This week on Faith On Trial: The decline of DEI and Christian school in Vermont denied state tuition assistance over beliefs in sexual identity.

Episode 391, listen now: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/).

The word is …

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) -- Several years ago a new word began popping up in our societal conversation. It was not a bad word, in fact it was a valuable word. Unfortunately, it was a word whose meaning could easily be confused with a seemingly similar word.

          That word was “equity.” A word that does not mean “equality” but was used to lead folks to believe it did. And when put forth with two other words, “diversity,” and “inclusion” it sounded as all-American as apple pie.

          But “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” is not American. In fact, as applied by those promoting the DEI ideology, it is antithetical to everything for which America stands. It is the bastard child of a Marxist philosophy that divides people into separate tribes with each tribe being labeled either an oppressor tribe or an oppressed tribe. And those characteristics are used to reclassify society as containing favored and disfavored groups.

          The result has been a complete breakdown of our system of values and priorities, for this ideology has turned our nation from a meritocracy, where individuals succeed on their abilities and work ethic, to a random system whereby outcomes are pre-determined by the tribe in which you belong. And if the skill levels and educational requirements are too high for the favorite group to survive, well then we’ll just lower the requirements. That, you see, will be an equitable result.

          An example of this in the news recently is Harvard’s admission process that tips the scale to favor black applicants and to disadvantage Asian applicants. Asians, of course, mostly due to their cultural encouragement of hard work and education, are the disfavored group, part of the supremacy of the white race. People of color, on the other hand, are favored and need the added help. That’s equity.

          You see, in the leftist world this is true equality: equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. The word, remember, is equity. Ability is overshadowed by a tribal privilege which promotes equal rights by curbing the rights of the disfavored. And as an added bonus it allows the DEI overseers to select winners and losers and uplift or condemn their choices.

          But like the frog comfortable in a pan of lukewarm water who will be “cooked” as the pan is slowly heated to a boil, we are now wakening from our lukewarm slumber to finally realize that we’d better jump from the pan before we too are cooked. 

          It started, as most bad ideas of late, in academia where we have unwittingly turned over our children’s emotional development to a group of tenured mind controllers who have been in-bred to reproduce like-minded automatons as their faculty colleagues. That spawned a wave of similarly brain washed young people who have now taken their place in the media, major corporations – think of Bud Light – and is now branching into the military and medicine.

          Worse, many of its adherents have now taken their place in elementary and secondary schools as teachers and administrators so they are able to get to our kids before they can learn to read, that is if reading is still a desired end for our professional educators.   

          We’ve watched this take place over the past few years. First, left wing zealots complained that advance placement classes tended to make those left behind feel inferior. Thus, to avoid hurting the feelings of some, all advance placement classes must be eliminated.

          Unfortunately, some of the loonies running some of our top-tiered secondary schools bought the argument and eliminated their AP classes, in the name of, you guested it, equity. A similar thing happened in a Virginia school where National Merit Finalists were not notified of their selection so as not to hurt the feelings of those who were not finalists. Again, equity in action.

          Naturally, following the ideological mandate of the DEI crowd, scholastic values were turned, not to math and reading, but to pronouns. In many schools, as well as woke businesses and governmental offices, you can now be disciplined, fired, or expelled for using the wrong pronoun to identify some lackluster individual who cannot determine what he (or she) is.

          And there are some politicians who want to make such misidentifying a crime. I suppose the proper punishment will be time spent in an old Soviet style reeducation camp.

          Now, while all these things are dragging our society and culture down, there comes news that the State of Oregon has suspended the requirement that your kids be able to read and do math in order to graduate from a state high school. It seems the enlightened in Oregon have decided that the math and reading requirement are a “harmful hurdle for historically marginalized students.”  

          So, with that academic barrier removed, the graduation rate in Oregon for the class of 2022 was an impressive 81.3 percent. Good going guys! Unfortunately, only 43 percent were proficient in English, and less than 31 percent were proficient in math.

          Another win for the mindless automatons pushing DEI. We are quickly dumbing ourselves down to the point our culture will be lost in a forest of pronouns, bad grammar, and no historical prospective. Equity will prevail and we will need our friendly overseers to control our lives since we will be too stupid to do so ourselves. All hail the equity police.

