The great state of Washington is known to be liberal in its politics and policies, every bit as much as its neighbours of the Left Coast. On Friday, its governor, Bob Ferguson (D - are you surprised?) signed a controversial state law that requires priests to report child abuse to authorities, even if they learn of it during the Sacrament of Confession.
The measure, introduced in the state Legislature earlier this year, adds clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state but doesn't include the exemption for information learned in the confessional which was written into the 2023 version of bill.
The original version carved out abuse allegations learned "solely as a result of a confession." The latest bill explicitly notes that clergy do not qualify for a "privileged communication" exemption.
Just like Sleepy Joe Biden, Governor Ferguson calls himseslf a Catholic. He told the meejua that as a Catholic he was "very familiar" with the Sacrament of Confession. He did not say, though, when he last availed himself of the sacrament, or whether he intended to do so at the first opportunity, to confess to the grave sin of putting the laws of Caesar ahead of those of God.
Apparently Mr Ferguson either did not attend RK class at school, or was instructed by some modernist who doesn't know the Faith. Canon law is explicit that any priest who breaks the seal of the confessional is, by so doing, automatically excommunicated from the Church, and, as part of that, is no longer a priest. He can only be reinstated by order of the pope (in practice the local ordinary).
Most Rev. Thomas Daly, the Bishop of Spokane, issued a statement on Friday saying that the clergy of his diocese would not break the seal of confession, even if required to by law. "[S]hepherds, bishop and priests," the bishop said, "are “committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail."
"The sacrament of penance is sacred and will remain that way in the Diocese of Spokane," he added. "As this matter continues to unfold, I intend on keeping you informed and updated. An important element to the greatness of America is our constitutional commitment to religious freedom."
Speaking of Canadian stamps... Canada Post Corp has announced its line-up of special issues for the coming holiday season. A stamp for Diwali (the Hindu festival of lights) has already been released. Designs have been approved to commemorate Nowruz, Kwanzaa, (((Hannukah))), Eid and "Winter Holiday". However, CPC spokesthingy Carol Singh said, there are no plans for a stamp bearing the word "Christmas", since that could be offensive to Zoroastrians, African-Canadians, (((Jews))), Muslims and secular humanists.
Meanwhile, on the warmer side of the world's longest undefended border, President Donald J. Trump (How sweet it still is!), speaking at the Value Voters Summit in Washington today, assured Christian conservatives that his administration will defend religious organizations. Promising a return to traditional American values, the President said "How times have changed, but you know what, now they are changing back again, just remember that!"
Mr Trump, the first sitting president to address the Values Voter Summit, listed the promises he's fulfilled to evangelical Christians, traditional Catholics and other conservatives, pledging to turn back the clock in "a nation that has drifted away from its religious roots." Today he added another promise, vowing to return the phrase "Merry Christmas!" to the American vocabulary, in place of the wimpy and politically correct "Happy Holidays".
He noted that religious liberty is enshrined in the founding documents of the United States of America. There are four references to the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, Mr Trump said, adding "I pledged that in a Trump administration, our nation's religious heritage would be cherished, protected and defended like you have never seen before. Above all else in America, we don't worship government. We worship God!"
Here's the non-news story of the month, if not the year. The Religious Freedom in the World 2016 report, a worldwide survery of religious freedom, has found that Islamic "hyper-extremism" is wreaking havoc, especially in the Middle East, prompting brutal violence and creating an unprecedented surge of refugees.
The report, produced by the international Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need, sees the Islamic State as the primary example of Islamic hyper-extremism". In an introduction to the report, Father Jacques Mourad, who was kidnapped by the Islamic State and held for several months before being released, warns that "our world teeters on the brink of a complete catastrophe as extremism threatens to wipe out all trace of diversity in society."
The report says that Islamic extremism -- the phenomenon that Barack Obama and Hellery Clinton refused to name -- is most powerful in Iraq and Syria. No surprise there. It accuses the jihadis of displaying barbarous cruelty and complete intolerance of other views, in a religious war aimed at "eliminating all forms of religious diversity". The authors add that not only the Middle East is threatened, but also parts of Africa and the Asian subcontinent.
No matter how loudly and how often the lamestream media tells us that most Muslims are not extremists, and Islam is "the religion of peace", the fact is that the world has seen a flood of refugees, reaching an all-time high of 65.3 million. The report points to Islamic extremism as the key driver in the displacement of peoples, with millions fleeing from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq.
The Islamists are not the only offenders. Religious Freedom in the World 2016 also draws attention to setbacks for religious freedom outside the Islamic world, particularly in China and Turkmenistan. Case in point: An Islamist militant, wearing a shirt with the word "jihad" on it, threw a gasoline bomb at a church in Samarinda, on the Indonesian island of Borneo, on November 13th. A two-year-old child was killed and three other children injured. See "Four children injured in suspected militant attack on Indonesia church", Reuters, 13/11/16.
Forgotten in liberal Europeans' suicidal rush to welcome millions of Muslim refugees and asylum-seekers are the hundreds of Christians from the war zones of Syria and Iraq who are comingled with the followers of the Prophet. Just because the Christians are in the same boat -- literally -- doesn't mean that the Muslims see them as brothers and sisters in trouble.
Quite the opposite. Rainer Cardinal Woelki of Cologne (site of the New Year's Eve sexual assaults by Arab and North African migrants), told an audience in Dusseldorf last Saturday that Christian refugees face threats and intimidation by other migrants in transit camps. Christian persecution is not a topic of "bygone ages", he said.
