Tag Archives: #FreedomOfReligion

Posted on by

This is not a great victory It helps, but still leaves open the possibility that the State can regulate whom you allow to enter your home

Hypocrite Gavin Newsom violates his own orders on private gatherings.

I admit it: I had never heard of Governor Gavin Newson’s (D-CA) prohibition on gatherings of people from more than three households in private homes, but I can’t say that I am surprised; only liberals would think that the government has any authority on whom you can invite into your own home. Fortunately, thye United States Supreme Court invalidated it, at least for in-home Bible study groups:

Supreme Court again blocks California Covid restriction on religious activities

By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer | Updated 1:31 AM ET, Saturday, April 10, 2021

(CNN) The Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote on Friday blocked another state Covid-19 restriction on religious services, with another late-night order, over protests from California officials that the limits affecting some Bible study sessions did not impinge on religious rights and were to be lifted within days.

The unsigned order for the high court majority also revealed the deep ideological fissure, with conservatives (including the three appointees of former President Donald Trump) in control and liberals dissenting bitterly.

Chief Justice John Roberts also dissented, although he did not sign the statement by the three justices on the left, written by Justice Elena Kagan.

“In ordering California to weaken its restrictions on at-home gatherings, the majority yet again insists on treating unlike cases, not like ones, equivalently,” Kagan wrote, adding that “the law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons.”

“And (the majority) once more commands California to ignore its experts’ scientific findings, thus impairing the State’s effort to address a public health emergency.”

Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, religious adherents have implored the justices to prevent certain state health restrictions affecting religious services and they have notably prevailed since October’s addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, succeeding the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Then we must thank God that Justice Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because Justice Ginsburg had voted to allow such restrictions before she went to her eternal reward. By what right does the government, whether local, state or federal, have the authority to determine whom we allow into our homes?

I know, I know, Governors in many states issued such restrictions, including Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY). I am happy to state that we violated Governor Beshear’s authoritarian decrees on both Thanksgiving and Christmas (he ordered no more than ten persons, from no more than two households), and had the Governor himself showed up at the door, I would have given him the finger and told him to get the f(ornicate) off my property.[1]Though the gatherings were of fewer than ten people, they were from three households. More, when my sister, who didn’t attend the dinner itself, came by to pick up a Thanksgiving dinner plate, … Continue reading

But a whole lot of the sheeple accepted this, accepted the idea that the State could tell them whom they could invite into their homes, with whom they could associate, and how. The decision in Tandon v Newsom was based on the Pyrite State treating religion differently, and more strictly, than some other gatherings — the Governor’s attorneys claimed that the in-person Bible study sessions were being treated no differently than any other in home gatherings — but that ignores the fact that the state was limiting freedom of association as well as freedom of religion. From the unsigned Per Curiam order:

(N)arrow tailoring requires the government to show that measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity could not address its interest in reducing the spread of COVID. Where the government permits other activities to proceed with precautions, it must show that the religious exercise at issue is more dangerous than those activities even when the same precautions are applied.

This paragraph accepts the idea that the government’s “interest in reducing the spread of COVID” extends into the individual homes of the American people; the decision simply holds that California’s orders were not well-written enough.

Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim; they are irreparably harmed by the loss of free exercise rights “for even minimal periods of time”; and the State has not shown that “public health would be imperiled” by employing less restrictive measures.

Translation: if the State could show that public health would be imperiled by not intruding into people’s private homes, the Court could allow it.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifies that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What are we to conclude that, if the State could demonstrate that public health — or whatever other “compelling” government interest the authoritarians could dream up — would be imperiled, it would be reasonable for the authorities to enter your home and siese the “persons or things” to be removed, even if there was no crime committed?

I get it: the Supreme Court likes to narrowly tailor its own decisions and precedents, but this decision, while a victory for freedom or religion, does not go far enough, and leaves open the possibility that the State can control who enters your private home.

References

References
↑1 Though the gatherings were of fewer than ten people, they were from three households. More, when my sister, who didn’t attend the dinner itself, came by to pick up a Thanksgiving dinner plate, that constituted a fourth household. Up yours, Governor Beshear!
Posted on by

Once again, the government is targeting religion during Easter Government has turned attending church into an act of political defiance as well as one or religious faith

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 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and as Easter Sunday comes this weekend, the purportedly Catholic President Biden’s CDC wants us to miss Easter again:

Safer Ways to Observe Religious Holidays

Attending gatherings to observe religious and spiritual holidays increases your risk of getting and spreading COVID-19. The safest way to observe religious and spiritual holidays this year is to gather virtually, with people who live with you, or outside and at least 6 feet apart from others.

  • Enjoy traditional meals with those who live with you.
  • Practice religious holiday customs at home.
  • Prepare and deliver a meal to a neighbor.
  • Watch virtual religious and cultural performances.
  • Attend religious ceremonies virtually.

If you plan to celebrate with others, outdoors is safer than indoors.

With COVID-19 cases seeing a slight uptick again, I have to wonder if Governor Beshear will try similar stupidity.

Our country was founded in part on religious freedom; my earliest American ancestor, Richard Warren, risked death on stormy North Atlantic seas, to come to a savage and untamed continent on the Mayflower. The idea that the government can restrict our freedom of religion is wholly repugnant, but Governor Beshear got away with it for almost two months, and while his orders were invalidated, he incurred no punishment or penalty for it.

I was a pretty regular attendee at Mass before the unconstitutional shutdowns, but ever since we were so graciously allowed to return to church, I haven’t missed a single Sunday. Our repugnant Governor has managed to turn attending church into an act of political defiance as well as a religious observance.[1]Sadly, while the Governor’s orders were declared unconstitutional on May 8, the Governor had already issued guidelines for churches to reopen on May 20, 2020, and John Stowe, Bishop of … Continue reading

That should not be a good thing, but it is: we can, and should, and must show our defiance to the Democrats in power by attending church. Not just this coming Sunday, not just Easter, but on every Sunday. Faith in God is the most important thing in life, but the resistance of tyranny is a close second.

