Stoplight - Madison Was Right

In his Stoplight® commentary, Stuart Shepard explains why the Founding Fathers set up our government like they did.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Obama Losing With Catholics? Think Again

“Can Obama win his battle with the Catholic Church?”

The words scrolled across the bottom of my screen. The cable channel “experts” were debating the President’s mandate that Catholic institutions provide employee insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs.

“The President is helping women with their reproductive health needs,” one of the pundits noted. “But how will the voters respond?” the host replied.

Indeed, the President of the United States instigated a battle with an entire church, and did so quite intentionally. And it’s futile to now ask “can he win?” (he’s already scoring political points– I’ll explain in a moment).

Americans should instead be asking some different questions: Why have we come to accept a U.S. President’s attack on a church as normal, as though it’s nothing more than the subject of armchair quarterbacking? Why do polls show that nearly half of the American electorate wants to re-elect him? And why did a clear majority of American Catholics vote to empower this man in the first place?

After touching-off a global fury with his ruling on healthcare expenditures within religious organizations, the President announced last Friday that he would allow an “attempt to accommodate” (notice that he did not propose to “exempt”) religious organizations with the mandate. Rather than requiring religious groups to pay for birth control, Barack Obama plans instead to require all insurance companies to offer birth control to all women that they insure, and to do so at no extra cost to their customers.

Reaction from prolife leaders to the “accommodation” was swift and negative, while many pundits still argued that it was un-constitutional. Yet the non-profit, Washington, DC-based Catholics United, Inc., offered its blessing on Mr. Obama, noting that “the new regulation will ensure that Catholic hospitals, universities and social service providers that are religiously opposed to contraception and sterilization do not have to provide or even refer for those services, while also requiring insurance companies provide contraceptive services free of charge to any enrollee who wishes to have the coverage.”

And herein lays President Obama’s political victory: he has yet again driven a wedge between some of the Catholic laity, and many of the Catholic clergy. He jabbed a stick in the collective eye of Catholic Church hierarchy over teachings that some Catholics don’t take seriously to begin with, and he now has at least some Catholic lay-organizations praising him for being reasonable and negotiable – even as Catholic Clergy remain disgruntled, and “un-reasonable.”

And notice how the President has yet again advanced his legacy of transforming the collective American psyche. According to Catholics United, hospital, university and social service workers will be able to live within their personal moral convictions, not because each human individual is endowed by their creator with the right to do so (as the U.S. Constitution tells us), but because Barack Obama’s “new regulation” will allow it to happen.

It’s disgraceful and frightening – and it’s brilliant politics by the President. Catholics and pundits like to pretend that the Church is monolithic on “sanctity of life” issues, but it is not. This was apparent when Father John Jenkins invited President Obama to speak at Notre Dame University in 2009.

Some Catholic clergy and laity were outraged at the time, yet Father Jenkins, the university’s President, insisted that it was a good thing. Sure, Barack Obama is the most enthusiastic abortion supporting President ever. But he belonged at Notre Dame because, as Father Jenkins noted, he is a symbol of “overcoming racial barriers.”

And here we are in 2012. The President proactively created a crisis (as community organizers and agitators do); he then repositioned himself as the sensible moderator; and he has now once again received the blessing and approval of American Catholics that are more in love with him, and Democrat politics, than they are with their church’s teachings.

But notice, further, what is being ignored by both the faithful, and not-so-faithful: a loss of personal freedom. The President of the United States is using his bully pulpit to force private businesses (insurance companies) to provide a service, while forbidding those businesses from being compensated for it. This tramples upon the right to private property, and our most basic understandings of human freedom, yet Catholics United not only fails to question this, they actually have blessed it – and they don’t seem to even consider what the constitutional ramifications of this might be.

Catholics, of all people, should know better - especially given the recent legacy of the late Pope John Paul II. Born in communist Poland and forced to flee to the U.K. to complete his theological studies (the Soviet Union apparently did not issue “accommodations” as President Obama has so benevolently done), Pope John Paul II warned the world after Eastern Europe’s collapse about the evils of government controlled economies.

Yet today, many American Catholic clergymen remain ambivalent to their Church’s recent teachings on economics and liberty. Many of them blessed Barack Obama’s candidacy, willingly handed-over more control of private economic resources to our government by approving of Obamacare, and now seem shocked that a politician is using that power in selfish and destructive ways.

It’s difficult to know if American Catholics will regain an adequate understanding of human liberty anytime soon. But Barack Obama will no doubt continue to score points with his own “true believers.”

