Despite vaccines, in-person church services down

Despite vaccines, in-person church services down: Even though Americans have been receiving COVID-19 vaccines for months before January, a new study revealed that less churches held in-person services at the beginning of the year than they did in September.

Will the UN Human Rights Office Blacklist ‘LGBTQ+ Hate Groups?’

Will the UN Human Rights Office Blacklist ‘LGBTQ+ Hate Groups?’

Religious Schools And The First Amendment… Is There A Difference Between “Status” And “Use”?

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) -- There is an interesting school choice case from Maine that is sitting at the door of the Supreme Court on appeal from the First Circuit Court of Appeals that could settle a legally thorny problem if the court decides to accept it.

The state of Maine has a law that allows local school districts to pay the tuition for students to attend either private or public secondary schools where the district does not have a public high school. Thus the local districts have the option of providing the school or simply paying the tuition for its students to attend another school of choice.
Those other schools of choice can be outside the state.

Unfortunately, that choice appears to be limited by courts making the distinction between religious status and religious use. In short that means participating schools can be religious in name, but if they do religious things they do not qualify.

Three families in Maine, all living in districts that chose to provide the tuition option for its students, were denied tuition for their schools of choice due to the “status vs. use” distinction. Their legal challenges were denied by state and federal courts; thus the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The families are being represented by the First Liberty Institute and the Institute for Justice, who, in a press release, stated: “Maine’s law blatantly discriminates against parents based on religion, providing some families with tuition support for the school of their choice but denying that same support to other families. The families who filed the lawsuit qualify for Maine’s tuitioning program in all other respects, but they are excluded from participating only because they chose religious schools for their children. Such discrimination is both unfair and unconstitutional.”

This all comes on the heels of two recent Supreme Court cases, which we’ve discussed here earlier. Last July in Espinoza v. Montana the court invalidated a state law that prohibited a tax credit fund to be used to pay tuition to religious schools. And Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, when the court struck down a Missouri law that prohibited religious schools from taking part in a grant program, which in that case was used to improve its playground.

In Espinoza, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority:

“The prohibition before us today burdens not only religious schools but also the families whose children attend or hope to attend them. A state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

The 5-4 ruling was hailed by many as a near death knell for the so-called Little Blaine Amendments which prohibited any state financial assistance to parochial schools.
However, the First Circuit didn’t see Espinoza as clear-cut as the current plaintiffs did. It held that Maine’s sectarian exclusion was permissible since eligibility for the program was not determined by the religious status of the school but “on what the school teaches through its curriculum and related activities, and how the material is presented.”

Thus the tuition assistance was not available for a student to attend a school that “in addition to teaching academic subjects, promotes the faith or belief system with which it is associated and/or presents the material taught through the lens of this faith.”

In their petition for Supreme Court review, the families argue against the appeals court ruling: “In so holding, the First Circuit exacerbated a longstanding split of authority on whether government may bar families participating in student-aid programs from choosing to use their benefits to attend schools that provide religious instruction.”

It continued: “Whether there is a constitutionally significant difference between discrimination based on ‘religious status’ and discrimination based on ‘religious use’ is a profoundly important question, especially in the context of student-aid programs — programs that operate on the private choice of individuals. In such programs, any religious use of a benefit is reasonably attributable to the individual recipient, not to the government.

“By allowing such discrimination, the decision below resuscitates the long discarded ‘pervasively sectarian’ doctrine: the doctrine that although nominally religious schools can participate in public benefit programs, pervasively religious schools — those that actually do religious things — cannot.”

Petitioner’s certiorari petition, while noting that there is a split on the circuits over the issue, also tried to point out how the issue creates a distinction without a real difference and wrote, “Cardigan Mountain School — a private school in New Hampshire that purports to teach ‘universal . . . spiritual values,’ both ‘in and out of the classroom’ and at its ‘required . . . weekly Chapel meetings’ — was approved by Maine to participate in the program.”

Emphasizing the difficulty making the status vs. use distinction, the petitioners argued: “Although Espinoza differentiated between religious ‘status’ and religious ‘use’ in student-aid programs, the Court ‘acknowledge[d]’ that some of its members ‘have questioned whether there is a meaningful distinction between discrimination based on use or conduct and that based on status. But the Court concluded that it did not need to resolve that question in Espinoza, given that the discrimination at issue in the case turned on religious status alone.

