Attacks on Religion: Internal and External, Part 2

This article was provided to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by Judge John H. Wilson (ret.)

Attacks on religion from within those of the same faith are growing. Amy Klein, the former editor of the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, writes in the New York Post “I want to drive through Brooklyn, shouting out my car window in Yiddish, ‘Gey trog a farsholtene maske!’ Wear. A. Damn. Mask…As a Jew who has much appreciation for my more religious brothers and sisters (and who has no clue why they or anyone else flouts the medical recommendations), I urge (Governor Cuomo) to stay strong and enforce the synagogue restrictions.” In fact, Klein goes so far as to demand that “Cuomo should also make sure…celebrations (of the holiest of days) are prohibited this year. Dancing with the Torah and other mass gatherings like it should not be allowed to happen “

There may have been a time when such restrictions could be justified. But in a time when statistical data no longer support the need for such draconian measures, the impulse to censor the religious by the admittedly more secular members of the faith amounts to a violation of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Jewish faith is not the only religion to suffer internal attack. Recently, Pope Francis made the following statement during the filming of a documentary regarding the LGBT community; “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it…What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered…I stood up for that.”

While no Catholic has any serious objection to the first part of the Pope’s statement, the endorsement of civil unions has caused a firestorm within the faith.

Soon after the Pope’s statement, the Bishop of Providence, Thomas Tobin, issued the following statement; “The Holy Father’s apparent support for the recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples…clearly contradicts what has been the long-standing teaching of the Church about same-sex unions. The Church cannot support the acceptance of objectively immoral relationships…the legalization of their civil unions, which seek to simulate holy matrimony, is not admissible.”

People are using e-mail blasts to sell sex, drugs and other items of less than favourable roots. sildenafil 25mg Impotence is generally a condition where male gentile do not get erected and neither person feels sensuality.* A condition in which person is Sildamax aroused, but his gentile do deeprootsmag.org cheapest cheap viagra erect for completing physical relation.Besides, the male impotency problem, there is also issue related to female incapability.* Women incapability is the condition where a woman feels uncomfortable in being intimate with her partner.To cure such type of disability you have the. Transit Addressis an cialis price deeprootsmag.org Android App which gives end to end solution for International shoppers. For this purpose, Horny goat weed supplements are considered as the safer and more effective alternative to http://deeprootsmag.org/category/departments/naturestemple/?feedsort=comment_count online viagra, viagra.

Meanwhile, the Cardinal of Boston, Thomas O’Malley, tried another tact. “The Pope’s endorsement of civil unions is not an endorsement of homosexual activity…the Holy Father recognizes that in civil society there can be cogent reasons to enact such laws providing for civil unions which are not the same as the institution of marriage. Pope Francis has seen civil unions as a way for governments to provide protections and health care for couples in long-term, committed relationships…”

As described by the Associated Press, the controversy “highlight(s)…Francis’ willingness to push his own agenda, even at the expense of fueling pushback from conservative Catholics.” While still the archbishop of Buenos Aires, the Pope “told gay activists that ‘he favored gay rights as well as legal recognition for civil unions, which gay couples could also access.’” This led to “a 2003 document from the Vatican’s doctrine office, which states the church’s respect for gay people ‘cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.’ That document was issued after Rome criticized (the then-archbishop) for refusing to speak up strongly when Buenos Aires extended civil union protections to gay couples within the capital region.”

The inconsistency between the Pope’s position on civil unions and the Catholic doctrine the Pope is sworn to defend is a terrible, self-inflicted wound for the faithful. If gay Catholics can receive the Church’s blessing for their civil union, what is to stop heterosexual couples from receiving the same blessing? Why then would anyone need or want a marriage within the Church, when a civil union will be accepted?

Much like the non-religious Jews who attack their faithful brethren for following their devotions without heed to secular concerns, the Pope has also allowed his worldly outlook to color his words. Both need to remember that the faithful have endured for thousands of years by maintaining their beliefs, and not by allowing the momentary and fleeting concerns of the present to turn them from their path.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/