Title IX protects women. Keep it that way

 

Bigot to host White House media dinner

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

On April 30, Comedy Central star Trevor Noah will host the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. It says a lot about those in the White House and the media that they would pick such a bigot.  

On two occasions in the past few years, we contacted his bosses at Viacom (and ViacomCBS), and he initially tapped his brakes, only to start up again with his attacks on Catholics. We all know that if he had said anything like this about any other demographic group, he would not have been invited. In fact, he wouldn't even have a job—he would have been fired long ago. 

The following are quotes from the "Daily Show with Trevor Noah."

• September 28, 2015—While commenting on the pope's visit to America, Noah stated that the pope's car was small and that "somebody's compensating. I'm saying the pope has a huge c**k."

 

• June 27, 2016—After Noah made some humorous and inoffensive jokes about the pope's quips aboard the papal plane, he referred to the pontiff as that "mother******."

 

• January 5, 2017—While commenting on a McDonald's opening near the Vatican, Noah stated that "it makes a lot of sense when you think about it—both the Catholic Church and McDonald’s have served billions, they both make people feel guilty about themselves, and both are historically bad for children, so it makes sense (emphasis added)."

 

• March 23, 2017—While commenting on a three-year-old removing the pope's hat, Noah stated that "I can see why this made the news—a child undressing a priest for a change."

 

• September 5, 2018—While commenting on two Catholic priests performing lewd acts on each other, Noah stated, "that sounds like a good news story to me. Two adults having consensual sex, hallelujah! That's pretty dope." The comic went on to suggest that the pope was "pretty stoked" about the story and introduced a dubbed-over clip of the Holy Father saying, "You want to talk about a miracle? They are both over 18. Two adults, just a midday quickie in a PT cruiser. Thank you, Lord Jesus!"

 

• March 26, 2019—While commenting on the pope not wanting people to kiss his ring, Noah stated that "it's a nice change of pace to see a priest not want to touch people."

 

• May 29, 2019—While discussing an alleged Catholic group selling video games, Noah provided a platform to "Daily Show" correspondent Ronny Chieng to say that "I don't think an institution known for luring children should put out a game to lure more children. Where do you catch the final Pokémon Jesus—Father Garrity's tickle room?"

 

• June 11, 2019—While commenting on the Vatican's teachings on gender ideology, Noah stated that "the Catholic Church thinks that if you're a girl, you're a girl forever, and if you're a boy, they are going to f*** you." He then made several jokes about "pedophile priests."

 

• October 9, 2019—Noah questioned, "Why is the communion wafer so bland? Jesus was from the Middle East. How about a bowl of hummus to go with it? Body of Christ, tasty."

 

• January 16, 2020—While commenting on the pope's remarks on the issue of celibacy for priests, Noah mocked Pope Emeritus Benedict for publishing a book on celibacy stating that "the old pope wants the rules to stay the same. And I get that. I mean if I had been forced to be a virgin for 92 years, I would also be out there like, 'guys come on! Those are the rules! We agreed!'"

 

• March 9, 2020—While commenting on Covid-19 restrictions, Noah stated that "it's going to be hard to take Communion seriously when the priest has to throw wafers into people's open mouths from across the room, the Body of Christ—from downtown!"

 

• April 13, 2020—While commenting on Covid-19 restrictions, Noah stated that Easter Sunday would be hard for many church-goers, "but for the Catholic Church, this is a good thing—keeping priests separate from the congregation might not be the worst idea."

 

• May 18, 2020—While commenting on Covid-19 restrictions, Noah stated that a Detroit priest using a water gun to bless parishioners with holy water from a distance was "a great way for other Catholic priests to explain why they have a bunch of kid's toys in their basements."

 

• March 16, 2021—While commenting on the Jesuits providing reparations to African-Americans, Noah mocked the Sacrament of Baptism by calling it "waterboarding babies." The comic went on to do a skit where he impersonates a priest offering money to a black man "for owning [his] great-grandfather." Noah then takes on the role of the black man and replies that "I thought this was for you guys touching us when we were kids."