“Consequently, Espinoza only partially resolved the split of authority that had prompted the Court to grant certiorari in the first place….Such a state of affairs — in which a state cannot deny a benefit to a student because she wishes to attend a school that is religious, but can deny it because the school does religious things — is unstable and untenable.”

The argument went on: “Status and use, in short, are not binary concepts — they are often inseparable. Yet so long as states may continue to define religious exclusions as ‘use-based’ and thereby escape meaningful constitutional scrutiny, families who believe that a religious education is the best option for their child will continue to be shut out of student-aid programs.”

The argument sounds persuasive in isolation, but there is a contrary Supreme Court precedent, Locke v. Davey, a 2004 case in which the court upheld a publicly funded scholarship program in Washington which excludes those seeking a degree in devotional theology. How the constitutionality of that case might affect the Maine case is yet to be seen, but you can be sure that the supporters of the current application of the Maine law will be adept at arguing that its opinion is at least persuasively controlling, especially on the issue of status vs. use.

Obviously this is another important school choice case for those seeking parity for religious and secular schools, especially in today’s environment which finds those schools the only ones completely open. One thing is for sure, if the court does take the case it will resolve some of the issues that have caused controversy in the past.

But don’t be in too much of a hurry. As I’ve cautioned before, this case has only just been appealed to the Supreme Court, the court has not yet decided whether it will hear it or not. Parties on each side have time to weigh in on what the court should do. If the court does take the case, then the argument turns from the question of whether the court should hear the case to how the court should rule. The result: more briefs from the parties and amici.

Lea Patterson, an attorney with First Liberty, who worked both this case and the Espinoza case, appeared on my radio program last month and opined that it may be until summer that a decision on whether to take the case would be made. If accepted there is no guarantee that it will be argued immediately. Thus we’re probably waiting for a final decision until at least 2022. So again we wait.

There’s a lot of that built into what we do. I know, it’s frustrating, especially for people interested in school choice at a time when many of our public schools are failing.
But that’s the system.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com, and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

 

Iowa religious freedom bill sets 'highest standard' for government, backers say

Iowa religious freedom bill sets 'highest standard' for government, backers say: An effort to restore strong religious freedom protections in Iowa has the backing of the state Catholic conference and others who say there should be a high threshold for any state interference with the free exercise of religion.

Boys' and girls' toy, clothes sections could land CA stores $1K fine

Boys' and girls' toy, clothes sections could land CA stores $1K fine: A proposed bill recently picked up again in California could end up fining retailers $1,000 for having separate girls and boys toy and apparel sections.

House passes Equality Act, which bishops warned would ‘punish’ religious groups

House passes Equality Act, which bishops warned would ‘punish’ religious groups: The House on Thursday passed the Equality Act, a bill that the U.S. bishops have warned would trample religious freedom protections while codifying gender ideology in federal law.

Faith On Trial program for this week, Feb. 25

 

EPISODE SUMMARY 

Guest #1: Attorney Lisa Haba, represents survivors of human trafficking and Attorney Peter Gentala Nat'l Center on Sexual Exploitation. 

Topic: Suit against Twitter over allegations it allowed sexually-explicit videos to be posted and maintained despite the pleas of the underage victim to remove them; sexual exploitation of children. 

Guest #2: Greg Baylor, Senior Counsel Alliance Defending Freedom. 

Topic: The Equality Act: what it means to religious freedom, gay and transgender rights, its effect on women's and girls’ sports.

A statement by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

A statement released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops this morning:

The Equality Act discriminates against people of faith and threatens unborn life. Tell your elected officials to oppose it! 

Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. The Equality Act, which is being voted on in the U.S. House of Representatives soon, in many ways does the opposite and needs to be opposed. Instead of respecting differences in beliefs about marriage and sexuality, the Equality Act would discriminate against people of faith. The Equality Act would: punish faith-based organizations, such as charities and schools who serve everyone in their communities, simply because of their beliefs; force girls and women to compete against boys and men for limited opportunities in sports, and to share locker rooms and shower spaces with biological males who identify as women; risk mandating taxpayers to fund abortions; force people in everyday life, and especially health care workers, to support gender transition; and expand what the government considers a “public” place, forcing even some parish halls to host functions that conflict with Catholic beliefs. 

