zerohedge--2019-12-25--The Child That Christmas Forgot: How Would Jesus Fare In The American Police State?

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rurtherford Institute,  “Once upon a midnight clear, there was a child’s cry, a blazing star hung over a stable, and wise men came with birthday gifts. We haven’t forgotten that night down the centuries. We celebrate it with stars on Christmas trees, with the sound of bells, and with gifts… We forget nobody, adult or child. All the stockings are filled, all that is, except one. And we have even forgotten to hang it up. The stocking for the child born in a manger. It’s his birthday we’re celebrating. Don’t let us ever forget that. Let us ask ourselves what He would wish for most. And then, let each put in his share, loving kindness, warm hearts, and a stretched out hand of tolerance. All the shining gifts that make peace on earth.”—The Bishop’s Wife (1947)  The Christmas story of a baby born in a manger is a familiar one.  The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There being no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable (a barn), where Mary gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus. Warned that the government planned to kill the baby, Jesus’ family fled with him to Egypt until it was safe to return to their native land.  Yet what if Jesus had been born 2,000 years later?  What if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, Jesus had been born at this moment in time? What kind of reception would Jesus and his family be given? Would we recognize the Christ child’s humanity, let alone his divinity? Would we treat him any differently than he was treated by the Roman Empire? If his family were forced to flee violence in their native country and sought refuge and asylum within our borders, what sanctuary would we offer them?  A singular number of churches across the country are asking those very questions, and their conclusions are being depicted with unnerving accuracy by nativity scenes in which Jesus and his family are separated, segregated and caged in individual chain-link pens, topped by barbed wire fencing.  These nativity scenes are a pointed attempt to remind the modern world that the narrative about the birth of Jesus is one that speaks on multiple fronts to a world that has allowed the life, teachings and crucifixion of Jesus to be drowned out by partisan politics, secularism, materialism and war.  The modern-day church has largely shied away from applying Jesus’ teachings to modern problems such as war, poverty, immigration, etc., but thankfully there have been individuals throughout history who ask themselves and the world: what would Jesus do?  What would Jesus—the baby born in Bethlehem who grew into an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day (namely, the Roman Empire) but spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire—do?  Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked himself what Jesus would have done about the horrors perpetrated by Hitler and his assassins. The answer: Bonhoeffer risked his life to undermine the tyranny at the heart of Nazi Germany.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn asked himself what Jesus would have done about the soul-destroying gulags and labor camps of the Soviet Union. The answer: Solzhenitsyn found his voice and used it to speak out about government oppression and brutality.  Martin Luther King Jr. asked himself what Jesus would have done about America’s warmongering. The answer: declaring “my conscience leaves me no other choice,” King risked widespread condemnation when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War on moral and economic grounds.  Even now, despite the popularity of the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) in Christian circles, there remains a disconnect in the modern church between the teachings of Christ and the suffering of what Jesus in Matthew 25 refers to as the “least of these.”  “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’”  This is not a theological gray area: Jesus was unequivocal about his views on many things, not the least of which was charity, compassion, war, tyranny and love.  After all, Jesus—the revered preacher, teacher, radical and prophet—was born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of the American police state. When he grew up, he had powerful, profound things to say, things that would change how we view people, alter government policies and change the world. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Love your enemies” are just a few examples of his most profound and revolutionary teachings.  When confronted by those in authority, Jesus did not shy away from speaking truth to power. Indeed, his teachings undermined the political and religious establishment of his day. It cost him his life. He was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.  Can you imagine what Jesus’ life would have been like if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, he had been born and raised in the American police state?  Consider the following if you will. • Had Jesus been born in the era of the America police state, rather than traveling to Bethlehem for a census, Jesus’ parents would have been mailed a 28-page American Community Survey, a mandatory government questionnaire documenting their habits, household inhabitants, work schedule, how many toilets are in your home, etc. The penalty for not responding to this invasive survey can go as high as $5,000. • Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth. One couple in Washington had all three of their children removed after social services objected to the two youngest being birthed in an unassisted home delivery. • Had Jesus been born in a hospital, his blood and DNA would have been taken without his parents’ knowledge or consent and entered into a government biobank. While most states require newborn screening, a growing number are holding onto that genetic material long-term for research, analysis and purposes yet to be disclosed. • Then again, had Jesus’ parents been undocumented immigrants, they and the newborn baby might have been shuffled to a profit-driven, private prison for illegals where they first would have been separated from each other, the children detained in make-shift cages, and the parents eventually turned into cheap, forced laborers for corporations such as Starbucks, Microsoft, Walmart, and Victoria’s Secret. There’s quite a lot of money to be made from imprisoning immigrants, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill. • From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities, while learning little about his own rights. Had he been daring enough to speak out against injustice while still in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses. • Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence. Parents across the country have been arrested for far less “offenses” such as allowing their children to walk to the park unaccompanied and play in their front yard alone. • Rather than disappearing from the history books from his early teenaged years to adulthood, Jesus’ movements and personal data—including his biometrics—would have been documented, tracked, monitored and filed by governmental agencies and corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Incredibly, 95 percent of school districts share their student records with outside companies that are contracted to manage data, which they then use to market products to us. • From the moment Jesus made contact with an “extremist” such as John the Baptist, he would have been flagged for surveillance because of his association with a prominent activist, peaceful or otherwise. Since 9/11, the FBI has actively carried out surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations on a broad range of activist groups, from animal rights groups to poverty relief, anti-war groups and other such “extremist” organizations. • Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.” • While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs. Many states, including New York, are providing individuals with phone apps that allow them to take photos of suspicious activity and report them to their state Intelligence Center, where they are reviewed and forwarded to law-enforcement agencies. • Rather than being permitted to live as an itinerant preacher, Jesus might have found himself threatened with arrest for daring to live off the grid or sleeping outside. In fact, the number of cities that have resorted to criminalizing homelessness by enacting bans on camping, sleeping in vehicles, loitering and begging in public has doubled. • Viewed by the government as a dissident and a potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery. • Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored. • Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit. Florida officials arrested a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless on a public beach. • Had Jesus spoken publicly about his 40 days in the desert and his conversations with the devil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and detained in a psych ward against his will for a mandatory involuntary psychiatric hold with no access to family or friends. One Virginia man was arrested, strip searched, handcuffed to a table, diagnosed as having “mental health issues,” and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait. • Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. Currently, 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books. • Had anyone reported Jesus to the police as being potentially dangerous, he might have found himself confronted—and killed—by police officers for whom any perceived act of non-compliance (a twitch, a question, a frown) can result in them shooting first and asking questions later. • Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year, many on unsuspecting Americans who have no defense against such government invaders, even when such raids are done in error. • Instead of being detained by Roman guards, Jesus might have been made to “disappear” into a secret government detention center where he would have been interrogated, tortured and subjected to all manner of abuses. Chicago police have “disappeared” more than 7,000 people into a secret, off-the-books interrogation warehouse at Homan Square. • Charged with treason and labeled a domestic terrorist, Jesus might have been sentenced to a life-term in a private prison where he would have been forced to provide slave labor for corporations or put to death by way of the electric chair or a lethal mixture of drugs.  Indeed, as I show in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, given the nature of government then and now, it is painfully evident that whether Jesus had been born in our modern age or his own, he still would have died at the hands of a police state.  Thus, as we draw near to Christmas with its celebrations and gift-giving, we would do well to remember that what happened on that starry night in Bethlehem is only part of the story. That baby in the manger grew up to be a man who did not turn away from evil but instead spoke out against it, and we must do no less.