When Obama was president, they never would have allowed a white racist to host this event. 

Asians and academics

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – About a year ago this column reported on the growing suspicion that academia was biased against students of Asian descent. The issue had been percolating within scholastic circles, but finally was brought to the forefront by several lawsuits filed against several notable institutions of higher learning: Harvard University, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Texas.

The suit against Harvard is now pending before the Supreme Court and a decision should be announced before the end of the court’s term. At the heart of the suit, for many, is the role affirmative action and Critical Race Theory have played in producing college admissions requirements that lean — ever so slightly sometimes — on the racial identity of the applicant.

In presenting its case, the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., claimed that Harvard’s own admission data “revealed astonishing racial disparities in admissions rates among similarly qualified applicants.” Nevertheless, the district court found in Harvard’s favor and the student group began its appeal which is now ready for a decision by the Supreme Court.

Much of the claim made by the student group was that affirmative action was being used to decrease the number of Asian students accepted in favor of black and Hispanic applicants. In its petition to the top court the student group is asking that the court overturn its prior precedents which held that racial preferences can be used in the admission process.

While this case was pending, the Fairfax County School Board in Virginia was getting embroiled in an Asian controversy of its own. It has what was considered one of the academically elite schools in the nation, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. The school had an admissions policy that focused on academic excellence and proven scholastic performance.

The high achievement standards for admission resulted in a racial mix of one percent black, three percent Hispanic, and 73 percent Asian. Now the guiding lights of the school board, in an era of Critical Race Theory and Black Lives Matter, were not satisfied with the mix. For years, minority groups had claimed there was a lack of diversity in the student body due to the underrepresentation of minority students.

According to the Asian students’ group, Coalition for TJ, shortly after the death of George Floyd there was a new diversity, equity, and inclusion reporting requirement mandated for schools. The board, now concerned about the low black enrollment, started the overhaul of the admission process at Thomas Jefferson.

Some of the changes included: eliminating the standard admission test followed by a set-aside of seats for 1.5 percent of the middle school graduates from each public school in the area. The new policy left only 100 seats available for all others including private and home-school students.

According to their court filing, the group opined, “Because a disproportionate number of Asian American applicants and accepted students at TJ come from a handful of Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) middle schools, each of which often sent far more than 1.5 percent of their eighth graders to TJ, the guarantee effectively limited Asian-American enrollment.”

Additionally the policy awarded bonus points for certain “experience factors” including an applicant’s attendance at historically underrepresented middle schools. The result was the distribution of non-academic bonus points went overwhelming to non-Asian students.

The result was a new mix that saw black applicants rise from one to seven percent, Hispanics from three to 11 percent, and Asian drop from 73 to 54 percent. Asians, who had been suspicious of the situation for some time, and seeing a drop in Asian admissions by 19 percent, filed suit.

However, unlike the Harvard group which lost its first round in court in Massachusetts, with the court finding that all applicable court rulings had been followed by Harvard, the Asian group in Virginia won. There the judge ruled that since “racial balancing” was the controlling factor in the new admissions policy it was unconstitutional and enjoined the district from using it.

The court found that the new criteria had a substantial adverse impact on Asian-American students, and that the board had actually intended to make it more difficult for these students to gain admission to the prestigious high school. The matter never went to trial, as the parties stipulated to all the pertinent facts, and the court ruled in the Coalition’s favor on a motion for summary judgment.

The school district, however, appealed the matter to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The board, citing “administrative inconvenience,” by having to revise its admission policies on a short time table, sought and received an emergency stay of the district court’s injunction until the matter could be heard by the appeals court.

The Coalition responded by filing a motion with the Supreme Court to vacate the stay and allow the district court injunction to remain in effect during the pendency of the appeal. That is where we end today. The matter of the vacating of the stay is to have been decided as this is written. In either event, the case will ultimately be heard by the appeals court, either with or without the stay being vacated.