          But we may not be too far off of a communal awaking. In the past few months the grumbling about DEI is starting to surface in quarters where such discussions would have, and probably still are, prohibited. One by one noted liberals are beginning to see the harm that DEI is doing and speaking out about it.

          Notably the famed liberal journalist and former New York Times editor Bari Weiss has joined the fray and several states, including mine, have ordered an examination of the use of DEI in the classroom. Our board of regents has also taken up the issue and is now developing guidelines to reduce the influence of DEI in our state universities.

          Small steps, but hopeful signs. Next year is an election year and this seems to me to be a movement we need to promote. That is unless you agree with the perversion of the word equity.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

Charity Watchlist Helps Donors Ensure Their Year-End Gifts Don’t Support Abortion

(Fredericksburg, Virginia) In a season of giving, American Life League urges caution for life advocates selecting recipients for their charitable donations. The national organization known for its “no exceptions” policy on abortion wants charitable givers to know exactly what they are supporting with their dollars. American Life League’s Charity Watchlist is an online tool using a simple stoplight green-yellow-red color coding to allow donors to know if they “go ahead” and donate to a nonprofit without reservations, “proceed with caution” after being fully informed of the potential risks, or “stop” any support of an organization that endorses abortion.

 

“The Charity Watchlist is a project designed to hold nonprofit organizations to account for the positions they take, especially when it comes to their positions on respect for life, fertility, the nuclear family and the aging.” stated Judie Brown, American Life League President. “Americans should be fully informed before they choose to support any charity and our project helps fulfill this need.”

 

The Charity Watchlist holds some surprises.

 

The Salvation Army, widely known for its Christian ministry, features an overtly pro-life statement on its website. But as one reads the complete message, more and more exceptions surface, raising serious concerns for those donors who do not wish to support abortion in any context. This alarming dichotomy has earned the organization a designation of red.

 

American Life League points out the misnomer of the nonprofit named Children’s Defense Fund. The group that bills itself as championing policies and programs that lift children out of poverty is certainly not defending preborn children. This organization promotes abortion and contraception, even to children, and has had a relationship with Planned Parenthood for decades. The Charity Watchlist tags Children’s Defense Fund as red.

 

By contrast, Food for the Poor, an organization that serves the poor in Latin America and the Caribbean, gets a Charity Watchlist green light for giving. While providing food, medicine, and shelter (among other services), Food for the Poor works to expand and build maternal health clinics in rural areas but will not endorse abortion. The group severed its partnership with Jamaica Aids Support for Life once they learned of its aggressive contraception promotion.

 

“As the abortion industry has grown into a multi-billion-dollar operation, more individuals and organizations have been corrupted and participate in abortion,” observed Ed Martin, who leads STOPP, American Life League’s Planned Parenthood watchdog division. He continued, “The Charity Watchlist is important because it shines a light on organizations and exposes their connections to the killing. When you follow the blood money, you see the truth about these organizations.”

 

“You can take the Charity Watchlist one of two ways,” stated Katie Brown, American Life League’s director of communications. “It’s an eye opener to how many big-name nonprofits fund dirty programs, but what I think is more important is that there are many nonprofits that do great things and keep out of the weeds of abortion research. This is something people deserve to know. Where we put our dollars counts, and nothing sends a message quite like withholding funds from pro-abortion organizations.”

 

Brown offered the example of green-rated Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation. Unlike many other organizations funding cancer research, this pediatric cancer charity founded by neuroblastoma patient Alexandra “Alex” Scott, states that research utilizing human embryonic stem cells is not permissible and that the group will not fund it. She noted that many other nonprofits funding cancer research are willing to support abortion for the sake of using fetal cells. Among those earning the anti-life red designation are American Cancer Society, Breast Cancer Research Association, Children’s Leukemia Research Foundation, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and even St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.

 

“The Charity Watchlist is a significant project in the fight to defend life and the truth,” shared American Life League’s lead researcher Katherine Van Dyke. She stated, “While looking at many of these charities for the first time, it was shocking at how many of them no longer even attempt to hide their support for abortion and human embryonic stem cell research. The culture of death stands right in front of our faces. The Charity Watchlist seeks to educate and encourage the public to know, discern, and challenge these organizations by making informed decisions for charitable giving, while providing donors with information about alternative charities that promote and support all human life and true charity.”