zerohedge--2019-12-07--The Impact Of Increased Political Polarization

As I write this, the House Intelligence Committee has voted to adopt the committee's Impeachment Inquiry Report along strict party lines. All 13 Democrats on the committee voted "Yes"; all nine Republican committee members voted "No." This party-line split is neither unusual nor unpredictable, but reflects the deep partisanship that is one of the defining aspects of our American society today.  I use the words "American society" rather than "American politics" here on purpose. We know that personal partisan identity affects one's views on a wide variety of policy issues, and, of course, partisanship is the defining determinant of people's views of their political leaders. But recent Gallup analyses show just how much our political identity today is a part of our views of a wide variety of other aspects of life, which often are not directly related to politics. Personal political identity affects views of the nation's healthcare system, how one views the economy, one's overall satisfaction with the way things are going in the nation, views of the safety of the nation's schools, worry about mass shootings, job satisfaction, views of the state of the environment and views of one's personal life situation, among others.  The impact of political partisanship appears to be increasing. As my colleague Jeff Jones has documented, the difference between Republicans' and Democrats' job approval ratings of President Donald Trump is the largest Gallup has ever measured for a president, eclipsing the already high polarization measured in approval of President Barack Obama.  Pew Research recently reported on Americans' views of the opposite political party, concluding that "the level of division and animosity -- including negative sentiments among partisans toward the members of the opposing party -- has only deepened."  An important review of academic research by journalist Thomas Edsall last year highlighted the degree to which the political polarization has increasingly taken on an emotionally negative tone. As Edsall notes: "Hostility to the opposition party and its candidates has now reached a level where loathing motivates voters more than loyalty," and "The building strength of partisan antipathy -- 'negative partisanship' -- has radically altered politics. Anger has become the primary tool for motivating voters."  There Are Some Benefits of Increased Political Polarization  Is this increasingly pervasive influence of party as a key and defining aspect of the way Americans look at the world around them good or bad? As is true with almost all such questions, the answer is complex.  There are some benefits to individuals and society from political polarization and conflict between opposing viewpoints. As we know, the Founding Fathers anticipated there would be conflict between factions in our society and set up the three branches of our federal government to deal with them. If handled correctly, optimal solutions are more likely to emerge when everything is subject to skeptical analysis. (Along these same lines, billionaire Ray Dalio defines this process of constant questioning as the search for "radical truth" and contends it is a secret to his business success.)  Plus, a strong emotional allegiance to one's political and ideological reference group can have significantly positive effects for individuals, who gain meaning and purpose in life from social solidarity with an in-group while railing against threatening enemies. Partisan "us versus them" perspectives are easier for many individuals to handle cognitively than are complex approaches to issues and situations that attempt to take into account multiple pluses and minuses.  And importantly, there are real economic benefits for businesses that can take advantage of and monetize the behaviors of emotionally driven partisans seeking reinforcement for their views. Among these beneficiaries: cable news networks, talk show hosts, book publishers, bloggers and podcast producers. And, of course, politicians gain support and maximize turnout when their constituents can be emotionally activated on the basis of perceived threats. As political consultants advise clients, negative campaigning is most often much more effective than efforts to remain positive.  But today's increase in partisanship in the U.S. also has significant harmful effects. Most importantly, polarization and partisan conflict lead to inaction, as "my way or the highway," ideologically rigid mentalities lower the probability of achieving the compromise that should be at the heart of legislative functioning. (We saw this "destroy the village in order to save it" mentality shut down the U.S. government in 2013.)  As I've reviewed previously, the American public as a whole rues this approach to politics, giving Congress and its ability to deal with domestic and international problems very low evaluations (even if the American public itself in some ways causes this political inaction by virtue of its own polarized attitudes).  We also have the sociological impact of polarization and increasing disapprobation of one's political opposites. Any functioning society needs to develop and maintain its social institutions -- the widely agreed-upon ways in which society handles the core functions necessary for survival.  But that agreement appears to be waning. Partisans on both sides increasingly see institutions in the U.S. not as beneficial and necessary, but as part of an effort by the other side to gain advantage and to perpetuate its power and philosophical positions. Liberals and Democrats today, for example, have lower trust in traditional family institutions, traditional religious institutions and the economic system. Republicans have lower trust in the scientific process, higher education, the mass media, and the role of the state (government).  These skeptical views of institutions and social structures skew us toward distrust, anger and internal infighting -- not actionable efforts to fix problems and address threats.  As noted, a healthy skepticism of the way things operate in society is often warranted. But our society must continue to function, and that functioning requires an underlying agreement in the legitimacy of societal institutions. This is particularly true today, when there are increasing external threats to our society and way of life from all sides, ranging from rogue states to terrorists to changes in weather and climate patterns to shifting world economies and massively unstable populations.  At some point, our society must balance the internal conflict resulting from differences in partisans' views of the world with a broader agreement on how we as a society adapt to external threats and achieve societal objectives. What will it take to do that? Presumably we need leaders who don't focus as much on taking advantage of, and stoking, partisan differences as they do looking at the larger picture. That's a difficult challenge, but one to which the American public may well be quite receptive. It's usually easier to criticize than to make efforts to agree on solutions. But we are going to need more emphasis on the latter in the years ahead, I think, if our society is to thrive and survive.

religious institutions and state relations


wnd--2019-12-22--Supreme Court to decide who picks Catholic school teachers

Seven years ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the famous Hosanna-Tabor case that a Lutheran school has the right to choose who will teach its faith precepts to students.  Now the justices have agreed to review the same issue regarding two Catholic schools.  The non-profit legal group Becket said Wednesday the Supreme Court justices agreed "to weigh in on whether the government can control who a church school chooses to teach its religion classes."  The court accepted two cases, Our Lady of Guadelupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James Catholic School v. Biel.  Becket is defending the two Catholic elementary schools in California that claim the right to choose ministers who embody their faith, without government interference.  The much-overturned 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided otherwise, ruling against the precedent established by the Supreme Court in 2012.  The Hosanna-Tabor case "protected the First Amendment right of a Lutheran school to choose who teaches the faith to the next generation, free from government interference," Becket explained.  A "ministerial exception" allows religious schools to choose their own religion teachers.  It "protects all religious groups' freedom to choose 'ministerial' employees without interference from bureaucrats or courts. Most courts have ruled that ministerial employees are those employees who perform important religious functions, like instructing young children in the precepts of the Catholic faith. But in both Our Lady of Guadalupe School and St. James School, the Ninth Circuit rejected this widely accepted rule," Becket explained.  "Parents trust Catholic schools to assist them in one of their most important duties: forming the faith of their children," said Montserrat Alvarado, vice president and executive director at Becket. "If courts can second-guess a Catholic school's judgment about who should teach religious beliefs to fifth graders, then neither Catholics nor any other religious group can be confident in their ability to convey the faith to the next generation."  Becket said the teachers, Agnes Morrissey-Berru and Kristen Biel, "played crucial roles in teaching the Catholic faith to their fifth-grade students. Both taught a religion class, integrated Catholic values into every subject they taught, joined their students in daily prayer, and accompanied students to Mass and other religious services."  But they sued when their contracts were not renewed.  In December 2018, the 9th Circuit ruled against St. James Catholic School. In April 2019, the court also ruled against Our Lady of Guadalupe School. Even though both teachers had significant religious responsibilities, the 9th Circuit still decided that their work was not religious enough, Becket explained.  That prompted a warning from a minority coalition at the 9th Circuit that the ruling was "the very hostility toward religion our Founders prohibited and the Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed us to avoid."  "Do we really want judges, juries, or bureaucrats deciding who ought to teach Catholicism at a parish school, or Judaism at a Jewish day school? Of course not," said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. "Religion teachers play a vital role in the ecosystem of faith. We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize that, under our Constitution, government officials cannot control who teaches kids what to believe."  The court explained, "Without correction, the 9th Circuit's rule promises to turn up the heat on church-state conflict across the western United States and leaves religious institutions subject to two starkly different First Amendment standards depending on the accident of geography."  Becket said the Supreme Court needs to speak on the issue because seven other circuit courts have disagreed with the 9th Circuit's ruling.