References

References
↑1 Sadly, while the Governor’s orders were declared unconstitutional on May 8, the Governor had already issued guidelines for churches to reopen on May 20, 2020, and John Stowe, Bishop of Lexington, went along with the Governor and did not allow the churches of his diocese to resume services until Sunday, May 24.
Posted on by

I wonder if King Henry VIII is smiling about this somewhere

As we noted yesterday, Pope Francis reaffirmed Catholic doctrine, and said that priests may not ‘bless’ homosexual unions of any sort.

Group of priests vows to defy Vatican and continue blessing same-sex couples

By Caitlyn O’Kane | March 17, 2021 | 9:43 AM EDT | CBS News

A group of priests who have distanced themselves from the Catholic Church are criticizing the Vatican’s recent decree that the Catholic Church cannot bless same-sex marriages. The Austrian Priests’ Initiative, a group of priests leading a campaign of disobedience against the Vatican, said this week they will continue to bless same-sex couples.

The initiative (also as Pfarrer-Initiative) said in a statement that its members “are deeply appalled by the new Roman decree that wants to prohibit the blessing of same-sex loving couples.”

Appalled? Then these turbulent priests must be appalled that God, the God they claim to worship and serve, did more than just “prohibit the blessing of same-sex loving couples,” but specified a rather harsh punishment for them. Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, whose name they invoke in every Mass, in whom they say they believe when they recite the Nicene Creed, which is part of the Mass that those priests supposedly celebrate every day, in which they purportedly believe, said that “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law,” and that “whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” The Law included the prohibitions on homosexual activity, and the Son of God said that the Law would not pass away, but apparently these priests believe themselves to be wiser, nobler, and just plain better than the Messiah they claim to worship.

King Henry VIII had his problems with the Church as well, and he went and split his kingdom away from the Catholic Church, though I would guess that even His Majesty the King would have problems with what the revolting priests are saying, given that he had An Acte for the punishment of the vice of Buggerie (25 Hen. 8 c. 6) passed by Parliament, which specified the penalty as death.

“This is a relapse into times that we had hoped to be overcome with Pope Francis,” the group’s statement continues. “In solidarity with so many, we will not reject any loving couple in the future who wants to celebrate God’s blessing, which they experience every day, in a church-service.”

“Reality has long since shown that same-sex couples connected in love can very well celebrate God’s blessing in church. A state-of-the-art theology establishes this responsible practice,” the statement reads.

Clearly, God, when he gave the Law to Moses, something every Catholic priest affirms that he believes truly happened, did not think that homosexual “love” was permissible, but, now we know that Father Helmut Schüller and his adherents believe that they are wiser than God. Obviously, when Jesus said, in the Sermon on the Mount, something that every Catholic priest supposedly believes happened, that the Law was and always would remain unchanged, he included the total prohibition on homosexual activity, but the roughly 350 members of the Austrian Priests’ Initiative must believe that they are somehow wiser than the only begotten Son of God, in whom they have professed belief.

We do have a word for it; it is called Protestantism. They should embrace that word, because that is what they have become.

“The Austrian Priest’s Initiative is an Austria-wide movement of Roman Catholic priests and deacons who follow their conscience and campaign for new paths in the church,” the group said in its statement. “Its goals are: lively congregations, contemporary synodal church structures and, above all, a credible and open-minded world church that focuses on sincere service to people.”

How odd. Here I thought that the Church focused primarily on bringing people closer to God, for the salvation of their souls.

The group also said it “vehemently” protests against the assumption that same-sex couples are not part of God’s divine plan. “We deeply regret that this decree, which seeks to revive the spirit of bygone times, widens the gap between Roman bureaucracy and the local Church,” the group said. “This decree offends many Christians and obscures and discredits the liberating message of Jesus.”

“The liberating message of Jesus”? The last I knew, Jesus did not liberate people from the Law, but tightened the law. He said that the Law concerning adultery stood, but also pointed out that the thought behind adultery was a violation, even if the physical act didn’t occur.

Is there an underlying reason that these priests are so dedicated to schism on this issue? As I asked 2½ years ago, How many priests are homosexual?

Of course, many factors influence a person’s decision to join the clergy; it’s not like sexuality alone determines vocations. But it’s dishonest to dismiss sexuality’s influence given that we know there is a disproportionate number of gay priests, despite the church’s hostility toward LGBTQ identity. As a gay priest told Frontline in a February 2014 episode, “I cannot understand this schizophrenic attitude of the hierarchy against gays when a lot of priests are gay.”

So how many gay priests actually exist? While there’s a glut of homoerotic writings from priests going back to the Middle Ages, obtaining an accurate count is tough. But most surveys (which, due to the sensitivity of the subject, admittedly suffer from limited samples and other design issues) find between 15 percent and 50 percent of U.S. priests are gay, which is much greater than the 3.8 percent of people who identify as LGBTQ in the general population.

In the last half century there’s also been an increased “gaying of the priesthood” in the West. Throughout the 1970s, several hundred men left the priesthood each year, many of them for marriage. As straight priests left the church for domestic bliss, the proportion of remaining priests who were gay grew. In a survey of several thousand priests in the U.S., the Los Angeles Times found that 28 percent of priests between the ages of 46 and 55 reported that they were gay. This statistic was higher than the percentages found in other age brackets and reflected the outflow of straight priests throughout the 1970s and ’80s.

The high number of gay priests also became evident in the 1980s, when the priesthood was hit hard by the AIDS crisis that was afflicting the gay community. The Kansas City Star estimated that at least 300 U.S. priests suffered AIDS-related deaths between the mid-1980s and 1999. The Star concluded that priests were about twice as likely as other adult men to die from AIDS.

I do not know why so many homosexual men are attracted to the priesthood, though I do have a pet theory. But that there are so many of them leads to the obvious question: are they doing this because they wish to enter into homosexual marriages themselves? After all: one of the goals of the Austrian Priest’s Initiative is that a man or woman, married or unmarried, can serve as a priest. They could, were their group to get its way, enter into homosexual marriages and still keep their jobs as priests.

Is that cynical thinking on my part? Yes, I suppose that it is. But it is also thinking that makes perfect sense.

The Bible holds many laws and restrictions for living a life that is upright and moral, things which Catholic priests claim to believe. Do the members of the Austrian Priest’s Initiative believe that, say, the commandment that we shall not commit adultery is somehow not really valid anymore, because, hey, an adulterous couple really could love each other? Maybe the Austrian priests would say, “Hey, they can get divorced and then marry each other, but, oops!, Jesus had something to say about that as well, something stricter than Mosaic Law.