Interestingly, the result of the Harvard case might play a role in how this case ends. If the Supreme Court overrules the Harvard decision, it could do so with a new set of legal guidelines for those wishing to use race in affirmative action admission criteria.

For the Asian community, this has been a long time coming. Parent Asra Q. Nomani, who is part of the coalition, said last year:

“To understand what’s behind this conflict, look no further than the controversial ideology of critical race theory, which praises or blames members of a particular race solely because they happen to be that race and seeks to interpret all forms of perceived injustice through a racial lens. This ideology has swept through America’s educational system at every level and is erasing our different narratives as Asian-Americans from different backgrounds and — to our shock — marginalizing our children and us.

“The ugly truth about critical race theory is that it inevitably seeks to fight racial hierarchies by instituting new forms of racial hierarchies. And Asian-American parents are increasingly taking notice. . . . County school officials set out to correct the supposedly problematic over-representation of Asian American students at TJ by watering down the strict admission standards.”

As of this writing (April 20) the school board has through today to reply to the Coalition’s motion to vacate the stay. Chief Justice John Roberts is expected to rule on that issue shortly after he receives the board’s reply. No matter what happens, the High Court will probably see this case again.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

California advances abortion bill that attorneys say could legalize killing babies after birth

California’s Assembly Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to approve AB 2223, which was authored by Democrat assemblywoman Buffy Wicks of Oakland. ​​

By Ashley Sadler, LifeSiteNews who discussed this article on our radio program

SACRAMENTO, California (LifeSiteNews) — Lawmakers in Democrat-controlled California advanced a controversial piece of legislation that pro-life groups and attorneys warned could legalize infanticide for weeks or even years after a baby is born.

California’s Assembly Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to approve AB 2223, which was authored by Democrat assemblywoman Buffy Wicks of Oakland. ​​

Wicks wrote in the bill analysis that “AB 2223 protects reproductive freedom by clarifying that the Reproductive Privacy Act prohibits pregnancy criminalization and creates a private right of action for people whose rights have been violated to seek accountability using civil courts.”

“It would also remove outdated provisions requiring coroners to investigate certain pregnancy losses and ensure that information collected about pregnancy loss is not used to target people through criminal or civil legal systems,” Wicks wrote.

The updated language of the law states that a “person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.”

Wicks has argued that the legislation would apply to pregnant women who she says would “not be prosecuted for losing or miscarrying a baby” or for a “tragic situation during pregnancy.”

“Parents should not be be criminalized for a tragic loss,” the assemblywoman argued.

While Wicks and other proponents of the bill have argued that the provision barring the investigation of perinatal death is intended to prevent the criminalization of mothers whose babies died naturally, the language has raised alarm bells among attorneys and pro-life advocates.

Thomas More Society special counsel Charles LiMandri, a partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP who earned his law degree at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., told LifeSiteNews in an email late last month that the altered language would allow for “the brutal murder” of babies weeks, months, or even years “after they are born.”

Bottom of Form

According to LiMandri, the proposal “exposes the false narrative that the abortion lobby has been peddling for over half a century: that no one knows when life begins, and babies in their mothers’ wombs feel no pain. No sane person can deny that a newborn infant is a fully developed human being, one that is capable of feeling intense pain. Yet, by including ‘perinatal’ in its provisions, [the bill] would authorize the brutal murder of these infants even after they are born.”

LiMandri noted that the definition of the term “perinatal” varies, spanning weeks or even years after an infant is born.

He cited MedicineNet, which puts the definition of “perinatal” at ending “one to four weeks after birth,” as well as the government definition of the phrase via PubMed.gov, which states, “The perinatal period, broadly defined, encompasses the time frame from … 18 to 24 months after the birth of the child.”

