refusal that I do not, as stated in footnote 3 of this article, and footnotes 1 and 3 of my previous article on the subject that I do not believe in the validity of same-sex ‘marriage’ or homosexual couples adopting children? After all, the argument could be made that my religious positions could be harmful to a child, and I’d bet a case of Mountain Dew that Mr Culhane would believe just that.

Mr Culhane concluded:

Perhaps the court’s workaround led to a workable, practical solution here. But when the issue is squarely presented, the only defensible outcome is to apply the antidiscrimination law with an even hand.

The problem with that argument is that the Constitution, not just statutory law, but the Constitution itself, prohibits laws which restrain the free exercise of religion; Mr Culhane took no note of that in his admittedly limited OpEd piece. Though he stated that “the decision is still wrong and the Supreme Court misread the law,” it’s a bit difficult to make that case in a 9-0 decision; it wasn’t just the Justices appointed by the evil reich-wing Republicans who voted in favor of Catholic Social Services, but those appointed by Presidents Clinton and Obama.

There is more hope in this decision than some conservatives see. Only three of the Justices stated explicitly that they wanted to overturn Smith, Justice Amy Barrett wrote, in her concurrent opinion, which was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh:[4]Justice Stephen Breyer joined with Justice Barrett in all but the first paragraph, and this quotation is from the first paragraph.

Petitioners, their amici, scholars, and Justices of this Court have made serious arguments that Smith ought to be overruled. While history looms large in this debate, I find the historical record more silent than supportive on the question whether the founding generation understood the First Amendment to require religious exemptions from generally applicable laws in at least some circumstances. In my view, the textual and structural arguments against Smith are more compelling. As a matter of text and structure, it is difficult to see why the Free Exercise Clause—lone among the First Amendment freedoms—offers nothing more than protection from discrimination.

Mrs Barrett was concerned that if Smith were overturned, there would be no precedent to replace it. But, if it comes right down to it, it seems that there are at least five Justices who would be willing to overturn Smith if the case before the Court required it; this case did not require it.

But another case will, and soon, and it needs to come up before Justice Thomas, who is 72 years old, leaves the Court, because it does not seem that the Chief Justice agrees. Not only did he not write such in his majority opinion, but he allowed the Smith standard to be used to uphold the unconstitutional closing of churches in Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___ (2020) and South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020) before Justice Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Ginsburg.

What should replace Smith? It’s simple: how about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?

References

References
↑1 Fairness requires me to note that the Inquirer also published, on the same day, in the same OpEd section, Supreme Court decision is a win for religious freedom: Religious actors shouldn’t be forced to leave their beliefs at the door to serve in the public square.
↑2 As a Mass-every-Sunday Catholic, I suppose it would only be fair to admit that I am a special pleader as well.
↑3 Yes, you may infer from my placing the word ‘marriage’ in single quotation marks that I do not believe that, though legal, a homosexual ‘marriage’ constitutes a real marriage.
↑4 Justice Stephen Breyer joined with Justice Barrett in all but the first paragraph, and this quotation is from the first paragraph.
Posted on by

And people wonder why conservatives don’t trust the left Liberals, some of whom claim to be Christians, sure hate them some freedom of religion!

One would have thought that the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) would have chastened liberals that people’s religious freedom is, and ought to be protected, but, Alas!, it appears to have emboldened the left even more.

The Court decided, 7-2, with liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joining the majority, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with hostility to the religious beliefs of Jack Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ‘marriage’ ceremony.[1]Yes, you may infer from my placing the word ‘marriage’ in single quotation marks that I do not believe that, though legal, a homosexual ‘marriage’ constitutes a real marriage. Mr Phillips does not believe that homosexual ‘marriages are legitimate, and that baking a wedding cake for such would violate his religious freedom rights.

What the Court failed to do is to rule, explicitly, that Mr Phillips’ actions were protected by the First Amendment, and to some on the left, that provided an opening. From The Victory Girls:

Court Rules Masterpiece Must Bake The Cake

by Nina Bookout | Thursday, June 17, 2021

Bake the cake! That’s the ruling from a Denver judge yesterday regarding Masterpiece Cakeshop and owner Jack Phillips.

According to Denver District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones, Jack Phillips can be compelled by law to go against his conscience and beliefs to bake the cake the customer demands. 

In Tuesday’s ruling, Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones said Autumn Scardina was denied a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition on her birthday because of her transgender status in violation of the law. While Jack Phillips said he could not make the cake because of its message, Jones said the case was about a refusal to sell a product, not compelled speech.

He pointed out that Phillips testified during a trial in March that he did not think someone could change their gender and he would not celebrate “somebody who thinks that they can.”

“The anti-discrimination laws are intended to ensure that members of our society who have historically been treated unfairly, who have been deprived of even the every-day right to access businesses to buy products, are no longer treated as ‘others,‘” Jones wrote.

