SCOTUS receiving religious freedom case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will begin considering the case of Gerald Groff, a former missionary and United States Postal Service employee who refused to work on Sundays out of his Christian convictions. “Personally, I would like God to be glorified through this,” Groff said. “Legally, I would love to see a precedent set that people don’t get treated the way I did, that their faith is respected, that if they have the conviction like I did to not work on the Lord’s Day, that would be honored.”  READ

Catholic healthcare group sues Colorado

Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed the so-called “Reproductive Health Equity Act 2.0” bill into law Friday. The package contains “several policies which stand in firm opposition to upholding the dignity of life, most notably banning the abortion pill reversal procedure in Colorado in addition to requiring insurance providers to cover the full cost of abortion and expanding access to ‘gender-affirming care,’” Denver Catholic reports. Bella Health and Wellness, a Colorado-based Catholic healthcare provider, has filed suit against the legislation.  READ

Buying Off Black America

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

On April 18, Sophia Institute Press will publish my new book, War on Virtue: How the Ruling Class is Killing the American Dream. One of the subtexts to the volume is the way the ruling class treats black America. Two factors are operative: its members are riddled with white guilt and they have fundamentally given up on blacks. This explains their dedication to buying them off. Here are some recent examples. 

White elites are literally buying off black Americans with lots of cash; they are simultaneously purging themselves of deep-seated guilt. Instead of working with blacks, helping to secure intact families and good schools, they are writing checks, hoping this will keep them afloat. That’s because, deep down, they are the ultimate racists: they believe blacks can’t empower themselves like every other racial and ethnic group. 

California was never a slave state, but the white elite lawmakers in San Francisco, feeling the pangs of guilt, recently voted unanimously to support a plan which grants $5 million in reparations to every black person who is at least 18 years old and who has “identified” as black for the past decade. That would presumably include LeBron James. It might also induce some white boys to “identify” as black and see if they can play the identity game, too. 

If this proposal were to become law, black adults would walk away with at least $97,000 for 250 years, and each family would be able to buy homes in San Francisco for a buck a piece. Another proposal being debated would offer up to $360,000 in reparations per person, provided there is evidence that the applicant is a descendant of black slaves. But what happens to those who learn that their descendants were not slaves, but black slaveowners? Do they have to cough up some cash like whitey? 

Black Lives Matter also rips off black people in the name of helping them. Totally corrupt, the Marxists outdid the most ambitious capitalists by taking advantage of corporate white guilt during the urban riots they helped to promote in 2020. No one seems to know where all the loot went, but no one denies it was a smashing profit-making venture. 

A database from the Claremont Institute recently found that Black Lives Matter received $83 billion from corporate America. That’s more than the GDP of 46 African countries.

 Who wrote the checks? Silicon Valley Bank—yes, that one—Allstate, American Express, Apple, AT&T, Nike, United Airlines, JetBlue, Southwest Airlines, Delta Airlines, Wells Fargo, Deloitte, BlackRock, Capital One Financial, Morgan Stanley, US Bank, Goldman Sachs, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, and The Walt Disney Company. 

From colonial times to the mid-twentieth century, African Americans suffered through the worst of slavery, racism and discrimination, and yet the black family held its own. That changed in the 1960s, at a time of low unemployment for blacks, as well as everyone else. 

For reasons having nothing to do with economic need, the white ruling class instituted an array of welfare programs, and other top-down initiatives, mostly aimed at blacks, people whom they concluded could not cut it on their own. It’s been a disaster ever since. 

Black Americans need safe streets, school choice and charter schools. Who’s stopping them from achieving these ends? The very same people anxious to write the checks. It doesn’t get more perverse than this.

DOJ: NO JAIL TIME FOR ANTI-CATHOLIC HATE CRIME

The Biden Justice Department has recommended no jail time for a “transgender” attacker who confessed to hate crimes against St. Louise Catholic Church in Bellevue, WA. The suspect said he was motivated by the overturning of Roe v. Wade to attack the church, where he smashed glass doors, destroyed a statue of the Blessed Mother, and spray-painted profane messages such as “F*** Catholics” on the property, causing an estimated $30,000 in damage.  READ

New on Faith On Trial

This episode (#358) will be posted as a podcast Saturday noon at: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

FBI Asked About Probing “Mainline Catholics”

 By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

Today I asked FBI Director Christopher Wray to make public those documents that are related to the FBI’s outreach program to “mainline Catholic parishes” and “local diocesan leadership.” They were targeted because of alleged “radicalization” within the Catholic Church. (A copy of my letter was sent to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.) 