Speaking at an "ecumenical" service -- there's that nonsensical word again -- Cardinal Woelki warned that: “Concern is growing that politicians and the authorities might not be taking such threats seriously enough." He said Germany must speak out more loudly for religious freedom rights, a right that Christians in Muslim countries also had. “That is what we demand,” Woelki said.
Meanwhile, Gottfried Martens, a Protestant pastor told katholisch.de that the "mobbing" of Christian refugees in refugee camps in Germany was increasing. He said it was no longer rare for entire Muslim communities in refugee shelters to threaten Christians. He claimed that Christians had been forced to watch videos of beheadings, were barred from using the kitchen because they were “unclean” and had been beaten up and their crosses removed from their necks.
As a solution, Rev. Martens suggested accommodation Muslims and Christians separately. He said, "In our efforts to be tolerant, which are in themselves praiseworthy, we cannot just let Christians become some kind of guinea pigs." What are the chances of Muslim and Christian refugees being "welcomed" separately? Slim and none! After all, to isolate the Muslims from our "inclusive society" would be racist and Islamophobic, wouldn't it.
After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said:
"Let me see if I've got this right. You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behaviour, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.
"You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self-esteem and personal pride. You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, how to balance a chequebook, and apply for a job.
"You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams. You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.
"You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletin board, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps.
"You want me to do all this, and then you tell me... I CAN'T PRAY?!"
Today's National Post features an excellent piece entitled "Why human 'rights inflation' could spell 'the beginning of the end of social change'". According to Dominique Clément, a historian at the University of Alberta, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in 1948, included a few dozen rights, all familiar from their notorious violations by repressive states. Today, international law recognizes more than 300.
These less familiar "rights", such as the human right to affordable Internet access or higher education, represent a worrisome trend. "Rights inflation", he argues, erodes the legitimate core of rights that are strictly necessary to life and freedom.
How so? Well, the more "rights" people have, the more likely they are to come into conflict. The "rights" to which I am "entitled" is as long as my arm, but what happens if your arm is longer than mine? Human rights legislation says you may not discriminate against me, or preach hatred against me, for being a white, male, traditional Catholic.
I happen to be a "social conservative" too, but there are no laws to keep the "progressives" from ridiculing my beliefs and demonizing me as antideluvian, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, etc etc and so forth. And if I, or someone like Mark Steyn (Hi, Mark!) attempts to turn the tables, it's "Helloooo, Human Rights Tribunal!"
Imagine, then, what would happen if one of the "protected groups" -- gays, let's say, or wimmin -- came into conflict with another, like... wait for it... Muslims. Consider the following cases.
Case One:a friendly soccer game in Brampton ON last week. It's established law in Ontario that girls can play sports -- even a real sport like hockey -- on boys' teams if they want to. Last Tuesday a coed team from Robert F. Hall Secondary School (a Catholic school) met on the field with an all-male team from ISNA Private Islamic High School. The teams played the first half without incident, and Hall led ISNA 3-1 at the break.
At that point, the coach of ISNA's team realized that there were girls playing on the other team! (How he figured this out is not reported.) So at halftime, the Muslim coach told the referee that his team "didn't feel that they could continue for religious reasons and for their own personal beliefs."
Obviously his complaint had nothing to do with his team's being on the low end of the score, but, although ISNA would have lost the game by forfeit, Hall needed to win by more than a two-goal differential to advance to the next round of the tournament. So, the girls volunteered to sit out in the second half so play could continue, and Hall went on to win 6-1. Bruce Campbell, speaking for the Catholic school board called the girls' decision to come out of the game "an incredible display of sportsmanship and selflessness and team spirit. But [he added] they shouldn't have been put in that position."
A spokesthingy for the athletic association that organized the tournament explained all teams are expected to abide by league rules and league constitution that includes a gender equity policy, which gives female students the right to play on a boys' team if their school doesn't have a girls' team. "It's our assumption that when schools apply (to be part of the league) they've read the rules and regulations," he said, adding that any team that joins the league is bound to abide by its rules and regulations.
The Brampton Guardian report says that at press time, ISNA Private Islamic High School had not responded to a request for comment. Their end the story by saying that "commenting has been suspended...because some readers have violated our commenting guidelines. Rude remarks and comments that are off topic are unacceptable. Foul language is forbidden."
Case two comes to us from Steven Crowder, an American actor, comedian and former contributor to the Fox News Channel. In October 2013, Big Journalism reported that Fox News had dropped him, shortly after he made negative statements about Fox News host Sean Hannity. Mr. Crowder now hosts a weekly talk show, Louder with Crowder on WAAM in Ann Arbor MI, and posts comedy, commentary and news videos to his YouTube channel, Louder with Crowder -- "the most politically incorrect channel on the Web".
In April, Mr. Crowder posted a hidden camera video which proves that, if you're a Christian who wants to practise religious freedom, you'd better get ready for ridicule, threats and discrimination. But if you're a Muslim who wants to practice religious freedom, of course there's no problem! At least, that's the case in Dearborn MI where he attempted to get Muslim cake shops to bake a cake for a gay wedding, which Islam teaches are wrong. Need we tell you that they refused openly? Watch! And ask yourself if a Christian baker could have got away with this.
You bet, EH! Not content with involving his country in a shooting war in the Middle East -- score so far: Muslims 3, Canadian troops 0 -- Canuck PM Steve Harper has quite unaccountably resurrected the debate over the "Canadian values" enshrined in Québec's Charter of Values, proposed but not enacted last year.
