The Prophet Obama Says We Have Sinned

Those of you who have studied the health care reform bills and have spoken out against them have sinned.

So says the Right Rev. Barack Hussein Obama.

"There are some folks out there who are actually bearing false witness," he said Wednesday. He peppered his remarks with the "sins" of his political opponents: "lots of misinformation," "extraordinary lies," "all fabrications."

I'm not sure what President Obama was hoping for when he held a "telephone town hall" with members of mostly the squishy religious left, but he is increasingly sounding like a desperate man.

If "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel," then it is quite possible that "religion is the last refuge of the incompetent politician."

In agreement is Victor Davis Hanson, who reports that there is "something creepy about the sudden invocation of Christian morality by the president to galvanize support for his state-run health care plan, as if his opponents are suddenly to be seen as somehow selfish or even un-Christian. This is an unfortunate, counter-productive tactic ..."

Hanson cites four very level-headed reasons for saying this. I guess my reaction is a bit more visceral, or perhaps less level-headed. As a Christian I am deeply offended when a man who is heavily in the tank for abortion rights and the abortion industry tries to pass himself off as Mr. Morality, and at my expense!

I am deeply offended when the president continues to claim that he has never spoken out in favor of a single-payer (government) health care system when there is video of him, on at least two occasions, saying exactly that! This is called "telling a lie" and it is covered by the commandment against false witness, in case Mr. Obama doesn't know this.

I am deeply offended when the president continues to tell the American people that "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan," when according to FactCheck.org (and others) this simply cannot be true.

In fact, there is so much the president said in his 40-minute program that there is no possible way I can express the depth of my revulsion at a president who is obviously co-opting Christian terminology and symbolism to cynically push his political agenda. It is an agenda that has little to do with compassion or health care but much to do with expanding government power into the private lives of every American.

Jesus did not once say, "Render unto Caesar so that he can provide health care for the unfortunate."

He did speak of an individual Christian's responsibilities: "For as often as you did this for one of the least of my brothers, you did it for me."

I will be judged by the Almighty for what I have done or failed to do in my individual choices, with my time, talent and treasure. I will get no brownie points for coercing my fellow citizens to do good works by raising their taxes or supporting new laws that would force them to bow down before an almighty government.

The Church may well insist on a preferential option for the poor as a policy for church activism. Our Republic has no such constitutional provision, and should it be given one it will no longer be a Republic.

That, in my view, is the essential creepiness of this latest Obama tactic.

In Phoenix, Bells of Freedom Aren't Ringing

A bishop in Phoenix is taken to court over "ringing bells" -- and loses.

And the bells weren't as loud as the traffic on the street.

By court order, the electronic chimes that were rung each day by Cathedral of Christ the King Church in Phoenix, Ariz., are now confined to Sundays and special occasions, while the cathedral's leader, Bishop Rick Painter, faces potential jail time for playing the daily melodies.

Responding to complaints that the electronic bells at the northern Phoenix church were rung too loud and too often, a municipal court gave Painter three years probation and a suspended 10-day jail sentence on charges of violating city noise ordinances.

"It's ridiculous to be sentenced to jail and probation for doing what churches have traditionally done throughout history," said a statement from Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been retained by Painter. "Christians shouldn't be punished for exercising their faith publicly."

Separate investigations found the bells to be no louder on the street than a conversation or even local traffic, yet according to a report from KNXV-TV in Phoenix, neighbors testified the music disturbed them and made them feel like captives in their own homes.

Ah, so the media was in league with this anti-church action!

The ADF statement claims the bells registered only 67 decibels at the nearest property line, about as loud as a conversation, which ranges from 60-70 decibels. An investigation by KNXV-TV found the bells, even in the church's parking lot, were quieter than street traffic and failed to even register on a sound level meter in some parts of the neighborhood.

Nonetheless, the court opted to restrict when the bells can be played, ordered their level lowered to less than 60 decibels and convicted Bishop painter of on two counts of creating "an unreasonably loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise."

The ADF pointed out the Phoenix noise ordinance does not include an exemption for religious worship, though it does provide an exemption for ice cream trucks, which are allowed to emit 70 decibels, measured at a distance of 50 feet.

