Anglican Mainstream

By David Hughes, Telegraph

The Obama administration’s decision to take on the Catholic Church at this stage of the political cycle is either very brave or very stupid. As Jon Swaine reports this morning, the President’s overhaul of healthcare includes a provision that religious charities, universities and other groups must now provide contraception in staff insurance packages and failure to do so will result in hefty fines. More than 150 Catholic bishops have spoken out against the change, with one accusing Obama of waging a "severe assault on religious liberty". According to Alexander Sample, the Bishop of Marquette, "we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so.” With 70 million Catholics in the United States, this looks like a kamikaze mission by the White House. Why have they done it? David Brooks in the New York Times has a persuasive theory:

Read here

By Elizabeth Scalia, First Things

Last week’s column on the HHS mandate brought a rash of email from the usual suspects—men and women who feel passionately inclined to inform me that the church is “mysogynistic, women-hating, gay-hating, authoritarian, fetus-idolizing…” well, you get the drift. People who could not begin to accurately articulate the church’s position on most matters are quite sure that her counter-cultural stances are grounded on nothing more than hate.

The dominant narrative of the mainstream is that whatever gets in the way of what you think you should have must be founded on hate, and not just hate, but hate-without-reason. Love, in this narrative, is nice; it always says yes. Alternative points of view offering nuanced philosophies and theologies, reasoned compellingly and with depth through the ages and offered with respect? The very definition of twenty-first century hate.

Aside from revealing a general deficiency in reasoning skills and a stunning lack of curiosity as to why the Catholic church objects to contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, there existed in these emails a general lack of interest in identifying what the conflict between the administration and the church is actually about. What little coverage has surfaced in the mainstream has been framed along predictable lines: those nasty Catholic bishops are trying to deny women contraception, which “even Catholic women” use. The constitutional question of whether the government has the right to define a church’s mission or usurp its conscience is ignored. For my correspondents, at least, it’s “all about contraception and the Catholic Church of No.”

Read here

by Wayne Bontoft, Northampton Chronicle

A PARISH priest from Northamptonshire says Christians should no longer “grudgingly accept” orders from their bosses to take off crucifixes.

Following a number of reports in the national press about workers who have been told to remove crucifix necklaces, the Rev Stephen Trott, who is the Rector of Pitsford with Boughton, has presented a motion to the Church of England’s national assembly calling on the church to condemn the “silencing” of open displays of Christianity.

He said: “There have been a lot of press reports of how the Human Right Act is impacting on people and how Christians find life difficult when they’re being told by their employers what they can and can’t do.

“There have been two cases which have gone to court where people have been told to take off crosses, so I think it’s a real issue.

“We want to encourage people not to just grudgingly accept it, but be willing to speak up for what they believe in.”

Members of the General Synod, which is described as the Church of England’s version of Parliament, are due to discuss the motion in London later this week.

The motion written by Mr Trott has already won the backing of three bishops and 100 other members of the Synod, but it is not yet known if it will be approved by the wider body.

Read here

Brendan O'Neill, Telegraph

By Edward Malnick, Sunday Telegraph

Three bishops will this week lead calls for the Church of England to make a public statement standing up for the right of Christians to wear a cross.
 
They have signed a motion condemning the “silencing” of outward displays of Christianity in Britain and a “growing trend” towards the “restriction of religious liberty” which is to be debated at the Church’s national assembly.

One hundred other members of the Synod, including clergy and lay people, have backed the call for the Church to defend Christians against the “overzealous” interpretation of human rights and equality legislation by judges, politicians and employers.

Its backers believe that by passing the motion the Church would make a landmark statement that wearing a cross is an integral part of the Christian faith.

Read here

By Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

A secular war has been declared against people of faith, and our Western universities are leading the charge. I have documented numerous examples of how our higher education system is deliberately and regularly targeting people of faith – Christians especially.

It is getting to be the point that the most dangerous place for a Christian nowadays is on a Western college campus. It seems that the thought police, secular humanists, and forces of political correctness are doing all they can to stamp out any vestige of faith, and to hound believers out of town.

Consider the latest case of anti-Christian bigotry on campus, this time coming from Tennessee. The powers that be at Vanderbilt University have told Christian groups there that they will be in big trouble if they do not accept anyone into membership – even those who reject their statements of faith.