As Walt explained in "Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear", the law mooted by the Parti Québécois government of Pauline Marois would have prohibited the wearing by public servants in public places of religious dress and symbols, including the Jewish kippa, Sikh turban and kirpan, large Christian crosses, and the hijabs, niqabs and burqas favoured by some Muslim women.
If you're not sure about the difference between hijab, niqab and burqa, check out "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?". (That post from 2010 is near the top of WWW's all-time most-read list.) Or just study this illustration below, which includes the chador, something like a hijab extended to a full cloak.
To the consternation of the English-speaking chattering classes and the usual celebrants of diversity, polling consistently showed the proposed charter a winner with French-speaking Québec voters. But there were other issues -- a sluggish economy, corruption and (as usual) separation -- compared with which religious headgear seemed unimportant, and the PQ government went down to defeat, and with it the charter.
All was quiet for the next ten months, until the Federal Court of Canada struck down a regulation, introduced by then Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in 2011, banning the wearing of the niqab or any other face covering while taking the Oath of Citizenship.
An immigrant from Pakistan had sent home for a bride -- as is "normal" for the clannish south Asians -- and brought to Canada a devout Muslim lady named Zunera Ishaq. In due course Ms Ishaq applied for citizenship and passed the examination ("What's a 'double-double'?") in November 2013. When it came time to take the oath, she objected to the requirement to remove the veil at the citizenship ceremony it is unnecessary for the purposes of identity or security. Worse than that, she said, it's a public event and her face would be seen by strange men.
Immigration officials subsequently offered to seat Ms Ishaq in either the front or back row and next to a woman at the ceremony, but she refused the arrangement since the citizenship judge and officers could still be male, and there could potentially be photographers at the event.
The upshot was that the ceremony was deferred and Ms Ishaq brought suit. Mr. Justice Keith M. Boswell ruled that "To the extent that the policy interferes with a citizenship judge’s duty to allow candidates for citizenship the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation of the oath, it is unlawful."
Fair enough. Freedom of religion seems to be covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms embedded in the Canadian Constitution. But... is the wearing of the niqab (or hijab or burqa) a requirement of Islam? No! It is just a cultural practice, the custom in certain parts of the Muslim world -- Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and places where "freedom of religion" applies only to Muslims, and not all Muslims at that!
To the surprise of many, the Harper government has decided to appeal Mr. Justice Boswell's decision. A spokesthingy for Citizenship and Immigration Canada said, "New citizens are obliged to confirm their identity when taking the Oath of Citizenship, which is sworn or affirmed in public. It is simply common sense to require removal of facial coverings or other items that hide new citizens’ mouths from view. The oath, knowledge and language tests, as well as years of residency, are among the basic requirements for joining the family of Canadian citizens."
The Prime Minister himself put the case rather more strongly. Speaking in the House of Commons this week, Mr. Harper called the Federal Court's move to strike down the 2011 ban "offensive", and said, "We don't allow people to cover their faces during citizenship ceremonies, and why would Canadians, contrary to our own values, embrace a practice at that time that is not transparent, that is not open and, frankly, is rooted in a culture that is anti-women?" (My emphasis. Walt)
So there you have it. Going about with your face covered, especially at a ceremony meant to show your commitment to your adopted country, is contrary to Canadian values. Minister Kenney told CBC Radio's The House today that people should pledge their allegiance to their fellow citizens publicly and openly. (Click here to listen to the complete interview, including Mr. Kenney's waffle on whether or not Canada will continue to participate in the American invasion of Iraq.)
The government view is finding a lot of favour with ordinary Canadians -- non-members of the meeja and PC mafia -- outside of Toronto, particular in... wait for it... Québec. On the same edition of The House, an imam said the niqab isn't part of Muslim culture, but only of Saudi culture. Mr. Harper told the House of Commons that he speaks for not just the majority of Canadians, but the majority of moderate Muslims. Will the Federal Court of Appeal agree? We'll see. Meanwhile, the war continues.
Everyone knows that church and state are strictly separate in the United States of Armerica. Unlike in the United [soon to be disunited? Ed.] Kingdom, there is no established church, no official state religion. Or is there?! Francis Cardinal George, the Archbishop of Chicago, says that American law has "taken upon itself the mantle of a religion and officially told its citizens what they must personally think or what 'values' they must personalize in order to deserve to be part of the country."
What is the nature of the new state religion to which all Americans must bend the knee? Writing in Catholic New World, the newspaper of the archdiocese, Cardinal George explains that America's ruling classes would have us believe that "there is no difference between men and women, although nature and our very bodies clearly evidence that men and women are not interchangeable at will in forming a family."
As evidence for this assertion, Cardinal George mentions an editorial comment in the Huffington Post on June 30th. Discussing the Hobby Lobby case (in which the US Supreme Court allowed religious objection to a part of Obamacare), the writer raised "concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen." This, the prelate says, is "the self righteous voice of some members of the American establishment today who regard themselves as 'progressive' and 'enlightened'." And woe betide anyone who, even for reasons of conscience, dares to swim against the tide.
"Those who do not conform to the official religion," he says, "place their citizenship in danger."
"Swimming against the tide," the Cardinal continues, "means limiting one’s access to positions of prestige and power in society. It means that those who choose to live by the Catholic Faith will not be welcomed as political candidates to national office, will not sit on editorial boards of major newspapers, will not be at home on most university faculties, will not have successful careers as actors and entertainers. Nor will their children, who will also be suspect.