“Hence, [AB 2223] leaves one to ask: ‘What kind of depraved monsters would justify the killing of innocent and helpless children between one week and two years after their birth?’” LiMandri said.

According to LiMandri, the radical legislative proposal “is beyond the pale for any civilized society to even consider, and must be aggressively opposed by all people of conscience who value human life.”

Similarly, Attorney Susan S. Arnall of the Right to Life League explained that “AB 2223 literally decriminalizes infanticide — the killing of babies up to a month old and maybe older. It does this by eliminating civil and criminal penalties for abortions, including ‘perinatal death.’ The bill doesn’t define the term ‘perinatal’ – but it doesn’t have to.”

Meanwhile, California Globe pointed out that AB 2223 is co-sponsored by the pro-abortion organizations ACLU California Action, Black Women for Wellness, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, NARAL Pro-Choice California, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

Battles over pro-life and abortion legislation have ramped up in recent months in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 

The crucial case currently on the Supreme Court docket concerns Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and could see the federal “right to abortion” overhauled or overturned this summer, permitting pro-life states to severely restrict or even ban abortion outright.

Pro-life lawmakers in Republican-led states, including Texas , Idaho, Florida, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, have proposed or enacted measures to restrict or ban most abortions in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling.

Meanwhile, Democrat-led states have moved to broaden abortion access and invite women in pro-life states to travel to their states to obtain abortions.

Libs of TikTok - The Stream

Libs of TikTok - The Stream: A cancel culture leftist at The Washington Post set out to silence the Libs of TikTok for exposing the truth about the left.

Religion Clause: Company Is Not "State Actor" When It Complies With...

Religion Clause: Company Is Not "State Actor" When It Complies With...: In  Ciraci v. J. M. Smucker Co. , (ND OH, April 20, 2022), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a suit by employees of a food manufactur...

Transgender mania grips the White House

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

There is no such person as a transgender—you are either male or female—but there is such a thing as transgenderism: it is an ideology that promotes the fiction that the sexes are interchangeable.

To win, proponents are bent on getting to children, prompting little kids to question whether they are satisfied being a boy or a girl. If they are in doubt, they should be advised to at least consider making the switch.

There is no more rabid advocate of transgenderism in America than the President of the United States. Indeed, transgender mania has gripped the White House.

Within months, the Biden administration will finalize changes to Obamacare that will make it easier for persons seeking to transition to the opposite sex. The Department of Health and Human Services is leading the way, treating gender identity as a status worthy of being covered by laws against sex discrimination. Changes will also be made to healthcare plans, so that sex-transition procedures can be covered.

This is a classic case of top-down politics. There is no national outcry demanding that those who want to flip their sex should be given the green light. If anything, there is a growing consensus that we need to hit the pause button on this subject.

When White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently said that "Gender affirming healthcare for transgender kids is the best practice and potentially lifesaving," she offered no evidence to support this outlandish claim. But she did make plain that gender-affirming care meant a) social affirmation b) puberty blockers c) hormone therapy and d) gender-affirming surgery.

This four-step approach is a sanitized way of saying that the White House is committed to encouraging the sexually confused to transition to the opposite sex, and that chemical castration and genital mutilation will follow.

Psaki also warned lawmakers who work against them that they have been "put on notice" not to mess with the president. She specifically said the White House will go after states that resist their agenda. She was supported by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra who said he wants taxpayers to pay for the drugs, incisions and genital reconstructions.

The White House says that gender-affirming care will help transgender adolescents who are suffering from mental health problems, drugs and suicidal thoughts. They should first inquire why these young people are so messed up in the first place and then seek to give them the help they need. It is nonsense to argue that their problems are due to social rejection—their maladies are a function of their mental state.   

Dr. Paul McHugh is a noted psychiatrist who has studied this issue as well as anyone. The Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital maintains that transgender people suffer from a "mental disorder" and that "the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality."