 

To illustrate this, Van Dyke related the story of the green-lighted Fuller Center for Housing and its unrelenting Christ-centered quest to provide adequate shelter for all people. Begun by Habitat for Humanity founder Millard Fuller, the group split away from Habitat for Humanity due to a change in board leadership, which chose to minimize the Christian values of the organization. The Fuller Center upholds pro-life values and does not support anti-life organizations or agendas. In comparison, Habitat for Humanity is coded with a cautionary yellow because of partnerships with groups that support abortion and contraception.

 

“The world is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Many organizations that work to care for others do so at the expense of human dignity and truth,” noted American Life League vice president Hugh Brown. “They feed, clothe, and help those in need, while also providing access to abortion and contraception. They affirm disordered lifestyles and give false hope to the most vulnerable. American Life League’s Charity Watchlist shares the truth about many duplicitous organizations that work and live serving two masters. We also highlight those outstanding organizations going above and beyond to do good works, serve others, and adhere to the moral standards taught and created by Christ and His Church.”

 

ALL’s Charity Watchlist currently profiles more than 60 tax-exempt nonprofits based on their implementation of life-affirming values or their endorsement of anti-life practices. American Life League promises that the list will continue to grow and invites charitable givers to submit nonprofit groups for Charity Watchlist review. View the current Charity Watchlist at all.org/charity-watchlist.           

 

About American Life League

American Life League has been part of the pro-life abortion debate since its inception. Since 1979, American Life League has committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to death with a pro-life integrity that stands up for every innocent human being whose life is threatened by the culture of death. For more information visit all.org.

.

An Open Letter to the Faithful from Bishop Joseph E. Strickland:

Bishop Joseph Strickland

As I am sure you have heard by now, I have been removed as Bishop of the Diocese of Tyler. I was asked to meet with the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, and in that meeting, I was read a list of the reasons I was being removed. I would make these reasons available to you if possible; however, I was not given a copy of this list at that time, and I have not been able as of yet to obtain a copy despite my requests.  

In the reasons that were read to me, no mention was made of administrative problems or mismanagement of the diocese as the reasons for my removal. The reasons given seemed to be related, for the most part, to my speaking the Truth of our Catholic faith, and to my warnings against anything that threatened that Truth (including things that were being brought up at the Synod on Synodality). 

Also, mention was made of my not walking alongside my brother bishops as I defended the Church and her unchangeable teachings, and of my not implementing the motu propoio Traditionis custodes, which were I to have implemented, would have required me to leave part of my flock unfed and untended. As a shepherd and protector of my Diocese, I could not take actions which I knew with certainty would injure part of my flock and deprive them of the spiritual goods which Christ entrusted to His Church. I stand by my actions as they were necessary to protect my flock and to defend the Sacred Deposit of Faith. 

This is the time for everything now covered to be uncovered, and everything now hidden to be made clear. In fact, it was in a time when things were being hidden regarding disgraced now-former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and the Church sex abuse scandal that it seems I first entered the Vatican’s radar. My main crime, then as now, seems to always have been about bringing to light that which others wanted to remain hidden. Sadly, it now seems that it is Truth Himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ, that many desire to be hidden. 

Although I am now without a diocese, I am still a bishop of the Church and therefore a successor of the apostles, and I must continue to speak Truth even if it requires my very life. I want to say this to all of you today – DO NOT ever, ever leave the Church! She is the Bride of Christ! She is now undergoing her Passion, and you must resolve to stand resolutely at the cross! 

It is important to attend Mass every Sunday and as often as possible, to spend time in adoration, to pray the Rosary daily, to go to confession regularly, and to call always upon the saints for assistance! I urge you to persevere that you might say in the end, “I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish; I have kept the faith.” 

May Almighty God bless you and may our Holy and Blessed Mother intercede for you and point you always to her Divine Son Jesus as we enter this Advent season. 

I remain your humble father and servant, 

Bishop Joseph E. Stricklan

Vermont school fights for religious freedom

 Vermont recently banned Mid Vermont Christian School students from participating in the state’s tuition program and sports league because of the school’s religious beliefs on sexuality and gender. Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the school and two families in a federal lawsuit filed on November 21. READ

NOTE: An ADF attorney representing the Christian school will be on our Faith On Trial program the weekend of December 2 & 3 and will be on our podcast at Iowa Catholic Radio on Friday December [Episode 391]

Satanic Christmas tree riles locals in Wisconsin

The National Railroad Museum in Green Bay, Wisconsin has come under fire for allowing a Satanic Christmas tree in their annual Festival of Trees display. The festival features trees representing groups across Northeast Wisconsin. The Satanic Temple of Wisconsin sponsored a tree with Satanic ornaments and a snake coiled around its base.  READ

‘Cardinal Burke is My Enemy’ Says Pope Francis

Cardinal Raymond Burke

CV NEWS FEED // Pope Francis reportedly told the heads of dicasteries of the Roman Curia last week that “Cardinal Burke is my enemy,” according to a report from the Daily Compass. 