wnd--2019-10-16--Beto now says progressive insanity out loud

Failing Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke is raging against the dying of his political light. Desperate and alone, his campaign on the precipice of collapse, Beto has banked on one policy: radical honesty. And that means he is now saying the quiet part of the progressive agenda out loud. This is a candidate who openly claims he'll come take Americans' guns (though he then pretends this won't involve the police acting as an enforcement arm in removing those weapons). This is a candidate who suggests that abortion one day before full term is a constitutional right.  And now this is a candidate who admits that he will seek to bankrupt virtually every traditional religious institution in America.  When asked at a CNN Democratic town hall regarding LGBTQ issues about whether nonprofit status should be removed from churches that refuse to honor same-sex marriages, O'Rourke simply said, "Yes." He then explained in detail: "There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. … And so as president we are going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the rights of our fellow Americans."  This statement is insanely radical. It suggests that the mere presence of religious institutions that dissent from the social left's political orthodoxy cannot be tolerated. It is not an infringement on rights for free associations of religious people to deny the validity of marriages based on both historic natural law and traditionally religious precepts. But according to O'Rourke, the existence of such institutions amounts to an infringement.  This move by O'Rourke was utterly foreseeable. In expectation of precisely this sort of logic, I endorsed the libertarian position on same-sex marriage – get government out of the entire business of marriage – in March 2013, two years before Obergefell v. Hodges. I wrote at the time that any federal cramdown of same-sex marriage would result in states being "forced to recognize same-sex marriages," public schools being forced to teach its morality and religious institutions losing tax-exempt status. "Religious Americans," I predicted, "will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government. The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty will largely become obsolete."  At the time, this was considered over-the-top. Now it's a mainstream Democratic position.  And the Democrats will go further than merely removing nonprofit status. They will use anti-discrimination law as a baton to destroy the existence of "discriminatory" religious institutions, from churches to synagogues to religious schools. They will refuse to accredit home-schooling programs that do not teach the left's preferred social values – after all, anything less would be benefiting organizations that, in O'Rourke's view, deny "the full human rights" of LGBTQ people.  This tyrannical thinking was expressly prohibited by the founders, who saw the threat of government toward religion as paramount – not the other way around. And for years, Democrats have understood that O'Rourke's agenda had to be kept under wraps – most Americans aren't interested in his full-scale culture war.  But now he's saying the quiet part out loud. It will be fascinating – and frightening – to see how many Democrats echo him in the coming months.


westernjournal--2019-10-11--Beto: Preach Against Same-Sex Marriage and Your Church’s Tax-Exempt Status Should Be Ended

Democratic presidential candidate Robert “Beto” O’Rourke believes religious institutions that don’t support same-sex marriage should lose their tax-exempt status.  The former Texas congressman and failed Senate candidate made the threat during CNN’s Equality Townhall in response to a question from anchor Don Lemon, according to The Hill.  “Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities — should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?” Lemon asked.  “Yes,” the struggling candidate answered. “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”  TRENDING: Breaking Report: It’s Starting to Look Like Mueller Lied Under Oath  “As president, we’re going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans,” he said.  O’Rourke’s threat to take away religious institutions’ tax-exempt status based on ideological grounds poses a dire threat to the free practice of religion itself.  Many people, possibly including O’Rourke himself, don’t know exactly why religious institutions do not have to pay taxes.  O’Rourke described the exemption status as a “reward” or a “benefit,” implying that the federal government is actively favoring religious organizations over secular ones.  This is not true.  In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970) that the purpose of exemptions is to neither advance nor inhibit religion.  On the contrary, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in his majority opinion that these tax breaks create only “minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches.”  That’s the kicker. Tax exemption for religious institutions exists to reinforce the wall of separation between church and state, a principal that leftists like O’Rourke claim to revere.  RELATED: FBI's Latest Report Reveals Dem-Hated AR-15s Used in Less Than 3% of All Gun Homicides  How so? Because, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it in his McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) opinion, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”  Simply put, holding money over the heads of churches can be seen as a crackdown on the practice of religion, because it encourages them to alter what they preach.  If that wall of separation comes down, then it’s not the government that will suffer.  It will be religion that pays the price, in more ways than one.  If churches are forced to pay taxes, then what’s stopping the federal government from raising them?  O’Rourke’s statement pulls no punches — he makes it clear that he wants to prevent people from speaking out against gay marriage.  If he gets his way, then churches that continue to hold to biblical principles could be hit with more and more debilitating costs.  In fact, the possibility of the government taxing these churches straight out of existence is not out of the question.  And then, in the country that was founded on the principle of religious freedom, a bloated centralized government would have destroyed churches simply for expressing religious beliefs.  Statements like these just go to show the hypocrisy of the left.  When school prayer or Ten Commandment monuments are on the docket, separation of church and state becomes a paramount founding principle of our nation — at least to leftists.  But when religious institutions stand to benefit, such as with tax exemptions, the separation between church and state gets thrown out the window.  O’Rourke needs to realize that this principle swings both ways. Instead of framing the idea of separation of church and state as protecting the government from religious invasion, leftists should see it as a neutral principle that protects both the public and religion.  And in this day and age, keeping the government out of religion is more urgent than ever.  Especially if people like Beto O’Rourke are in charge.  We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2019-06-22--Megachurch To Create Its Own Police Force After New State Law Passes

