Can Judeo-Christian tradition guide, or survive?

Published in Cumberland Times-News Monday, Nov. 19, 2012.

"Not structured to “evolve” with the times, Judeo-Christian values reflect nature’s and God’s truths, eternal and unchanging points of reference that our founders firmly fixed  into the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, to anchor our government and civil society in inherent freedoms, and to provide us the courage to defend them – on our soil, and around the globe."

With the rise of socialist and neo-communist ideals in the WhiteHouse and emboldened atheism in our state houses, along with federal mandatesthat violate religious freedoms and a Democratic party that denies God and compromisesIsrael, we can hardly recognize traditional Judeo-Christian principles of liberty and justice, and civility, in America today. Indeed, we might wonder if they are tattered beyond repair.

Politicians and citizens who hold these traditions dear take a special beating. Consider former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat and a man of God.

Presenting party platform amendments for a voice vote at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Strickland professed, “As an ordained United Methodist minister, I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party's platform.” 

That sounds great, and may have held true in Strickland’s time; but on Sept. 5, 2012, the party base did not back him up. A large constituency loudly shouted “NO” to proposals to reinsert the name of God, and to proclaim Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

Convention chair Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Strickland looked baffled and abandoned before bright lights, the nation staring.

The scene, viewable on YouTube, is comical, and pathetic, as Villaraigosa searches for someone to guide him. He calls for the vote a second time, and then a third. Finally, he rules that the ayes are a two-thirds majority. Anyone watching knows the vote was a draw, at best.

In hindsight, we might wonder: Were Strickland and Villaraigosa truly naive about their party’s sentiments? Or did they know, but figure that the base would go along with the president, who requested the hasty platform changes in response to public pressure? Or could Strickland have been sincere? As an ordained minister, despite his party’s current bent, might he still view the world through Judeo-Christian lenses?

Smeared by feminists, homosexuals and atheists in an Obama-influenced culture war, Judeo-Christian traditions, and anyone who holds to them, get pushed to the sidelines, or under the bus, in the progressive political fray.

Not structured to “evolve” with the times, Judeo-Christian values reflect nature’s and God’s truths, eternal and unchanging points of reference that our founders firmly fixed  into the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, to anchor our government and civil society in inherent freedoms, and to provide us the courage to defend them – on our soil, and around the globe.

“Judeo-Christian values have a foundational role in America,” writes Ronald R. Cherry in a Sept. 15, 2007 AmericanThinker column.

Cherry quotes from the Declaration of Independence those self-evident truths “endowed by their Creator” that he calls “the seed of American Social Justice.”

Cherry figures that happiness is equivalent to creativity, and that the founders expanded their vision of freedom in the Constitution “through reason and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and secular traditions and laws of Old Europe.” 

Well today, what’s old is new again. Dysfunctional religious and secular ideas – the Marxist “social justice” agenda of liberation theologythat stirs class warfare; the neo-communist “separation of church and state” agenda of atheism that shuns God; and the administration’s despotic laws that require the faithful to commit deadly sin -- characterize Obama’s rule.

History shows that creativity becomes diabolical under the destructive specter of spite and godlessness. Reason and common sense are not driving forces in totalitarian ideologies. Without God as its guide, government is a tyrant, and the governed are fools.

The founders had been there and known that. Must we learn it for ourselves?

Democratic Party faithful...to whom?

Published in Cumberland Times-News Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012.

"The founders’ intent was not to remove faith from the hearts and actions of our public servants. What a cold, bold, capricious, remorseless arena society will be, if the atheists – and Democrats – have their way."

In a “revealing moment,” as Mike Huckabee calls it, in his Sept. 8 television program, the nation witnessed the Democratic Party faithful, gathered at their national convention, object to reinstating the tern “God-given,” and inserting a declaration that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, into their party platform.

Ben Shapiro at Breitbart (Sept. 5) calls ramming the verbiage through -- after its absence was criticized -- “a political move designed to prevent disillusioned Jewish voters from leaving the (party) in droves.” Smart Jews, though, Shapiro says, “(will) realize that the base of the Democratic Party simply does not support Israel.”

Vote replays indicate, too, that the Democratic base does not support God. One YouTube commenter cites Matthew 26:34 to put into context the three votes led by convention chair, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: “Truly, I tell you, this very night…you will deny me three times.”

Seems Villaraigosa may know how Pilate, and Christ’s faithful, felt: Dismayed, at the least. Will the condemning Dems react to their deceit the way Peter did, and repent? Or will they go the route of Judas, and self-destruct?

Or will they take the audacious high road of Pilate, and shrug the ugly scenario off as someone else’s problem?

Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, platform committee chair, who introduced the amendments, told the Toledo Blade (Sept. 6) that President Obama requested the hasty changes. “I was happy to do it,” says Strickland, an ordained minister.