What about the teaching on abortion? After all, some women feel that they really, really need to have an abortion! Do the Austrian priests simply nod sagely and tell them that it’s sad, but acceptable?

Perhaps my conclusion is harsh, but I have to say that it appears that the Austrian priests either do not believe in that part of the Nicene Creed, “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come,” or at least they think that less important than our limited, mortal lives here on earth.

Posted on by

His Holiness the Pope tries to actually be Catholic

Yes, Pope Francis did the right thing, eventually, but this should never have taken as long as it did. From The Wall Street Journal:

Vatican Rules Out Blessings for Same-Sex Relationships, Despite Calls for Liberalization

Pope Francis pushes back at some liberal bishops’ call for church to embrace gay unions

By Francis X. Rocca | Updated March 15, 2021 | 9:55 AM EDT

ROME—The Vatican on Monday forbade blessings of same-sex relationships, contradicting calls for the practice by progressive bishops in Germany and elsewhere, and setting a limit to the conciliatory approach to gay people that has marked Pope Francis’ pontificate.

The Vatican’s doctrinal office, in a document personally approved by Pope Francis, said it wasn’t permissible for clergy to pronounce blessings on any sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

His Holiness the Pope helped to start the movement which many hoped would lead to allowing homosexual unions to be blessed by the Church, perhaps including approving homosexual marriages, with his silly response to a question early in his pontificate:

On Gay Priests, Pope Francis Asks, ‘Who Am I to Judge?’

By Rachel Donadio | July 29, 2013

ROME — For generations, homosexuality has largely been a taboo topic for the Vatican, ignored altogether or treated as “an intrinsic moral evil,” in the words of the previous pope.

In that context, brief remarks by Pope Francis suggesting that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation, made aboard the papal airplane on the way back from his first foreign trip, to Brazil, resonated through the church. Never veering from church doctrine opposing homosexuality, Francis did strike a more compassionate tone than that of his predecessors, some of whom had largely avoided even saying the more colloquial “gay.”

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian but using the English word “gay.”

Francis’s words could not have been more different from those of Benedict XVI, who in 2005 wrote that homosexuality was “a strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil,” and an “objective disorder.” The church document said men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” should not become priests.

Who is he to judge? He’s the Pope, that’s who he is, and yes, that does include judgement.

The document reaffirms Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality when several liberal bishops, including the head of the German Catholic bishops’ conference, have called for blessing same-sex couples in committed relationships. Priests in Germany have widely blessed such couples for years, as have clergy in some other parts of Northern Europe.

Such blessings are wrong, the Vatican said on Monday, because they would seem “to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God,” adding that God “does not and cannot bless sin.”

All of that is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which every priest and every deacon and every bishop, archbishop and cardinal should have, and with which he should be familiar.

§2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

§2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

§2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

What part of “under no circumstances can they be approved” do some priests and bishops find unclear?

I get it: the left believe that it’s just wrong to deny homosexuals their desires, but a Catholic priest, a Catholic bishop, must follow the teachings of the Bible in which they all profess to believe, and the Bible is unambiguous in its condemnation of homosexual activity, in both the Old and New Testaments. While some have claimed that Jesus never personally addressed homosexual activity, specifically, they are incorrect.

Matthew 5:17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! 19 Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness far surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The law included the prohibition on homosexual activity in Leviticus 18:22, and proscribes the penalty in Leviticus 20:13. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in this.

Back to the Journal:

German bishops have tangled with the Vatican on other matters, including the question of giving Communion to Lutherans, and are unlikely to back down in their stance on blessing gay unions. German bishops and lay Catholics are currently involved in a national synod that is considering changes to aspects of church life, including the possibility of women clergy and teaching on sexuality.

A move by German bishops to approve blessings of same-sex unions would exacerbate tensions with more conservative parts of the church, including in Africa and the U.S. Conservative bishops in the U.S. have been critical of what they see as an excessively progressive drift away from traditional teachings, with the archbishop of Denver warning in 2019 that the German bishops are moving toward a schism.

It has been said that if it is a choice between heresy and schism, choose heresy, because it is an action that is solely your own, while schism injures the Body of Christ that is the Church.

Pope Francis has taken a more liberal approach than his predecessors to some questions of marriage and sexuality, including divorce and homosexuality. In one of the most famous statements of his pontificate, he responded to a question about gay clergy in 2013: “Who am I to judge?” During his 2015 visit to the U.S., he met privately with a gay couple in Washington, D.C.

In comments published last year, the pope expressed support for same-sex civil unions, saying that gay couples “have the right to be legally covered,” a stance he had held as archbishop of Buenos Aires.

But the pope has also written that “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.”

This is where the Pope has failed: in attempting to soft-peddle the issue, in attempting to be nice and conciliatory toward homosexuals, as a good liberal should do, he opened the door to the hope of many that he would, he could, change the teachings in the Bible.

But, in the end, you can be a 21th century liberal, or you can be a Catholic; you really cannot be both. Some current liberal views, such as those on immigration, can easily fall within biblical teachings and the traditions of the Church. We can easily reconcile opposition to capital punishment with the Bible, because we now have modern methods of permanent incarceration that the Israelites lacked in their journeys through the wilderness.

But modern liberal beliefs on homosexuality and transgenderism and marriage are simply and unequivocally opposed to the Bible, and there’s no ambiguity, no wiggle room there. Priests and bishops who ‘bless’ homosexual unions are, in plain effect, giving their blessings to sin; it is clearly blasphemy, a sin in itslef.

“It is not surprising but still disappointing,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, which advocates for LGBT Catholics. “This decision though is an impotent one because it will not stop the Catholic people in the pews, nor many Catholic leaders, who are eager for such blessings to happen.”

Sadly, His Excellency The Most Reverend John Eric Stowe, O.F.M. Conv, Bishop of Lexington, has supported the misbegotten New Ways Ministry. As a parish priest, Bishop Stowe is excellent; I’ve attended two Masses in which he was the celebrant, and there is no question in my mind at all that he truly believes in Jesus.