Faith On Trial this week, Feb. 25

This is our Care-A-Thon week where we’re trying to raise funds to keep our Catholic Radio station on the air. If you would like to contribute go to our web page, IowaCatholicRadio.com and click on the “donate” button to make a secure donation.

Topics this week: Sexual exploitation of children with attorneys Lisa Haba and Peter Gentala and the Equality Act with Alliance Defending Senior Counsel Greg Baylor.

Join us this Thursday at 10 a.m. Central time on Iowa Catholic Radio for Faith On Trial! 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM; streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com, or download our free and convenient app.

Truth, Reconciliation, And The Distribution Of Wealth

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) – It’s tough for conservatives these days. We lost an administration (by hook or by crook) that, on balance, embraced our values. It mattered not whether you personally approved of Mr. Trump or his conduct, conservatives, if they are honest, will admit that his policies reflected conservative and Christian policies, again, on balance.

But that administration has been replaced by Mr. Biden’s; one that rejects the principal tenets of conservativism just as Mr. Biden personally rejects the principal tenets of the Catholic Church. In addition, it is not just turning the page from a conservative administration to a liberal one; it seems that we have turned our entire society from one which endeavored to breathe the fresh air of freedom into one that is entirely comfortable with the heavy breath of an overreaching Big Brother.

I think nothing sums this up as much as what is happening to our political holy trinity: Big Media, Big Business, and Big Labor. As I pointed out before, the 2020 election was more than a referendum on who should occupy the White House for the next four years. There was with it an undercurrent that leaves a bad taste in the mouth such as happens when you sip from a glass of expired milk.

Just as in auto racing when stewards with flags signal to the cars instructions from race control, today Big Media are signaling to us from what can only be described as mind control. The networks and major cable news outlets signal to us what we need to believe, what we are free to discard, and what we don’t really need to know. Joining as loyal fellow travelers are the major social media outlets who have now taken to censoring voices on the right.

And to complete the Big Brother act, leftist politicians — many of whom serve in Mr. Biden’s close orbit — are discussing legal means to close down or cancel any one who disagrees — such as the socialist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who, with colleagues, is supporting a plan for “truth and reconciliation” commissions that will systematically root out opinions and facts and opinions that AOC and her cohorts consider false. But this goes beyond a creepy congresswoman and her comrades; it permeates society.

But what surprised me was how quickly Big Business followed suit. National banks are now declining to deal with people and businesses that belong to what can be loosely — sometimes very loosely — described as right-wing. More and more are following in the footsteps of the Southern Poverty Law Center and viewing anyone not toeing the company line as racist, homophobic, or whatever pejorative fits the group at issue.

A case in point involves the retailers that are beginning to drop Mike Lindell’s My Pillow brand, as if his pillows pose an existential (the left really loves that word) threat to the well-being of the planet.

So I guess it should not surprise me too much that big industry is eager to play its part in this societal damnation. After all business is money, not liberty or freedom — unless there is a profit-motive involved — solely about money. And, not just a little bit, about good public relations. And can you blame industry? Mr. Trump’s America First policy brought back thousands of jobs to our shores that had been thought lost forever.

Instead of winking at manufacturers that moved production overseas to avoid paying their workers U.S. wages, the Trump administration put pressure on business — sometimes by unorthodox measures, at least measures not seen on that scale before — to bring manufacturing, as well as non-manufacturing jobs home.

Cheap labor overseas; big profits at home. I think I understand the game. I get it, make nice-nice with the folks who will “liberate” you from the necessity of paying for high-priced help at home, thus letting you use cheap, sometimes slave, labor to make products that can be sold in the United States — and elsewhere — at a much higher profit margin than could be had if you had to pay a competitive wage here.

Which, of course, was one of the reasons why German industrialists supported the National Socialists. Cheap, slave labor was a boon to their bottom lines. But of course those perks can suddenly disappear, as the old adage says: Those who try to ride the tiger oft end up inside it. German industrialists soon found themselves subject to crippling regulations.

Robert Morris College history professor Ralph Reiland, writing for The Free Market in 1998 quoted a businessman’s letter about the Third Reich: “You have no idea how far state control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth’.”