An Alabama megachurch has been granted the authority to create its own police force, leaving the American Civil Liberties Union howling in protest.  Briarwood Presbyterian Church, located near Birmingham, Alabama, and affiliated with the Presbyterian Church of America, was granted the authority to hire police in a bill that passed the state legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Kay Ivey.  The 4,100-member church operates schools in Jefferson and Shelby counties that attract about 2,000 students. It also operates Madison Academy in Madison County, which has about 850 students.  The church and its schools “may appoint and employ one or more suitable persons to act as police officers to keep off intruders and prevent trespass upon and damage to the property … These persons shall be charged with all the duties and invested with all the powers of police officers, including the power of arrest for unlawful acts committed on the property,” the law states, according to Al.com.  The executive director of the ACLU of Alabama, Randall Marshall, said that the church could be allowed to hide criminal activity under this new law, The Associated Press reported.  TRENDING: Trump Gloats About the First Lady: ‘We Have Our Own Jackie O. Today… Melania T.’  He said the law will be challenged because it gives government power to a religious institution. The ACLU and other liberals vented their outrage about the law on Twitter, saying past allegations about the church should have stopped it from being able to have its own police.  The church has been seeking a police officer on its grounds for several years.  “Briarwood Presbyterian Church is very concerned with the safety of its members, students and visitors in these times of uncertainty when schools, churches, shopping malls and other places that do not have protection are randomly attacked,” Briarwood said in a 2017 news release on its website.  “We believe it is in the best interest of our members, students and visitors to provide the best protection possible for them with the least amount of intrusion upon their worship, school and other activities.”  At that time, the church addressed the issue of separating church and state.  “[I]t has been suggested to us that the state law permitting Briarwood Presbyterian Church to have a police officer on staff would violate the Establishment of Religion Clause in the U.S. Constitution. We are assured by counsel that this is not an Establishment Clause issue,” the church’s statement said.  “The church does not have the ability to exercise any authority or enforce any law at any place except on the church property and related to criminal acts which may take place on that property. Even then, arrests and other procedures that may follow are done in conjunction with local law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office.”  A media release from Briarwood posted by WBRC in response to being given the go-ahead to hire police officers said the request stems from a 2016 state task force on the safety of educational institutions.  “The report recognized that the presence of qualified first responders and law enforcement officers has proven to be the number one line of defense in providing a safe environment, and recommended that each Alabama school have a resource officer on location,” the statement said.  A 2017 release also noted that the church does not put all of its trust in police officers.  “While seeking to be responsible, ultimately the church proclaims that its trust is in the Lord of Glory who sovereignly cares and provides for His people. To Him alone be Glory and Honor now and forevermore,” the release said.  We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2019-06-20--FBI Uncovers Syrian Refugees ISIS Bomb Plot in Pittsburgh

FBI Uncovers Syrian Refugee’s ISIS Bomb Plot in Pittsburgh

The FBI arrested a Syrian refugee Wednesday who had plans to bomb an unidentified Christian church in north Pittsburgh in July to “take revenge” for his Islamic State “brothers in Nigeria.”  The refugee, 21-year-old Mustafa Mousab Alowemer, had resided in Pittsburgh since his request for asylum in the United States was granted in early 2016, Fox News reported.  Alowemer was first suspected earlier this year when the FBI found that he had been in contact with another local supporter of the Islamic State under bureau investigation.  He later met with an undercover FBI agent and an FBI source who claimed to be Islamic State sympathizers a number of times throughout April 16 and June 11, according to a statement from the Department of Justice.  “Syrian Man Arrested on Terrorism Charges after Planning Attack on Christian Church in Pittsburgh: Complaint alleges Syrian man plotted attacks in the name of ISIS,” FBI Pittsburgh wrote in a tweet accompanying the statement.  During his meetings and correspondences with the FBI, Alowemer revealed not only a videotaped profession of support for the Islamic State but also extensive plans to commit his act of terror at the north Pittsburgh church.  These plans included materials already purchased for the improvised explosives as well as two Google satellite photos of the bombing location — complete with a hand-made notation of plausible arrival and escape routes.  Pittsburgh’s Joint Terrorism Task Force carried out the arrest Wednesday. Alowemer has been charged with “one count of attempting to provide material support and resources to the Islamic State” and “two counts of distributing information relating to an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction,” according to the DOJ statement.  “The FBI takes threats to churches and other religious institutions extremely seriously and will use all our resources to stop potential terrorist attacks against them,” Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division Michael McGarrity said in the DOJ statement.  “Targeting places of worship is beyond the pale, no matter what the motivation,” Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers added, assuring that law enforcement and investigative teams in Pittsburgh would remain vigilant in light of the arrest.  Alowemer was “admitted to the United States as a refugee on Aug. 1, 2016,” under the Obama administration, according to the DOJ statement.  President Barack Obama was a strong proponent of expanding the U.S. asylum program as Syria’s Civil War began, despite reports from the intelligence community and other departments that the U.S. did not have the resources to properly vet the Syrian refugees.  Obama and various leaders at the United Nations were vehement that Syria’s refugees were predominantly women, children and the elderly, and that the risk of radicalization among the community was low.  According to research from The Heritage Foundation, however, 44 Syrian refugees were involved in 32 terrorist incidents in Europe between January 2014 and June 2018 — killing 182 and wounding 814.  Citing these European incidents, President Donald Trump took a harsh stance on America’s refugee programs early on, capping admittance at 30,000 in 2018 according to The New York Times.  We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2019-01-24--AP Interview UAE sees Popes visit as way to build bridges

AP Interview: UAE sees Pope’s visit as way to build bridges

The Western Journal has not reviewed this Associated Press story prior to publication. Therefore, it may contain editorial bias or may in some other way not meet our normal editorial standards. It is provided to our readers as a service from The Western Journal.  ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — As the United Arab Emirates prepares to host Pope Francis in February, the country’s minister of tolerance said the first-ever papal visit to the Arabian Peninsula will contribute to building bridges at a time of growing nationalism and insularism around the world.  Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan spoke with The Associated Press on Thursday, ahead of Pope Francis’ Feb. 3-5 trip to the UAE, where Islam is the official religion. The pope is scheduled to meet with leading Sunni Muslim clerics and other religious figures in an interfaith meeting in Abu Dhabi and celebrate Mass with Catholics living in the region.  Foreigners make up the vast majority of the UAE’s population, and Hindus, Christians and Jews are permitted places of worship. Authorities have suppressed political dissent, however, jailing activists and curtailing human rights work.  Al Nahyan was appointed the country’s first minister of tolerance in 2017. It is one of several unique government posts created in recent years, along with ministers of state for happiness, artificial intelligence and youth.  He said the Ministry of Tolerance aims to build bridges and break walls that “some people try to erect to hide behind.” He said he has been tasked with reaching out to UAE residents of different faiths and backgrounds, in order to make them feel safe and respected.  “Our definition of tolerance is to understand the other, to talk to each other— at the same time keeping our own differences,” Al Nahyan said, speaking from his Abu Dhabi majlis, a traditional meeting space of large woven rugs and walls lined with cushioned seating.  “It’s a beautiful mosaic, our differences, whether it’s in our religions or culture or other habits,” he said.  The UAE has declared 2019 it’s “Year of Tolerance.” The public and private sectors have been encouraged to rally behind the state’s yearlong initiative to promote the country as a beacon of tolerance where some 200 nationalities live and work peacefully.  The UAE is comprised of a federation of seven emirates that includes the tourist-friendly metropolis of Dubai. The country sits on the eastern edge of the Arabian Peninsula and is home to about 9 million people — nearly 8 million of them foreign residents.  Despite the country’s public push for tolerance, the government continues to crackdown on opposition activists, particularly individuals or groups suspected of having links with the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. The UAE has branded the Islamist group a terrorist organization and views it as a threat to the country’s system of hereditary rule.  In 2017, the UAE joined other Arab countries in boycotting and blockading Qatar over its support of Islamists in the Middle East. Residents were warned that expressing sympathy for Qatar could lead to fines and imprisonment.  Rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, are blocked from conducting research in the UAE and political parties are banned. Mosques are tightly monitored, and virtually all activities outside of regular prayer time require a license. Imams receive their salaries from the government.  Al Nahyan said efforts to restrict certain groups and control mosques are in place to safeguard against extremist ideas and “people who would want to advance their own agenda and hijack our religion and to distort it.”  “If this is not controlled, believe me, there would be a worse situation,” he said.  The country’s constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise religious worship on condition that it does not conflict with public policy or violate public morals. Laws also prohibit discrimination, abusing any holy shrine and insulting any religion.  Indians make up more than a third of the UAE’s population, with around 3.3 million residing in the country. There is a Hindu temple in Dubai and a large one being built in Abu Dhabi on land donated by the country’s rulers.  The UAE is also home to around 1 million Catholics, including a sizeable Philippine community. In addition to several Catholic churches, there are numerous churches in the UAE belonging to other Christian denominations, a Sikh temple and a space for Jewish worship.  Al Nahyan said the pope’s visit highlights the UAE’s openness to people from around the world. During his visit, Pope Francis is scheduled to meet Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam’s foremost religious institution based in Egypt, and other religious figures.  Al Nahyan said he expects the meeting to end with a declaration that will serve as a road map for the different faiths “to work to create a better world.”  “This is the strongest message to send to those who are trying to divide us, to those who are creating mistrust between us,” he said.  The Associated Press contributed to this report.  We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2019-01-05--116th Congress Has Lowest Number of Christians in US History