But when it comes to homosexuality, he has truly lost his way. When I see Joseph Cardinal Tobin, Archbishop of Newark, on the list, I am seeing a prince of the Church, and one of the voters who will select the next Pope, when Francis retires or dies.

The question of homosexuality has roiled other Christian denominations, fomenting division within the world-wide Anglican Communion between liberal churches in Europe and North America and more conservative churches in Africa. Last year, the United Methodist Church agreed in principle to split because of disagreements over same-sex marriage and gay clergy, though a meeting to approve the move has been delayed because of the pandemic.

Protestants have already suffered through denominational schisms over this issue. I would like to think that the Holy Father has put this issue to rest for a while, but I can too easily see the next Pope deciding to be ‘trendy,’ and sin, it seems, is very trendy.

Posted on by

One does not “err” on the side of supporting religious freedom; one errs if he does not support religious freedom! Andy Beshear has made going to church a political as well as religious act

Should I dishonor the courage of my ancestors by blithely accepting the religious restrictions unconstitutionally placed on us by callous state Governors, over a disease from which 98% of people recover?

Richard Warren left his family, his wife and children, in England, as he boarded the Mayflower, to brave a sea voyage to a hostile and unknown continent, due to the religious oppression under King James I. “James was strict in enforcing conformity at first, inducing a sense of persecution amongst many Puritans . . . .” The voyage had its hazards, as the Mayflower’s sister-ship, Speedwell were greatly delayed in departure:

Carrying about 65 passengers, the Mayflower left London in mid-July 1620.[13] The ship then proceeded down the Thames to the south coast of England, where it anchored at Southampton, Hampshire. There she waited for the planned rendezvous on July 22 with the Speedwell, coming from Holland with members of the Leiden congregation.[8] Although both ships planned to depart for America by the end of July, a leak was discovered on the Speedwell, which had to be repaired.[14]

The ships set sail for America around August 5, but Speedwell sprang another leak shortly after, which necessitated the ships’ return to Dartmouth for repairs. They made a new start after the repairs, but more than 200 miles (320 km) beyond Land’s End at the southwestern tip of England, the Speedwell sprang a third leak. It was now early September, and they had no choice but to abandon Speedwell and make a determination on her passengers. This was a dire event, as vital funds had been wasted on the ship, which were considered very important to the future success of their settlement in America. Both ships returned to Plymouth, where twenty Speedwell passengers joined the now overcrowded Mayflower, while the others returned to Holland.[15]

They waited for seven more days until the wind picked up. William Bradford was especially worried: “We lie here waiting for as fair a wind as can blow… Our victuals will be half eaten up, I think, before we go from the coast of England; and, if our voyage last long, we shall not have a month’s victuals when we come in the country.”[16]:343 According to Bradford, Speedwell was refitted and seaworthy, having “made many voyages… to the great profit of her owners.” He suggested that Speedwell‘s master may have used “cunning and deceit” to abort the voyage by causing the leaks, fearing starvation and death in America.[17]:

Richard Warren, my first American ancestor, finally sent for his family in 1623, once the colony had become sufficiently safe and self-sustaining. He and his wife Elizabeth, my great(x9)-grandparents, risked their lives, with far, far greater chances of dying — half of the Mayflower settlers died within the first year — than COVID-19 has inflicted upon us, all for the freedom to worship God as they saw fit. Should I, twelve generations later, dishonor their courage, and the sacrifices of their friends and neighbors, by blithely accepting the religious restrictions unconstitutionally placed on us by callous state Governors, over a disease from which 98% of people recover?[1]One of my sisters tested positive for the virus a couple of months ago, but was mostly asymptomatic, and was again negative about ten days later.

I believe that it is wise to take precautions, and it is wise to take the vaccines when they become available.[2]Due to my age, 67, I am in Tier 1C, but while the local health department has me “on the list,” they have no idea when it will actually be available.

But taking precautions should be an individual decision, and the state should have no power, no authority, to suspend our constitutional rights to fight the disease.

I rarely missed Sunday Mass before the virus struck. But Governor Andy Beshear’s (D-KY) unconstitutional suspension of our First Amendment rights, by ordering churches closed, has had the effect of making me much more militant when it comes to our constitutional rights. The Bishop of Lexington, John Stowe, went right along with the Governor, and ordered the priests of the diocese to close their parish churches. When the churches were finally reopened, starting on Sunday, May 24, 2020, I was right there to attend Mass, and I have not missed Sunday Mass since. Governor Beshear has, at least for me, added the political element of resisting authority, to going to church.[3]Actually, the Governor so graciously allowed churches to reopen on May 20th, which was a Wednesday.

From The Hill article cited in my initial tweet:

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is defending the controversial statements he made regarding coronavirus restrictions late last year, saying he “was not surprised by the reaction.”

In a USA Today article published on Sunday, the 15th anniversary of his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Alito said the parts of his speech that drew controversy had been taken from his recent opinions, with some repeated verbatim.

“Virtually every substantive point in the Federalist Society speech was taken from one of my published opinions or an opinion I joined,” the justice, nominated by President George W. Bush, said in a statement to the newspaper.

During a speech to the Federalist Society in November, Alito said: “We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020.”

Alito at the time argued coronavirus restrictions had become a “constitutional stress test.” In particular, the justice bemoaned the effect that restrictions have had on religious events.

“I’m a judge, not a policymaker,” Alito told USA Today, adding that he was not criticizing policies, but pointing to the questions they raised.

It’s good to see a Supreme Court Justice who values the First Amendment, who at least partially understands that our freedom of religion is paramount. Sadly, the Justice seems to have gone along with some of the restrictions, as long as they have not been more onerous than those placed on other public events.

Governor Beshear had lifted his church closure order after a federal judge invalidated it, graciously ‘allowing’ churches to open again immediately, when he had planned to allow that starting on May 20, 2020. Sadly, Bishop Stowe did not allow his diocesan priests to open their parish churches until the date the Governor had previously selected. I have no doubt that the Governor would have ordered churches closed absent the previous ruling, in that he ‘asked’ all churches to to suspend all in-person gatherings at their churches for four Sundays, November 22nd through December 13th, a period which would have included Thanksgiving.