According to the news outlet, “a Vatican source revealed” Pope Francis’ sharp rebuke and that the Holy Father planned to take away the Cardinal’s flat and salary. 

The report continued:

As far as we are aware, Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, currently in the United States, has not yet received a formal notice confirming the Pope’s words, but given the precedents – most recently the case of Monsignor Georg Ganswein, former personal secretary of Pope Benedict XVI – there is little doubt that words will be followed by deeds.

Burke has clashed with the Holy Father on many issues regarding doctrine and Church Tradition. The controversial publication of the three dubia submitted to Pope Francis, which Burke co-authored, is the most recent example of conflict between the two.  

Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith Cardinal Manuel Fernandez launched a personal critique against Burke on the Pope’s behalf in an exclusive email interview with the National Catholic Register following the publication of the dubia. 

In the interview, Fernandez told the Register correspondent Edward Pentin that Pope Francis has a duty not only “to guard and preserve the ‘static’ deposit of faith, but also a second, unique charism only given to Peter and his successors, which is ‘a living and active gift.’”

“I do not have this charism, nor do you, nor does Cardinal [Raymond] Burke. Today only Pope Francis has it,” Fernandez stated. “Now, if you tell me that some bishops have a special gift of the Holy Spirit to judge the doctrine of the Holy Father, we will enter into a vicious circle (where anyone can claim to have the true doctrine) and that would be heresy and schism.”

In September 2021, Francis was caught on video smrking as he made a snide comment at Burke’s expense, who was seriously ill with Covid, saying: “even in the College of Cardinals, there are deniers [of the vaccines] and one of them, poor man, is hospitalized with the virus.”  

In December 2013, Pope Francis removed Burke from the Congregation of Bishops and replaced him with Cardinal Donald Wuerl, known for his left-leaning policies and being an ally of the disgraced former Cardinal Theofore McCarrick. \The Pope’s comments and threats of retaliation against the Cardinal come in the wake of the most recent controversy of Bishop Joseph Strickland’s removal from Tyler, Texas, fueling claims of the pope’s antipathy towards the Church in the United States. 

Fraudulent science may have affected abortion cases

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has repeatedly asserted, including in court cases, that unborn children do not have heartbeats until the 18th or 21st week of gestation. “Within the past two months, ACOG quietly deleted its grossly inaccurate claim,” writes Christopher Mills.  READ

Senator presses Army on service members ousted over vax

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-MO, is pressing the U.S. Army for answers on behalf of former service members forced out for refusing COVID shots. Congress forced the Army to invite the ousted service members back, but Schmitt wants to know if they will receive backpay and be restored to their former ranks.  READ

Lack of ‘Affirmation’ Is Child Abuse: New Biden Rule Applies Transgender Standard to Foster Care

By Tyler O’Neil, The Daily Signal 

Transgender orthodoxy may soon become a litmus test for parenthood, according to the logic of a new policy working its way through the Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden. 

A new rule in HHS’ Administration for Children and Families would apply the idea that any lack of “affirmation” constitutes a form of child abuse to foster care placements. Once that idea takes root in foster care, child protective services agencies might start applying it more broadly. 

The rule would reinterpret the Social Security Act, which requires agencies to ensure that each child in foster care receives “safe and proper” care. The rule would lay out steps agencies must take to meet that requirement for “LGBTQI+ children,” defined as kids who “identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, as well as children who are non-binary, or have non-conforming gender identity or expression.” 

Read the story: https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/23/new-biden-rule-reveals-transgender-movements-endgame-no-dissenting-parents-allowed/

Church Militant’s Michael Voris steps down after ‘morality clause’ violation

Michael Voris

By Daniel Payne, Catholic News Agency 

Michael Voris, the founder of St. Michael’s Media which operates the controversial Catholic media outlet Church Militant, resigned this week over an undisclosed “morality” violation, the company said on Tuesday. 