One write-up about this goes like this: “Christian student clubs [are] fighting for their right to continue existing as officially recognized campus groups. Losing that status could mean no longer having access to things like campus meeting space and college advertising outlets, which are essential to club growth.

“The groups affected include the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Christian Legal Society and Graduate Christian Fellowship. They were placed on ‘provisional status’ after campus officials determined that the clubs may be out of compliance with the school’s ‘nondiscrimination’ policy.

Read here

By Chuck Colson

I’ve told you that the Obama Administration is intentionally restricting religious freedom. I’ve told you we are in danger of losing the right to exercise our faith in public.

Well, maybe I’ve been too understated. The attack is relentless.

Just recently, the Obama Administration announced that the Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, requires that employers pay for contraception, including abortifacients, and that Catholic institutions are not exempt from this requirement.

Well, Catholic Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh and other bishops are blowing the trumpets on the ramparts. And my hat’s off to them. They see the Administration’s actions for what they truly are.

In an open letter released last week, Zubik said that, “Kathleen Sebelius and through her, the Obama administration, have said ‘To [H-] with You’ to the Catholic faithful of the United States. To [H-] with your religious beliefs, to [H-] with your religious liberty, to [H-] with your freedom of conscience.” I’ll leave it to your imagination what the H- stands for.

In the administration’s twisted way of thinking, contraception is “preventive care” that helps prevent illness in the same way that cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes screening do — even though pregnancy is the means by which life is perpetuated and the species’ existence continued.

Even worse is the willful refusal to accommodate the beliefs of the nation’s largest religious body.

Read here

By Albert Mohler

In 1808, President Thomas Jefferson stated the matter bluntly: “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.”

Fast forward 204 years and President Barack Obama has reversed that logic, ordering religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for employees that must include contraceptives, including those that may induce an abortion.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services made the announcement January 20, stating: “Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA-approved forms of contraception.”

Read here

From NOM

Just months after the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, there is a full-on battle for marriage raging within our nation’s armed forces.

Urge your congressman to co-sponsor the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act today!

Last April, the Navy issued new “sensitivity training” guidelines that required Navy chaplains to perform same-sex marriages. Thanks to leadership from Congressmen Tim Huelskamp and Todd Akin, the Navy backed down and rescinded the guidelines.

In September, the Department of Defense issued two more memos, requiring all military facilities to be available for same-sex weddings and allowing chaplains to participate in same-sex ceremonies.

Recognizing this growing threat to the religious liberty of our armed forces, Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas introduced the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act (H.R. 3828) to protect chaplains from being forced to participate in same-sex marriages and any servicemen or women from being discriminated against because of their views on marriage.

Please use the form below to send a message to your congressman, urging him or her to support HR 3828 today!

Read here

Jody Brown, Charlie Butts, and Bob Kellogg – OneNewsNow

The Sixth Circuit has ruled in favor of Christian graduate student Julea Ward, who almost three years ago was expelled from a university counseling program for her religious beliefs.

In a strongly worded opinion earlier today, the Sixth U.S. Circuit of Appeals reversed a district court decision in favor of Eastern Michigan University, sending it back for trial along with this message: "A reasonable jury could conclude that Ward's professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith …."

As part of her counseling practicum course in early 2009, Ward had been assigned a potential client who was homosexual and was seeking affirmation of that sexual orientation. Because she was unwilling to violate her own religious beliefs in the context of the counseling relationship, Ward was permitted to refer the client to another counselor — but was told to remain in the counseling program she would have to undergo a "remediation" program that would help her "see the error of her ways."

When Ward refused, a faculty committee dismissed her from the program. In her subsequent lawsuit, a district federal court ruled in favor of EMU — a ruling that has now been reversed.

Read here

By Michelle Malkin

By Megan Moore, Conservative Home

The Archbishop of York's comments on gay marriage in the Telegraph are not only entirely unremarkable for an Anglican priest, but also wholly inoffensive for anyone possessing of an open mind. Facebook and Twitter, however, have once again conspired to ensure that nothing in this world can ever again pass as unremarkable or inoffensive. By defending the Christian teaching on the nature of marriage, while acknowledging the value of committed gay relationships in civil partnerships, the Archbishop has shown himself to be the perfect mix of principle and pluralism: staying true to his beliefs, while accepting that others, for wholly good and decent reasons, may disagree. His opponents, however, have done him no such service.

