PROTECT RELIGIOUS SPEECH

Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Patrick Leahy have introduced a hate crimes bill that parallels the House version. Catholic League president Bill Donohue wrote to them today about his concerns. The following is the text of his letter:

The driving force behind the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Prevention Act is the desire to provide additional penalties to criminals who assault homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. Without commenting on the propriety of hate crimes legislation in general, the central problem with this bill is its chilling effect on religious speech.

To be specific, the bill would criminalize religious speech that was critical of homosexuality if it were linked to a crime against a gay person. How do I know this? Because when the bill was considered in the House, that is exactly what Rep. Louie Gohmert was told when he raised this issue. While assaulting anyone, independent of sexual orientation, is rightly considered a criminal offense, the prospect of criminalizing religious speech that proscribes certain sexual practices is beyond worrisome—it is downright dangerous.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and religious liberty, both of which are jeopardized under this bill. The chilling effect this legislation could have on the right of the clergy to address sinful behavior flies in the face of the spirit of the First Amendment. Surely there are ways to protect homosexuals from being singled out by anti-gay thugs without trespassing on the constitutional rights of priests, ministers, rabbis, imams and others. Accordingly, language that would accomplish this end should be included as an amendment.

First let me state that the Catholic Church, without question upholds the human dignity for all men and woman who actively live, as well as who have homosexual tendencies. With that said, the homosexual lifestyle is viewed by the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faithful worldwide as not being in accordance with the Natural Law and amoral. There is a big difference between voicing disapproval of ones behavior and respecting the humanity of the person. This fact is nothing new and is common knowledge but that is not the central issue surrounding the bill Senators Kennedy and Leahy recently proposed. The issue is while homosexual men and women without question should be offered protection under the law from acts of violence, the idea that religious speech, which condemns homosexual practices, should also be protected under the First Amendment. If we as Americans believe in freedom, it has to be a belief that spans across the board.

President Obama does not attend the National Prayer breakfast

I find it very interesting that Christian citizens represent 76% (as of 2008) of the American population and the President of the United States, choose to blow off an invitation to National Prayer Day, as well as did not take part in a formal early morning service this past week. Mr. Obama stated that he would be celebrating the day in private prayer.

The first Thursday in May as been set aside for this event since 1952 and the Chair of the National Day of Prayer is Shirley Dobson. Mrs. Dobson stated her group was “disappointed by the lack of participation by the Obama administration.” Referencing a remark the president made at a recent press conference in Turkey that Americans “do not consider themselves a Christian nation,” she added: “That was projecting his own beliefs, but not reflecting what the majority of Americans feel. It is almost like Obama is trying to remake America into his own image. This is not a rejection of Shirley Dobson; it’s a rejection of the concept that America is a spiritual nation and its foundation is Judeo-Christian.”

In years passed when Bill Clinton was in office, the keynote speaker of the National Prayer breakfast was Mother Teresa, a Noble prizewinner, respected by both religious and non-religious alike for her work with the poorest of the poor in India. To Mr. Clinton’s surprise, Mother Teresa used the opportunity to lector him and his administration directly to their face for their anti-abortion policies. Her speech was carried all over the world and was greeted at the breakfast with a standing ovation. (See an unabridged copy of that speech in the link here)

I believe the only two people not standing that day were Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. Something tells me based on Mr. Obama’s recent anti-abortion legislation, it was no coincidence he did not attend. In addition, Obama also passed up the 5th annual National Catholic Prayer breakfast, which took place the following day. So much for reaching out to the opposition! So much for Mr. Obama’s victory speech proclamation in Chicago, “For those who did not support me, I’m your president too’! How was this little fact not carried by any of the major media periodicals? Christians represent three-quarters of the American population, the president breaks with tradition and blows off the National Day of Prayer, states in Turkey that Americans do not consider themselves a Christian nation and not a peep by the press. Shocking or is it???

Obama Calls for Condom Funding to Replace Abstinence Education

The President recommends that Congress eliminate funding for abstinence education and instead pour funds into condoms.

WASHINGTON, D.C., (LifeSiteNews.com) – In President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 Proposed Budget, the president recommends that Congress eliminate funding for abstinence education and instead pour funds into condoms and contraceptive-based sex education.

The proposed budget calls for an additional $150 million for contraceptive-only education, which includes competitive grants, research, evaluation and authorization for $50 million in new mandatory condom grants to states, tribes and territories, according to an Abstinence Clearinghouse press release.

The budget eliminates the $133 million set aside for CBAE (Community Based Abstinence Education) and Title V Abstinence Education Program, the two main federal abstinence-education initiatives.

Pregnancy centers and other charitable organizations throughout the country would be among those affected by the elimination of CBAE funds.

“At a time when teens are subjected to an increasingly sexualized culture, it is essential that common-sense legislators from both sides of the aisle reject this extreme attempt to defund the only approach that removes all risk,” said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

“Members of Congress would be well-advised to listen to youth and parents in their districts who overwhelmingly support these valuable programs.”

Leslee Unruh, President and Founder of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, said she believed there would be “political backlash” for elected officials if they oppose abstinence education.

February’s Omnibus Appropriations Bill also slashed abstinence program funds to $95 million, $54 million less than previously received.

Christians have always condemned contraceptive sex. Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law. Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930.

Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, “Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion” (HV 17).ⁱ Couples who want what’s best for their relationship or future marriage will wait. Beyond their own relationship, premarital sex frequently causes tension within families because of the dishonesty that usually accompanies the hidden intimacies. Relationships with friends are often strained, and when things turn sour, the gossip and social problems often become unbearable.ⁱⁱ Another young person said, “I slept with many, many people trying to find love, to find self-worth. And the more people I slept with the less self-worth I had.”ⁱⁱⁱ

No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the “free love” movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture.

Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Consider how premarital sex can affect relationships. One study showed that the average high school relationship will last only twenty-one days once the couple has sex. Furthermore, couples who sleep together before they are married have a divorce rate three times as high as couples who saved that gift for the wedding night.

One high school girl wrote, “I am sixteen and have already lost my virginity. I truly regret that my first time was with a guy that I didn’t care that much about. Since that first night, he expects sex on every date. When I don’t feel like it, we end up in an argument. I don’t think this guy is in love with me, and I know deep down that I am not in love with him either. This makes me feel cheap. I realize now that this is a very big step in a girl’s life. After you’ve done it, things are never the same. It changes everything.”

Everyone talks about how hard it is to say no, but no one tells you how hard it is when you say yes.

Letter of Catholic leaders to Obama over anti-Catholic Harry Knox

Here is the text of the letter signed by 20 catholic leaders sent to Obama over the outrageous appointment of anti-Catholic bigot Harry Knox to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships:

On April 6, you named Harry Knox to your Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. You claim to have created this Council, among other things, to “bring everyone together – from both the secular and faith-based communities.”

Harry Knox is the hate-filled antithesis of this noble objective. Knox is a virulent anti-Catholic bigot, and has made numerous vile and dishonest attacks against the Church and the Holy Father. He has no business on any Council having to do with faith or religion.

We do not know if you or members of your Administration were aware of Knox’s deplorable, abusive attitude towards the Church and Pope Benedict XVI when you named him to the Council. We assume you were not. But since then, there have been numerous press reports on Knox’s loathsome, and clearly bigoted rhetoric, so there no longer is any excuse for your failure to act. We can remain silent no longer.

As Catholics, we call on you to remove Mr. Knox from his position and to formally disassociate yourself from his militant anti-Catholicism. Failure to do so will result in the tainting of your Faith-Based Council—and indeed, your entire administration—as anti-Catholic. We urge you to give this matter your immediate consideration.

Instances of Harry Knox’s Bigotry

• On March 17, two weeks before his appointment to the advisory council, Knox published a statement on the Human Rights Campaign Web site in reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks concerning condoms and AIDS in Africa. The statement partly reads: “The Pope’s statement that condoms don’t help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus. …On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods. The pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further.”
• In reference to a bishop’s instruction that a lesbian couple in Cheyenne, Wy., could not receive communion at the Catholic Mass, Knox, in an Apr. 6, 2007 statement on the HRC’s Web site, wrote: “In this holy Lenten season, it is immoral and insulting to Jesus to use the body and blood of Christ the reconciler as a weapon to silence free speech and demean the love of a committed, legally married couple.…The Human Rights Campaign grieves with the couple, Leah Vader and Lynn Huskinson, over this act of spiritual and emotional violence perpetrated against them.”
• In reaction to the Vatican’s refusal to sign a U.N. agreement that called for decriminalizing homosexuality and equating all sexual orientations, Knox and the HRC signed a statement with other pro-homosexual groups that read, in part: “As faith leaders we were shocked by Vatican opposition to this proposed initiative….By refusing to sign a basic statement opposing inhumane treatment of LGPT people, the Vatican is sending a message that violence and human rights abuses against LGBT people are acceptable. Many are speaking out against this immoral stance in the name of religion.”
• In March 2009, the HRC launched a new, interactive Web site called EndtheLies.org designed “to confront right-wing lies and distortions repeatedly used to defeat LGBT equality measures.” The wall features an image of Pope Benedict XVI and this statement: “Pope Benedict XVI has called same-sex relationships ‘a destruction of God’s work,’ opposed a U.N. resolution decriminalizing homosexuality, and claimed in March 2009 that the use of condoms increases HIV infections.”
• Mar. 19, 2009: The Bay Area Reporter in San Francisco quoted Knox as following, “The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case [Proposition 8], they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression.
• The newspaper further reported: “Knox noted that the Knights of Columbus ‘followed discredited leaders,’ including bishops and Pope Benedict XVI. ‘A pope who literally today said condoms don’t help in control of AIDS.’”
• Knox told CNSNews.com that he “absolutely” stands by his criticism of the pope. “The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use,” Knox said on Monday, Apr. 6. “We are eager to help him do that. Until he [Pope Benedict] is willing to do that and able, he’s doing a great deal more harm than good – not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people’s lives.”

What’s next? Is the Obama Administration going to try to pass legislation to throw all practicing Catholics to the lions? One can conclude one of two things based on his slew of recent anti-catholic appointments. Either his staff is not doing their due diligence properly when making selections or they just do not care about the views of the practicing Catholic faithful in America.

Related posts:

1. A Halloween links round-up
2. Where bad policy ideas go to die: Current TV Announces Show With Former Michigan Governor – The Hollywood Reporter
3. A Ex-Soldier’s Analysis of America’s Current Wars
4. On Political Moderation

Joe Reciniello is a Wall Street executive that spends his free time helping the poor in New York City and beyond. Learn more about his work and travels at immaculateheartmission.org.

Joe Reciniello article archive.