Church Militant posted on its website on Tuesday that Voris had “been asked to resign for breaching the Church Militant morality clause.” 

“The board has accepted his resignation,” the notice said. 

“We understand this is a shock to you all, but our founder and former CEO is stepping aside and focusing on his personal health,” the notice said. “The Board of Directors has chosen not to disclose Michael's private matters to the public.” 

“The apostolate will be praying for him, and we kindly ask you to do the same,” they said. 

The enterprise has generated controversy over the years for its often severe criticism of what it sees as lax or insufficiently devout Catholicism. 

The outlet has claimed that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) “isn’t Catholic,” alleging that the bishops “only pretend to represent the Church.” Church Militant has at times held protests outside USCCB gatherings. 

The outlet has likewise at times been highly critical of Pope Francis’s papacy. In 2020 it alleged that Francis’s remarks on homosexual unions were made "in stark and unprecedented defiance of Catholic teaching,” while last year a headline at the site declared that Francis “falsifies biblical teaching on taxes.” 

Church Militant did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday morning regarding the decision. 

In a video posted to his Twitter page on Tuesday, Voris addressed the controversy, alluding to “some very, very ugly truths from my past…that I, for essentially 62 years, have avoided facing.” 

“There are things I have to go away and address and work on,” Voris said.

Idaho brings admin abortion rule to Supreme Court

Idaho’s attorney general filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court to protect pro-life doctors. The federal government is attempting to use a law ensuring emergency care for patients to force doctors to perform abortions.  READ

Water Utility Imposes Illegal, Overly-Inflated Water Service Fee on Local Church

Grace Community Church sues Montgomery County for illegal excessive fees they were forced to pay for their new facility.

The Woodlands, TX—Attorneys from First Liberty Institute and King & Spalding LLP filed a lawsuit today against the Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District, claiming it broke the law when it singled out Grace Community Church with excessive water connection fees. 

You can read the complaint here. 

“Churches like Grace Community are important parts of the communities they serve,” Craig Stanfield, a partner in the firm of King & Spalding, said.  “The resources of churches are best used in fulfilling their mission to serve their congregations and communities, not in paying unlawful taxes. We look forward to securing a refund for Grace Community.” 

The District initially stated the actual cost to connect to the water line would be $24,900 for labor and materials. When the church requested that the District install the water tap, they followed with a fee of $61,500 which amounted to 150% of the actual installation cost. When the church challenged the amount based on its tax-exempt status, the District countered with a tap fee of $147,938—more than doubling the prior fee. To complete, occupy, and use the new church facility for its intended religious purposes, Grace Community had no choice but to accede to the District’s demands under protest and pay the fees. 

“The county’s water tap fee scheme is a thinly veiled illegal property tax on Grace Community Church,” said Jeremy Dys, Senior Counsel and First Liberty Institute. “Any attempt by the government to collect taxes from a church under the guise of other fees is underhanded and unlawful.” 

The Church’s petition argues, “The tap fee imposed by the District on its face exceeds the cost of government action here—the installation of the tap.  Indeed, one iteration of the tap fee was equivalent to fifteen years of taxes and the last iteration exceeds what Grace would pay in taxes over seven years if Grace were not a tax-exempt entity.  Therefore, the tap fee constitutes an impermissible tax. The District and its Directors acted without legal or statutory authority in imposing this tax disguised as a tap fee, and Grace is entitled to a refund of the disputed amount.”

 ### 

About First Liberty Institute

First Liberty Institute is a non-profit public interest law firm and the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for all Americans.

Catholic all-girls’ college to accept ‘trans’ students

Saint Mary’s College in Notre Dame, Indiana, will accept male students who say they are women. “Saint Mary’s will consider undergraduate applicants whose sex assigned at birth is female or who consistently live and identify as women,” stated an internal email.  READ

32,000 more babies born after repeal of Roe

About 32,000 more babies were born per annum since the repeal of Roe v. Wade due to state laws protecting unborn children, according to the Institute of Labor Economics. Births have increased in every state that enacted pro-life laws.  READ

This week on Faith On Trial: From atheist to Catholic Deacon, an incredible story; What Catholics did to preserve religious tolerance in early America.