To me, the freedom of religion and the First Amendment in general are our most important liberties, the things which make the United States different from all other countries. Too many people, too many people! just blithely ignore our liberties, sheepishly nodding their heads when government tries to restrict our rights, because their reasons are oh-so-noble, oh-so-reasonable.

Well, I’m sorry, but there is no such thing as a ‘reasonable’ restriction on our rights. If they can be ‘reasonably’ restricted, then they aren’t rights anymore.

References

References
↑1 One of my sisters tested positive for the virus a couple of months ago, but was mostly asymptomatic, and was again negative about ten days later.
↑2 Due to my age, 67, I am in Tier 1C, but while the local health department has me “on the list,” they have no idea when it will actually be available.
↑3 Actually, the Governor so graciously allowed churches to reopen on May 20th, which was a Wednesday.
Posted on by

The New York Times and the Ministry of Truth

Anybody who has ever written for a collegiate newspaper, a category which would include me, has had at least a few dreams about being a reporter and writer for The New York Times.[1]Though not a journalism major, I wrote for the Kentucky Kernel for two years while in the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce in the early 1980s.

Of course, to become a writer for the greatest newspaper in the world, you had to be well-educated, and it helped if you went to one of the top schools, such as the Columbia University’s School of Journalism. To have been well-educated, at least as far as a liberal arts degree is concerned, there is virtually no way you could not have read George Orwell’s 1984, the dystopian novel about life in a totalitarian society.

So, one would think that no one could ever suggest, in the pages of the Times, such a thing as Mr Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, where the main character, Winston Smith worked, would ever be a good idea. But if one did think that, one would be wrong.

How the Biden Administration Can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis

These steps, experts say, could prod more people to abandon the scourge of hoaxes and lies.

By Kevin Roose[2]Mr Roose is a technology columnist for The Times, and the host of the “Rabbit Hole” podcast. His column, “The Shift,” examines the intersection of technology, business, and … Continue reading | February 2, 2021 | 11:54 AM EST

Last month, millions of Americans watched as President Biden took the oath of office and, in a high-minded Inaugural Address, called for a new era of American unity.

But plenty of other Americans weren’t paying attention to Mr. Biden’s speech. They were too busy watching YouTube videos alleging that the inauguration was a prerecorded hoax that had been filmed on a Hollywood soundstage.

Quite the statement! Mr Roose seems to believe that if I didn’t watch the inaugural, I must be some evil or deluded conspiracy theorist. As it happens, I did not watch the inaugural, but I did not because I did not wish to see the transition to someone with Joe Biden’s and the Democratic Party’s repugnant policies.

Or they were melting down in QAnon group chats, trying to figure out why former President Donald J. Trump wasn’t interrupting Mr. Biden’s speech to declare martial law and announce the mass arrest of satanic pedophiles.

Or maybe their TVs were tuned to OAN, where an anchor was floating the baseless theory that Mr. Biden “wasn’t actually elected by the people.”

It’s a long article, in which Mr Roose suggests:

  • “Unless the Biden administration treats conspiracy theories and disinformation as the urgent threats they are, our parallel universes will only drift further apart, and the potential for violent unrest and civic dysfunction will only grow.”
  • We must have a “holistic understanding of what the spectrum of violent extremism looks like in the United States, and then allocate resources accordingly.”
  • “The Biden administration could set up a “truth commission,” similar to the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the planning and execution of the Capitol siege on January 6. This effort, (Joan Donovan, the research director of Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy) said, would ideally be led by people with deep knowledge of the many “networked factions” that coordinated and carried out the riot, including white supremacist groups and far-right militias.”
  • Several experts with whom Mr Roose spoke “recommended that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a ‘reality czar.'”

Mr Roose graciously granted that this “sounds a little dystopian,” but continued to say that we needed to listen to the arguments for such suggestions, including tapping into the algorithms used by Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to ferret out bad, bad, bad messages.

Really? As we noted previously, Twitter already takes sides on the issue of ‘transgenderism,’ and bans ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering,’[3]‘Deadnaming’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by his given name at birth, rather than the name he has taken to match the sex he claims to be; ‘misgendering’ means referring to a … Continue reading as though the issue is settled, and no dissent can be tolerated.

Was Mr Roose simply reporting? The Times has already published articles claiming that Free Speech is killing us. Noxious language online is causing real-world violence, and that Twitter’s bans on ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’ actually promotes freedom of speech. The Times told us how wonderful it was that Jeff Bezos was able to deplatform Parler, but lamented that some of those who lost their speech on Parler migrated to Gab and Rumble.[4]Full disclosure: I maintained a Parler account, and have a Gab account.

Until the nation reckons with the self-inflicted wounds stemming from an under-regulated, unreformed social media information architecture, President Biden’s calls for healing and national unity won’t produce substantial, lasting results. The new administration needs a long-term plan to confront the escalating threat, as far-right insurgents migrate from one platform to the next.

The Parler hack is the place to start. It indicates that moderation of violent, racist, anti-democratic content will increasingly lead to migration of that same hateful content. For instance, the deplatforming of Parler triggered a virtual stampede to similar forums like Gab and Rumble. Analysts have already documented Parler groups re-forming and spreading evermore hateful content on Telegram and a host of smaller platforms.

When the Times prints OpEd pieces claiming that social media are “under-regulated (and) unreformed,” what are we ro conclude other than the Times, which so jealously and zealously protested that its own Freedom of the Press should not be restricted in New York Times Co v United States, believe that other people’s speech and publications must be more strictly regulated, that those who decline to conform to the Accepted Wisdom — meaning: the wisdom of the left — should simply not be allowed to make their cases or present their views?

If Chad Malloy writes an article claiming that ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’ is bad, horrible, and should not be allowed, the Times will publish it, and Twitter will be perfectly happy to allow positive tweets referencing it. If William Teach tweets “Since the gender confused have a much higher chance of having mental issues and suicidal tendencies, let’s put them around military grade weapons for Social Justice, am I right?” he gets suspended by Twitter, and not allowed to express that viewpoint, despite the fact that every point he made is true.[5]Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be female, using the name Parker Marie Malloy.