The general consensus on the Archbishop's remarks can be summed up in one word: 'bigot'. This is the word I see used again and again, in Tweets, blogs and Facebook statuses, by those in my party in favour of gay marriage to describe not only John Sentamu, but indeed anyone else who opposes gay marriage. For people who, in their support of what they see as gay equality, presumably pride themselves on their enlightened and tolerant attitudes, the Archbishop's critics seem oddly quick to denounce – in vicious and ad hominem terms – a kind and principled man who happens to disagree with them.

Read here

Review of Equality, Freedom and Religion by Roger Trigg, Oxford, hb, £25.00

by Paul Richardson, CEN

What should have priority: religious freedom or the right to equality? The culture wars have assumed a new twist as this argument is being fought out in court cases across the Western world. In Britain disputes have arisen over the rights of a Christian registrar to refuse to celebrate same-sex civil partnerships, the right of Catholic adoption agencies to refuse to allow gay couples to adopt children, and the right of Christians to display religious symbols on their dress at work.

Roger Trigg worries that attempts to control religious activity in the interests of equality challenge the basis on which democracy rests. He argues that we should not try to weigh the argument in favour of equality but nor should we think that all religious practices should be ring-fenced. Cases should be decided on their merits.

Having said that, Trigg is in no doubt that at the present time the presumption is in favour of equality. There is some irony here because Trigg argues in this book, as he has argued before, that it is difficult to justify belief in equality when its religious basis that we are all equally children of God, all made in God’s image and equally loved by God, is removed.

“Stifling the free exercise of religion in the name of equality can involve attacking the roots of commitment to equality,” he warns.

Read the rest of this entry »

From Stand Firm

Shawano, WI – Liberty Counsel is representing the Wegner family after school officials at Shawano High School censored and punished Brandon Wegner, a 15-year-old, for writing an op-ed article explaining the Biblical view of homosexuality and supporting natural mother-father adoption. Liberty Counsel sent a letter to the school demanding it apologize for its unconstitutional and irrational censorship and humiliation of Brandon.

Brandon quoted several verses from the Bible regarding homosexuality. After Brandon wrote this article he was pulled into hours of meetings with school administrators and staff, without his parents’ knowledge. This caused him to miss exam preparation classes and at least one exam. Brandon was hauled before the superintendent on charges that he had violated the school’s bullying policy. Superintendent Todd Carlson told him that the column “went against the bullying policy,” and asked him if he “regretted” writing it. When Mr. Wegner stated that he did not regret writing it, and that he stood behind his beliefs, Superintendent Carlson told him that he “had got to be one of the most ignorant kids to try to argue with him about this topic,” that “we have the power to suspend you if we want to” and that the column had “personally offended me, so I know you offended other people!”

Read here

By Stephen Gray, Pink News

The New York-based rabbi who heads Amsterdam’s Orthodox Ashkenazi community had said he fears for his life after he was suspended for signing a ‘gay cure’ declaration.

The chief rabbi reportedly told a Dutch newspaper he felt it would be safer to stay away from the Netherlands, saying: “Why would I risk the life of my wife and me?”

Aryeh Ralbag, had been suspended from his position after he signed a document alleging homosexuality could be “modified and healed”.

Ralbag defended putting his name to the Torah Declaration, a document written by 25 Jews who claim to have overcome same-sex attraction and now campaign that “change is possible”. Around 180 rabbis and other figures have signed the document.

Read here

by Hilary White, LifeSite News

Seventy-four percent of Christian Britons believe that discrimination against Christianity and Christian freedom of expression is on the rise in their country, according to a recent poll. This is a significant increase from 66 percent in 2009 according to an independent research group, ComRes.

The ComRes poll was taken in October 2011 and surveyed 544 practicing Christians across Britain from all age groups. It asked respondents if they thought that marginalization of Christians is increasing, decreasing or staying the same in key areas of public life. The results showed that 66 percent believe the marginalization of Christians is increasing in the government compared to 59 percent the year before. Sixty-one percent believe it is increasing in the workplace 71 percent of respondents perceive an increase in the marginalization of Christians in the media.