Listen Now: https://faith-on-trial.simplecast.com/episodes/joe-calvert-and-michael-breidenbach-390-11-25-2023-r4Y_alC6

To hear any of our other podcasts click “Back to Episodes” in box at upper left.

And the good news is …

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) -- This week is Thanksgiving, a uniquely American holiday which reflects on our Judeo-Christian heritage. Of course, over the years it has morphed into something else and lost much of its true meaning, much as Christmas has.

          So this week will be football, more football, Black Friday – followed by Cyber Monday – the start of the continual 40’s black and white movies that are supposed to get us into the Christmas season, Miracle on 42^nd Street, It’s a Wonderful Life, White Christmas and a slug of others that we dare not miss.

          Families, those lucky enough to have a family, will get together for turkey with all the fixins that won’t be put away until after everyone has had seconds sometime after the first football game ends. Some will offer prayers before eating, but I think most will not. Others will spend some time going over their personal and family gratitude lists, but again I think most will not. Most, I think, will just be happy they are safe and well fed.

          Of course, there will not be much thought of those who are not safe and not well fed. I doubt too many folks will pass a basket around their Thanksgiving table to collect funds for the poor, or will cart off what is left of a turkey carcass, mashed potatoes, stuffing, and pie to the nearest homeless shelter.

          I’m also sure that many will react to Thanksgiving as several people I know when I told them I was writing a Thanksgiving column. “What do we have to be thankful for? The country is a mess, the Church isn’t much better, and I can’t afford my kid’s education. So just grab a good meal and pray for relief.”

          Well, unfortunately all of that is true. We are living in a time of unsettling events, topped off by a war in Israel, a rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, the firing of a beloved bishop, and election results that bodes for a possible bad ’24.  

          That gave me a lot to think about. One of the things I do each week is to write this column and host a radio program. The topics include those matters for which we now might turn away from, being thankful and giving over to despair and discouragement. But I see it a bit better than those “gloom and doom” folks.

          I see a brightening future, especially in those areas in which Catholics are most interested.

          First to religious liberty. Every week I have the opportunity to interview people who are active in our fight. They are some of the best constitutional attorneys in the nation, many of them heading into or just coming from the U. S. Supreme Court, a state supreme court, federal appeals court, or district court. I’ve asked them questions, I’ve read their briefs, and I’ve celebrated their legal victories.

          And with or without me this is happening in every judicial district in America. Overreach by self-absorbed petty bureaucrats serving their own ideological interests are being pushed back by honest, fair minded judges that are giving back to the people what our Founding Fathers intended for them to have.

          I’ve also visited with honest journalists who are putting aside all the clutter of “political correctness” and beginning to tell the story as it should be told, as Joe Friday put it, “just the facts.”

          I’ve had fellows from some of the best known foundations in the nation who have provided research – true and objective research – about what is affecting our daily lives; from the Family Research Council and its reports on the truth behind the teen transgender phenomenon,  to the Heritage Foundation on how Marxist policies are affecting the body politic.

          As well as numerous heads of organizations fighting abortion, physician assisted suicide, and election fraud; academicians from all walks who can put the problems – and solutions – of America in simple, easy to understand terms. Of course I can’t forget the medical personnel who came to our studio to warn against drugs commonly used to facilitate abortions many times without the participation of a doctor.  And I can’t forget the FBI whistle-blower who broke the story of how the bureau was trying to infiltrate the Catholic Church because it believed we were engaged in White Supremacy.

          And we have a couple of other hopeful signs. First, as undeserved as the school closings were during the COVID pandemic, it gave us an eye into what was going on in our public schools at the behest of the teachers’ unions, which led to many states – including mine – to change policies that favored tuition aid for private and parochial schools.   

          In like manner, as bad as the pro-Hamas and anti-Semitic wave of social activism, it has turned the spotlight on what was heretofore a simmering problem that existed below the surface of polite society, and has exposed the dangers lurking on college campuses as an affront to our way of life and has many liberal commentators now turning against its dirty spawns such as DEI, CRT, and the 1619 Project.   

          Of course we still have a long way to go, but, at least from my viewpoint, things are beginning to change, the truth is beginning to seep out and people are beginning to notice. It’s going to be a long haul before we can right the ship, but this confluence of people and events have helped start the process.

          So for all those people out there who are helping expose the rotten underbelly of our society, we need be thankful. We also need to keep all of them in our prayers, asking God to grant them the strength and wisdom to keep up the good fight.