How telling, that this president would entangle one of God’s faithful to represent his fellowmen in their bold betrayal of the Creator and His holy city, before an incredulous nation – indeed, world -- and then blithely bound forward with no signs of remorse.

We, the masses, are a bunch of chumps, left to wonder: Can this president be re-elected the same way? “NO,” we will shout, to the proposition to re-seat Obama. Yet somehow, will he win by a declared majority?

Atheists seem suddenly emboldened. On the same day as the vote, the Baltimore Sun reported that “secular-minded Marylanders” are organizing a Secular Coalition for America chapter, to lobby this spring in Annapolis (as they will in other capital cities across the nation) “for strong separation of church and state.”

Having intimate knowledge of religious persecution -- the reason the Pilgrims braved the seas to come to our shores -- the Founding Fathers provided that our government should not encroach upon citizens’ religious freedoms of conscience, instruction, culture, life.

The founders’ intent was not to remove faith from the hearts and actions of our public servants. What a cold, bold, capricious, remorseless arena society will be, if the atheists – and Democrats – have their way.

Government will be god, and we its servants. A new communism, ushered in by a misguided electorate, dawns on that horizon where Obama points.

As Michael Dresser notes in his Sun article, “Annapolis has a long history of lobbying by religious groups,” Catholic, Jewish, Muslim. “If the secular coalition is successful, (then) the non-religious would have their own presence in the General Assembly.”

At least one professed atheist serves now in the state senate, Jamin Raskin, D-Montgomery. Dresser, the Sun’s State House correspondent, wrote me in an e-mail, “There are probably several, but politicians who are atheists tend not to advertise it.” Why not?

Presenting his Democratic platform committee’s amendments, Gov. Strickland professes, “As an ordained United Methodist Minister, I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party's platform.” 

For whom does Strickland speak? Would he know?

The choice is stark: Democracy or serfdom

Published in Cumberland Times-News Friday, August 21, 2012.

"Let’s face it: The White experience in America – that of the Mayflower Descendants, the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution, descendants of European farmers who settled the frontier and Jewish and Christian immigrants who filled the cities and fueled the Industrial Revolution -- is fundamentally different from that of the African-American, or modern-day Latino or Asian immigrant."

Who would destroy our country? Why?

We who cherish America as the grand experiment in democracy, with lofty ideals to which others aspire, hold our heads in confoundedness: Why do our own brethren set out to destroy this country?

What is their thinking? Can we halt their rapid dismantling of America’s foundation?

Do these people have no connection to our ancestors’ struggles?  Is there no one in their families who witnessed the Pilgrims’ courageous voyage to seek religious freedom; their crash landing at Clark’s Island in winter 1620; their Mayflower Compact, necessary for survival; their thanksgiving to God for his protection and beneficence?

Can they claim no ancestors among the colonists who objected to tyrannical rule, who heroically proclaimed a Declaration of Independence, and then took up arms to fight, and win against all odds, in a risky Revolutionary War?

Did no one in their families side with the Feds or Rebs in their passionate disagreements over slavery and states’ rights that tore the country apart before making us one, joined then in reconstruction and resurrection?

 Did none of their fathers or grandfathers, sons or daughters, serve our country in Europe, Korea, Vietnam, or any of the various recent arenas, to fight against Marxist, Communist and Islamist totalitarianism and tyrannical oppression?

Were none of their ancestors among the hopeful immigrants who came here in centuries past to find freedom and opportunity, and to build a community, an identity, a country?

Either they must have no connection, or no knowledge of it; or they disdain ours.

Let’s face it: The White experience in America – that of the Mayflower Descendants, the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution, descendants of European farmers who settled the frontier and Jewish and Christian immigrants who filled the cities and fueled the Industrial Revolution -- is fundamentally different from that of the African-American, or modern-day Latino or Asian immigrant.

While we reflect on a bold and inspired heritage steeped in independence and self-reliance, they see their own ancestors having suffered inexorable pain and brutal injustices. Our America has been a land of parallel universes.

Unhealed wounds of slavery and yet-vivid images of Jim Crow fuel disillusionment with our founders’ Judeo-Christian ideals for law and justice; and progressive thinkers disagree with beliefs that our blessings come from God and not from government.

Marxist and neo-communist ideas of “social justice” and “fair share” have taken center stage at the White House and gained momentum among the masses, especially “alienated youths,” who American Thinker columnist James Lewis says (Oct. 9, 2007)  “are always the easiest targets for any totalitarian creed.”

 “The Neocommies,” Lewis writes, “are part more of a movement than a conspiracy.”