“This is taking the FBI into new, and disturbing territory,” I said. 

We know from previous disclosures that the FBI was probing “Radical-Traditionalist Catholics” (RTCs). Such Catholics may not be the typical “in-the-pew” Catholics, but to this day we have not seen any evidence that they are a threat to anyone. Now the FBI has upped the ante, going after “mainline” Catholics and dioceses. 

On February 9, I made public my concerns about the FBI’s interest in RTCs. “What’s next?” Will it be a war on “Catholics who are orthodox?” It appears my worst fears have been realized.

The First Amendment provides for a healthy measure of autonomy between church and state, so when the state encroaches on religious bodies, it had better have unambiguous and very serious reasons for doing so. “I would like to know what they are in this instance,” I asked the FBI Director. 

We have seen too many instances lately where the government is trespassing on the affairs of religion; it is not the other way around. Church and state separation cuts both ways. But under the Biden administration, this fundamental constitutional principle is being summarily ignored. This includes the Department of Justice and the FBI. 

Catholics have a right to know what the FBI is up to. The evidence is clear: Violence against Catholic churches and crisis pregnancy centers are largely going unattended to, yet probes of innocent Catholics are being conducted. This raises important questions that go to the heart of the FBI’s legitimacy.

Soros Is Guilty As Charged

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

George Soros has been one of the most prominent philanthropists serving the radical left-wing agenda for decades. Everyone knows it, yet there is a coordinated effort of late to bail him out, saying his critics are “anti-Semites,” looking for a “boogeyman.” His allies are particularly miffed about reports that Soros is funding criminal-friendly district attorneys across the nation. 

Here’s a recent sampling of efforts to brand Soros’ critics as anti-Semitic. In the last 19 days, the following news stories were written with that objective in mind. 

• “Soros…has been a frequent boogeyman for Republicans. In recent years, they have often used the phrase ‘Soros-backed’ to attack Democratic candidates. Some have said this line of attack is an antisemitic dog whistle….” Josh Israel, americanindependent, March 22
• “This is how anti-semitism takes root and spreads.” Teacher’s union chief Randi Weingarten (quoted in above story).
• “Democrats and outside experts have often described the attacks on Soros, who is Jewish, and the groups that received donations from the billionaire, as antisemitic.” cnbc, March 22.
• “Scapegoating Soros, who is Hungarian and Jewish, also perpetuates deep-rooted false ideas about Jewish people and immigrants to underscore the conspiracy theory that he is a shadowy villain orchestrating world events.” AP International, March 22.
•  “Mr. Soros…has been for years a boogeyman on the right, confronting attacks that portray him as a ‘globalist’ mastermind and that often veer into antisemitic tropes.” New York Times, March 24.
• “It’s a screaming antisemitic dog whistle.” Rabbi Doug Alpert. Kansas City Star, March 31.
• “[Trump] is using anti-Jewish stereotypes and historical hatred to raise money.” USA Today Online, April 1.
• “Moreover, the repeated mention of Soros plays into antisemitic conspiracy theories….” Washington Post, April 1.
• “[Rashad] Robinson also called the Soros attacks antisemitic….” Mediaite, April 1.
• “There is a centuries old antisemitic trope Erin about the sinister Jewish puppet master…and attacks on Soros are often either explicitly antisemitic attacks or dog whistle attacks, involving that trope.” Daniel Dale, CNN reporter (quoted in above story).
• “The increasing mainstream flirtation with antisemitic stereotypes and rhetoric has made the subject of attacks on Soros harder and harder to deny.” vox.com. April 3.
• “This has nothing to do with Soros…it has everything to do with a very old, antisemitic view that even though Jews are small in number, they really control everything.” Brandeis professor Jonathan Sarna. Washington Post, April 3.
• “He’s Jewish, which brings with it all sorts of connotations if one wants to play on anti-Semitism.” Emily Tamkin. NPR, April 6.
• “Billionaire philanthropist George Soros has long been a bogeyman for the far right….The attacks, observers say, also smack of anti-Semitism.” Anuj Chopra. AFP, April 9 

Not one of these persons who made the charge that Soros’ critics are driven by anti-Semitism quoted even one person to make their case! 

As a critic of Soros, I have no problem being specific about my position, and it wouldn’t matter a hoot to me if his name was George O’Malley. 

The following is taken from my new book, War on Virtue: How the Ruling Class is Killing the American Dream (the official launch date is April 18, though it is available now on Amazon). 