A new study found that the current Congress has the fewest Christians among its members since surveys first recorded the religious affiliation of those elected to Washington.  The Pew Research Center survey found that the current 116th Congress has 471 members who identify as Christian. That’s a drop from the 505 recorded in the 87th Congress in 1961.  Although 88 percent of the new Congress identifies as Christian, that represents a 3 percentage point drop from the 115th Congress.  The Congress that comes closest to the current one in terms of the number of Christians is the 111th Congress in which 477 Christians took part.  That Congress, like the current one, saw a rise in Democratic members. That’s significant, because in the 116th Congress, 253 of the 255 Republicans elected identify themselves as Christian. The other two are Jewish.  TRENDING: Iran Pushes Warships Closer to US Waters, Plans To Close In On Atlantic  Among elected Democrats, the picture is very different.  Sixty-one of the 282 Democrats are not Christian. Of those, 32 are Jewish and 18 refused to specify any religious affiliation. Among the Democrats, there are three Hindus, three Muslims and two Buddhists.  The survey showed that among Christians, there have been changes in the denominations represented in Congress. Anglicans (Episcopalians) dropped by nine seats, while Catholics lost five seats.  Members of Congress who said they were evangelical Christians or were part of unspecified nondenominational churches increased by 18 seats.  Only one new member — Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — reported no religious affiliation at all.  RELATED: FBI Opens Investigation After Mysterious Pence Texts Are Sent to GOP Members  Overall, the survey showed that the members of Congress identify as Christian more than Americans as a whole, of whom roughly 71 percent say they are Christians.  “I think some of this is just that politicians change more slowly than the public in many ways and don’t want to court potential trouble with voters by admitting that they don’t have any kind of religious affiliation,” said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, NPR reported.  Green also said that because political leaders are affiliated with core institutions in their communities, religious affiliation rather naturally follows.  “Political leaders tend to be deeply embedded in the institutional life of their communities,” he said. “They are much more likely to belong to the Rotary Club or be members of a charity or a professional association, and in most places in the United States, religious institutions are part of the local community infrastructure.”  We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


vox--2019-09-30--Trumps DOJ just escalated the fight over whether religion is a license to discriminate

Trump’s DOJ just escalated the fight over whether religion is a license to discriminate