"The church bells chime a short, ancient melody of praise to God," commented Stanley. "It's too bad that the value of the bells is lost on many in our society. In a busy neighborhood full of sirens, heavy traffic and loud motorcycles, these chimes are a sound of peace that do not exceed the noise level of an average conversation. Certainly, that should be at least as acceptable as the sound of an ice cream truck."

Bishop Painter defended the bells as a constitutionally protected freedom of religion issue.

"We're expressing our religion," he told KNXV. "We glorify God by the bells."

An appeal is planned.

Thankfully.

One Christian Group Fights Back in Court

At last, a Christian group with courage.

El Cajon, Calif., Jun 6, 2009 / 07:58 am (CNA).- The apologetics organization Catholic Answers has filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service claiming the federal tax collection agency has “intimidated” churches and non-profit groups into silence on politically controversial moral issues.

In an announcement posted at the organization’s web site, Catholic Answers president Karl Keating explained that the IRS fined the group for a 2004 e-letter it wrote saying that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry should not be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

Keating charged that Francis Kissling, then-leader of the pro-abortion front group “Catholics for a Free Choice,” had instigated the IRS action with a complaint.

He said Kissling “hated” Catholic Answers’ “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics,” which aimed to educate Catholics on issues such as abortion. However, the guide did not mention any candidates or political parties and was cleared of any violations by the IRS.

According to Keating, the IRS did rule that the e-letter’s remark about Sen. Kerry was “intervening” in the election, a charge Keating called “preposterous.”

He said the IRS has been using “very vague criteria” to “intimidate” churches, non-profits and ministries into “silence” on controversial moral issues.

“The intimidation has become so bad that nowadays, most churches and non-profits in America are scared to death even to talk about moral issues that are deemed ‘political' (such as abortion).”

“If you’re wondering why you don’t hear more about abortion in your parish, especially during election time, this is why. It’s IRS intimidation,” Keating wrote.

“All of this tail-between-the-legs cowering comes from the IRS’ ability to intimidate churches and non-profits into silence on political issues.

“And it’s simply wrong."

Of course Christians "intervene" in elections. That's what free people with opinions on major political and moral issues do.

We are praying for their success in court.

If They're Running You Out of Town, Act Like it's a Parade

The good news from Connecticut is that, in the face of a vast protest unprecedented in state history, the two lawmakers who were trying to push legislation to steal parishes away from the Catholic church have given up the atttempt.

For now.

Their rationale, however, is insane.

The Democratic co-chairs of the legislature's judiciary committee, Rep. Michael P. Lawlor of East Haven and Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford, just released the following statement:

"For reasons that are unclear, Connecticut has had generations-old laws on the books singling out particular religions and treating them differently from other religions in our statutes. That doesn't seem right. In fact, many of our existing corporate laws dealing with particular religious groups appear to us to be unconstitutional under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If that is correct, any changes to that law would likely also be unconstitutional.

"With that in mind, it would serve no useful purpose to have a conversation about changing the laws that govern existing Roman Catholic corporations until we know if any of these existing laws are constitutional."

Lawlor and McDonald are going to ask the state attorney general for an opinion on the constitutionality of the various laws in question, and then convene a religious forum to try to build a consensus for their new regulations. In the meantime they will try to persuade the Connecticut bishops to unilaterally surrender to the dissident Voice of the Faithful.

"... we think it would be most beneficial if the proponents who requested these changes and church officials meet together privately to see if they can come to a resolution on their own. Open and honest communication between these two groups could only help. For our part, we intend to reach out to representatives of the Catholic Conference and continue the discussion that began in 2008 on this issue. We hope they will agree to meet with us."

I would encourage the bishops to tell them to go to hell, although I suspect the bishops will be a bit more diplomatic about it. Mostly, I would not trust Lawlor, McDonald or any of the VOTF people as far as I could throw them. I suspect they will attempt to exploit any existing inequities to promote division among Christian groups, rather than actually work to create laws more in keeping with the First Amendment.

The good guys won this battle, but the war is far from over.

The (Slight) Rise of the Non-religious

Americans who claim to have "no religion" are in slightly greater numbers than in 2001 according to a survey taken last year and released today.

The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), released on Monday, shows that the percentage of Americans claiming no religion, which jumped from 8.2 percent in 1990 to 14.2 in 2001, has now increased to 15 percent.

The findings were based on over 54,000 interviews conducted between February and November of last year. The 2008 survey was a continuation of ARIS surveys in 1990 and 2001, which are part of a landmark series by the Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

Vermont carries the distinction as the state of the most non-religious. Atheists in all states have doubled in number.