Twitter suspended the account of Catholic World Report for noting that Dr Richard Levine, appointed by President Biden to become Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Services is “a biological man identifying as a transgender woman”, despite the fact that the statement is completely accurate.[6]Dr Richard Levine claims that he is female and goes by the name “Rachel.” As noted in our Stylebook, we always refer to the ‘transgendered’ by their biological sex and given … Continue reading

The Times apparently wants some form of a Ministry of Truth, but, like the one for which Winston Smith worked, its business is making certain that whatever Big Brother says is not contradicted by history or the facts. “Ignorance is Strength” the Party says in the book, and it seems that The New York Times wants everybody to remain ignorant of any information, any views of which the Times disapproves.

The late William F Buckley, Jr, famously said, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” It wasn’t so long ago that the editors of the Times would have shaken their heads at conservative views, but nevertheless simply argued against them, rather than trying to stifle and stamp them out.

Today? All of that has changed! The editors now want a government agency to tell everyone what is true, and stamp out anything they feel is contrary.

References

References
↑1 Though not a journalism major, I wrote for the Kentucky Kernel for two years while in the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce in the early 1980s.
↑2 Mr Roose is a technology columnist for The Times, and the host of the “Rabbit Hole” podcast. His column, “The Shift,” examines the intersection of technology, business, and culture. You can find him on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Instagram. @kevinroose • Facebook
↑3 ‘Deadnaming’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by his given name at birth, rather than the name he has taken to match the sex he claims to be; ‘misgendering’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by sex-specific terms referring to his biological sex rather than the sex he claims to be.
↑4 Full disclosure: I maintained a Parler account, and have a Gab account.
↑5 Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be female, using the name Parker Marie Malloy.
↑6 Dr Richard Levine claims that he is female and goes by the name “Rachel.” As noted in our Stylebook, we always refer to the ‘transgendered’ by their biological sex and given names at birth.
Posted on by

Tulsi Gabbard Williams is very much a leftist, but the left hate her anyway Why? It's because she believes in our constitutional rights!

JVW, one of the regular posters on Patterico’s Pontifications, and the one who was least infected with #TrumpDerangementSyndrome, calls her his Little Aloha Sweetie, and former Representative Tulsi Gabbard Williams (D-HI 2nd) was the most sensible — not that that’s saying a whole lot — of the Cavalcade of Clowns running for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination. She is a true left liberal. From her Wikipedia biography:

Tulsi Gabbard (/ˈtʌlsi ˈɡæbərd/; born April 12, 1981) is an American politician and United States Army Reserve officer who served as the U.S. Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021. Elected in 2012, she was the first Hindu member of Congress and also the first Samoan-American voting member of Congress. In early February 2019 she announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 United States presidential election.[1][2]

In 2002, Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives at the age of 21.[3] Gabbard served in a field medical unit of the Hawaii Army National Guard in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009 as an Army Military Police platoon leader.[4][5][6] She was a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013 to 2016, when she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Gabbard supports a two-tier universal health care plan that she calls “Single Payer Plus”[7][8][9] and strengthening Roe v. Wade by codifying it into federal law. Her position has evolved on the issue and she now believes that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare”, although it is not a choice she would personally make.[10][11] She co-sponsored the Family Act for paid family and medical leave and endorsed universal basic income.[12][13][14] She opposes military interventionism,[15][16] although she has called herself a “hawk” on terrorism.[17] Her decision to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and her skeptical approach to two claims that he had used chemical weapons[18][19] were controversial.[20]

On March 19, 2020, Gabbard dropped out of the 2020 presidential race and endorsed Joe Biden. She had already withdrawn from her U.S. House re-election race during her presidential campaign and was succeeded by Kai Kahele on January 3, 2021.[21]

Mrs Williams greatest claim to fame in that primary was how she eviscerated Senator Kamala Harris Emhoff (D-CA) in the debates. That helped to torpedo Mrs Emhoff’s campaign, but, sadly, the eventual nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, selected her to be his vice presidential running mate. Mrs Emhoff is now Vice President of the United States, while Mrs Williams is out of public office. 🙁

But if she’s a leftist, Mrs Williams is one other thing: she’s a libertarian (not Libertarian), in that she believes in really radical things like freedom of speech. and privacy rights. The 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, disliked Mrs Williams enough that she ‘hinted’ that JVW’s Little Aloha Sweetie was actually a Russian stalking horse, and that the evil Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin would use her as a third party candidate to try to split the liberal vote and hand the election to President Donald Trump.

Of course, Mrs Clinton has always found someone else to blame for her loss:

Clinton also said she thought Jill Stein, the Green Party’s 2016 presidential nominee, was a Russian asset: “Yeah, she’s a Russian asset – I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”

Bitter much? https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

From National Review:

Tulsi Gabbard: Domestic-Terrorism Bill Is ‘a Targeting of Almost Half of the Country’

By Brittany Bernstein | January 23, 2021 | 10:05 AM

Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic representative from Hawaii, on Friday expressed concern that a proposed measure to combat domestic terrorism could be used to undermine civil liberties.

Gabbard’s comments came during an appearance on Fox News Primetime when host Brian Kilmeade asked her if she was “surprised they’re pushing forward with this extra surveillance on would-be domestic terror.”

“It’s so dangerous as you guys have been talking about, this is an issue that all Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don’t have to guess about where this goes or how this ends,” Gabbard said.

No, we don’t have to guess about how things like this end; the results have been seen around the world.

She continued: “When you have people like former CIA Director John Brennan openly talking about how he’s spoken with or heard from appointees and nominees in the Biden administration who are already starting to look across our country for these types of movements similar to the insurgencies they’ve seen overseas, that in his words, he says make up this unholy alliance of religious extremists, racists, bigots, he lists a few others and at the end, even libertarians.”

She said her concern lies in how officials will define the characteristics they are searching for in potential threats.

“What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? Where do you take this?” Gabbard said.

As noted above, Mrs Williams supports abortion, but, how about that, she was concerned for the rights of those of us who are pro-life. We saw Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) try to impose her own religious test on then nominee to the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and now Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, because Mrs Barrett is pro-life, yet Mrs Williams, who is pro-abortion, could support the rights of, shockingly, Catholics!

I’m old enough to remember how the left were the ones who insisted that Freedom of Speech was absolute, and how The New York Times fought for Freedom of the Press. Today, it seems, that the left are all for restricting freedom for those with whom they disagree, using the January 6th kerfuffle — and yes, that’s what it was, a kerfuffle, blown wholly out of proportion by liberals — as an excuse, but, as we’ve noted before, the attempts to restrict freedom of speech were already happening.