The Trump administration filed an unusual brief in a dispute between a gay teacher and the Catholic Church on Friday. Should the administration’s position be adopted by courts, it could expand the universe of employers who are allowed to defy laws banning discrimination in the workplace.  The case is Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, and it involves a gay man who, until recently, was a teacher at a Catholic school in Indianapolis. Some time after plaintiff Joshua Payne-Elliott got married in 2017, the Archdiocese of Indianapolis ordered the school to fire Payne-Elliott because he married a man.  The archbishop informed the school that it would be stripped of its Catholic identity and would no longer be affiliated with the church if it did not comply with the order to fire Payne-Elliott. After what the school described as “22 months of earnest discussion and extensive dialogue with the Archdiocese of Indianapolis about Cathedral’s continued Catholic identity,” the school ultimately decided to capitulate to the archbishop’s demand, and Payne-Elliott was fired last June. Payne-Elliott responded by suing the archdiocese.  The Trump administration’s decision to weigh in on this case is surprising because Payne-Elliott filed his suit in an Indiana trial court — i.e. not in a federal court — and the case would have to run the full gauntlet of appeals in Indiana’s court system before it could even be considered by the Supreme Court. It’s unclear how the Justice Department even became aware of this lawsuit, although it’s possible that they were lobbied to weigh in on this case by conservative religious groups or by the Catholic Church itself.  It is also unlikely that Payne-Elliott will prevail. Twenty-two states prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, but Indiana is not one of them. So Payne-Elliott brought a weaker claim alleging that the archdiocese is “unlawfully interfering with his employment and contract with” the school. Although the Supreme Court is currently weighing whether existing federal law bans LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace, Payne-Elliott does not invoke that federal law in his suit against the archdiocese. The archdiocese, moreover, can raise a number of religious liberty defenses against this suit.  But the archdiocese raises another, potentially very consequential argument against Payne-Elliott’s suit, and the Trump administration endorses this defense in its brief. According to the Trump administration, allowing this suit to proceed would violate the archdiocese's right to “expressive association” — a First Amendment claim that allows certain organizations to decide who they wish to associate with.  That claim is potentially quite radical, and it could lead to many employers gaining a broad new right to ignore anti-discrimination laws. Because expressive association is a constitutional claim, a Supreme Court decision expanding that doctrine could trump anti-discrimination suits brought under any federal or state statute — including the federal ban on race and sex discrimination.  A handful of Supreme Court precedents give employers with religious objections to a civil rights law some ability to ignore that law. In its 2012 decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran v. EEOC, for example, the Supreme Court recognized a “ministerial exception” that “precludes application of [anti-discrimination laws] to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.”  The definition of who qualifies as a “minster,” moreover, goes beyond full-time clergy. Hosanna-Tabor itself involved a teacher at a church-affiliated school — though that teacher also had significant religious duties. So it is possible that Mr. Payne-Elliott also qualifies as a minister and thus cannot bring an anti-discrimination suit.  More recently, in 2018’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court sided with a cake baker who, for religious reasons, refused to comply with a Colorado law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The Court’s holding in Masterpiece was quite narrow, and was widely viewed as an effort to dispose of the case without deciding the broader question of whether people with religious objections to homosexuality have a right to defy laws banning LGBTQ discrimination. Nevertheless, the narrowness of this decision can probably be chalked up to Justice Anthony Kennedy — a relatively moderate conservative who is sympathetic to both religious liberty plaintiffs and gay rights.  With Kennedy no longer on the Court, and his seat occupied by the much more doctrinaire conservative Brett Kavanaugh, it is likely, if not entirely certain, that a majority of the Court now supports a broad exemption from LGBTQ discrimination laws for religious objectors. As a lower court judge, Kavanaugh criticized several of his colleagues for not being more sympathetic to a religious liberty case involving the Obama administration’s efforts to accommodate employers who object to contraception.  Both Hosanna-Tabor and the sort of religious liberty suits that are likely to grow out of cases like Masterpiece are limited in scope, however. That is, religious liberty protects religious liberty. Secular employers cannot invoke doctrines intended to protect people of faith to justify their own discrimination.  A third case is also relevant to Payne-Elliott’s suit against the archdiocese. In its 2000 opinion in Boy Scouts v. Dale, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects a right of “expressive association,” and this right permitted the Boy Scouts to forbid gay scoutmasters. “Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Boy Scouts, adding that “[f]reedom of association...plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.”  Yet the Boy Scouts opinion is also limited in scope. Rehnquist distinguished between traditional “public accommodations laws,” which ban discrimination in “places where the public is invited,” and laws that apply to “membership organizations such as the Boy Scouts.”  In private membership organizations, Rehnquist argued, “the potential for conflict between state public accommodations laws and the First Amendment rights of organizations has increased.” Thus, Rehnquist appeared to limit the scope of Boy Scouts to anti-discrimination laws that govern who can be made a member of a private organization.  Which brings us back to the Trump administration’s brief in Payne-Elliott. That brief argues for a broad right of “expressive association” that could potentially be invoked by secular employers.  Briefly, the Trump administration’s view is that an organization can claim a right to defy civil rights laws if it “engages in ‘expressive association’” and if prohibiting the group from discriminating “would significantly affect the [group’s] ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.”  Under the Trump administration’s position, moreover, courts must “give deference to an association’s assertions regarding the nature of its expression.” Thus, the mere fact that the archdiocese says that it opposes same-sex marriage, and that it feels like this message would be undermined if a Catholic school employed a teacher in such a marriage, is enough to immunize the archdiocese from suit.  Significantly, the Trump administration draws no distinction between for-profit and nonprofit employers who claim to engage in expressive association. Nor would its rule necessarily be limited to the unusual facts of Payne-Elliott, where an umbrella organization threatened to disassociate with an employer within its umbrella unless that employer fired a particular employee.  Consider Chick-fil-A, the fast food chain that emphasizes its conservative religious values — and whose CEO is on record touting his opposition to marriage equality. Under the Trump administration’s rule, Chick-fil-A could almost certainly demand that one of its franchises fire a gay employee. And it could probably also claim immunity to state anti-discrimination laws if its home office fired a direct employee for being gay.  Or consider Ollie’s Barbecue, the restaurant at the heart of a landmark 1964 civil rights case. Ollie’s, according to the Supreme Court, “refused to serve Negroes in its dining accommodations since its original opening in 1927” though it had to end that practice after Congress banned such discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Yet, under the Trump administration’s rule, Ollie’s could have potentially immunized itself from that law by announcing that it is a mission-driven restaurant, and that its mission is to advance white supremacy by serving barbecue in its dining room to whites only. Thus, it would violate Ollie’s right of expressive association to force it to associate with black customers.  Whatever you think of cases like Boy Scouts and Masterpiece, the courts have thus far limited those decisions to prevent them from swallowing up entire civil rights laws. The Trump administration, however, did not show the same caution in its Payne-Elliott brief.  And if the courts show a similar lack of caution when they decide this case, businesses throughout the country could gain a broad new right to discriminate.


vdare--2019-10-20--Beto O’Rourke Urges Selective Law Enforcement—But For Patriots, It’s Already Here