"Since all public institutions, no matter who owns or operates them, will be agents of the government and conform their activities to the demands of the official religion, the practice of medicine and law will become more difficult for faithful Catholics. It already means in some States that those who run businesses must conform their activities to the official religion or be fined, as Christians and Jews are fined for their religion in countries governed by Sharia law."
Conform or else! If you don't like the morality of Obama's America, you're free to leave.
What's the difference between a hijab, a niqab and a burqa? If you're a woman working in any part of Québec's public sector, the answer is: none whatever. When you go to work, leave your religious headgear at home.
So says the Charter of Québec Values, introduced today by the separatist government of La Belle Province. Also verboten -- oops, défendu -- are yarmulkes, turbans and kirpans. The special underpants that religious Sikh men wear are OK, because they are not "overt religious symbols". By the same token, Christians can wear a small cross or crucifix, but not a large one. Small earrings and finger rings are OK too.
Ever since the gist of the proposed legislation leaked out earlier this summer, those who celebrate diversity and promote multiculturalism have been whining that the Charter is an attack on religious minorities, discriminatory, and (of course) racist. Their argument was helped by remarks made last week by Premier Pauline Marois, who said multicult was responsible for "bomb-throwing" in England, and that the wearing of the hijab/niqab/burqa by Muslim women is an act of submission.
Mme Marois kept quiet over the weekend, handing le micro over to one of her predecessors, Bernard Landry. Appearing on Global TV's West Block, M Landry said flatly -- in English -- that Québec is not a multicultural society, and doesn't want to be one! Multicult, he said, was imposed on Québec, which continues to reject the idea to this day.
“You [the rest of Canada] like multiculturalism, go on,” M Landry continued. “My prediction is that within some years you will regret that attitude, but it’s your problem.” Wow! The ghosts of Charles DeGaulle and Enoch Powell could be heard applauding.
Poor Len Canayen wants to explain something to all the champions of multiculturalism and human rights industry types. The Charter of Québec Values is not about promoting Christianity and/or putting down non-Christian minority religions. The politics of the Parti Québecois is and has always been secularist.
The PQ was born out of Québec's "Quiet Revolution" of the 1960s, which slammed the door hard on the values and teachings of Holy Mother Church, which had long dominated the Québec society. The PQ is by nature leftist and "rationalist", the antithesis of the conservative Union Nationale and Libéral parties it displaced. The values which its proposed Charter enshrines are not those of true liberalism -- such as freedom of religion -- but those of secular humanism, man-centred, not God-centred.
Religious Québecois should, according to the principles of the Faith, oppose the new Charter. But the religious -- Christians or otherwise -- may, sadly, be in the minority. The proposed legislation is a clear winner in public opinion polls, being supported by those who feel, like Bernard Landry, that the waves of immigrants coming into the province must be "managed" and made to accommodate themselves to mainstream Québec society, rather than the other way around.
That is the real intent of the Charter. It has huge support from Québecois of all parties because they think that they will no longer have to look at legions of people walking down the Main attired in veils, turbans and funny hats. And that may be right, but not because the Muslims, Sikhs and Jews will conform, but because they will head west to the city where multicult is king, namely Toronto. Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government is already planning to widen the 401.
Too many abbreviations? Walt will provide a glossary. Let's start with "PQ". Before two-letter abbreviations for states and provinces were standardised, "PQ" was the commonly accepted shorthand for "Province of Quebec" or "Province du Québec" to be more PC -- note the accent. Today the correct form is "QC", while "PQ" refers to the Parti Québecois, the quasi-separatist political party which misgoverns la Belle Province.
The PQ, as well as being committed to (one day) seceding from The Rest Of Canada (TROC), is of a decidedly pinkish hue, thus resolutely secular humanist in its values. After the Roman Catholic Church turned its back on its own dogmas in the 1960s, that's pretty much how the majority of Québecois think things should be.
Religion now has no place in public life, and no religion or creed should receive any special consideration or accommodation. That's politically correct (PC) thinking in Québec and TROC. Or at least it was, until a few years ago, when Muslims started demanding the "right" to pray in the streets, have Islamic religious instruction in public schools, and force their womenfolk to cover all or parts of their bodies against the gaze of infidels. See "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?".
Of course what's fair for the followers of the Prophet must also be fair for the Jews, Sikhs...just about everyone except Christians. Freedom of religion, dontcha know! It's PC! And so Canadians are treated to the spectacle of turban-clad Mounties, looking like extras in Carry On Up The Khyber. Walt is waiting for a Sikh to bring a human rights complaint (or a lawsuit, if in the USA) to force the NHL to let him wear a turban instead of a helmet.
Soccer, of course, is a different story. Soccer players don't wear helmets because -- let's be real -- how can you hurt your head playing a slow sissy game like "football"? Well, OK, you could get beaned by a viciously kicked ball, but wearing anything on your head is still not done... unless you're a Sikh. Along with his holy drawers and kirpan, a Sikh should be able to wear his turban, they say, because it's part of his religion. And anyone who objects is a racist bigot!
So what, said the Québec Soccer Federation? A few weeks back the QSF passed a bylaw forbidding the wearing of turbans or anything else while playing the beautiful game. Accusations of religious discrimination and being less-than-PC immediately emanated from the lamestream media and swivel-eyed loons of the human rights industry. To which Pauline Marois, the PQ premier of Québec replied, so what?! This is Québec and we'll follow our own customs and values.