I’m not suggesting that our current crop of industrialists would ever support anything close to a Nazi regime; but I am suggesting that they should be careful about the road they are traversing. With an administration as liberal as this one, filled as it is with left-wing and Marxist devotees, it is easy to see how cheap labor now could turn into “distributing the wealth” and crippling regulations later.

Much the same could be said for Big Labor. Labor has been the backbone of the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember. Yet this administration, after garnering labor support during the campaign, now appears deaf to its interests. Oh sure, Mr. Biden allowed the teachers’ unions to make frivolous claims as to why schools should remain closed, for which he was justifiably criticized, but he canceled thousands upon thousands of good-paying jobs — that incidentally pay much more than a teacher’s — on his first day in office through a series of executive orders.

In just one, Mr. Biden canceled a federal permit given to TC Energy Corp. for pipeline construction. TC last August signed a project labor agreement with four unions for the creation of 42,000 “family-sustaining jobs” totaling two billion dollars in total earnings for their workers. The labor unions that signed the agreement were the Laborers International Union of North America, the Teamsters, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters. All four labor unions endorsed Mr. Biden for president. Wait until they get to the distributing the wealth part.

But have no fear, the administration’s point man — climate czar and Herman Munster impersonator John Kerry — assured those losing their pipeline jobs they can find jobs making solar panels. That’s nice to know, especially since Bloomberg reported in 2018 that: “There is only one U.S. company (General Electric Co.) among the global top 10 wind turbine manufacturers, and one (First Solar Inc., which does most of its manufacturing in Malaysia) among the top 10 solar-cell makers. The wind industry is headquartered in Europe, and the solar industry increasingly in China.” Thanks, John.

And Big Media? Well while the left is celebrating its media darling, AOC, before it moves any further in her direction it might want to examine a bit of history. In 1797 Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act provided that anyone publishing “false, scandalous, and malicious” statements “against the government of the United States, or either house of congress…or to bring them into contempt or disrepute” would be subject to imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of $2,000.” That $2,000 today would be over $70,000 now.

Since that is similar to what Ms. AOC is suggesting I should make clear for her that the change is the value of the money after inflation; the calendar part doesn’t change, thus the two years would still be two years. Hope she understands.

Of course none of that ended well for the sponsoring Federalists. There were 26 prosecutions for violations of the Sedition Act, mostly against newspaper editors. The act was so unpopular it became a big part of the Thomas Jefferson party’s victory over Federalist John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. The acts themselves expired on the last day of Adams’ term and no Federalist has ever achieved the presidency since, in fact, the party didn’t survive.

Now, bring on that distribution of wealth.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Assisted Death may be a Cruel Death

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Assisted Death may be a Cruel Death: Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Dr Joel Zivot who is an assistant professor of anesthesiology/critical ...

Equality Act Is Anti-Christian

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Equality Act is "about ending discrimination"; President Joe Biden agrees. That may be its intent, but its effect is to promote the most comprehensive assault on Christianity ever written into law.

This explains why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been fighting this proposed law for years. Most recently it said the Equality Act "would discriminate against people of faith." The Catholic League and many other civil rights and religious organizations have also sounded the alarm.

The Equality Act has two major goals: it would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity to the definition of sex; it would also undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by allowing gay rights to trump religious rights.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was primarily motivated by a desire to end racial segregation. It banned discrimination based on race, sex or national origin. That was it. It said absolutely nothing about sexual orientation, and it certainly didn't address transgender rights—it wasn't even a concept in the 1960s. Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to this law not only violates the intent of the legislation, it unduly burdens  houses of worship and other religious organizations.

In order to end racial segregation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act banned discrimination in public accommodations. Blacks had historically been denied services in many public facilities, ranging from diners to hotels. The Equality Act goes way beyond this, so much so that it disfigures the meaning of this historic 1964 law.

The Equality Act not only covers homosexuals and transgender persons, it expands public accommodations to include consumer services such as healthcare. In practice this would be a disaster. It would mean, for example, that healthcare providers would be forced to provide hormone therapies and surgical procedures that are required to change the physical characteristics associated with sex changes.

One does not have to be a Catholic healthcare practitioner to register moral and religious objections to this "healthcare" initiative. Will anyone be allowed to voice objections to these procedures, pointing out the long-term physical and mental problems associated with sex reassignment? What about parents who learn that their child wants to switch his or her sex? Will their rights be respected or eviscerated? 