Austin Hill

---

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Mike Adams - How America Fell

Son, you sure ask tough questions, but I’ll try my best to answer. Having lived a long life (and seen America at both its highest and lowest points) I think I have some insights. Many of those insights came from my parents, rather than mere experience. My mother was the first one to tell me that America would fall from the inside as a result of moral decline – not from some outside threat. She first told me that during the Cold War. I didn’t believe her then, but time has shown just how prescient she was.

I suppose the fall of America could best be traced to a failure to grasp one simple idea; namely, that ideas have consequences. Of course, that also means that bad ideas have very bad consequences.

Most of America’s very bad ideas were born on our college campuses. In fact, they were nurtured during the time that America was strongest. That was some time after the fall of the Soviet Union when we were the world’s lone superpower. The ideas took a while to sink into the larger society. Few people realized what Lincoln knew in the mid-nineteenth century; namely, that one could look at our campuses at any time and see what the culture would look like in twenty years. The larger social consequences of ideas are often delayed by many years.

The first dangerous idea embraced by postmodern America was the idea that one has the right to negate other ideas simply because they cause discomfort. This idea gained acceptance on our college campuses right after the fall of the Soviet Union. It resulted in a weakening of the character of the average college student. In fact, it served a counter-evolutionary function in the sense that it guaranteed that the ideas of the weakest students would be the ones to survive in the intellectual marketplace. It also did much to extinguish humility as a character trait among educated people.

The idea that one has a right to negate ideas simply because one is uncomfortable is narcissistic. Our speech codes reinforced that bad trait while simultaneously reinforcing the bad ideas that accompany it. Unsurprisingly, civility in discourse began to decline in the age of speech codes. It was an Orwellian development. The Ministers of Peace were becoming the Ministers of the Cultural Wars.

It was not long before these students began to assert their “right to be unoffended” in a proactive way. Instead of waiting for speech that might offend them, they actively sought it out. They joined groups that held ideas contrary to their own - and did so knowingly. After joining these groups they asserted a right to lead the groups that were advancing the ideas they found to be objectionable. When the groups predictably sought to exclude them, they claimed to be victims of discrimination. The universities supported them in their efforts to ban belief requirements in all organizations, particularly religious organizations. Oddly, in the age of diversity, all the groups began to look the same. They believed in nothing. Their leaders believed in nothing. They had no common cause that required strength in numbers. There was no more need to associate.

Eventually, the students had to leave campus and fend for themselves in the real world. When they did so, they realized churches and other organizations operated by principles foreign to them. They relied on antiquated ideas that had not been taught on the campuses in years. The churches required adherence to core beliefs for membership. The requirements were even more restrictive for deacons, elders, and other positions of leadership. Many were excluded. Many were determined to bridge the gap between the academy and the society-at-large.

So they proceed on a theory they learned at the university. Whenever Christian organizations sought to receive student funding, the university would tell them to set aside the “discriminatory” practice of demanding that all members, or just officers, believe in something. This demand was made despite the fact that the university funding came in the form of the fees students had paid only because the administration made them. The process involved three steps:

1. Administration charges fees.

2. Religious groups ask for their money back.

3. Administration forces group to abandon beliefs in order to get back fees they were forced to pay.

If students refused to renounce their religious beliefs, the university kept the money. In other words, the “mandatory student fee” was a misnomer. It was actually a “tax on orthodox beliefs.”

This method was later modified in order to deal with churches that required belief statements for membership, or for church leadership positions. Since they were paying no taxes, they were seen as being “given something” by the government. So the government decided that tax breaks for churches must be contingent. If the church “discriminated” on the basis of belief, they would no longer be given a tax exemption. In other words, they would be taxed only if they believed in something.

Liberal churches, on the other hand, continued to get tax breaks because they believed in nothing. So they survived. This was also counter-evolutionary in the sense that they were doing poorly before the government interfered with the religious marketplace. They were also the churches populated by the easily offended. In this way, churches preaching Mere Christianity lost their ability to survive and to influence the culture.

After that, the notion of truth still survived. But it lacked an objective basis. It was seen as a mere struggle for power among warring factions. They learned their tactics in the Ivory Tower. Truth is not transcendent. It must be won at the edge of the sword or the point of a gun. And so they took to the streets.

The groups had but one thing in common: They knew the old ideas had to go. But they were not sure what would replace them. They had no exit strategy. And so they eventually consumed themselves.

Mike Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Mike Adams - Postmodern Vanderbilt

Alexander Solzhenitsyn once observed that what was taken from the East by force is now being relinquished by the West voluntarily. It is tough not to think of what Solzhenitsyn said nearly a quarter of a century ago as one observes recent developments at Vanderbilt University.