Vermont has become the least religious state in the country with 34 percent of "Nones," leading all other states by 9 percentage points. Between 1990 and 2008, the Green Mountain State had the largest percentage increase of non-religious people (21 percent), beating out New Hampshire (20 percent), Delaware (16 percent) and Massachusetts (14 percent).

"Many people thought our 2001 finding was an anomaly," Keysar said. "We now know it wasn’t. The ‘Nones’ are the only group to have grown in every state of the Union."

Despite a small proportion (1.6 percent) of Americans calling themselves atheist or agnostic, a review of stated beliefs shows that 12 percent are deistic (believe in a higher power but not a personal God), and 12 percent are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unsure).

Over the past seven years, the number of outright atheists has nearly doubled, from 900,000 to 1.6 million, according to the survey.

Still, Christians take heart. Three out of every four Americans still identify themselves as such.

Meanwhile, the percentage of Christians in America has declined from 76.7 in 2001 to 76 percent, down from 86.2 percent in the 1990s. The shrinking proportion of Christians is largely attributed to the decline in the non-Catholic segment of the Christian population, largely from the mainline denominations, including Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian/Anglican churches, and the United Church of Christ.

There's some interesting stuff on where protestant Christianity is heading as mainline denominations morph into evangelicals.

It will be interesting to see what troubled economic times will do to personal belief systems.

Catholic Church Under Attack by State of Connecticut

The culture war on faith and religion is ratcheting up several notches.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, are considered fundamental, priority rights that event the separate states cannot violate (and their assent to them came when they accepted the Constitution at the time of their statehood).

So why is the legislature of the state of Connecticut attempting to restructure the Roman Catholic Church, at least as it operates in that state? Because the church is a target of opportunity. According to the Diocese of Bridgeport:

This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.

The pretext for the state action is that it is "responding" to the complaints of Catholic dissidents who complain that the Church's hierarchical structure is not democratic and has led to abuses of various sorts. Nevermind that these dissidents are certainly free to exercise their right to withdraw from the church. No one is forcing them to remain. The real agenda is that these people want to change the belief system of the church to one that mirrors theirs: acceptance of homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, a female priesthood, etc.

In other words, if the ancient Church won't change itself to the world, then by golly they'll get the worldly government to change it for them.

We expect this effort to fail. The fact that it is even taking place is a sign, however, that the old constitutional safeguards soon may not be enough to protect traditional Christian organizations.

Every person of faith, be they Christian, Jew, Hindu or Muslim, should realize that if Connecticut succeeds in taking out the Catholic church, then any state can do the same to a Baptist church, a mosque, a synagogue, an ashram, or reading room.

UPDATE -- Tom Hoopes at the National Catholic Register gives more details, including how the dissident Voice of the Faithful is in league with certain politicians to attempt a political power grab with the Catholic church as as the spoils. Some politicians, he says, want payback for the bishops support of the defense of marriage act. The good news, Hoopes says, is that this is a legislative battle the Church should win on both grounds of both constitution and faith.

Religion Still Important in Oklahoma

Three out of every four Oklahomans consider religion an important part of their daily life, according to the Gallup organization. That's pretty good, but only enough to rank the state 8th in the nation.

Who's No.1? Mississippi, where 85 percent answered the same question in the affirmative.

The states where respondents were least enthused about religion as a daily part of life: Vermont (42%), New Hampshire (46%), Maine (48%) and Massachusetts (also 48%). These states, all in New England, were the only places in the country to fall below 50 percent. John Adams would be spinning in his grave, as would the Puritan settlers and several generations of their descendants. Even Connecticut and Rhode Island (founded as religious colonies) are in the bottom 10.

There are other striking geographical relationships in the Gallup data, as they show on a couple of graphs. The South is still rock solid in its reliance on God. The states adjacent to the Old South, like Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia and Virginia, are still largely religious, as are the Dakotas and Utah. But there is slippage in the Western states and outright backsliding on the Left Coast.

Though Gallup refrains from making the connection, one can easily correlate this noticeable lack of concern for daily religious practice (or thought) with increased support for progressive (socialist) government policies. Whoa! Big surprise there. Not. Those who pay no attention to God will always find another to replace Him, even if its name is Big Government.