There is OH SO MUCH WRONG with this judge’s ruling!

First of all, Autumn Scardina deliberately sought Jack Phillips out. It is no coincidence that Scardina went to Jack Phillips business the very afternoon after the United States Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ appeal.

Scardina wanted, no demanded, that Jack Phillips make a specific gender transition cake. He refused to do so and, as he’s done before, offered an alternative. Scardina refused. But THEN called back and demanded he bake the cake that shows Satan smoking a joint. Phillips again refused to do so. Scardina complained to the state civil rights commission.

Here’s what Judge Jones refused to consider, IMO, regarding this case. Scardina’s deliberate targeting of Jack Phillips.

It’s not clear exactly why Ms. Scardina wanted a cake featuring Satan, apart from provoking him. When asked why she ordered the Satan cake, she said she wanted to believe Mr. Phillips was a “good person” and hoped to persuade him to see the “errors of his thinking.” That’s some deal for someone you say is a “good person”: Change your thinking or I will try to ruin you.

But according to Jones, Scardina’s request/demand of Jack Phillips was not a set up.

And that, my friends, is a boatload of horseshit.

First of all, Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission got smacked down hard by SCOTUS on the case. Secondly, even though Jack Phillips was handed a victory, the lawsuit by Scardina was allowed to proceed. Which, as is publicly known, Scardina did deliberately target Jack Phillips, and an activist judge bought into it.

It’s simple: Charlie Scardina[2]In accordance with The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we always refer to those who claim to be ‘transgender’ by their birth name and with the pronouns appropriate to their … Continue reading is attempting to use ‘lawfare‘ to either force Mr Phillips to knuckle under and go along with the cockamamie notion that girls can be boys and boys can be girls, or to drive him broke and out of business. Beliefs in opposition to what the left say they must be cannot be tolerated.

Live and let live? Not something with which the left agree!

Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented in the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, but Mrs Ginsburg has now gone to her eternal reward, and been replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, a strong supporter of religious freedom.

Now the Court has struck another blow for the free exercise of religion:

U.S. Supreme Court denounces Philly for dropping religious foster agency over same-sex marriage stance

The ruling described the city’s 2018 move to end its relationship with Catholic Social Services as unconstitutional.

by Jeremy Roebuck and Julia Terruso | June 17, 2021 | 10:38 AM EDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday condemned Philadelphia’s decision to end a long-standing contract with a Catholic social services agency due to its refusal to consider same-sex married couples as potential foster parents.

In a unanimous decision, the justices described the city’s 2018 move to end its relationship with Catholic Social Services, which had cited its religious beliefs about marriage in refusing to work with LGBTQ couples, as unconstitutional.

The ruling is the latest in a series of decisions favoring religious rights since the emergence of a more conservative high court during the administration of former President Donald Trump. But the court’s more liberal justices also signed on to the decision.

It’s likely to reverberate nationwide, with implications for anti-discrimination clauses in government contracts, particularly in the social services sector, where religious providers are common. . . . .

The agency argued that it views the certification of couples as good candidates for fostering children as an “endorsement of the relationship,” and therefore its religious beliefs prevent it from certifying LGBTQ partnerships. Catholic Social Services also noted that it doesn’t work with unmarried couples, either.

There’s more at the original. I anticipate an editorial in The Philadelphia Inquirer denouncing this decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, and, citing Masterpiece Cakeshop, said, “Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.” This, to me, is hugely important, because it actually goes beyond Masterpiece; it holds that even a facially neutral regulation — there is no claim that the city of Philadelphia acted with hostility, as is the case with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in Masterpiece — that is “intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature” cannot withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

It is clear that, should the case between Mr Scardina and Masterpiece Cakeshop proceed to the Supreme Court, Mr Phillips will, once again, win; Mr Scardina is not, by the refusal of Mr Phillips to bake his ridiculous cake, prevented from having his ‘transition’ cake to celebrate his birthday baked at all. It is simply that Mr Phillips will not bake it. In Fulton v Philadelphia, it was made clear that, Catholic Social Services not being the only provider of foster care and adoption referrals, homosexual couples or unmarried persons would not be denied the possibility of becoming foster or adoptive parents,[3]It is the opinion of The First Street Journal that only legally married heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children, though I would make an exception for unmarried persons who are … Continue reading and the Inquirer article notes that Bethany Christian Services chose to change its Christian-based policies to continue to provide such services to the city.

There is a significant difference between conservatives and the left here. Conservatives have not been trying to prevent Mr Scardina from having anyone bake his pink-inside-of-blue cake; they simply hold that if a particular individual does not want to bake it, that is his right. We are (mostly) willing to live and let live. I have no objection to Mr Scardina calling himself a woman; I simply would not call him one myself, and I would object to any government regulation specifying that I must do so.