It has become increasingly clear that the expansion of rights to transgender women—really biological males who identify as female—has come at the expense of rights for biological females. Take sports.

Boys and men would be allowed to compete in sports with girls and women, thus unfairly altering women's athletics. Females would also lose their privacy rights. These biological males can use the locker rooms, restrooms and shower facilities that have always been reserved for females. None of this has anything to do with why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. Similarly, rights that have never been envisioned for homosexuals are also affected by the Equality Act.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act specifically banned preferential treatment in law. Nevertheless, the courts have invoked this law to justify affirmative action for blacks. Were the Equality Act to become law, it would mean that homosexuals could now insist that they are entitled to preferential treatment. Yet it is well established that homosexuals earn more income than heterosexuals; lesbians also make more than straight women. The economic condition of gays is nothing like that of African Americans.

In 1993, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); it was signed by President Bill Clinton. This was a major victory for religious liberty. But now Pelosi and Schumer regret their vote, even to the point of supporting the Equality Act, knowing full well that it exempts itself from RFRA! This is perverse. There could be no more serious undercutting of religious liberty than what they are proposing.

It would mean that Catholics, evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Muslims and many other religious communities could not raise religious liberty objections to any of the aforementioned rights of transgender women. In effect, religious entities would be secularized.

For example, if the Equality Act were to become law, Catholic foster care programs would be shut down. They would either have to agree to allow two men to adopt children—a clear violation of Church teachings—or lose federal funding. This is the kind of "gotcha" type element that makes this bill so pernicious.

Currently, Catholic hospitals can legally refuse to perform abortions. Under the Equality Act, they would either lose federal funding or be forced to get into the abortion business. That is because refusing abortion services would be declared "pregnancy" discrimination.

Without the religious liberty protections afforded by RFRA, virtually every religious institution—from houses of worship to schools—would be expected to fall in line with this radical legislation. Catholic schools, for instance, would be expected to change their teachings on sexual ethics to suit the radical LGBT agenda.

It is hard for the public to understand, especially Catholics, why such allegedly "devout Catholics" as Biden and Pelosi would want to champion such patently anti-Christian legislation as the Equality Act. 

Why Every Child Deserves Married Parents

Why Every Child Deserves Married Parents: Every child deserves to live with a married mother and father who love them and are committed to each other.

Biden v. The Bishops

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

President Biden has been in office for just over a month and already he is on a collision course with the bishops. It reached a new level today when he issued a statement endorsing the Equality Act; next week it will be voted on in the House and will also be reintroduced in the Senate.

Biden sees the Equality Act as granting "dignity and respect" to everyone, making sure that "America lives up to our foundational values of equality and freedom for all." He says it is needed because "LGBTQ+ Americans" have been denied "full equality."

This is a dishonest account. If the bill were as benign as Biden says it is, why would the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's (USCCB) be so adamantly opposed to it? The bishops have not been fooled. The Equality Act is, without a doubt, the most radical assault on religious liberty, the right to life, and privacy rights ever packaged into one bill.

When Archbishop José Gomez, chairman of the USCCB, warned in November that some of Biden's policies were troubling, he explicitly mentioned "the passage of the Equality Act." As the bishops have previously noted, it could gut the autonomy of Catholic hospitals, especially with regards to reproductive issues. It could also be used to compel Catholic schools to grant boys access to the locker rooms and shower facilities of girls.

Of course, Biden never mentions such matters. His speechwriters are masters of spin.

Gomez said the Equality Act poses "a serious threat to the common good," but that wasn't the worst of it. What made it really treacherous was its endorsement by a Catholic president. The chairman of the USCCB rightly observed that "it creates confusion among the faithful about what the Church actually teaches on these questions." 

Biden's statement today promoting the passage of the Equality Act means that the collision course with the bishops has reached its destination. Biden has formally triggered the crash.

I will have more in the way of detailed objections to the Equality Act next week.

Rep. Raul Ruiz wrongly argues abortion is necessary for babies with disabilities

Rep. Raul Ruiz wrongly argues abortion is necessary for babies with disabilities: During a House committee debate on the Hyde Amendment, Rep. Raul Ruiz argued in favor of abortions targeting babies with disabilities and health conditions.