A couple of weeks later, following condemnation from the Canadian Soccer Federation and a statement from the international governing body (FIFA) that it didn't care one way or the other, the QSF backed down. But there remains in QC the very strong sentiment that accommodation of religious and ethnic minorities has gone too far.
Having determined the direction from which the political wind is blowing, the Québec Minister of Citizenship, Bernard Drainville, has announced that he's pushing ahead with a long-promised "Charter of Values" which (he thinks) will resolve the problem of religious accommodation, once and for all. He pointed to a public opinion poll that asked whether Québecois think religious accommodation is still an important problem. Two-thirds of the 1506 respondents polled said yes.
When asked whether doing away with "unreasonable accommodations" would promote a more integrated society, 70%. Said M Drainville, "We do want this debate to be about what unites us, not what divides us. What unites us. And I do think equality between men and women, between all citizens notwithstanding origin, religion, mother tongue -- I do think these are important values if we want to build in Québec a united society."
A united society... Wouldn't that be something... If putting an end to extreme political correctness in Québec works, perhaps TROC could try it! And if it works in Canada -- as if! -- perhaps the other half of North America could have a go. We could even give the principle a name... something like "majority rule"!
Can you spot the pagan religious symbolism in this Oklahoma licence plate?
Neither could Walt, but Keith Cressman told the Tulsa World that he can. Mr. Cressman is suing the state of Oklahoma because, he argues, the state's standard license plate is contrary to the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
The image, brought in by the state in 2009, is of "Sacred Rain Arrow", a sculpture by Allan Houser of an Indian [Native American, surely! Ed.] shooting an arrow into the sky to bring rain. [Just what Oklahoma needs. Ed.]
The 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals has now ruled that the image of the sculpture could be seen as an endorsement of a specific religion. Mr. Cressman is not an anti-religion nut. It's just that native spiritualism is not his religion! He told the World he "adheres to historic Christian beliefs."
But here's the trouble. The "Sacred Rain Arrow" is standard on OK licence plates -- some 3 million of them -- and if you don't like it, you have to pay extra to get a vanity plate with some other image or no image at all. And if you try to cover up the image, you could be fined.
Mr. Cressman's attorney said that his client "doesn't want to be forced to say something that he does not want to say," hence the lawsuit. A fart-catcher for Oklahoma's attorney general said in a statement, "We'll continue to defend the state's position that Oklahoma's license plate design does not violate Mr. Cressman's constitutional rights."
Astounding news from Russia. The Duma -- the lower house of Russia's parliament -- has flown in the face of all that's politically correct by striking not one but two blows at the secular humanists, LGBT "rights" promoters and other "progressive thinkers".
Yesterday the Duma passed a bill imposing up to three years in jail on those who offend "religious believers". Most Russians who are "believers" are Russian Orthodox Christians, but the new law (once approved by the Senate and signed by President Putin) would presumably cover Jews, Muslims and followers of other faiths.
The law follows the imprisonment of punk rockers Pussy Riot for desecrating an Orthodox cathedral by performing an anti-Putin protest in February 2012. Two band members, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina, are currently serving two-year jail terms for the offence.
So that's a good bit of pushback for Christians (and others) who feel that they're being belittled and demonized by the lamestream media and other "Forces for Progress" in the Western world.
Russian "gay rights" activists also have reason to feel dismayed. On the same day as the pro-religion bill was passed, the Duma also unanimously approved a law imposing heavy fines for providing information about homosexuality to people under 18.
Under the new law, private individuals promoting "homosexual behaviour among minors" face fines of up to 5,000 rubles (US$155) while officials risk paying ten times that amount. Businesses and schools promoting the LGBT agenda -- whether under the guise of "sex education" or otherwise -- could be fined as much as 500,000 rubles!
Although homosexuality was decriminalised in Russia in 1993, anti-gay sentiment is running high. A recent poll found that nearly half of Russians believe that the gay and lesbian community should not enjoy the same rights as other citizens.
Walt wonder why this is. Why is it that the Russians are embracing new laws (and old beliefs) which the Western media tell us are backward, anti-progressive, and contrary to Everything that's Right and Good in our wonderful New Age Society?
Our Lady of Fatima warned us that if Russia was not converted (by Consecration to Her Immaculate Heart), its errors would spread throughout the world. And so it would appear to those "Fatimists" and others who have studied Our Lady's prophecy.
Some Catholics believe the Consecration has been done, and that the fall of Communism represents the promised conversion. The "Fatimists" say this is not so, that the Consecration has never been done publicly, by the Pope in union with all the bishops, as the Blessed Virgin asked. But if that's the case, how should we understand what's happening in Russia today?
Our Lady of Fatima also said that once Russia was converted, that nation would become the instrument by which the rest of the world would be converted to the Christian Faith. Traditional Catholics take that to mean to the Catholic Faith. But, given the diabolical disorientation of the mainstream Church today, perhaps that Faith is to be found elsewhere.
Footnote and WOW! Walt is not imagining the "diabolical disorientation" referred to in the previous paragraph. Just today we have a report from AFP that Pope Francis himself confirmed the existence of a gay lobby within the Roman Curia.
The Vatican's Chief Flak-catcher, Father Federico Lombardi, said he had "no comment" on anything the Holy Father might have said in "a private meeting". And that's all ye need to know.
Yes, dear readers, we've finally been outed. Walt [and Ed. Ed.] are members of a group of dangerous extremists. So says "Extremism and Extremist Organizations" -- a slide presentation used in training US Army Reserves in Pennsylvania.