For the left, that ain’t good enough. The left want to use the force of government and the police power of the state to require everyone to go along with their particular beliefs, even trying to consume Harry Potter author J K Rowling, a very liberal woman herself, for not being #woke enough to accept the notion of transgenderism.

This is why surrendering to the left on language is such a bad idea; ever inch given leads to another mile demanded. Even as conservative an author as Mrs Bookout gave in to the language of the left by referring to Mr Scardina as “she” at one point. My Stylebook has not been adopted by any other source of which I am aware, but conservatives should look at it, and consider following it as they can.

References

References
↑1 Yes, you may infer from my placing the word ‘marriage’ in single quotation marks that I do not believe that, though legal, a homosexual ‘marriage’ constitutes a real marriage.
↑2 In accordance with The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we always refer to those who claim to be ‘transgender’ by their birth name and with the pronouns appropriate to their biological sex. From the references I have found, “Charlie” appears to be Mr Scardina’s birthname, but the references do not actually specify that.
↑3 It is the opinion of The First Street Journal that only legally married heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children, though I would make an exception for unmarried persons who are already close relatives, as long as they are heterosexual.
Posted on by

It has come awfully late in the game, but at last it has come! Governor Beshear has been slapped down by the courts!

As we have frequently noted, Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) has been trying to run out the clock with his ’emergency’ decrees under KRS 39A. The Kentucky state Supreme Court, on April 16th, decided to hold a hearing on the disagreement between courts in Franklin and Scott counties over the Governor’s executive orders, and then set June 10th, a date then eight weeks into the future, for a hearing.

On May 6th, Governor Beshear announced that he would loosen the restrictions, but not eliminate them entirely, effective just before the Memorial Day weekend. Then, on May 14th, the Governor announced that almost all restrictions would be lifted on Kentuckians, including the hated mask mandate, even for those who are not vaccinated against COVID-19. He had, the previous day, followed the Centers for Disease Control’s recommendations, and stated that “fully vaccinated” Kentuckians could dispense with face masks.

Well, today is June 8th, just two days before the state Supreme Court hears oral arguments, and three days before our dictatorial Governor will (supposedly) lift almost all of his emergency COVID-19 orders. But today, the Boone County Circuit Court declared the Governors actions to be illegal and unconstitutional.

THEREFORE, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff and DECLARATORY RELIEF is GRANTED in that the Court finds and declares that all actions taken by Defendants, Hon. Andrew Beshear, as Governor, Mr. Eric Friedlander, as acting Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and Dr. Steven Stack, M.D., as Commissioner for the Department of Public Health, and all emergency orders imposed by said defendants, or that are being continued by said defendants, are unconstitutional, void and without any legal effect, to the extent that the same are in conflict with, or otherwise contrary to, House Bill 1, Senate Bill 1, Senate Bill 2, and House Joint Resolution 77, as passed by the 2021 session of the General Assembly.

Here’s the decision:

Boone Circuit Court Order by Chris

This should have come at the end of March, not today, but it is at least a bit of a relief that it has occurred.

Posted on by

What evidence has there been that the #COVID19 restrictions actually reduced infections?

From my good friend — can I call him a good friend if I’ve never actually met him? — Robert Stacy McCain:

Truth or Satire? It’s Getting Harder to Tell

By Robert Stacy McCain | May 8, 2021

January headline from The Babylon Bee:

 

CNN Unveils New Format Where Hosts Just Watch Fox News And Yell At It

 

This is awfully close to describing what’s happened to CNN in recent months. Once Biden was inaugurated, the network lost its raison d’être of producing anti-Trump propaganda. Ratings for CNN have evaporated since January and, unable to excite their audience with live performances of journalistic fellatio on Biden (metaphorically speaking), they devote hours every day to critiquing whatever is on Fox News.

So the other night, Tucker Carlson raised questions about whether the number of deaths from COVID-19 vaccine are being underreported. He didn’t advance any “conspiracy theory” during that segment, or make claims that could justify Sanjay Gupta’s unhinged reaction:

“What he’s done is he’s basically looked at these open-system adverse reporting systems and said ‘hey look, this suggests that 30 people a day are dying of the vaccine.’ Absolutely not true,” Gupta said on CNN’s New Day.

“The problem is that it continues to stir up this vaccine hesitance or outright vaccine reluctance . . .

Hey, Dr. Gupta: Maybe “vaccine hesitance” doesn’t really matter, but do you really care about Fox News viewers? No, I’m pretty sure you would be very happy if they all died tomorrow. So please spare us your concern-trolling. My thought all along has been that the draconian lockdown regimes and mandatory mask-wearing orders, at best, didn’t do much to stop the pandemic and quite possibly made it worse. Anyone can examine the state-by-state per-capita death rates and see that there is no clear correlation between the severity of the lockdown regimes and the relative safety of populations. Florida is doing just fine, despite all the hate directed at Gov. DeSantis by CNN and other liberal media outlets that prophesied a catastrophe in the Sunshine State.