It’s not surprising that Robert “Beto” O’Rourke wanted to apply an ideological test on churches, it’s just surprising he felt so comfortable saying so. Even liberal journalists admit stripping tax-exempt status from churches that oppose homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. However, there has been a concerted effort in the Main Stream Media from the New York Times on down to strip organizations they don’t like, notably your humble servants at VDARE.com, of tax-exempt status on political grounds. Some random kritarch could decree it at any moment. What’s more, selective law enforcement is not some forthcoming nightmare, but an existing reality of American life. If it wasn’t, Leftist churches and organizations that already engage in illegal activity would be suffering a price.  Beto O’Rourke is making open promises of repression a staple of his failing campaign. First it was, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” [O’Rourke’s debate-stage vow: ‘Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, by Paul Steinhauser, Fox News, September 12, 2019]. Then, in a CNN/"Human Rights Campaign" LGBTQ Town Hall, in response to a question about whether religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage should lose tax exempt status, he said, “Yes, there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights of every single one of us.” [N.B. “anyone”—VDARE.com emphasis added]  Of course, “human rights” no longer includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or due process, all of which journofa seem to associate with “Nazis.”  Yet let’s be fair. O’Rourke’s open totalitarianism was too much even for the MSM, which almost unanimously decried O’Rourke’s plan as blatantly unconstitutional or simply wild. • CNN: “Legal precedent is pretty clear in determining that denying tax-exempt status based on a group’s viewpoint would be in violation of the First Amendment” [Fact check: O’Rourke said he would support removing tax-exemptions for religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage. Is that legal? by Holmes Lyband and Tara Subramaniam, October 11, 2019]. • Slate: … [A] position tantamount to declaring war on Catholic parishes and evangelical congregations across the country, not to mention any number of Orthodox Jewish and Muslim groups” [Beto O’Rourke is turning into a human straw man for conservatives, by Jordan Weissmann, October 11, 2019]. • Los Angeles Times: “In answering yes to [CNN’s Don] Lemon’s question, he has enabled religious conservatives to claim vindication for their apocalyptic view that marriage equality inevitably will result in an erosion of religious freedom” [Opinion: Beto O’Rourke’s ‘church tax’ idea plays into conservative paranoia about same-sex marriage, by Michael McGough, October 11, 2019].  Of course, it’s not “apocalyptic” if there really are people out to get you. Pat Buchanan has long predicted civil disobedience from committed Christians (and, presumably, other faith groups) on this issue. The LA Times’ McGough and others just seem frustrated because O’Rourke is saying too much, too quickly; they’d rather see the conservative boiling frogs lulled into a false sense of security rather than leaping out of danger.  We at VDARE.com have no such illusions. Journalists are already coming for us brandishing their knives. The New York Times has already featured law professors arguing that “white supremacist” groups (meaning anyone they don’t like) should have their tax-exempt status revoked because of their “odiousness.” They base this claim on the ill-conceived and unanimous declaration against “white nationalism” the majority-GOP Congress pushed through after the Democrat-sponsored riot in Charlottesville in 2017. To them, this constitutes proof that white advocacy is counter to public policy. The New York Times did not allow VDARE.com’s Peter Brimelow and American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor a full response to the charge of “white supremacy,” only grudgingly printing a Letter To The Editor.  In fact, these same two professors, Samuel Brunson and David Herzig, had also made the explicit argument that this approach can be used against religious institutions that “discriminate” [A Diachronic Approach to Bob Jones: Religious Tax Exemptions after Obergefell, Indiana Law Journal, February 3, 2017].  National Review’s editors claimed “Beto Proposes to Oppress Church with State” [October 11, 2019]. Well, like it or not boys, you’re in the same trench as us. Ben Shapiro went full-on fedposting, saying he’d meet O’Rourke with a gun if he tried to force his child into “LGBQ indoctrination.” (As a moderate conservative, I disavow such rhetoric.)  That got publicity, but many reporters overlooked that Shapiro also said he might leave the country. Easy for him to say, he has somewhere to go. What about us?  Walter Olson at CATO (hardly a group friendly to VDARE.com) noted last month that the IRS can’t engage in viewpoint discrimination. What’s more:  [I]f the IRS were to begin revoking groups’ tax exemptions based on their exercise of speech that is not protected, such as libel or incitement of immediate criminal conduct, it would be obliged to apply such a policy neutrally as to content — which means a lot of groups quite different from the one targeted in the test-case controversy will find their ox gored. The legal precedents have developed in cases involving a wide range of both progressive and conservative litigants, and understandably so, because if principles in this area are to be principles, they must protect speakers of many different points of view, not just the popular or emollient. Either that, or they will in effect protect none.  As The Week’s Bonnie Kristian noted, despite the applause from the audience at the debate, “Beto’s” proposed policy would have effects not “limited to white, Republican Protestants” because it would also affect black churches and perhaps even “some of the very gay Americans whom O’Rourke purports to protect” [Why Beto O’Rourke’s gay marriage idea collapses under scrutiny, October 11, 2019].  Reason added that “viewpoint discrimination” is a dangerous tool because it’s already been used against homosexual groups, the same people who now want to wield it [The legal-historical amnesia of using tax exemptions to punish political beliefs, by Dale Carpenter, October 11, 2019].  These are solid, well-grounded arguments made in good faith. They are also irrelevant. They are examples of what I call the “what, not who” fallacy. They presuppose that the law will be equally applied. However, in today’s system, “Who? Whom?” are the only questions that matter.  There’s no question that on present course America’s increasingly Third World courts will simply eventually declare that because of the inherent evil of whiteness, certain groups must be stripped of legal protection. We’re already operating in a post-legal environment, where the letter of the law and constitutional guarantees are irrelevant. Judges can simply create policy out of whatever they want.  Already, if the ban on explicitly political activity was enforced against black churches, Democratic Get-Out-The-Vote efforts would be gutted. At the same time the Obama Administration was selectively targeting Tea Party groups, it coached the Conference of National Black Churches on how to be politically active and keep their tax exemption.  Many churches have simply become tax shelters for far-Left causes, having long abandoned actual religious belief. This often includes sheltering illegal immigrants. One naïve, pro-immigration American was killed by an illegal immigrant who was charged with “careless driving resulting in death” and driving with a revoked license [Colorado immigration advocate killed in crash with Salvadoran who once sought sanctuary in church: report, by Lucia Sang, Fox News, August 9, 2019]. He had previously been sheltered by the Unitarians.  Everyone reading this, from the Leftist vigilantes monitoring us to the most stalwart patriot, knows that the law simply does not apply to some people. If it did, we wouldn’t have an illegal immigration crisis.  Until the entire system is changed, the best we can do in this environment is fight for the constitutional guarantees we still have. Mainstream and religious conservatives who normally virtue-signal against us have a stake in our fight, whether they like it or not.  We are the shield that is guarding religious conservatives from IRS action. If they think they will be permitted to make a separate peace, Beto O’Rourke just told them they are sadly mistaken.  James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.


usnews--2019-11-14--Long Island Catholic Diocese Challenges NY Child Victims Act

NEW YORK (AP) — Catholic officials on Long Island have filed a legal challenge arguing that the Child Victims Act that loosened statutes of limitations on molestation cases violates the New York state constitution.  The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville said in a court filing Tuesday that a provision of the law enacted this year violates the due process clause of the state constitution.  “A basic tenet of every legal system, including New York’s, is that statutes of limitations protect a fundamental right of repose that benefits both potential defendants and society at large by ensuring that individual rights are protected and the courts can function properly,” the motion filed in Nassau County state Supreme Court says.  Jennifer Freeman, an attorney who represents plaintiffs who say they were sexually abused as children, says the diocese is “moving to shield predators” and “hide the heinous crimes that occurred under their watch.”  “With this motion, the Diocese of Rockville and officials within the Catholic Church are demonstrating their cowardice, hypocrisy, and refusal to do what is right,” Freeman said.  The Child Victim Act, passed earlier this year, extended the state's statute of limitations for onetime victims of child sexual abuse to file criminal charges or civil lawsuits. The law also created the one-year litigation window, which lawmakers said was needed because before the change this year New York had one of the nation's tightest statutes of limitations. More than 400 cases were filed on the first day of the litigation window in August against defendants including religious institutions, public and private schools and the Boy Scouts of America.  Freeman said the Rockville Centre diocese’s motion is apparently the first to directly challenge the constitutionality of the law.  “When they are proven to be wrong it will confirm the propriety of all these cases,” she said. “We’re not scared by this.”  The diocese’s motion challenges the one-year window to file lawsuits over allegations of past abuse. Sean Dolan, a spokesman for the diocese, said Thursday that the diocese “is asking the court to rule on the legislature’s authority to revive formerly time-barred claims.”  Dolan said the diocese “will continue to respect all orders of the courts as they decide this motion and as they interpret and apply the laws of this state.”  The Rockville Centre diocese has taken a harder line on the issue of abusive clergy members than many other Catholic dioceses around the country. The diocese has so far declined to release a list of priests who have been credibly accused of sexual abuse. Dozens of dioceses including the Manhattan-based Archdiocese of New York have released lists of accused priests.  About 80 lawsuits have so far been filed against the Rockville Centre diocese under the Child Victims Act.


usatoday--2019-10-11--Beto O'Rourke criticized by conservatives for comment about tax-exempt status and LGBTQ rights