“Many corrupt district attorneys—those who refuse to prosecute dangerous criminals—got their job with the help of Soros. He gave Alvin Bragg $1 million when he was running for DA in Manhattan in 2021; he gave George Gascón nearly $3 million when he ran for DA of Los Angeles in 2020. In 2022, it was reported that he gave $440 million to elect seventy-five ‘social justice’ prosecutors. The one thing he didn’t deliver was justice, especially for crime victims. 

“Between 2016 and 2022, Soros gave more than $29 million to a personal network of political action committees specifically established to back radical DA candidates. By mid-2022, one in five Americans, or seventy million people, were living in a jurisdiction overseen by a Soros-backed prosecutor. Soros DAs were running New York, Chicago, Saint Louis, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles as well as many smaller cities and towns. Soros also received help from his prized client, Black Lives Matter, to lead the charge to defund the police and abolish prisons.” 

No doubt there are anti-Semites who have attacked Soros, but it is scurrilous to tar all his critics as bigots. Soros is guilty as charged. 

One final note. Soros knows a personal thing or two about anti-Semitism. As a young man he became a Nazi collaborator. In a “60 Minutes” interview, he admitted that he helped confiscate property from Jews. He told Steve Kroft that he never regretted doing so. When asked if this was difficult, Soros said, “Not, not at all. Not at all.” Stunned, Kroft said, “No feeling of guilt?” “No” came the reply. 

Divine Mercy

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – Much  of what we discuss here deals with secular matters. Granted they all relate to our ability to worship, to live, and to evangelize according to our faith. Of course, our opponent, the Devil, is working overtime to defeat us both spiritually and legally. So, we fight, and we pray that God will protect us from Satan’s snare, especially right now as we enter into what should be the most joyful time of the year: Easter.

But the weekend after Easter is, in my opinion, one of our most significant feasts: Divine Mercy Sunday. It was designated such by Pope John Paul II in the year 2000. It is based on the writings of a Polish nun, Sr. Faustina Kowalska, who died in 1938.

Beginning in February of 1931 the good sister started receiving apparitions of Jesus in which He emphasized the extent of His mercy towards us. At the suggestion of her spiritual director, she began writing the messages down in a diary that after her death was sent to the Vatican for review. It met with resistance, however, due to a poor translation from sister’s native Polish.

However, when the archbishop of Krakow, Karol Wojtyla, was elected Pope in 1978 there was now someone with authority in the Vatican who could read Sr. Faustina’s diary without the need for any translation. Not only was he impressed by the messages contained in her writings, but he designated the Sunday after Easter as Divine Mercy Sunday.

The message of Divine Mercy is very basic: God loves us and wants us to recognize that His mercy is greater than our sins, and if we can call upon Him in humility and in truth, we will receive His mercy and come to share in His joy. We need only to ask, be merciful ourselves, and to trust in Jesus. And if you listen closely to the readings and prayers Sunday, you will hear that message throughout.

So, as we celebrate God’s mercy towards us this weekend, we need to sit back for a moment and look at this mercy in reverse, as the mercy we are required to show to others. God’s mercy toward us is only part of His merciful gift; the rest of Divine Mercy is on us to pass it on to others.

How many times in the Gospels have we been reminded of this: Go and reconcile with your brother before you make your offering to God…forgive seven times seventy. And then there is the story of the servant who was forgiven his debts by his master but was condemned when he did not forgive the debts of his fellow servant.

And, of course, there is the example of the Prodigal Son, who was reunited with his father, which contains all sorts of lessons on true mercy and forgiveness. In short, we are asked to show to one another that same mercy shown to us by God, and in doing so we become part of God’s plan for Divine Mercy.

But we know it is difficult to show mercy and to forgive those who have hurt us, especially those in today’s secular society who are constantly taking aim at our faith. Forgiveness, however, is a decision that each of us can and must make. It does not mean blotting out painful memories, but it does mean not acting on them as was done in this story about two lawyers:

They were the only lawyers in a small town and over the years had developed a fierce rivalry. Unfortunately, one of the lawyers was always getting the short end of the stick and being bested by his rival. One night an angel appeared to him and offered to give him anything he desired, no matter how exotic or flamboyant. There was only one catch: Whatever he wished for himself the same would be given twofold to his rival.

The lawyer thought for a few minutes and replied, “I want to be blind in one eye.”

Of course, in today’s environment it becomes easy to think in those terms, to let our disappointments and failures lead us to hate, especially those who are persecuting us, casting aspersions and belittling our faith, and seeking to nullify the word of God in modern society; those who follow a god they have created for themselves rather than the God who created them.