He goes on, “Democrats (have become) more totalitarian in spirit and practice (since)  the first wave of the New Left started its takeover of the Party in the 1970s and 80s.” These Democrats, Lewis says, “will tell you they are patriotic Americans, which is very true, if you adopt their belief that America must be subjected to a Leftist regime for its own good. ...

“The (ideological) goal,” says Lewis, “is to create Paradise on Earth by overthrowing democratic capitalism. The real goal is to enable the rise of a new ruling class with huge power over ordinary people.”

The choice in November is stark: Democracy, with its individual freedoms and prosperity, or socialism, serfdom and poverty.

Americans are at a juncture. We can revere our God-fearing ancestors and continue their unique, hard-won Judeo-Christian system of law and justice that has served exceptionally well for almost 240 years. Or we can discard all that, and embrace Marxist rule.

The majority will decide.

Debate goes beyond socialism to liberty

Published in Cumberland Time-News Thursday, June 14, 2012.

"Our founders established for us, as Jesus taught, that no ruler, nor president, has supreme authority to coerce God-fearing citizens to obey the state, and morally perish."

While folks debate Barack Obama’s socialist leanings regarding, for instance, his manipulating from the White House such industries as finance, health and energy, one thing is certain: He shared Marxist ideologies with Jeremiah Wright, a fervent liberation theologian, and his beliefs clash head-on with the Catholic Church.

Liberation theology twists Christianity to devalue Jesus’ divine nature and his salvific mission and, instead, emphasize his human persona in order to glorify and justify social redemption.

An errant offshoot of Catholicism, liberation theology espouses that Jesus promotes liberation from economic and political injustices imposed on the downtrodden by their oppressors, rather than urging personal redemption from sins of immorality.

Romans and Jews made the same mistake in Jesus’ day. Fear of Jesus’ influence as a revolutionary led to his death, though he claimed no intent to be an earthly king and told Pilate (John 18:36), “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Jesus taught, rather, that each of us, made in the image of God, is inherently dignified and uniquely responsible for our own conduct in the material world -- and our own fate in eternity.

Liberation theology seems to drive President Obama in his cries about the rich “paying their fair share” and his desire to “spread the wealth around.” It could be the force behind his trumped-up class warfare and claims of a war on women.

Our deliverer-president, in fact, in his Obamacare mandate, is waging war on the Catholic Church, and on religion in general; it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Jesus’ command that we should give to the state what is the state’s, and to God what is God’s (Mark12:17).

Our founders established for us, as Jesus taught, that no ruler, nor president, has supreme authority to coerce God-fearing citizens to obey the state, and morally perish.

 Speaking of the church’s response to the Department of Health and Human Services’ order to provide employees insurance coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops, said on May 21 that church leaders have no choice now but to sue.

“We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress -- and will keep at it -- but there’s still no fix,” many media quote Dolan. “Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now.”

The Archdiocese of New York is one of 43 plaintiffs -- Catholic dioceses, schools, hospitals, social service agencies and other institutions, Catholic News Agency clarifies -- who filed suit in 12 federal district courts across the country.

CNA reports that “states, colleges, private employers and organizations throughout the U.S.” previously filed at least 11 lawsuits against the mandate.

If the Supreme Court decides this month to strike the mandate, then the lawsuits could be moot. In the meantime, they illustrate “a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty,” Dolan observes – a cause that spawned our nation’s founding and should unify all Americans.

How ironic that Father John Jenkins -- Notre Dame president who infamously awarded President Obama an honorary degree, despite opposition from bishops and faithful across the country who object to Obama’s advancement of abortion -- proclaims in the May 21 Washington Post, “This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives.”

Indeed, the debate goes to the heart of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in America.

President presents tough ethics issue

Published in Cumberland Times-News Thursday, April 5, 2012.

"The direction of our secular society today, especially under President Obama’s federally mandated complicity, seems to be to prepare our youths for unfettered, no-fault sex, and then communally to prevent or dispose of the consequences -- unwanted pregnancies."

Reading Charles Haynes’ column about the Character Education Partnership (March 31 Times-News), I thought, “How wonderful,” that Mr. Sandy McDonnell saw and addressed the need; how sad, too, though, that secular scholars should be expected (and entrusted) to teach ethics and virtues – training traditionally instilled in faith-filled homes and communities in our not-so-long-ago God-fearing nation.

Are public school teachers qualified, and whose standards would they follow, to consider such concepts as “conscience” and “discernment,” basic to ethics and virtues, and often confused today with “license” and “self-fulfillment?”

Not self-serving, discernment enables us to judge wisely what is true and just, particularly in complicated situations. Not self-gratifying, conscience empowers us to follow God’s will, rather than our own, or that of others. Intricately intertwined, conscience builds discernment, while discernment leads to conscionable actions.