The Washington Post, which has the tagline “Democracy Dies in Darkness” on its masthead, has, on its website, several articles all bemoaning the Freedom of Speech and of the Press.

The hypocrisy is astounding! The Post certainly defended its freedom of the press, in its own piece of the Pentagon Papers case, but now the editors and the newspapers’ columnists seem to want darkness to fall on people and opinions they dislike. No wonder the left hate Tulsi Gabbard Williams.

Posted on by

Selling our birthrights for a mess of pottage

Don’t think that the American left don’t believe this! From Breitbart:

UK Police Chief: ‘Now Is Really Not the Time’ for Freedom of Speech, Right to Assembly

by Jack Montgomery | January 15, 2021

The chief constable of Dorset Police has urged lockdown protesters to accept that “now is really not the time” for freedom of speech and the right to assembly.

Chief Constable James Vaughan was speaking after the controversial arrest of two women for, seemingly, being recorded leaving home more than once and “sitting on a bench”, in an incident the police now allege was “stage-managed” by lockdown protesters, as one of the women is a Covid sceptic — although she denies any pre-planning.

“We appealed to them [the protesters] last weekend to say: ‘Look guys, we respect your right to freedom of speech and right to assembly but now is really not the time, it is too dangerous. Please don’t come, we have got other things we need to do,’” said the chief constable in comments to The Telegraph.

“Instead of giving us a break this weekend they decided to change their tactics and it just smacks of civil disobedience, really,” he complained, saying that he was “a bit angry and frustrated with these protesters on Saturday” and claiming that his officers “were acting with utter courtesy and restraint”.

Chief Constable Vaughan’s zero-tolerance attitude towards protesters differs markedly from that shown by British police leaders towards Black Lives Matter activists, who have been allowed to break lockdown rules largely unmolested throughout the pandemic — in part, London Police Commissioner Cressida Dick admitted in June, because officers are afraid to enforce the law against them.

There’s more at the original. The Breitbart article is not behind a paywall, but their internal references to the UK Telegraph are.

The sad thing is that I’m seeing the same arguments from good American citizens, some of whom at least used to be conservatives. Several state Governors, including Andy Beshear (D-KY), Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and Tom Wolf (D-PA) suspended our First Amendment right to peaceable assembly — except when it came to the #BlackLivesMatter demonstrations last spring, summer and fall, with Governor Wolf actually joining one such demonstration, despite it breaking his own gathering rules — and our right to the free exercise of religion.

When Chief Constable Vaughan said, “we respect your right to freedom of speech and right to assembly but now is really not the time, it is too dangerous,” he was telling people that he did not respect their “right to freedom of speech and right to assembly,” not as much as he respected his own police power.

Her Majesty’s subjects do not, of course, have as strongly guaranteed rights as we have in the United States, but many, many Americans seem to have forgotten that we are free of the British Crown specifically because our ancestors came to these shores because their own rights, their own freedom of religion, was being stifled by the British Crown and the official Church of England, because our ancestors risked their lives and fortunes and sacred honor to fight for our freedom.

Esau Sells His Birthright for Pottage of Lentils, a 1728 engraving by Gerard Hoet.

Genesis 25:29 When Jacob had cooked a stew one day, Esau came in from the field and he was exhausted; 30 and Esau said to Jacob, “Please let me have a mouthful of that red stuff there, for I am exhausted.” Therefore he was called Edom by name. 31 But Jacob said, “First sell me your birthright.” 32 Esau said, “Look, I am about to die; so of what use then is the birthright to me?” 33 And Jacob said, “First swear to me”; so he swore an oath to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. 34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and got up and went on his way. So Esau despised his birthright.

So many of our citizens are willing to sell their birthrights, as Americans, for their mess of pottage.

The Germans, free Germans, in free elections, sold their birthrights to Adolf Hitler, because times were tough. Free Venezuelans, even when times were not too tough, sold their freedoms to Hugo Chavez for the false promises of socialism, and now look where they are.

Freedom surrendered, rights given away, can be lost easily, but one must fight to get them back. It is better to bear the risks that come with retaining your rights than the death which can fall upon you in the struggle to regain them once lost.

Posted on by

If you want to see more conservative political victories, go to church!

Just a few of weeks ago, I commented, to a Facebook friend, in 2016, we had an election where half the people thought they got screwed.

Who knows, maybe there was sufficient fraud that President Trump was cheated out of a victory, but if there was, he hasn’t been able to prove it.

This country will be greatly damaged by a Biden presidency, but that’s what we are going to have. The proper response now is to support conservatives and libertarians for every office, to take back the House of Representatives in 2022, and defeat Joe Biden in 2024. Do whatever you can to resist the Democrats’ policy initiatives. Be sure to support conservatives and libertarians for state and local offices, and do everything you can to replace school boards with conservatives who will not allow the teachers unions to indoctrinate children with leftist babble.

But, most important of all: go to church! The real solidarity of conservatives comes from faith and a clear understanding of God’s laws and morality. Part of the reason that so many Democratic Governors have been able to trample on our freedom of religion is that not that many Americans, even those who claim to be Christian, actually go to church!

Then I came across this, from the Catholic News Agency:

Only frequent church attendees avoided downward mental health trend in 2020

CNA Staff | December 11, 2020 | 12:09 AM MST

Americans who attend religious services weekly are the only demographic group appearing to show improved mental health in 2020, despite the stresses of the coronavirus pandemic and other events, says a new survey.

The survey otherwise shows significant self-reported mental health declines among those previously in excellent health.

In 2019, about 42% of those who reported attending religious services weekly told Gallup that their mental health was excellent. In 2020, 46% said the same, an increase of 4 percentage points. Only 35% of those who attend services nearly weekly or monthly reported excellent mental health, down 12 percentage points from last year. Among those who attend seldom or never, 29% reported excellent mental health, down 13 percentage points.

While coronavirus restrictions have often limited peoples’ ability to attend religious services, the Gallup survey did not ask respondents whether they faced such limits.

There’s more at the original.