Forgiveness, however, does not mean surrender; we are still obligated to protect our faith and traditions. 

What it does mean is that we remember that Jesus died for the other guy just as He died for you. It is only through the grace of our own forgiveness that we are able to forgive anyone else.

Holding grudges, anger, and resentment is not only spiritually unhealthy, but it is physically unhealthy as well, and is thought to be one of the contributing causes to heart disease. Divine Mercy demands the proper choice on our part; that in humbly seeking His mercy we should be able to extend the mercy to others, as Jesus taught us to do.

In the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was asked how he would treat the Rebels after the war ended. The president replied, “I will treat them as if they had never been away.”

God’s mercy is infinite and unchanging, and though we are imperfect and finite creatures, we are still called to do the same. That’s the course we must embrace. We can treat those who have offended us as others might do or we can respond as Lincoln did — mercifully, from our Christian tradition.

This is not a hard concept to understand. It reminds me of the story told about a rich king who gave a citizen a magnificent jewel. The man said to his king, “This is too much for me to accept.” In reply, the king said, “Perhaps, but it is not too much for me to give.”

In the end, we will be judged by the choice we make, and mercy toward us will be distributed accordingly.

+ + +

(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/.)

This week on Faith On Trial

 Listen Now: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

Stop the Violence against Catholics

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

With Good Friday and Easter upon us, it is a good time to remind ourselves of the degree to which Catholics are the targets of violent extremists. 

The U.S. State Department recently released its annual report on religious violence around the world. It found that “80% of the world’s population cannot practice their faith without serious restrictions or risk.” It listed 12 nations as the worst offenders. We researched who controls them and who their principal victims are. They are listed in alphabetical order.

·        Burma. Run by Buddhists, Christians and Muslims are the targets.

·        China. Run by the Communist Party, Christians, especially Catholics, and Muslims, are the targets.

·        Cuba. Run by the Communist Party, Catholics are the target

·        Eritrea. Run by the Communist Party, Christians and Muslims are the targets.

·        Iran. Run by Muslims, all non-Islamic religions are the targets.

·        North Korea. Run by the Communist Party, all religions are the targets.

·        Nicaragua. Run by the Communist Party, Catholics are the targets.

·        Pakistan. Run by Muslims, Christians and Hindus are the targets.

·        Russia. Run by an ex-KGB agent, Jehovah’s Witnesses and evangelicals are the targets.

·        Saudi Arabia. Run by Muslims, all non-Islamic religions are the targets.

·        Tajikistan. Run by Muslims, all non-Islamic religions are the targets.

·        Turkmenistan. Run by Muslims, all non-Islamic religions are the targets.

In Europe, the Observatory for the Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians recently documented more than 500 anti-Christian hate crimes, including four homicides, in 2021; the most vicious attacks were against Catholics. In addition to murder, there were approximately 300 acts of property damage. There were about 80 cases of theft, ranging from religious objects to consecrated hosts. 

A new report from Canada showed that hate crimes against Catholics rose 260 percent in 2021; they were the most targeted of any religious group in the country. 

In the United States, Catholic churches were targeted over 300 times since 2020. Just this week, a Catholic church in Nebraska was ransacked. 

Pro-abortion protesters have resorted to violence in several cities, and in the wake of the transgender mass killer in Nashville, many in that community have made violent threats against those who are critical of their radical agenda. The urban terrorist group, Antifa, is among the worst of the pro-abortion thugs. 

In 1989, when St. Patrick’s Cathedral was invaded by gay terrorists from ACT-UP—they interrupted Mass and spat the Eucharist on the floor—Fr. Benedict Groeschel tried to calm down Cardinal John O’Connor by telling him it is a backhanded compliment that we Catholics were chosen for violence. The enemy knows who stands the strongest against them. 

Much the same could be said today, though that should not be read as a  plea for passivity. The violence against Catholics must end, whether it is coming from religious or secular extremists.

Bringing Our Values Back

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – My little office in which I write this column has a nice window next to me through which I can see my front yard, the street in front of my house, as well as the plants and trees that inhabit my property. At least I think it’s my property; I haven’t checked with that place on TV that will tell me for sure. But I digress, maybe I can check later.

Right now, I’m just enjoying a beautiful spring day through the window pane. Of course, it’s not warm out there; in Iowa spring comes wearing a winter coat. But it will get better, leaves will appear on my tree, and there will come an abundance of birds to keep my cat amused for hours.