Please don't check your calendar. April Fools Day has come and gone, but this Army training material is real! Click on the link and check it out for yourself. Scroll through to Slide 24 and you'll find a list of 17 forms or types of "religious extremism", such as the Ku Klux Klan and National of Islam. Also included are "Catholicism" and -- at the top of the list, no less "evangelical Christianity".
The text below the slide explains that “Every religion has some followers that believe that their beliefs, customs, and traditions are the only ‘right way’ and that all others are practicing their faith ‘the wrong way,’ seeing and believing that their faith/religion superior to all others.” [sic]
Well, DUH. If you don't believe your faith is "the right way", then why would you hold to that faith? Practising Christians -- and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and so forth -- cling to the tenets and practices of their religions precisely because they believe that doing so will make them better people/please God/save their souls/whatever. That's what they -- I should say "we" -- believe.
Last time I looked at the Constitution of the US of A -- not to mention that of other so-called "Christian" nations -- freedom of religion was guaranteed. An American, Aussie, Brit or Canuck [That's enough citizenships. Ed.] is free to believe whatever he or she pleases...even if he or she is wrong.
You would think, wouldn't you, that the Army of the US of A would be required to uphold and protect the principle of religious freedom. Apparently not. Slide 4 says, “Extremist organizations’ goals are inconsistent with the Army’s goals, beliefs, and values with regard to equal opportunity.”
Which means that, in the words of Slide 5, "Soldiers are prohibited from participating in an extremist organization’s public demonstration or rally, taking a visible leadership role in the organization, or distributing literature on behalf of the organization." That part about "a visible leadership role" would seem to place Army chaplains in an invidious position, to say the least. And God help the evangelical Christian soldier who distributes Bibles!
The slide presentation prompted a protest from the (US) Archdiocese for the Military Services. Its call for a review of Army training materials states "The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist." Sounds to Walt like that's extremist language right there!
What the slide presentation really is is yet another example of the aggressive secularism and extreme political correctness which permeates the US government -- every root and every branch -- under Barack Hussein Obama.
The Archdiocese "calls on the Department of Defense to review these materials and to ensure that taxpayer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform." If you're American and you agree, write to your Congressperson... as if it will do any good.
Footnote: According to Slide 24, "Mormans" [sic] are extremists too. Walt and Ed. are not "Mormans" or even "Mormons". And we wish they'd stop knocking on the door of our log cabin. But we think they're entitled to believe in the golden plates and all that without being demonized by the US Army.
Portraits of Our Lord Jesus Christ similar to this one are to be found in thousands, perhaps millions of homes and churches around the world. And in some schools too. One such used to hang in Jackson (Ohio) Middle School from 1947 until... this Easter.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation devoted to attacking all religions and all displays of religious faith, got a student and two parents to bring a lawsuit against Jackson City Schools, demanding removal of the "offending" painting, which they called "an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity". The militant secularists were supported by... wait for it... The American Civil Liberties Union.
Jackson City Schools at first resisted the challenge, saying that the portrait of Jesus was private student speech displayed in a "limited public forum" and was not school-endorsed "governmental speech."
But, at a hearing in the US District Court yesterday, the school board threw in the towel, and agreed to remove the painting. Although they said they believe in the school's right to keep the painting up, they simply can't afford to fight the court battle, nor can they pay for insurance against costs which might be awarded against them.
Today's report from the Columbus Dispatch quotes a statement from Superintendent Phil Howard saying that "our insurance company denied coverage, and we cannot risk taxpayer money at this time."
The painting has now been removed from its place of honour, and placed in a storeroom -- out of sight and, sadly, out of mind.
Walt's favourite court-watcher, Agent 3, has been following a murder case wending its way through the courts of Ontario, Canada's most populous province. As those who know the Greater [sic] Toronto Area would expect, race and religion are involved.
The victim of a 2004 shooting in Brampton, Ontario -- an increasingly dark bedroom community northwest of Toronto -- was Youhan Oraha, a drug dealer. The three accused were Evol Robinson, his differently-surnamed brother Jahmar Welsh, and their friend Ruben Pinnock. All of the accused are, errr, Jamaican-Canadians.
In their trial before Mr. Justice Terrance O'Connor of the Ontario Superior Court, the evidence which did them in was that of an undercover cop who posed as an "obeah spiritual advisor", to whom the accused gave what amounted to a confession.
A confession given to a Catholic priest would have been inadmissible under Canadian law. Sadly for the accused, obeah has nothing to do with Christianity. It centres on mysticism and spiritualism and is commonly practised by people of Caribbean descent. The word "voodoo" comes to mind, but at the trial four defence experts at trial called obeah "a form of religious practice".
Judge O'Connor questioned the sincerity of the accused's religious beliefs, and allowed the fake testimony of "Leon de Obeah Man". The bogus spiritualist had told the boys that the Robinson family was cursed by an evil spirit, a "white boy" who had drawn police and the judiciary to them. He offered to protect them, so they spilled their guts to him. "Guilty, guilty, guilty!" Said the judge.
Was that the end of it? Is the Pope Catholic? [Apparently not. Ed.] Enter the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the African-Canadian Legal Clinic, organizations funded by charitable donations and tax dollars willingly and unwillingly provided by whities. These assiduous opponents of racism and champions of religious freedom put to the Ontario Court of Appeal the argument that the religious rights of the accused were breached by the racist police, in sending "Leon" to extract incriminating information that the accused otherwise wouldn't have given.