The poll was commissioned by Premier Christian Media Trust (PCMT), which is launching its report to the “Parliamentary Inquiry into Religious Discrimination on the Marginalisation of Christianity in British Public Life 2007 – 2011.”

The PCMT report will tell Parliamentarians that a significant number of Christians perceive a strong bias exists against Christians in favour of other religions and people of “a different sexual orientation,” in British public life.

Read here

By Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSite News

Saying it’s “really hard to believe that it happened,” the bishop of Pittsburgh has taken aim at the Obama administration’s birth control mandate.

“It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’” wrote Bishop David Zubik in a hard-hitting column appearing on the diocese’s website. “There is no other way to put it.”

Catholic bishops have been up in arms ever since the administration indicated it would force virtually all employers to cover all birth control, including drugs that can cause early abortions, like Plan B and ella. Last week, Catholic Church leaders were aghast to hear that, upon further consideration, the administration had refused to back down, instead simply giving outraged faith-based groups another year to comply with the mandate.

Zubik said the unilateral mandate “undermines the democratic process itself” and represents an unprecedented attack on conscience rights.

“This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone – not only Catholics; not only people of all religion,” he said. “At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens.

“It forces every employer to subsidize an ideology or pay a penalty while searching for alternatives to health care coverage. It undermines the whole concept and hope for health care reform by inextricably linking it to the zealotry of pro-abortion bureaucrats.”

Read here

By Bryce J Christensen, MercatorNet

Advocating gay marriage as a way of enlarging the American sphere of liberty are profoundly—and deceptively—misrepresenting their aims.

Those advocating the radical social innovation, which they label “same-sex or gay marriage,” typically claim that they are fighting for freedom, championing a basic liberty. “Freedom to Marry” is indeed the name of a national organization devoted to the advocacy of same-sex marriage. Established in 2003 by civil-rights advocate Evan Wolfson and headquartered in New York City, this group takes “We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry” as its slogan. So effective has it promulgated this perspective that even former First Lady Laura Bush endorsed homosexuals’ right to marry as a matter of basic freedom when she appeared on the Larry King Show in May 2010.

But those who advocate homosexual marriage as a way of enlarging the American sphere of liberty are profoundly—and deceptively—misrepresenting their aims. Their real aim came to light in the public controversy over remarks attributed to Queen Sophia of Spain in criticizing her country’s invention in 2005 of a homosexual right to “marry.” “If those people [homosexuals] want to live together,” commented the Spanish monarch, “dress up as bride and groom and get married they can do so, but that should not be called marriage because it is not.” Widely reported by the media, the furor over these remarks forced representatives of the Queen to issue a statement claiming that the published remarks “do not exactly match the opinions expressed by Her Majesty the Queen” and apologizing for the “ill-feeling and upset” her comments had caused. The pressures compelling this semi-retraction and apology prompted one media commentator to ponder the “interesting question” of whether on the issue of homosexual marriage, the Queen still had “the right… to express her opinion like any other citizen.”

This commentator had glimpsed the fundamental aim of those advocating homosexual marriage: it is not at all about giving homosexuals a new freedom to participate in ceremonies that they regard as weddings. It is entirely about denying freedom of public speech to anyone who would criticize such ceremonies or the sexual behaviors such ceremonies legitimize. The muzzle that homosexual activists tried (largely successfully) to put on an outspoken monarch represents only the beginning. Homosexual activists in this country deeply desire to place first thousands, and then millions, of even tighter muzzles on all who disagree with them about the nature of homosexual behavior. They well understand that enactment of laws authorizing homosexual marriage will give them sweeping powers to bind those muzzles very tightly on their fellow citizens.

Read here

From The Christian Institute

In a landmark ruling the US Supreme Court says churches, not the Government, should control the employment of ‘ministers of religion’.

The unanimous ruling is a blow to President Obama, whose administration wanted the ruling to go the other way.

The case centres around a former teacher at a church school who was dismissed for insubordination and “regrettable” conduct to church leaders.

But the teacher, who suffered from narcolepsy, claimed her dismissal was a breach of disability discrimination laws. Her case was backed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Lutheran church that runs the school said the teacher’s job involved communicating the church’s teaching, and therefore she was a minister of religion.

The church said it should have the freedom to make decisions about hiring and firing its ministers of religion without Government interference.

Read here