Undeterred, the Biden administration cites a Trevor Project survey to support its conclusion, never mentioning that two of organization's donors, AbbVie and Allergan, make drugs and medical products that facilitate sex transitions.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis apparently was not "put on notice," or he is simply recalcitrant. His Department of Health has issued its own guidelines on this subject. It declared that because the evidence is inconclusive regarding sex-transition procedures, and could, in fact have "long-term, irreversible effects," the best way forward is to recommend against treating children and adolescents at this time.

To back up its stance, the Florida agency cited evidence that 80% of those seeking to transition lose their desire to do so over time. It also cited the serious health effects of making the change. There is good reason to support this position.

We could learn a thing or two from the Europeans; they have a richer history of dealing with those who are in rebellion against their nature.

The Amsterdam University Medical Center surveyed 4,600 transgender men and women between 1972 and 2018. It found that transgender medical treatment shortened the lifespan of patients by 50%. This is an astounding finding, one that should make everyone reconsider the conventional wisdom on this subject.

After allowing cross-sex hormone treatment in children for 22 years, Sweden slammed on the brakes and made the practice illegal. Its health officials said these procedures are "potentially fraught with extensive and irreversible adverse consequences such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, infertility, increased cancer risk, and thrombosis." Denmark and France did the same thing.

It must also be said that the psychological problems these people have are every bit as serious as their physical condition.

We look back today at controversial medical treatments that have proven to be a disaster and wonder why we went down this road. Some day we will do the same with regard to sex-transition treatments, but by that time the psychological and physiological damage will have been done, thanks in large part to our "devout Catholic" president.

There is a reason why Pope Francis calls gender ideology "demonic." This mania has got to stop. 

Faith On Trial this week: LifeSiteNews reporting on suspicious dead infant bodies in Washington, D.C. and a California proposal that could lead to post-birth abortions

This week Ashley Sadler form LifeSiteNews joined Deacon Mike and Gina to discuss recent reports of full-term baby bodies found in waste matter from a prominent abortion clinic in our nation’s Capital that the authorities are refusing to investigate. She also discussed her reporting on a bill progressing through the California legislature which could have the effect of allowing post-birth abortions in that blue state.

You can listen to a tape of the broadcast here:

https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/2e061de1/ashley-sadler-with-lifesitenews-42122

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday at 9:30 a.m. CT on  Our program airs Thursday morning at 9:30 on Iowa Catholic Radio and is available on several local stations: 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston. The program also streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you may also listen to older programs.

Babies in D.C. aborted or murdered; California bill to legalize post birth abortion? Next Faith On Trial.

Ashley Sadler

This Thursday Deacon Mike and Gina will be joined by LifeSiteNew reporter Ashley Sadler to discuss several stories she has been covering. One deals with a large number of “aborted” babies that were found in Washington, D.C. some of which appeared to have been killed after birth. The authorities have thus far refused any investigation. And in California there is a bill advancing through the legislature that could provide for post birth abortions by prohibiting legal actions for some infant deaths occurring shortly after birth.

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday at 9:30 a.m. CT on  Our program airs Thursday morning at 9:30 on IowaCatholicRadio.com and is available on several local stations: 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston.

Religion Clause: Kansas Governor Vetoes Transgender Athlete Ban

Religion Clause: Kansas Governor Vetoes Transgender Athlete Ban: The Kansas City Star reports that on Friday, Kansas Governor Laura Kelley vetoed Senate Bill 160  which banned transgender women from compe...

Cancel culture defines the left

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue   

Technically speaking, censorship is something that only the government can do: it has the power to stop speech before it is uttered and prohibit the distribution of the written word. In a free society, such instances must be limited and well defined. For the most part, our society has done a pretty good job in ensuring freedom of speech. 

Today we are faced with a cancel culture, a condition whereby some controversial ideas are being cancelled; in effect, they are being censored. But the censor is not government: it is the private sector. The social media corporations—Facebook, Google, Twitter—are the major culprits. These Silicon Valley behemoths are not interested in cancelling all controversial ideas, simply the ones they dislike. 

