Pope Leo reacts to being told he can't excommunicate Trump

"Neither am I!"

Another comment that you don't have to be a "rad-trad" Catholic to agree with...

Here come da judge!

Three cheers and a tiger for Judge Roy Moore!!! To no-one's surprise (except perhaps the Republican establishment), the firebrand former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court soundly defeated Senator Luther Strange in a special primary runoff yesterday.

Since Alabama is about as solidly Republican as it's possible to be, Judge Moore's election to the United States Senate in December is now just a formality.

The New York Times calls the outcome of the closely watched race "a humbling blow to President Trump and other party leaders days after the president pleaded with voters in the state to back Mr. Strange." It is not.

To be sure, Judge Moore was opposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican grandees who have opposed and obstructed President Trump. What was strange (pun intended) was Mr Trump's endorsement of Senator Strange. It's never easy to read the President's mind, but I think we can put this down to loyalty. During his short term in the upper house of Congress, Senator Strange was a strong supporter of the President, voting the right way as and when required. The President's endorsement recognized that.

But... a couple of days ago President Trump uttered an aside -- almost a throw-away line -- to the effect that his endorsement of Judge Moore might have been a mistake. I don't think it was. I think (and I am waiting for Scott Adams to say something similar) that Mr Trump gave Senator Strange his stamp of approval knowing that doing so would: a) placate the Republican establishment and show himself to be a team player, b) confuse the progressives and snowflakes who can't imagine voting for anyone that Mr Trump likes, and c) fire up the populists and hard right (Hello, Steve Bannon!) and make them work even harder to get Judge Moore elected. Which is exactly what happened!

To me, the selection of Judge Roy Moore bodes well for the future of the USA since it shows that voters are not as concerned as the liberals, SJWs and lamestream media... not to mention the United States Supreme Court... about the separation of church and state. Judge Moore stood up for Christian values -- the values on which America was founded -- on issues such as "gay marriage". In 2014, in an interview with AP, he declared, "The moral foundation of our country is under attack," and that the "government has become oppressive, and judges are warping the law."

Judge Moore is also famous for his refusal to remove from his courtroom a plaque showing the Ten Commandments. (The statue shown in the picture came later.) He told the Montgomery Advertiser that his intention in hanging the plaque was to indicate the importance of the laws given by God to man. It was not his intention to create controversy, he said, but "I wanted to establish the moral foundation of our law."

What is law but the expression of a set of principles and beliefs? Certain things are right; certain things are wrong. The question to be answered is which set of principles and beliefs should have the force of law in our society.

Do you want to live your life according to the customs and practices of Islam? Then you have no problem with Sharia law (but see "Sharia Law: Saudi king pardons gang-rape victim", WWW 26/9/17). Do you think the code of laws which govern our daily behaviour should have no reference to any religious creed? What you want then, is a legal code based on secular humanism, which is just as much a religion (belief system) for the liberals and progressives as Islam is for the Muslims or Christianity for traditional Catholics and evangelical Protestants.

Judge Moore stands for and stands up for the old-time religion, the Christian values on which the USA was founded, which, if restored to their rightful place in its courts and legislatures can indeed Make America Great Again. God bless him!

A prayer mourning the prohibition of public prayer

In mid-April, Canada's activist liberal Supreme Court decided to emulate its American counterpart by ruling, once and for all, that although a nation may be "under God", it's a violation of some people's "human rights" to invoke His help and mercy in public, as, for instance, at the opening of a meeting of a municipal council.

The court ruled on April 15th that the mayor and council of Saguenay QC must stop praying before meetings. And -- get this -- they must pay compensatory and punitive damages of C$30,000 (nearly $25,000 in real money) to an atheist who complained of discrimination!

Alain Simoneau had complained to the Québec Human Rights Tribunal of discrimination because the Saguenay mayor and council pray before their official meetings. The tribunal ruled he had been discriminated against and ordered the mayor and council to pay damages. Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay, a devout Catholic, began soliciting funds to fight for the right to pray at council meetings and appealed the tribunal ruling to the Québec Court of Appeal, which overturned it. The Supreme Court of Canada reinstated the tribunal's judgment and ordered the payment of the original fine plus interest.

Mr. Justice Clement Gascon (who probably describes himself as a Catholic) wrote, "The prayer recited by the municipal council in breach of the state's duty of neutrality resulted in a distinction, exclusion, and preference based on religion -- that is, based on Mr. Simoneau's atheism -- which, in combination with the circumstances in which the prayer was recited, turned the meetings into a preferential space for people with theistic beliefs."

"People with theistic beliefs", eh... Like Mayor Tremblay. Like Walt [and Poor Len and Ed.! Ed.] And, Walt is sure, like the anonymous 15-year-old Minnesotan who (according to Agent 6, to whom be thanks) wrote the following New School Prayer, to be said in the place of the now-prohibited "Lord's Prayer" (or "Our Father", as we Catholics call it).

Now I sit me down in school

Where praying is against the rule

For this great nation under God

Finds mention of Him very odd.

If scripture now the class recites,

It violates the Bill of Rights.

And any time my head I bow

Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,

That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.

The law is specific, and precise;

Prayers spoken aloud are serious vice.

For praying in a public hall

Might offend someone with no faith at all.

In silence alone we must meditate;

God's name is prohibited by the State.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,

And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.

To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,

And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.

It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,

We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,

Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles,

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,

When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make:

Should I be shot, my soul please take!

AMEN!

"New morality" and approval of sinful sexual relationships becoming official US religion, says Cardinal

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.

It's OK to fire an employee for wearing an Islamic veil...in France

La Cour de Cassation, France's highest court, has confirmed that a daycare centre in the Parisian suburb of Chanteloup-les-Vignes had the right to dismiss an employee who refused to remove an Islamic veil. The case that has gripped France for six years began Fatima Afif, a worker at the Baby-Loup day-care center refused to remove her headcovering. Walt can't tell from the report whether it was a hijab or niqab...surely not a burqa... Whatever it was, she wouldn't take it off, and was shown the door.

Ms Afif sued in 2010, and lost, sued again in 2011, and lost, and appealed, and lost again, as the court upheld the separation between church and state mandated by the French constitution. In its judgment, the court said "A private entity, in this case an association, can place limits on its employees' freedom to express their religious beliefs in the workplace.... Children must not be confronted with ostentatious demonstrations of religious identity."

Ms Afif's lawyer, Michel Henry, called the ruling "disappointing" and said his client will take her case to... wait for it... the European Court of Human Rights.

Walt wonders how the supreme courts of the United States, Canada or Britain -- always so mindful of "minority rights" -- would have ruled on this case. Our legal beagle, Agent 3, will be watching!

No Christian teachers in our schools?

Commenting on yesterday's post ("Don't you dare pray for your sick pupil") Andrew Zimmerman Jones opined that the separation of church and state has historically been good for America. I disagree. But let's not open up that can of worms today.

Rather, let me point out that the reason for the firing of Olive Jones (no relation to Andrew, I presume) had nothing to do with religion being taught or observed in the British state-run school.

Miss Jones was dismissed or suspended or whatever for merely offering to do a very Christian thing, i.e. pray for the sick. And it's not as if this was going to be done in the school or during classes. It was to have been a Christian prayer said to God by a Christian teacher in her own way and on her own time.

Following the council's logic (?) to its ultimate conclusion, no-one who gave any visible sign of being a follower of Christ would be allowed to teach in its schools. That can't be right!