+++

 (You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

 

Jesuit-Run Schools Still Lack Free Speech

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president

 

The latest report on free speech on college campuses has just been published by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), “2024 College Free Speech Rankings.”

 

For the last several years, four Jesuit-run schools have ranked among the worst in the nation when it comes to respecting freedom of speech: Georgetown University, Fordham University, Boston College and Marquette University. They are still at the bottom of the barrel.

 

The latest FIRE survey of 248 colleges and universities lists five Catholic schools that achieved a “Poor” rating; the only non-Jesuit school is Duquesne University. Boston College (#229), Marquette (#230), Duquesne (#241), Fordham (#244) and Georgetown (#245) made for an embarrassing cluster of Catholic schools. Georgetown even earned a “Very Poor” rating.

 

The most intolerant institution of higher education in the nation, coming in last at #248, was Harvard University: it actually earned the lowest score possible, 0.00, meriting the tag, “Abysmal.” Why would anyone who has a serious interest in academic excellence go to such a close-minded school? Graduates may land a good job, but can they think for themselves?

 

Some of the key findings in this year’s report are disconcerting, if not disgusting.

 

The schools in the bottom five, which includes Fordham and Georgetown, are not only intolerant of controversial ideas on campus, they succeeded in censoring speech 81 percent of the time.

 

What subjects set off the speech police the most? Abortion is #1. God forbid a student accepts the findings of science, and agrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church, that life begins at conception. Such speech simply cannot be tolerated by those who fancy themselves as “open-minded.”

 

As usual, it’s left-wing students, dogmatically following the ideological predilections of their professors, who are the most intolerant of free speech. “Student opposition to allowing controversial conservative speakers on campus ranged from 57% to 72%, depending on the speaker. In contrast, student opposition to controversial liberal speakers ranged from 29% to 43%.”

 

Incredibly, 45% of today’s college students believe that it is okay to block other students from attending a speech—this is up from 37% last year. More than a quarter, 27%, say it is acceptable to engage in violence to stop a speech they don’t like—it’s up from 20% last year.

 

Have our colleges become hotbeds of fascism? Some are moving very quickly in that direction.

 

Importantly, there are some schools that respect free speech. The top five are: Michigan Technological University, Auburn University, University of New Hampshire, Oregon State University and Florida State University.

 

It might be worthwhile for the alumni of the Jesuit-run schools cited near the bottom of the free-speech rankings to demand that their school officials meet with administrators of the top five schools—all of which are public universities—to find out what they are doing right.

 

In short, these Catholic institutions need an examination of conscience. They are taking the hard-earned money of the students’ parents and abusing it in ways that are positively sinful.

After 30 Years of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Law—and Our Liberty—Are Under Attack

By Thomas Jipping, The Heritage Foundation 

Thirty years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, to protect what he called “the most precious of all American liberties.” Presidents of both parties have declared religious freedom to be one of our most fundamental freedoms, a “critical foundation of our nation’s liberty,” and “a fundamental human right.”

 

Congress has unanimously recognized that religious freedom “undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.” Yet only three decades after RFRA passed Congress with a total of only three votes against it and grassroots support from across the ideological spectrum, religious freedom is once again in danger.

 

People wishing to practice their faith without government interference were coming to these shores more than a century before James Madison made the “free exercise” of religion the first individual freedom in the Bill of Rights. First in colonial charters and state constitutions, then in the First Amendment itself, the law protected the exercise of religion as a preferred, inalienable right that, Madison wrote, takes precedence “over the demands of civil society.”

 

In his 1941 address to Congress, President Franklin Roosevelt included the exercise of religion as one of “four essential human freedoms.” The year before, the Supreme Court began articulating a strong legal standard, later called “strict scrutiny,” that would allow government interference only as a last resort and, even then, no more than necessary.

Only the “gravest abuses,” the court said in 1945, “endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation” of religious freedom. The Supreme Court also recognized that government can burden religious practices in different ways, including through laws that appear to be “generally applicable,” that is, laws that are religion-neutral but still have a significantly negative effect on the exercise of religion.

 

That’s where things stood in 1990, when the Supreme Court changed everything. In Employment Division v. Smith, two Oregon state employees challenged their firing and denial of unemployment benefits for using peyote, a prohibited control substance, in their Native American religious ceremonies. No one questioned that strict scrutiny was the proper standard to determine whether the state’s actions violated the First Amendment. No one raised, briefed, or argued that issue, and addressing it was unnecessary to decide the case.