The CCLA intervention argued that allowing police to impersonate religious advisers "shocks the conscience of Canadians." The African Canadian Legal Clinic said the police trickery "preyed on the Robinson family's deep-seated mistrust of the criminal justice system". Well, duh!
The appeal court disagreed with the appeal to political correctness. In a judgement released yesterday, three white judges wrote: "We conclude that any religious element in the Obeah sessions with Leon is properly characterized as trivial, insubstantial and dwarfed by the corrupt motives that induced the appellants to participate in and fall for the elaborate scheme of deception practised upon them."
Furthermore, the court found police did not compel any action for a religious purpose. "Leon encouraged the appellants to adopt Obeah practices, but encouragement short of compulsion does not infringe" religious rights, said the judges.
Nor did the judges accept that the applicants were "unfairly targeted because of they are black and of Jamaican heritage". Rather, they were singled out because they were suspected of murder. Well said. Let's see the liberal activist lawyers get the Supreme Court of Canada to reverse that one!
Yesterday Walt passed on a report that 2/3 of the self-identified Christians in Notsogreat Britain felt they have become a persecuted minority in their own land. Persecuted, that is, by "aggressive secularists" supported by their own government, headed by "Conservative" Prime Minister David Cameron.
Today we look at Canada, where one would think freedom of speech, freedom of religion and, indeed, freedom of thought, would be guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, thus safe from the predations of political correctness. One would be wrong.
TWU is a small(ish) university compared with behemoths like UBC, but it has a wide range of programmes, offering undergrad and graduate degrees in the humanities, education, even medicine. It would like to start a faculty of law, but its attempt so to do is meeting with opposition from the usual gang of social activitsts and secular humanists.
Why the fuss? It's because Trinity Western University is... wait for it... a "faith-based" institution of higher learning. That right, dear reader. Those people are religious!
The idea of having a law school where students would be taught real ethics and religious ideals is being challenged in a petition by students from eight other Canadian law schools. Their reasoning (if such it can be called) is that TWU's Christian policies discriminate against... wait for it (again)... the LGBT (queer) "community".
The homophiliacs' petition asks the Federation of Law Societies of Canada and the BC Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology [Why do the names of these government departments get longer and more complex every year? Ed.] to reject the accreditation of TWU's proposed law school, claiming parts of the university's student handbook are contrary to the rights of LGBT students, faculty and staff.
Here's the deal. If you want to study or work at TWU, you're asked to sign a Community Covenant Agreement, outlining the university's conduct expectations, and your rights and duties as a member of the institution. OK so far? It's normal, surely, for a school, company, social club, government agency -- any organization -- to have policies and procedures which you must accept, either explicitly or implicitly, if you want to belong.
But... TWU's Community Covenant Agreement contains a clause that requires community members to abstain from "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman." Shock! Horror!
The handbook says that if a student fails to comply with the agreement after signing it, the university "reserves the right to discipline, dismiss, or refuse a student's re-admission to the University". In other words, if you break the agreement you signed, you exclude yourself from the organization.
But OUTlaw -- a group representing the LGBT gang at the University of Alberta -- doesn't see it that way. A spokesthingy, Christopher Ghesquier, told CBC Radio (natch!) "This discriminatory policy really does not represent Canadian law. I think it definitely does offer a less welcoming environment for LGBT students to attend [TWU]... Despite the fact that the law recognizes same-sex marriages, the school seems not to."
To which Walt says, so what, Chrissy?! You don't have to go to TWU if you don't think you will be welcome there. And you are already going to the University of Alberta law school, eh? So what's it to ya?!
Trinity Western was a little more moderate in its response. Their statement regarding the petition says the agreement being challenged was "rigorously researched and developed" after consultation with legal experts. "While we value and respect differing views, we trust that a faith-based community still has the religious freedom in Canada to maintain its beliefs and participate fully in society."
Walt hopes TWU's trust that Canadian law societies and governments uphold the rights of religious minorities -- such as practising Christians -- is not misplaced. Walt hopes... but will not bet. Lifetime pct, like freedom of religion in our secular society, does not apply.
Yesterday (Holy Saturday) brought depressing news from the Disunited Kingdom, a.k.a. Once-great Britain. A survey done by pollsters ComRes revealed that more than two-thirds of British Christians feel they are now part of a "persecuted minority".
And guess who the persecutors are? Not Romans and Jews, as in the time of Jesus, or even Muslims, but the promoters of what the polling firm calls "aggressive secularism", which churchgoers increasingly feel threatens freedom of religion.
In the UK, even more than in the USA and Canada, court rulings against people who want to wear crosses at work, and legal action preventing prayers before council meetings, have combined with a persistent anti-religious bias in the press to make Christians feel marginalized.
Adding fuel to the flames of resentment is the British Government's decision to legalize "marriage", in spite of the opposition of the Church -- including, in a half-hearted way, the Church of England -- and a significant chunk of popular opinion.
According to the PressTV article on the poll, if the march of secularism continues unabated, by 2030 Britain will no longer be a Christian country. By that date, there will be more non-believers than Christians. Why, because immigrants from Asia keep their faiths, and "born Christians" (as opposed to "born-again Christians") don't.
In the past six years, the report says, the number of Muslims has surged by 37% to 2.6 million. Hindus have increased their numbers by 43%, and Buddhists by a massive 74 per cent. Meanwhile, people who choose to call themselves Christians declined in number by more than 4 million between the censuses of 2001 and 2011. In the latter census, fewer than 60% of all residents of the UK described themselves as Christian. That's down from 72% in 2001.