But when I think of days like this I tend to think of spring and summer days when I was young. I remember seeing the brand-new Plymouth sitting in our neighbor’s driveway, my dad’s black and white Oldsmobile in our drive, and on the other side of the house a few nondescript Fords. We were, automobile wise, an already integrated neighborhood; kind of a mixed marriage from Detroit.

I, of course, was just starting elementary school then, learning the tenets of our faith from the old Baltimore Catechism by nuns who wanted nothing more than to shape the future of our faith as well as instilling in each of us a good dose of patriotism as if it went hand-in-hand with Catholicism. 

Those days, of course, provide many wonderful memories — at least until my pesky little brother came along, but that’s for another day. We watched the news every night on the old black and white DuMont, viewing events from around the world and feeling so lucky that we could live in such a great place — a place for which we could be very proud.

I remember watching a football game on TV with my Dad. He told me that a Catholic senator was there and when I asked, he said he might be the first Catholic president in history. I may not have been really ready for politics at the time, but that conversation stuck with me and I began following a man named Kennedy.

Now I knew there were such things as elections, and people disagreed on who should win. Earlier there was the ’56 Eisenhower-Stevenson election and my family was for Eisenhower, but my best friend in school was for Stevenson. I think that was because his first name was Steve.

Anyway, as the election approached, I became aware of a discordant note: There were people who opposed Kennedy because he was a Catholic. That didn’t sound like it was coming from such a great place, but there it was, bigotry. But the country fought back and on Election Day when all the stolen ballots in Chicago were counted, our guy won and those on the other side soon got over their belief that the Pope would be installed as king and things settled back to normal.

But the country was not polarized nor was it irreparably torn asunder, in fact had Dallas not occurred I believe the president would have been easily re-elected in ’64.

 So why talk about this now? What is the point?

My point is that while everyone — or almost everybody — must remember his early years with fondness, I don’t see the current time anything like the years in which I grew up.

During this past week we have been inundated with the results of a Wall Street Journal-NORC (National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago) poll showing just what might be wrong with the country today: Those values that made the United States the envy of the world are no longer held in great esteem.

Key to me were the results concerning patriotism and religion. In the poll only 38 percent of Americans responding to it said patriotism was very important to them, and 39 percent said the same thing about religion. When this poll was first conducted in 1998 the results were 70 percent and 62 percent respectively.

Today 32 percent report that they never attend church services, while only 19 percent reported they are weekly attendees, and 52 percent reported not having any religion at all. It seems like what those nuns taught had lost its luster on those who followed my class.

Of course, those who have eyes to see such things may have noticed. The old DuMont has morphed into today’s Roku. But what is offered to the viewer is far different from the Eisenhower-Kennedy days in which I was raised. There is crime that for political reasons is overlooked; there are riots where people are killed, but reported as peaceful; there are children that are being indoctrinated into believing that race, gender, or family history is more important than merit; that most of us are victims of an oppressive society, and anyone who supports the wrong political party is a bigot, an enemy of society, and a threat to our very existence. It’s a wonder that anybody believes anything anymore.  

And people are pessimistic about nearly every poll question asked: The economy, poor or not so good, 80 percent; will it get better, 15 percent; better life for your children, confident 21 percent, not confident 78 percent; job prospects, not easy 52 percent; college degree, not worth the money 50 percent; confidence in public schools, 26 percent yes, 33 percent no.

As you can see by examining all the poll’s responses, the American people hold negative views about our current situation: social, economic, political, and spiritual. Yet there is one statistic that bothers me as much as the patriotism and religion answers. It is this: Tolerance for others has dropped to 58 percent from four years ago when it was 80 percent.

Why the drop? That is easy to figure out; they use different pronouns than we do, they claim to be oppressed and my group is the oppressor, you’re the wrong color, or nationality, your kids will get preference for scholarships and college admissions because of your (pick one) gender, color, victim status, etc.

This, of course, is not the way a great nation should act. So how do we correct it? Well, I’ll leave that question to sociologists and folks smarter than I. But for me I think there is a simple start to the solution. We have two great documents with which we need to re-familiarize ourselves.

The first is the Bible, our Christian scripture. The second is our American scripture, our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Read them, believe what you read, and practice same. We’ve been around long enough to know we can trust Jesus, the Word of God, even if we sometimes do not understand. And the same for our Founding Fathers. Between those documents there is a spiritual and political blueprint for our lives.

Get back to the foundation of our faith and nation, and encourage your children and friends to do the same.  It is there that we will find the answers we need, in fact the only place we will find them.