There’s more at the original.

While I did not look at Florida’s numbers, I have concentrated on Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, ended the mask mandate and most other state restrictions on March 10th, to predictions of death and disease by the so-called ‘experts.’

Governor Andy Beshear’s (D-KY) latest thirty-day renewal of the illegal and repugnant mask mandate expires on Thursday, May 27th, at 5:00 PM EDT, just before his other COVID-19 restrictions are scheduled to be weakened, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see him issue that one again.

Reiterating that Kentucky will not be repealing its mask mandate anytime soon, Gov. Andy Beshear announced 1,068 new cases of COVID-19 in Kentucky on Thursday, as well as 28 virus-related deaths.

Earlier this week, Republican governors in Texas and Mississippi lifted coronavirus restrictions, repealing their states’ mask mandates and reopening businesses to full capacity. Kentucky will not do that, Beshear said.

“We’re going to continue to lose people until we’re fully out of the woods and everybody is vaccinated,” he said in a live update. “That’s the reason we’re not going to do what Texas or Mississippi has done. Those decisions will increase casualties when we just have maybe even a matter of months to go.”

Except, of course, those decisions did not increase casualties, the seven day moving average of new cases in the Lone Star state being down to 2,651 as of May 6th, the lowest figure since June 17, 2020, while Mississippi is seeing a seven-day moving average of 182 new cases per day, a number not seen since April 14, 2020.

That much, I reported yesterday, but I’ve since done more research. Texas currently has the lowest moving seven-day average of new COVID-19 cases since June of 2020, that average having dropped precipitously since the mask mandate ended. Texas, with a seven-day moving average of 2651 new COVID cases per day, and a population of 29.15 million, has a new case rate of 9.09 new cases per 100,000 population. Texas has no mask mandate and few restrictions. Texas has 29% of the adult populate fully vaccinated, and 39% have received first shot. Kentucky, with a moving average of 581 and a population of 4048 million, is seeing new cases at a rate of 12.97 per 100,000, despite having mask mandate, more restrictions, and a higher percentage of population vaccinated, 33% fully vaccinated and 42% having received one dose. Texas has slightly higher population density, 109.9 per mi² compared to Kentucky’s 107.4 per mi². Despite what the so-called experts claimed, ending the mask mandate in Texas did not lead to unparalleled death and disease. Based on empirical evidence, the capacity restrictions and mask mandates had no positive effect on infection rate.

The scientific method is to produce an hypothesis, and then test it to see if it is true. Actual real world testing of the restrictions has not borne out the hypothesis that our freedoms needed to be restricted, our constitutional rights needed to be violated.

What about Michigan? Governor Gretchen Whitless Whitmer has imposed some of the strictest COVID-19 restrictions in the nation. On May 6, the same date as the figures reported above for Texas and Kentucky, Michigan’s seven-day moving average was 3,317 new cases per day, 666 more per day than Texas’ 2,651. Yet Texas has almost thrice Michigan’s population of 9,966,555 people. Where Texas is seeing 9.09 new cases per day per 100,000 population, Michigan’s rate is 33.28 per 100,000, more than thrice that of the Lone Star State. Michigan has seen 35% of its adult population fully vaccinated, and 44% have received their first, dose, a rate higher than that in Texas, and even slightly higher than in the Bluegrass State. Michigan does have a significantly higher population density of 174 per mi².

But one thing is clear: Governor Whitless’ Whitmer’s restrictions have not helped.

Mr McCain mentioned Florida, but the Sunshine State only lifted all mask mandates five days ago, so there isn’t much difference from Michigan. At a moving seven day average of 4,317 new cases per day, in a population of 21.48 million people, Florida’s average of 20.10 per 100,00 population is just 2/3 that of Michigan’s, despite Florida’s more than twice as great population density of 397.2 people per mi². Michigan’s restrictions have, in general, been far stricter than Florida’s, but, there it is again, Florida is seeing fewer cases on a per population basis.

Again, the empirical evidence is that the greater restrictions don’t reduce China virus infection rates![1]See this as to why I am occasionally referring to it as the China virus.

We have gone through more than a year of authoritarian governors, mostly without the consent of their state legislatures, imposing restrictions on our freedoms and our constitutional rights, because it has been claimed to be necessary to protect us from the Wuhan virus. But once a few governors, all seemingly Republicans, recovered their nerve and started paying attention to our rights, the evidence jumped out at us: the restrictions didn’t help to protect us at all.

References

References
↑1 See this as to why I am occasionally referring to it as the China virus.