In today’s muddled secular society, would public school teachers embrace truth, or desire to seek it, with enough expertise to teach it? Likely, some -- in keeping with current progressive trends -- might thumb their noses at truth, mock it, and teach narcissism, skepticism and antagonism, instead.

For example: In March 2008, then-Senator Obama, speaking of contraceptives, said of the future for his six- and nine-year-old daughters, “if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” Then last month, in the context of his administration’s assault on religious liberty and conscience rights, President Obama referred to his two young daughters to imply they inspire him in his desire to mandate free contraceptives and abortifacients.

What confounding testimony for our nation’s youths – to educate them to think like victims that consequences of mistakes are punishments, rather than responsibilities, and then to provide “safety” for their sexual encounters at the expense of everyone else in the country, against the consciences and better judgments of most.

Public schools used to integrate domestic skills courses into curricula, to prepare young men and women for home and family life. Most youths came to school already trained in conscience and discernment, and practical matters, by their parents, pastors and neighbors; there was no need to teach ethics or virtues – or sex.

The direction of our secular society today, especially under President Obama’s federally mandated complicity, seems to be to prepare our youths for unfettered, no-fault sex, and then communally to prevent or dispose of the consequences -- unwanted pregnancies.

Ethical? Virtuous? No.

Corrupt? Extortionist? Perhaps some students in one of the CEP’s “schools of character” could take on this discussion as an ethics issue.

Much depends on Archbishop Dolan

Published in the Cumberland Times-News Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012.

"The modern problem dates to the 1960s’ spawning of Catholic liberation theology, an errant Marxist view of social justice, and Pope Paul VI’s crackdown on the 'follow your conscience' movement (regarding birth control), in his 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae."

My 92-year-old mother asked me, “What is the bottom line in the fracas with the church?”

I explained: To comply with the next ObamaCare mandate, all Catholic entities must buy employee health insurance that provides contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization.  

This is a direct assault on Catholicism, religious freedom and conscience rights. It forces the church to choose -- obey God, or bow to Obama.

The church may either implement the mandate and violate its essence; or refuse to comply, and go bankrupt paying whopping fines; or shutter all its hospitals, universities, schools, agencies – go out of existence; or go underground, as it has had to do in other countries, at other times, under similar circumstances.

The kick is, the mastermind behind the mandate is Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, who, we might say, was empowered to define its parameters with great assistance from Sister Carol Keehan.

President of the Catholic Health Association, Keehan stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Obama and his allies, to shove ObamaCare down the nation’s collective throat. Now, applauding the president’s recent backpedaling -- which simply makes us all complicit, rather than front-line offenders – Keehan again joins forces to put all Catholics in the distasteful position of having ObamaCare thrust up unsavory parts of our collective anatomy.

Jonathan Last writes in the Feb. 7 Weekly Standard: “most Catholics took the president at his word when he met with Archbishop Timothy Dolan last fall and assured him” the policy was no threat.

“That was their mistake,” Last concludes.

Now Dolan pushes back. But against powerful and deceitful progressives, will he have the doggedness to sustain the fight? Furthermore, can he wield sufficient influence among the masses of Catholic women – who regularly choose contraceptives or sterilization over abstinence or natural family planning, and often opt to abort rather than adopt -- and their commiserating men, to sway public sentiment effectively?

Next, segue to Maryland, where Gov. Martin O’Malley, his District Court judge wife Katie O’Malley, and Del. Heather Mizeur – all Catholics – lead the charge to ram same-sex marriage through our legislature.

Mizeur dismisses the bishops, saying they can preach what they want. She decides how to be a “practicing Catholic;” her faith gives her license to “follow her conscience” -- down the aisle with her female lover.

Katie O’Malley calls House delegates who obey God, rather than bow to her husband, “cowards;” and she agrees with Mizeur and the governor that religion has no place in the public square.

Those who believe that government is not at war with religious institutions and, indeed, every individual of faith, kid themselves.

And leading the charge are progressive Catholics who would destroy civil society and the church, and remake them in their own image -- with Obama all too happy to help.

The modern problem dates to the 1960s’ spawning of Catholic liberation theology, an errant Marxist view of social justice, and Pope Paul VI’s crackdown on the “follow your conscience” movement (regarding birth control), in his 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae.

Failing to effect change within the church during Vatican II, progressives advanced their agenda socially and politically, and waited for the next viable opportunity to wrest moral authority from the hierarchy.

Michael Collins of The Annapolis Capital (Feb. 7) calls for the Maryland judiciary to discipline Katie O’Malley, for her “partisan politics” that reveal “animus toward religion in the public square.”

I suggest the church disown both O’Malleys – and all their fellow anti-Catholics – until they might repent and reform.

Much depends on Cardinal-designate Dolan. He is a big man with a booming voice and a hearty laugh. We’ll see what kind of bite he has.