+ + +

(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/ episode 355 is on the Message of Fatima.)

Oregon officials put politics above children's welfare

ADF attorneys represent mother prevented by the state from adopting because of her faith

PENDLETON, Ore. – On behalf of a single mother of five wishing to adopt siblings from foster care, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit Monday against Oregon state officials for denying her application because of her religious beliefs.

Jessica Bates

Jessica Bates began the process of applying to become certified to adopt a child from Oregon’s foster care system one year ago. The Oregon Department of Human Services, the agency responsible for the delivery and administration of the state’s child welfare programs, denied her application because individuals seeking to adopt must agree to “respect, accept, and support … the sexual orientation, gender identity, [and] gender expression” of any child the department could place in an applicant’s home, and Bates could not agree to this because of her faith.

“Oregon’s policy amounts to an ideological litmus test: people who hold secular or ‘progressive’ views on sexual orientation and gender identity are eligible to participate in child welfare programs, while people of faith with religiously informed views are disqualified because they don’t agree with the state’s orthodoxy,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs, director of the ADF Center for Conscience Initiatives. “The government can’t exclude certain communities of faith from foster care and adoption services because the state doesn’t like their particular religious beliefs.”

During her application process, Bates alerted ODHS that she will happily love and accept any child, but she cannot say or do something that goes against her Christian faith. ODHS’s policy, however, excludes her and others who hold traditional religious beliefs about human nature and sexuality by requiring parents to use a child’s preferred pronouns, take a child to affirming events like Pride parades, or facilitate a child’s access to dangerous pharmaceutical interventions like puberty blockers and hormone shots if the child so requests. As such, ODHS’s policy penalizes Bates for her religious views, compels her to speak words that violate her beliefs, and deprives her of equal protection of the law because of her faith.

“Oregon’s policy makes a sweeping claim that all persons who hold certain religious beliefs—beliefs held by millions of Americans from diverse religious faiths—are categorically unfit to care for children,” said ADF Legal Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse. “That’s simply not true. Oregon is putting its political agenda above the needs of countless children who would be happy to grow up in a loving, Christian home like Jessica’s. We urge the court to remind the state of its constitutional and moral obligations and reaffirm Jessica’s First Amendment right to live out her faith without being penalized by the government.”

Bates, who lost her husband in a car collision six years ago, is a mother of five children, ages 10 to 17. Inspired by the story of a man who adopted a child from foster care, Bates felt a calling to follow the biblical teaching to care for orphans. She seeks to adopt a sibling pair, who are generally harder to place. State officials, however, rejected her application for failing to “meet the adoption home standards” and excluded her from accessing any child welfare service because she refused to abandon her religious beliefs.

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit, Bates v. Pakseresht, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Pendleton Division

Nebraska’s Heartbeat Bill Shows That Life Is Worth Preserving, Protecting

The Nebraska Heartbeat Act is the type of legislation that demonstrates life is worth protecting and preserving. Several states, including New York and Illinois, have done the opposite by removing restrictions on abortion. One state delegate in Virginia proposed a bill in 2019 that would allow doctors to perform an abortion even if the mother showed signs of going into labor. Federal legislators have moved in a similar direction. House Democrats proposed a bill after Texas enacted its “heartbeat” ban that removed abortion restrictions after fetal viability. The past 50 years of legal battles over abortion—starting with Roe v. Wade in 1973 and continuing since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision last summer—prove every state will have to define what life is and when it should be protected. Heritage Expert: Delano Squires 

Trump is the target of a politically ambitious DA

The lack of surprise at this indictment is not because Trump is necessarily guilty of any crimes, but because he is the target of a politically ambitious DA in Manhattan. Alvin Bragg is a Soros-supported, rogue prosecutor who won’t prosecute misdemeanors and is giving a get-out-of-jail free card to many serious felony defendants, resulting in dramatically rising crimes rates in New York City. While ignoring serious crimes happening every day in New York, Bragg is pursing what he claims is a violation of federal campaign finance law that happened seven years ago by trying to shoehorn it into a misdemeanor claim about false business records. It is the Federal Election Commission and the U.S. Justice Department who enforce federal campaign laws and neither of them considered the settlement with Stormy Daniels a violation that merited prosecution. In fact, the U.S. Attorney’s Office opened, and then closed, an investigation into this matter. Heritage Experts: John Malcolm and Zack Smith

This week on Faith On Trial on the Iowa Catholic Radio network

Podcast #356 posted at: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/