A former Archbishop of Canterbury -- head of the so-called Anglican Communion -- has a comment on the role of Britain's government in the decline of Christianity in his country. Walt will be posting a précis later today.
In a bout of holier-than-thou hypocrisy rare even for him, Canadian Prime Minister "Call me Steve" Harper yesterday announced the establishment of Canada's brand new, ultra-PC Office of Religious Freedom.
With a staff of five and a budget of C$5,000,000 -- that would be about a million per head -- the ORF is about "building awareness about the issue of religious freedom abroad," according to its head, Dr. Andrew Bennett. And not just abroad! "It's [also] about interacting with the various communities here in Canada who are in the diaspora from these areas where religious freedom is not respected."
And who might they be? Well, errr, Muslims for example. And Tibetan Buddhists. And Sikhs. And did we mention Muslims? Immigrants (legal and illegal), refugees and asylum-seekers -- all potential voters. (If you think illegal immigrants don't get to vote in Canada, Walt has some land in Nunavut he'd like to talk to you about.)
Nothing was said about protecting the freedom of Canadian Christians to preach and practise their religion, free from government interference (as in the so-called Catholic schools) and attacks by secular humanists (in the lamestream media, particularly the CBC).
But noooo, says Mr. Harpoon. "This is not an office to promote any particular religion. It is an office to promote religious diversity and religious tolerance around the world." Ah yes. Diversity and tolerance.
And pluralism. Don't forget "pluralism", another PC buzzword of the day. "People who choose not to believe, that's a valid religious and democratic perspective that we all must also accept and promote," said the PM. "We're not trying to oppose, we're trying to respect people's own religions, their own faith choices, or non-faith choices, and not impose those choices on others. Just as it is important that religion be respected in a pluralistic and democratic society by those who don't share religion, it is likewise expected in a very religious society that those who don't share faith will be respected." (Walt's italics.)
So you see, it's just another part of the Canadian Conservatives' initiative to Draw All Faiths Together (DAFT). Yes...ORF is DAFT. No doubt about it. But will Canadians tell Harper to bugger ORF? Not likely. (Lifetime pct .990)
In "Go Dutch!", posted yesterday, Walt rehashed [What an admission! Ed.] a story from June 2011 on the Dutch government's plan to end its disastrous experiment with official multiculturalism. Specifically, they want to put a stop to the growth of a Muslim "parallel society" in the Netherlands. As of January 2013 Muslims who immigrate to the Netherlands are supposed to fit in or ship out.
The usual gang of "progressive thinkers" and celebrants of diversity denounced the new Dutch legislation when it was introduced and every day since then, but, as far as I know, the Dutch are not going to back down. Stubborn people, they are. But we wait (so far in vain) for other western governments to follow suit instead of following burqa.
Perhaps western governments should look for guidance and inspiration to that model of freedom and enlightenment, Communist China. Religious freedom is enshrined in the constitution of the People's Republic. Yes, the Chinese are perfectly free to believe whatever they like, and practise their religious beliefs as they see fit... subject to government approval of course. And provided you're not, errr, a Muslim.
You might think Muslims would be pretty thin on the ground in China, but in the western province of Xinjiang they are (just barely) a majority. Xinjiang, which constitutes 1/6 of the total area of China, was formerly known as Eastern Turkestan, because it was inhabited mainly by Turkic and Mongolian peoples. The largest "minority group" in the province are its nine million Uighurs, nearly all of them Muslims.
A couple of weeks ago, as the Muslim month of Ramadan approached, an edict was issued by Xinjiang's local and regional governments, prohibiting students, teachers, "officials" (including retirees) and all Communist Party members from taking part in religious activities, including visits to mosques and fasting during daylight hours as Islam requires.
The discouragement of Muslim practices in Xinjiang is presented as a matter of social stability and security. Believe it or not, the Chinese think that some of their Muslim citizens could be "separatists" or, worse yet, terrorists! Why some of them might even favour violent resistance to the Communist government, as has occurred in the neighbouring provinces of Qinghai and occupied Tibet.
Certain awkward questions arise. Can there be limits of freedom of religious expression? How much tolerance of pluralism and diversity is too much? Is forbidding the peaceful, normal religious practices of Muslims or Jews... or Christians... not contrary to the principles of freedom and natural justice for which millions have died?
Let me cut a little closer to the bone. If Muslims are to be prevented from praying in the street, does it make any difference whether the street is in Urumqi or Utrecht? Those of us who hold to the One True Faith do that Faith -- and ourselves -- no good service by insisting on religious freedom for ourselves but not for others.
If you wish to learn more about Xinjiang and the oppression of the Uighurs and other "minorities" by the Han Chinese, Walt recommends Wild West China: the Untold Storyof a Frontier Land, by Christian Tyler (John Murray, London, 2003).
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has sent a deeply disturbing message to American Catholics on the occasion of the 130th Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus, which opens tomorrow in Anaheim CA.
In a letter signed on his behalf by Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone -- well known for his tolerance of Protestantism, Freemasonry and heresy even within the walls of the Vatican -- the Holy Father warned of the "unprecedented gravity" of threats to the religious freedom of Catholics in the USA.
In the letter, the Pope praises the American tradition of freedom, especially freedom of religion. But he notes "the responsibility of each new generation to preserve, defend and advance those great ideals in its own day".
Pope Benedict repeats the theme his January Ad Limina Address to the American bishops, in which he said the demands of the new evangelization and the defence of the Church’s freedom in our day call for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.