 

The Supreme Court addressed it anyway, turning the free exercise clause on its head. Going forward, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court, strict scrutiny would be applied only when the government deliberately and explicitly targets the exercise of religion. Not a single free exercise clause case in the previous 50 years, however, involved such explicit religious restriction. Every case had instead been of the “generally applicable” kind, challenging the burdensome effect of government action that appeared religion-neutral.

Congress responded by enacting RFRA in 1993 to once again require that strict scrutiny be applied universally to all free exercise claims. Regardless of party or ideology, members of Congress and grassroots organizations united around a single principle: Everyone should be able to challenge government action that interferes with this special right.

While strict scrutiny puts a thumb on the scale in favor of religious freedom, courts still ruled for the government in a majority of free exercise clause cases prior to the Supreme Court changing the rules in Smith. Since then, the government wins almost every time.

Today, however, a campaign is underway to do to RFRA what the Supreme Court did to the free exercise clause. Several bills have been introduced in Congress to advance the Left’s agenda on issues such as LGBTQ rights and unrestricted access to abortion. That’s bad enough by itself, but these bills would block application of RFRA so that government could restrict, or even prohibit, religious practices that might slow down that agenda.

The Equality Act, for example, would change seven important federal statutes to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in areas such as employment, housing, credit, or jury service. Professor Douglas Laycock, a prominent First Amendment scholar who helped write RFRA, has explained that the Equality Act “is not a good-faith attempt to reconcile competing interests. It is an attempt by one side to grab all the disputed territory and to crush the other side.”

 

In another example, the Women’s Health Protection Act would prohibit any government, down to the level of towns and villages, from doing anything that might make abortion less likely. Like the Equality Act, it would block any application of RFRA, depriving religious employers of any chance to challenge being forced to pay for employees’ abortions or health care workers any chance to challenge being required to participate in them.

 

Additionally, the Do No Harm Act would amend RFRA itself so that it would not apply to laws that prohibit discrimination or promote “equal opportunity.” These bills would immunize any government action in these broad areas from any challenge that the action compromised or undermined anyone’s right to practice their faith.

 

Introducing bills is one thing, but these attacks on religious freedom are supported by a growing number of organizations and members of Congress who backed RFRA in 1993. Back then, they demanded that strict scrutiny be applied universally; today, they want to quash any protection for religious practices they do not favor. At least 15 organizations that opposed any exception to RFRA in 1993 have endorsed one or more of the aforementioned bills that would gut RFRA today.

The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, signed a letter opposing any amendment to RFRA when it was enacted. Its president at the time, Nadine Strossen, testified before both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees that the exercise of religion is a “preferred” value and should be protected as a fundamental right. The ACLU has today endorsed all three of the RFRA-busting bills.

People for the American Way also opposed any limitation on RFRA’s application in 1993. Its then-president, John Buchanan, testified that RFRA should apply universally, “neither endorsing or opposing any particular faith or practice.” Today, however, the group promotes all of the bills that would make impossible the “balancing test” that Buchanan insisted in 1993 was so critical.

A total of 31 current senators and House members, 25 Democrats and six Republicans, were serving in either the Senate or House in 1993. All of them supported RFRA, with many also co-sponsoring the legislation and advocating its universal application in Senate and House floor speeches.

Today, however, all 25 Democrats have co-sponsored or voted for one or more of the bills that would tear apart the protection for religious freedom that they claimed was so essential just three decades ago. 

Were the Founders correct that the right to exercise religion is a preferred inalienable right? The U.S. Constitution, federal statutes and treaties, and American presidents across parties and generations have said so.

RFRA stands for a very simple, yet profound, principle: This fundamental right belongs to everyone, and it should always be difficult for the government to undermine it. This “most precious of all American liberties,” as President Clinton put it, is today on shaky ground because the consensus behind that principle is crumbling.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s 1993 report on RFRA called religious freedom “among the most treasured birthrights of every American.” Without a renewed commitment and a conscious decision to put this freedom ahead of politics, that birthright may be lost forever.

 

+++

 

Editor’s note: Thomas Jipping is a senior legal fellow with the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation and has been a frequent guest on the Faith On Trial radio program.