WASHINGTON – 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke is being criticized by conservatives for his stance, expressed during CNN’s LGBTQ town hall Thursday night, on religious institutions and their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.  The former Texas congressman was asked, "Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?"  “Yes,” O’Rourke answered, receiving applause from the town hall audience. "There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us."  "And so as president, we're going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans," he continued.  Conservatives quickly voiced their criticism and dismay at O'Rourke's view.  “You want a culture war in this country, you damn well have it,” conservative political commentator and the Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro responded.  Shapiro continued that if O’Rourke was going to try to “indoctrinate his kids” at religious schools and churches “nationally” he would be forced to either “leave the country” or “pick up a gun.”  "Beto O'Rourke does not get to raise my child. And if he tries, I will meet him at the door with a gun," he reiterated.  Donald Trump Jr., President Donald Trump’s eldest son, also commented on O’Rourke’s statement, saying in a tweet that the “left and their agenda… only believe in religious liberty if it’s on their heavily dictated terms.”  "Does your church preach the Gospel? Then Beto O'Rourke wants to take away its tax-exemption," tweeted former GOP presidential candidate Hermain Cain.  Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., called O’Rourke's proposal “bigoted nonsense” in a statement, writing that, "This extreme intolerance is un-American. The whole point of the First Amendment is that, no matter who you love and where you worship, everyone is created with dignity and we don’t use government power to decide which religious beliefs are legitimate and which aren’t.”  Franklin Graham, son of legendary late preacher Billy Graham, who is known as an evangelist, social conservative activist and supporter of President Trump, said he “will not bow down at the altar of the LGBTQ agenda nor worship their rainbow pride flag.”  Graham has previously called on South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who is another 2020 Democratic presidential contender, to repent for the 'sin' of being gay.  Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., called O'Rourke "the most honest Democrat running for President – he admits they want to shut down churches if they don’t adhere to his beliefs," and continued that Democrats "don’t care about religious liberty."  Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, who is also running to be the Democratic presidential nominee next year, sidestepped directly answering the same question about tax exemptions at the CNN event.  “I’m not saying, because I know this is a long legal battle. I’m not dodging your question. I’m saying I believe fundamentally that discrimination is discrimination," Booker said. "And if you are using your position to try to discriminate against others, there must be consequences to that. And I will make sure to hold them accountable using the DOJ or whatever investigatory. You cannot discriminate."  But, O'Rourke stuck with his comment Thursday night, reiterating on Twitter that "there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution or organization in America that denies the full human rights, and the full civil rights, of everyone in America."  More: Supreme Court is divided over gay, transgender job bias in civil rights case  More: SCOTUS ruling could completely alter lives of LGBTQ Americans


truepundit--2019-03-05--Kavanaugh Warns Of Pure Discrimination As Supreme Court Denies Church Bid For Historic Preservatio

Kavanaugh Warns Of ‘Pure Discrimination’ As Supreme Court Denies Church Bid For Historic Preservation Grant

The Supreme Court refused Monday to decide whether religious institutions may be disqualified from public historic preservation funding, after a New Jersey court forbade local officials from dispersing $4 million to 12 churches.  “Barring religious organizations because they are religious from a general historic preservation grants program is pure discrimination against religion,” Kavanaugh wrote. “At some point, this Court will need to decide whether governments that distribute historic preservation funds may deny funds to religious organizations simply because the organizations are religious.”  Morris County, New Jersey, awards grants for the maintenance of historically significant structures. Several churches dating back to the colonial period have received public support through that program since 2012. The case at issue Monday arose in April 2016, when the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) and a local taxpayer brought a lawsuit claiming the Morris County program violates New Jersey’s constitution.  The state constitution provides that no person shall be “obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches.” The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously sided with the FFRF.  Morris County said its case is broadly similar to a Missouri dispute the Supreme Court resolved in 2017. In that case, Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, a seven-justice majority said Missouri was wrong to exclude churches from a state program that provided public funds for playground safety.  In legal filings at the high court, the county said the New Jersey court’s decision was contrary to Trinity Lutheran, arguing the Court’s reasoning in that case clearly extends to preservation awards.  Though the Court decided not to hear Morris County’s appeal, Kavanaugh said that the New Jersey court’s ruling was “in serious tension with this Court’s religious equality precedents,” citing cases in which the justices said public officials could not deny school space to religious groups or disqualify clergy as delegates to constitutional conventions.  Still, Kavanaugh said the Court was right to reject the Morris County case due to factual uncertainties about its program.  Americans United for Separation of Church and State commended the high court’s decision to deny the appeal, but called Kavanaugh’s opinion troubling.  “Justice Kavanaugh appears to be considering requiring taxpayer funding for religious uses, in ways never before permitted by our Constitution or our courts,” said Richard Katskee, legal director for Americans United.  “This view suggests a hostility toward our fundamental American value of church-state separation, which has protected religious freedom for all,” Katskee added.  The justices are deciding another church-state separation case this term. The Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that asks whether a 40-foot veterans’ cross on public land violates the Constitution. A decision on that matter is expected by June.


theweekuk--2019-12-17--Pope Francis lifts ‘pontifical secret’ rule in abuse cases

Pope Francis has announced that the rule of “pontifical secrecy” will no longer apply to the sexual abuse of minors, in a move described as “epochal”.  As part of a bid to improve transparency, the Pope has called time on the days when the Church conducted sexual abuse cases in strict secrecy.  He said that information in abuse cases should still be treated with “security, integrity and confidentiality” but has told Vatican officials to comply with civil laws and assist civil judicial authorities in investigating such cases in the future.  The move comes after several church officials criticised the previous arrangement during the historic Vatican summit in February, which focused on combating clergy sexual abuse.  The BBC’s religion editor, Martin Bashir, said the reform is “the latest attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to address the scourge of clerical abuse that has manifested itself across continents and in a range of religious institutions”.  Charles Scicluna, the Archbishop of Malta and the Vatican's most experienced sex abuse investigator, described the Pope’s move as an “epochal decision that removes obstacles and impediments”.  Speaking to Vatican News, he added that “the question of transparency now is being implemented at the highest level”.  Mattias Katsch, a campaigner for abuse victims said the change is “overdue,” adding that “for a long time, representatives of victims/survivors from all over the world have demanded that papal secrecy be lifted in cases of sexual abuse of children by priests”.  In an accompanying move, the Pope has also expanded the Church's definition of child pornography, raising the age in which one is considered a child from 14 to 18. The new definition will come into effect in January 2020.  The Daily Mail notes that the announcement came on Francis' 83rd birthday, “as he struggles to respond to the global explosion of the abuse scandal, his own missteps in dealing with the issue, and demands for greater transparency and accountability from victims, law enforcement and ordinary Catholics alike”.  –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––  For a round-up of the most important stories from around the world - and a concise, refreshing and balanced take on the week’s news agenda - try The Week magazine. Start your trial subscription today   –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


thetelegraph--2019-05-02--Child sex abuse inquiry widens scope to other religions outside Christianity for first time

Religious organisations across the country will be investigated for the first time, as the  Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) announced it was widenening its scope.  Faiths including Buddhism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists and religious settings such as mosques and synagogues will all fall within the scope of the newly announced probe.  This marks the 14th strand in the investigation into child protection in religious organisations and settings.  The IICSA was set up in 2015 to investigate institutions which failed to protect children from sexual abuse. Prior to the announcement yesterday the investigation has only dealt with Christian cases when probing religion.  The new investigation will be separate from the investigations into the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches and will review the current child protection policies, practices and procedures in religious institutions in England and Wales.


thetelegraph--2019-02-03--Israeli mosque prayer caller fired over bodybuilder photos

Israeli mosque prayer caller 'fired over bodybuilder photos'

A prayer caller at a mosque in the Israeli city of Acre is appealing for his job back after being fired over photos posted online of him in a revealing outfit at a bodybuilding contest, he says.  Ibrahim al-Masri said he lost his job as chief muezzin of the Al-Jazzar Mosque after local officials came upon the photos of him at the state bodybuilding championship in 2017.  "Each sport has a specific type of clothing. Football has its own, tennis has its own, swimming has its own. Same thing for bodybuilding," Mr Masri said, referring to the wire-thin briefs competitors typically wear.  "I never dreamed this would happen. Because I know that Israel is a democratic country, and if someone makes a mistake, they can fix it," Mr Masri said.  "But to fix a mistake with another mistake? It’s not right."  Around 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Arab. Mosques and other non-Jewish religious institutions are supervised by local officials who report to the Interior Ministry.