I have previously said that Governor Andy Beshear’s (D-KY) executive orders suspending our constitutional rights and closing churches has made going to Mass a political act of defiance as well as a religious one. The evidence has long shown that the stronger one’s Christian faith is, the more probable that someone will be politically conservative and vote Republican. Quite simply, the more strongly Christian someone is, the more likely he is to hold conservative political positions.

And now we see that going to church leads to stronger mental health as well.

It doesn’t work in every case, obviously. Joe Biden is a Mass-every-Sunday (purported) Catholic, yet his fealty to Democratic political positions is stronger than his belief in the Church’s positions on abortion, homosexuality and ‘transgenderism.’ Of course, his mispronunciation of “psalmist,” when there is a reading from the Book of Psalms in every Catholic Mass does make one wonder if he sleeps through Mass most days, but still . . . .

It’s simple: Mr Biden is both a Catholic, nominally anyway, and a Democrat, but, of the two, being a Democrat is far more important to him than being Catholic. However, he is the outlier, not the norm: the more frequently a Christian attends church, Protestant or Catholic, the more likely he is to hold political views in line with his religious ones.

For conservatives, religion not only reinforces our political views, but actually going to church strengthens our commitment to our religious and political positions.

There is, however, something that the left do not realize and political commentators never seem to mention: the more a person attends church, the more he is accepting of other people of different races:

Religious Trump Voters: How Faith Moderates Attitudes about Immigration, Race, and Identity

By Emily Ekins | February 5, 2019

Increasing political polarization and rising conflict over identity, race relations, immigration, and LGBT rights have left two increasingly divided extremes with a seemingly elusive moderate middle. Many have come to view religious institutions, largely because of their opposition to same‐​sex marriage, as a major contributor to this ever‐​increasing divide — a catalyst for increased intergroup societal conflict rather than a possible cure. However, research from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group’s VOTER Surveys (Views of the Electorate Research Survey) finds that religious participation may serve as a moderating function in our politics, particularly among conservatives. These national surveys find that Donald Trump voters who attend church regularly are more likely than nonreligious Trump voters to have warmer feelings toward racial and religious minorities, to be more supportive of immigration and trade, and to be more concerned about poverty. These data are important because they demonstrate that private institutions in civil society can have a positive effect on social conflict and can reduce polarization.

Left-right culture wars over the rights of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual) people — particularly government sanction of same-sex marriages — have likely soured many Democrats’ views of Christians. Indeed, a majority (56 percent) of Democrats report unfavorable feelings toward evangelical Christians. This, in large part, may be a response to the 64 percent of churchgoing Christians who oppose legalized same-sex marriage and the half who have cool feelings toward LGBT people, and to the finding that the more frequently people attend church, the more negative their attitudes are likely to be toward gay men, lesbians, and also feminists. Thus, antagonism toward religious institutions is often grounded in the idea that religion is a source of exclusion and oppression rather than of inclusivity and tolerance. Such views are succinctly articulated by a bumper sticker from the Richard Dawkins Foundation: “There is no war on religion: Only opposition of intolerance, oppression, hatred, and stupidity.”

Conservatives’ views of black people, Hispanics, and Asians improve the more frequently conservatives attend religious services

.It may surprise some readers, however, to learn that religious participation may moderate conservatives’ attitudes on other important culture war issues, particularly matters of race, immigration, and identity. Given that the rise of Donald Trump has increased the salience of these issues, this brief uses the 2016, 2017, and 2018 VOTER Surveys to examine how religious and nonreligious people who voted for Donald Trump think about these important issues.

Conservatives’ views of black people, Hispanics, and Asians improve the more frequently conservatives attend religious services. Specifically, favorable feelings toward black people increase from 48 percent among Trump voters who never attend church to 73 percent among those who attend more than once a week — a 25-point increase. Similarly, favorable feelings toward Hispanics and Asians increase from 63 percent and 60 percent, respectively, among secular Trump voters to 72 percent and 80 percent, respectively, among churchgoing Trump voters.

There is much more at the original; internal references from original omitted in the quote.

This is the part the left do not understand: religious conservatives, such as myself, may oppose the idea of same-sex ‘marriage,’ and classifying the ‘transgendered’ as the sex they claim to be rather than the sex they are biologically, but that does not mean we somehow want them all killed. Rather, it means that we wish them to return to mental health and conservative beliefs and values. The conservative and libertarian part of me informs me that what they wish to do in their private lives is between themselves and God, and none of my business; it also informs me that we can not care about their private lives as long as they do not bring those private lives into the public square. Once they do that, they have opened their private choices to public discussion. [1]I put the term the way that I do because I do not believe that any homosexual relationship, regardless of how the laws of the state view such, as legitimately a marriage.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” — Chief Justice John Roberts, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

Conservatives and libertarians, like me, may well oppose Affirmative Action and government preferences for any group based on race, religion, sex or ethnicity, but that does not mean that we see racial or ethnic or religious minorities as somehow not truly the children of God or as people against whom we should discriminate.

Christianity discourages discrimination, as every non-biased study has shown. Christianity encourages inclusion, but it encourages an inclusion pushing toward Christian values. Christian values encourage work, and thus encourages non-discrimination in hiring and employment; that does not mean, as Chief Justice John Roberts said, that Christians ought to support the reverse discrimination of Affirmative Action, selecting recipients of collegiate admissions and employment opportunities based on race.

Religion requires respect for God, and respect for God pushes respect for other people. Religion inspires respect for the law, and reduces crime and bad behavior. Christianity, the faith on which this country was founded, requires recognizing sin, but it also requires the forgiveness of sin. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us.”

Getting out of bed on Sunday morning, getting dressed and going to church brings us more friends, as we meet other Christians, helps to solidify our faith, and strengthens our commitment to conservative values and conservative politics. Everything about it is a benefit for conservatives.

It doesn’t require that much effort. If you do not already have a parish of which you are a member, find one; you don’t need to leave your computer to do that. Once you have found one, it’s just the effort that very first Sunday, to get up, get dressed, and go. Every subsequent Sunday will be a little bit easier.

Conservatism is not something which we need only to support in politicians; politicians, in the end, depend on the support of the people, and the support of the people is strengthened when we practice what we preach.

References

References
↑1 I put the term the way that I do because I do not believe that any homosexual relationship, regardless of how the laws of the state view such, as legitimately a marriage.