Without any outside pressure, Vanderbilt has freely chosen to strip its religious organizations of the right to require that their leaders share the group’s beliefs, goals and values. Carried to its full extent, it means an atheist could lead a Christian group, a Jew a Muslim group, or any number of strange possibilities.

The story began the way these stories always begin: A homosexual student joined a Christian organization that did not share his acceptance of homosexuality. When he was removed from the group, he complained that the group would not alter its membership criteria just for him. Instead of finding another organization, he filed a complaint that resulted in the investigation of hundreds of organizations.

That bears repeating: Rather than telling one student it would be easier to join a group of like-minded people, the university is investigating over 300 groups and threatening to shut down many of them unless they change their core religious practices and beliefs.

Among the groups threatened with shutdown is the Christian Legal Society (CLS). It committed the cardinal sin of including this language in its constitution. “Each officer is expected to lead Bible studies, prayer and worship at chapter meetings.” That sounds a lot like what Christian groups do. So, what exactly is the problem?

Reverend Gretchen Person – interim director of the Office of Religious Life at Vanderbilt – summarizes the problem as follows: “Vanderbilt policies do not allow this expectation (or) qualification for officers.” CLS has already amended its constitution in an effort to satisfy the Vanderbilt administration. It even removed a stated requirement that Student Coordinators “should strive to exemplify Christ-like qualities.” I mean, what if a homosexual wants to join the group and fears that exemplifying Christ-like qualities includes celibacy? We could not tolerate that kind of intolerance.

But Vanderbilt is not satisfied with the “progress” it has made in its investigation of hundreds of Christians in order to satisfy one person. It is now demanding that CLS drop its requirement that officers lead Bible studies, prayer and worship. I mean, what if a person wants to join, become an officer, and avoid doing the things everyone else has always done – like, for example, lead? Should we not accommodate him by changing standards of conduct for everyone so he can be a leader without leading?

Vanderbilt University has reached the point of telling leaders of a Christian organization that they can’t tell their leaders to lead the very activities Christians engage in - like having Bible studies and prayer meetings. Why on earth would they strip their students of core religious liberty? Get ready for the quote from the Vanderbilt administration: "We are committed to making our campus a welcoming environment for all of our students."

Well that explains everything. Letting Christian leaders lead Bible studies and prayer meetings would send a chilling effect across the entire campus. I mean, Vanderbilt is in Nashville, of all places. It’s a Mecca of secularism!

To make matters worse, CLS already allows group membership to be extended to anyone – even the gay dude who launched an investigation into hundreds of organizations because one of them wounded his inner child by withholding his daily affirmations. But CLS is still doing something unthinkable by actually holding its leaders to a different standard. And Vanderbilt has a problem with that requirement. They simply will not allow any group to have any core beliefs about anything even if the belief requirement is extended only to its officers.

Enter the Vanderbilt Honor Code. Vanderbilt requires its students to sign an honor code that says each student will conform to a certain set of behaviors in deference to a certain set of beliefs. In other words, Vanderbilt students are expected to hold a certain set of shared values. If they do not agree to accept those values, they are not welcomed into the Vanderbilt community.

Vanderbilt also has an honor council, which is responsible for enforcement of the honor code. A cursory examination of the application for membership on this council shows that it not only requires that its member share certain core beliefs but that its members are expected to play a leadership role in enforcing set standards predicated upon those set moral principles. Official university materials make it clear that leaders of the council are held to different (higher) standards of moral conduct.

Indeed, Vanderbilt administrators know that no group can survive without shared values.

Diversity does not hold people together. Commonality does. Vanderbilt’s administration is also well aware of the problems CLS experienced at Washburn University Law School. In that case, a student whose religious beliefs were contrary to the group was allowed to lead a Bible study. When CLS stopped him he complained. Washburn put CLS on “provisional status,” but reinstated the group after CLS sued.

It is worth noting that the 2010 Supreme Court case of CLS v. Martinez has absolutely nothing to do with the situation at Vanderbilt. Because Vanderbilt is a private university none of the First Amendment cases are on point. Besides, Martinez simply held that schools, which already had “all-comers” policies, could prevent Christian groups from imposing belief requirements. That did not mean they were compelled to do so.

Indeed, the Vanderbilt situation is unique. Here, the administration is stripping students of religious liberty for one reason and one reason only. It is the same reason a dog licks himself: Because he can.

The metaphor may be crude. But so is the raw display of authoritarianism at Vanderbilt University. Decent people can only turn their heads away from this ugly episode in the annals of self-righteous liberal hypocrisy. Educated donors should turn away from Vanderbilt altogether.

Mike Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---