Posts Tagged ‘sanctity of life’

The Video That Should Go Viral!

March 9, 2012

Choose Life!
After you watch this, consider that upwards of 90% of Down Syndrome children diagnosed prenatally never see the light of day; and their parents never see the special light of their children’s lives, as these blessed parents did.  World Down Syndrome Day, March 21, 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jVxz71ygHbk

Social Issues, the American Electorate and the Presidency

February 20, 2012

In this column from the “Wall Street Journal”, James Taranto examines the impact of social conservatism on presidential elections, highlighting the new book by Jeffrey Bell, The Case for Polarized Politics.  Bell makes the case that the social issues are a winner for GOP candidates, despite what the political pundits and media outlets may say.  

Some excerpts:

“Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, ‘The Case for Polarized Politics,’ has a winning track record for the GOP. ‘Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,’ he observes. ‘The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.'”

“In Mr. Bell’s telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had ‘its center of gravity in social issues’ since the French Revolution, he says. ‘Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we’ve had a good illustration of it in the last month or so.’

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577227694132901090.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

The Parable of the Kosher Deli

February 17, 2012

From the testimony of  Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Presented before the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government  Reform

 

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it The Parable of the Kosher Deli.

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork.

There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community — whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides — expresses its outrage at the new government mandate.        

And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork — not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths — because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty.

They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle.

They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced — under threat of severe government sanction — to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you.”

It is, after all, the “other white meat.”

Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.”  

Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following:

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate.  

Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe — even if they believe in error — that pork is not good for you should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not — and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions.

Does the fact that large majorities in society — even large majorities within the protesting religious community — reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power?      

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards.      

Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews.      

Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers.

Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: Can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli?

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

So, in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners and offer them a new “accommodation.”    

You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer.  

But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises and to offer, prepare and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept.    

And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself.      

But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things: 

First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers themselves are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.

This story has a happy ending: The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.

The question before the United States government — right now — is whether the story of our own church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. 

Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity?   

We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be: Yes.

We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way. Thank you for your attention.

Read more here.

Planned Parenthood on the Chopping Block

February 24, 2011

Why do we have massive budget deficits if every liberal social program saves taxpayers more than it costs? Why? Because such claims are simply untrue. ABC27 News Harrisburg looks at the proposed defunding of Planned Parenthood. The story includes PP’s claims, and some comments from yours truly about PP’s role as America’s leading abortionist.

Another Battle in the Fight Against Abortion

June 18, 2010

Friends, I’d like to draw your attention to an article from The New York Times’ website regarding an issue that could be coming up for debate in the U.S. Senate as quickly as this summer: whether privately-financed abortions should be allowed in military hospitals.

This amendment is included in the same bill as the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Opponents of the bill argue that even though the abortions would be privately funded, they would still take place in government-funded (and thus, taxpayer-funded) hospitals.

This amendment has passed the Senate Armed Services Committee, and advocates are hoping that it will come for debate before the whole Senate and possibly the House sometime this summer.

This bill is dangerous because if passed, not only will it increase the number of abortions performed, it will inadvertently use taxpayer money to do so. Thus, those of us who oppose abortion will be funding it through the government’s use of our tax dollars!

I encourage you to read this article for more information about this important issue. After you’ve read the article, click on the link for our Citizen Action Center, where you can find information about how to contact your U.S. representative directly regarding this bill.