The social media ruling class is not made up of liberals; they are Leftists. That's the difference between a moderate (liberal) and a radical (Leftist). As such, they don't believe in freedom of speech anymore than they believe in freedom of religion. To say they are a threat to our society is an understatement. 

If it were the reverse—if speech that conservatives disliked was being cancelled by social media companies—it would be just as appalling. To be sure, the First Amendment provisions on speech and religion do not apply to the private sector; they are only limitations placed on the government. However, when the abuse of power exercised by private-sector titans is so overwhelming that legitimate views of a contrary nature cannot be expressed, then liberty is jeopardized. Facebook, Google and Twitter need to be broken up by government. Meantime, I wish Elon Musk well. 

The origins of the cancel culture are traceable to the campus, not Silicon Valley. The professoriate has long favored freedom of speech for some, but not for others. In other words, free speech for the Left, but none for conservatives. 

Remember "Crossfire," the CNN show that featured nightly debates on current issues? It started with Tom Braden and Pat Buchanan, on the left and the right, respectively; Michael Kinsley and Robert Novak also hosted the show. Then there was "Hannity and Colmes" on Fox News. Neither exists anymore. 

I mention this because I cut my teeth on these shows. When teaching at a college in Pittsburgh, I flew to D.C. on a regular basis to do "Crossfire," and when I came back home to New York in 1993 for this job, I continued to do the show. Three years later, Fox News was founded and I was a regular on many of the shows, including "Hannity and Colmes." 

These types of shows did not die because of low ratings (a subsequent "Crossfire" was a flop, owing to attempts to tamp down the debates), but because liberals lost almost every round. If the Left was cleaning the clock of conservatives, the shows would still be on the air.

Before I left academia, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute arranged for me to debate scholars on a range of issues, in many colleges and universities. In some cases, students tried to shout me down. What was true then—it is even more true today—was the total absence of conservative students shouting down left-wing speakers. It never happens. It's always the Left that does the cancelling. 

The Left is driven more by emotion and feelings than by reason: They are not persuaded by empirical evidence or logic. Yet they see themselves as creative thinkers. The good news is that while they may control the command centers in our culture, they don't own us—there is still an opportunity to push back. Most people have common sense, and more and more Americans are rallying to our side. 

The Left knows that this analysis is true, which explains their penchant for censorship. They can't beat us in discourse, so their only weapon is to stop the discourse. They are a pitiful bunch.

This Is A Win?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – It is hard to understand how a religious liberty case coming from an extremely liberal state supreme court can be rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, and still be characterized as a win. Yet one of our favorite conservative legal commentators did just that. So I invited her onto our radio program, and she came, and explained.

And I think she is right. Here is the case in a nutshell:

Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission has operated since 1932 and is a tax-exempt organization and recognized as a church equivalent by the Internal Revenue Service. It requires its staff to “affirm its statement of faith which declares ‘the Bible is the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God’.” The Mission’s employee handbook requires all employees to abide by traditional biblical principles and to refrain from “[a]cts or language which are considered immoral or indecent according to traditional biblical standards,” including “extramarital affairs, sex outside of marriage, [and] homosexual behavior.”

About six years ago, one Matthew Woods applied for a job in the Mission’s legal aid department. Apparently Mr. Woods was familiar with the Mission, having been a volunteer there in the past. Hearing of an open position in the Mission’s clinic, he contacted the clinic’s staff and inquired about the job. He told the staff that he identified as a bisexual and was in a same-sex relationship. The clinic director, quoting from the staff handbook and Mission’s statement, told Mr. Woods that he was unable to apply.

The director later sent Mr. Woods a legal aid job posting from a secular entity and wished him well.

However, Mr. Woods later applied for the Mission’s job to protest the Mission’s policy. In his application Mr. Woods disclosed that he was not a member of a local religious congregation and thus could not provide a pastor’s recommendation, as the application required. In the cover letter in which he enclosed his application, he asked the Mission to change its policies and practices.

According to the Court: “After he applied, the clinic’s director met Woods for lunch and confirmed that the Mission could not change its theology. He explained that Woods’ employment application was not viable because he did not comply with the Mission’s religious lifestyle requirements, did not actively attend church, and did not exhibit a passion for helping clients develop a personal relationship with Jesus. The Mission hired a co-religionist candidate instead.”

Mr. Woods than filed suit against the Mission alleging that it had violated the Washington State law against employment discrimination. In its answer the Mission cited its protection under the First Amendment’s religion clauses. It also noted that there is an express exemption to the anti-discrimination law which protects “any religious or sectarian organization not organized for private profit.”

The district court agreed with the Mission and dismissed the case. In doing so, it held that the Mission had “put applicants on notice” that employees must “accept the Mission’s statement of faith” and that the staff attorney’s duties “extend beyond legal advice to include spiritual guidance and praying with the clients.”

However, the Washington Supreme Court granted review and reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that: “as applied to Woods’ lawsuit, the [state law] religious exemption would violate protections for sexual orientation and same-sex marriage implicit in the Washington Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause.”

The state’s top court then remanded the case to the district court to determine if the staff attorney’s position qualified as a ministerial position. Under current Supreme Court law, cited in numerous cases, churches and religious bodies are granted a “ministerial exception” which allows them to hire without reference to any claim of discrimination. The catch, of course, is who is to be defined as a minister.

In prior cases teachers at religious schools have been considered as such, but in others unless there is a ministerial aspect of the job, no such exception is recognized. Initially those positions, accorded the ministerial exception, were considered ministers in the traditional way the word was interpreted, which meant that in churches where assistants were called “minister” of this or that were granted the exception regardless of ordination status while those not carrying the title were not so privileged.

In recent years, however, the ministerial exception has been extended to include more positions, as the courts began to look at the specific job descriptions rather than simply looking at titles.

But the Mission appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The hang-up there was, as Justice Samuel Alito, an ardent supporter of religious liberty, pointed out, the case was not finished in the Washington courts. The Supreme Court there had remanded the case back to the district court to make a specific factual finding as to whether or not the legal aid position qualified for the exception. There is a principle in law that discourages the consideration of an appeal before a final judgment has been issued.

The Washington Supreme Court had not issued a final decision in the matter. That would occur when the district court made its determination and the State Supreme Court had ruled on any appeal. Thus, as Justice Alito expressed, the case was not yet ready for U.S. Supreme Court review.

But as my legal expert, Sarah Parshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, pointed out, rather than just declining to hear the case on technical grounds, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, spelled out what could happen if the case comes back to them.

According to Justice Alito: The reasoning used by the Washington Supreme Court “presumes that the guarantee of church autonomy in the Constitution’s religion clauses protects only a religious organization’s employment decisions regarding formal ministers. But our precedents suggests that the guarantee of church autonomy is not so narrowly confined.”

Perry noted on our Faith On Trial program, “We’re in a state right now where the law in America, the rights to free exercise and religious liberty, is butting-up against nondiscrimination provisions and LGBTQ rights. Now these are sort of preferred rights we are seeing established within the paragon of civil rights law; preferred classes of individuals not based on what they believe or the immutable characteristics that the law has recognized for years but what their sexual preferences and gender identities are and, I think, ultimately we’re going to see this be a significant showdown at the Supreme Court.”

The Court, she said, had to deny review because the state courts had not reached a final decision. But, she said, “When we see Justice Alito write a separate opinion…there are reasons to believe that the Court has set up an inevitable confrontation between whether religious employers can and are protected by their desire to hire coreligionists.”

Thus the Court may be looking for a case, such as this one, to determine that the right of a religious employer should be made without reference to whether the person would be engaged in teaching or some other form of religious instruction.

She expressed hope that Justice Alito’s statement in his concurrence to the denial to hear the case would prove to be correct. He had written: “To force religious organizations to hire messengers and other personnel who do not share their religious views would undermine not only the autonomy of many religious organizations but also their continued viability. If States could compel religious organizations to hire employees who fundamentally disagree with them, many religious nonprofits would be extinguished from participation in public life — perhaps by those who disagree with their theological views most vigorously.”

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowCatholicRadio.com.)

 

University settles with professor in free speech case over pronoun use

by Heather Hamilton, Social Media Reporter 

Shawnee State University, located in Portsmouth, Ohio, has agreed to settle for $400,000 in a lawsuit brought by Nicholas Meriwether, a philosophy professor, who argued it was in his First Amendment rights to refuse using preferred pronouns of a male student who identifies as female.

A Shawnee State University professor has settled for $400,000 in a lawsuit against his employer, arguing it was within his First Amendment rights to refuse using the preferred pronouns of a student who identifies as female.

Nicholas Meriwether, a Shawnee philosophy professor, was issued a written rebuke after a 2018 Title IX investigation into the situation, prompting the lawsuit, which was originally dismissed in February 2020, when a lower district court found there were no “broader societal concerns,” but revived by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Shawnee State University, located in Portsmouth, Ohio, agreed to settle the case Thursday. Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Meriwether, released a statement saying the university “agreed to pay $400,000 in damages and Meriwether’s attorneys’ fees. Additionally, considering the 6th Circuit’s ruling, the university is rescinding the written warning it issued Meriwether.”

Shawnee State University issued a statement saying its decision to settle was made for economic reasons.

"Though we have decided to settle, we adamantly deny that anyone at Shawnee State deprived Dr. Meriwether of his free speech rights or his rights to freely exercise his religion," the statement said. "Over the course of this lawsuit, it became clear that the case was being used to advance divisive social and political agendas at a cost to the university and its students. That cost is better spent on fulfilling Shawnee State’s mission of service to our students, families and community."

ADF praised the outcome, noting that “the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students. Significantly, the university agreed Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex."

In the case, Meriwether argued he was standing by his Christian beliefs in refusing to use the preferred pronouns of the student and that he instead offered to call his students by either “Mr.” or “Ms.” and their last name, or simply by their last name.

“Dr. Meriwether went out of his way to accommodate his students and treat them all with dignity and respect, yet his university punished him because he wouldn’t endorse an ideology that he believes is false,” ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham said. “We’re pleased to see the university recognize that the First Amendment guarantees Dr. Meriwether — and every other American — the right to speak and act in a manner consistent with one’s faith and convictions.

Satan's Insidious Exchange - The Stream

Satan's Insidious Exchange - The Stream: The crafty serpent in the garden set out to sabotage God’s plan, doing what he does best: twisting the truth and proposing an exchange.

This week on Faith On Trial: Mark McDougal from Ruth Harbor

 

Mark McDougal is the executive director of Ruth Harbor, a Christ centered organization which provides a safe and compassionate place for young women with an unexpected pregnancy and new mothers who need assistance in getting back on their feet after an unwanted pregnancy. Ruth Harbor provides all support systems available, and help them make the decision on keeping their child or placing it for adoption. Also on the program was Lilia, a graduate of the program who has now a new life ahead of her. You can listen to the program here:

https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/f8238360/ruth-harbor-41422

Ruth Harbor is planning a fund-raising “Walk for Life” Saturday May 7 (Mother’s Day weekend) beginning at Ruth Harbor’s main office 534 – 42 St., Des Moines at 9:30 a.m. Further information can be found by calling 515-279-4661 or by visiting RuthHarbor.org.

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday at 9:30 a.m. CT on  Our program airs Thursday morning at 9:30 on IowaCatholicRadio.com and is available on several local stations: 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston.