And you thought this was an easy one. You thought being a "social conservative" meant some sort of combination of pro-life, pro-family, pro-fiscal responsibility, pro-original intent, and so forth. You thought that your faith was on the leading edge of this ethic. Well, do I have news for you. But it will have to wait just a few minutes. You see, there is some correction of history that we need to do.

History, it seems, has been playing a dirty little trick on us. No longer are the socialism (national and international) of Hitler and Stalin the products of the Marxist-Progressive movement. Castro was not a "progressive" and Mao did not represent the Leftist turn of the modern liberal movement. History is a real trickster. Just like the human-caused global warming "scientists" who have written away the Little Ice Age, a new breed of Leftist "historians" have written away the bloody heritage of the Left and assigned it to -- you guessed it -- the social conservative.

James Veverka, whoever he is, has, according to "ed" @ Talk2Action, written an analysis that

roundly rebuts Glenn Beck's new documentary "The Revolutionary Holocaust" which paints Nazism as a left-wing phenomenon and claims societal groups Hitler and the Nazis actually targeted were perpetrators of the Holocaust - ignoring the fact that along with Jews, according to the US Holocaust Museum, the Nazi regime threw many communists into concentration camps too.

So the plan is set. The goal is, as it has been many times in the past, to paint all social conservatives as Nazis, tools of Nazis, or at best, tools of some totalitarian who plans on killing Jews, homosexuals, and even communists. It's no wonder they seem worried. (Want paranoia? These Leftists think they might be targets, and for multiple reasons. They worry about us, but fail to look at their own movment.)

Veverka's error is not in particular details. That's now how propaganda is done. His details seem precise. What is in error is his framing. For instance, he just loves sweeping generalizations. He cannot separate the run-of-the-mill fundamentalist Christian from the radical and violent Islamist.

It is for the same reasons, and rather ironically, that many conservatives have coined the word "Islamafascists" to describe religious fundamentalists of Islam. But both religions have a fundamentalist wing that continually attacks modernity and secularism. Radical Islamists want to fight off the same forces of western modernity that Christian extremists do. At the UN, we see Islamic nations, the Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists on the same side in the matters of science and society, modernity and secularism.

The association is clear -- we are airline bombers and extremists. We are not concerned about the betterment of society and the protection of life from the violence of those who practice infanticide. (After all, eugenics is the Left's sanctioned violence.) Nope. We have no genuine concern.

Notice, also, that Veverka protects and characterizes "modernity and secularism" as though it is the innocent party, the peaceful movement that is under attack. It is almost a "noble savage" ideal.

He is correct that radical social policy is readily employed by totalitarians. Religion coupled with the state can be dangerous. Even so, his argument is not about the social conservatism of the Left, or rather the social orthodoxy of the Left, but only about the conservative movement.

It may surprise many that hardline communists were also hardline social conservatives on the matters of family and sexuality. It is the nature of extremism to incorporate far out views on these matters into state policy. The answers to this perverse mix of despotism and family values lies in the natures of religion and nationalism. It is not about left versus right because social conservatism can be found in both as tools of the state. Social conservatism, both religious and secular, when wed to nationalism and embraced as state policy, has almost always turned into an enemy of tolerance and liberty. In fact, social conservatives in the USA, led by Christian conservatives, have fought or disagreed with religious diversity, religious equality, abolition of slavery, Suffrage, desegregation, integrating the armed forces, Brown v Board of Education, mixed race marriages, respect and equality for Jews (not in MY country club!), the Civil Rights Act of 1965, gender equality laws, women in authority, working women, reproductive education, family planning, contraception, condoms, gay rights and a host of others. It was humanists, both religious and secular that banded together to win the rights movements of the past. Such is the case presently with regards to gay, lesbian and family planning rights.

I wonder if he has paid any attention to the hatred of Jews by today's mainstream Left?

As you read the article, you may notice that his use of conservative varies from traditional roles and definitions to something akin to today's non-Leftist. He does not deal with the social orthdoxy of today's U.S. leftist. The closest he comes is to dealing with totalitarian Leftists like Castro. Nothing about abortion (as though it is a real right) as mandatory in PROC. It is a convenient bit of bait-and-switch that accomplishes the propaganda character of this work This became evident here, as he attempts to couple the past with only one part of the present.

Because of popular cultural myths and the religious right's propaganda, both misinformed and dishonest, most people don't realize that Nazi Germany and Stalin were on the same page as religious conservatives regarding homosexuals. The anti-gay propaganda of both the religious conservatives and the Nazis is nearly identical. One is religious, the other secular, but the message is the same. The views are the same. The doctrines are the same. The blind hatred is the same. Both embrace rigid patriarchal family views that see women as men-helpers and baby-makers. Both consider their views "virtues". Both are the moral crusaders to save the family in a nation that is supposedly threatened by decadence (Weimar Germany then and counterculture now). (emphasis mine)

The post is, of course, replete with Nazi graphics, accompanied by a few Leftist totalitarians. Interestingly a number of them were inappropriate enough that Photobucket censored them, according to their policy, a policy of which Talk2Action should have been aware.

To help summarize the attitude brought to the article, some notable quotes are provided as a resolution to your last, pleasant meal:

Like religious fundamentalists, Nazis were intensely patriarchal and pronatalist.

Chrysostom, like many Christian fundamentalists, takes the same view as many Nazis. Chrysostom and Augustine were wrong, of course. It was a time of great ignorance in matters of natural science. Homosexual bonding, bisexuality and same sex parenting are very common and natural in animal societies They are part of the social glue in these animal's social structures. It is a mistake to think that the only social units in a society are reproductive ones or imitate them. Nature is far more diverse in it's social units than the rigid views of patriarchal totalism.

Due to Christian traditions, laws against mixed race marriages existed at one time or another in most of the US until the Supreme Court put a stop to them in 1967. In this regard, the USA was lawfully a racist nation for almost 200 years. It is a good thing the 1960s came along with all of it's activism and challenges to traditional dogma. The good old days of American tradition were racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic.

This exclusivist concept of masculinity, like that of the conservative Christian and Muslim place of men in their ideal society, denigrates gay men as less than human and seeks to silence and persecute them out of existence. Or to repair and re-educate them in order to destroy their identity. The outcome is the same. Foremost in the mind of the religious fundamentalist, like the fascists and the Stalinists, for whatever reason, is their radical authoritarian agenda to deny the GLBT community of equal rights under the law.

It was and is a game changer. Citizens United v. FEC has changed, or should we rather say, re-established the ground rules. A corporation, whether it is non-profit or a for-profit, can speak against issues and the candidates who hold those positions.

(a) Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.

What this doesn't say, and I wish it would have more directly, is the 501(c)(3) IRS directives on certain non-profits. That was neither the purpose or any implication of this suit. What it does, from my novice perspective, is provide a broader understanding of "press" in the First Amendment. Is "press" a simple noun that belongs only to certain corporate entities, or is "press" a functional term that deals with the liberty of publication of opinion?

Despite the rantings of the Left, there was still a great deal of corporate monies being poured into campaign talk. Take MSNBC, for instance. MS stands for Microsoft. This is their corporate partnership with NBC. The network website is even hosted by Microsoft at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/. With the network's liberal bias patently obvious in the rantings of Maddow, Schultz and Olbermann, it is difficult to see this as anything but corporate funds being poured into advocacy. It makes a person wonder if McCain-Feingold were any more than a limit on specific speech.

But if the First Amendment is not enough to keep Congress at bay, should we be so naive as to think this ruling can do any more? This ruling does, though, leave open the door to more religious speech that should not otherwise be restricted. Keith Fournier's view is this:

The Supreme Court used this case to rule on the constitutionality of restrictions imposed on political speech and expenditures by corporations, associations and organizations through campaign-finance laws. To the shock of some observers, the US Supreme Court reversed itself and overruled the central provisions of “campaign finance reform”. Within minutes of the decision the reactions and the posturing began. The Obama administration called for legislative action to undo the impact of the ruling. However, there is little chance that such an effort will succeed. (emphasis mine)

The well written majority opinion traces the confused labyrinth of cases and statutes which act to restrict corporate/organizational speech and expenditures related to it. Many observers felt the Court would not overrule itself but use a narrow ground to somehow remedially approach the issue. The majority opinion states the standard for such a rare action as overruling past holdings, “Our precedent is to be respected unless the most convincing of reasons demonstrates that adherence to it puts us on a course that is sure error….”

The fact that the Court overruled its prior decisions is very significant to anyone who has set their sites on overturning Roe v Wade and engaging in the kind of massive political action such a result will require. We must persuade the Court to reverse RoeDoe. This will take massive organizational development as well as effective and sustained political and legal activism. It will also take a lot of money. In addition, we must encourage candidates to run for office who recognize the fundamental human right to life, oppose those who do not and pressure those who waver.

While some critics of the decision point to the problem of corporations influencing elections, it is very easy to miss, whether intentionally or not, that quashing free speech always amounts to nothing less than quashing free speech. Corporations are owned by people, just as unions are owned by people, and churches (and all other free associations) are composed of people in free association. This ruling is historically democratic.

This decision also exposes how the simple term "freedom" is defined. For the conservative who represents the classic liberal understanding of the term, freedom is the ability of the individual to express personal will. This will finds one expression of its liberty in the freedom to pursue economic prosperity.

In contrast to this, today's Leftist sees freedom through the eyes of economic necessity. That is, if there is need then freedom is proportionately diminished. Thus the richer one is, the freer one is. This economic stratification is deemed an injustice, and the result is class warfare.

We now have a better opportunity to confront the Marxist view of liberty as deficient.  When doors of opportunity open then we do well to follow the opportunity for further ministry.  This ministry can include a confrontation of the world view that drives the Left, as plainly expressed by President Obama.

The Washington Times has the audio. Glenn Beck today brought it even more press. But here it is for your viewing pleasure:

Without a doubt a large number of white bloggers, both amateur and professional, can be found today, clicking away a post on how we ought to improve our attitudes toward our brothers and sisters of different ad darker skin tone.  I would challenge these authors to take it one step further:  Do it regularly.  By engaging in this activity only one time per year we look patronizing and aloof.  Perhaps ...

I've tried to deal with the subject regularly, and some of the results have been quite positive as I could encourage a black brother in his attitudes as he pursues ministry opportunities.  My personal motivation comes from a two-year experience with World Impact in Omaha.    Among other things, this experience changed a good number of my attitudes.  But not only about race, it was also about the body of Christ and what it means to be a Christian in His multi-ethnic church.

Let us keep from making this an annual event.  Not to judge Paul Mc's motives, but all our motives, it is important to confront racism in our preaching and teaching in a persistent basis.  Going back to my favorite topic, Marxism, you'll notice that they are unrelenting on the subject.  Though their proclamations of conservative and American racism are frequently of dubious validity, they have a point and their target audience likes the subject.  They have an answer, however inadequate, to a real, temporal social issue.  Why do not we, for the cause of the eternal kingdom of God, address the issue?  We cannot atone for our own personal sins one day per year.

Restrictions on the general right participate in open debate on civic issues is not restricted to the secular. The demand that the religious community just shut up and go away is contrary to the historic principles of liberty as well as the Constitution specifically. It is an assumed right in the Constitution that the speech and belief systems of all are allowed and tolerated as contributing to the character of the nation.

Some are less than tolerant. The current liberal turn to the Left tries to survive by dminishing its opponents. Such is the nature of totalitarians. They are called "partisan" and, in this case, "theocrats." The Leftist agenda requires a statist system to survive. This is seen in how some approach the presence of the religious voice in the abortion debate. Fred Clarkson makes his point clear with his method of redefining abortion language:

What Clarkson conveniently excludes is the existence of election abortion as a right. He may choose to redefine "demand" as he wishes, but gives no consideration to the existence of elective abortion. Such is the logic of the secular leftist who wishes the Christian voice removed from the public square. I wonder what he thinks of the abortionist who performs the procedure on a young girl who is not pregnant, or those who fabricate abuse excuses, or those who ignore abuse causes in the abortion process. The provision of abortion procedures at the discretion of parents, counselors, and even unwilling participants, is well documented. There are demands made on particpants, and by participants, regularly. It is elective, it is convenient. And it is destructive.

Clarkson continues his deceiption by misdirection:

As always, the call to just shut up and go away rears it ugly head. Along with it is the ever-popular theocratic brand -- what shall we call it, oh yes, stigmatizing. We just can't have these religious people imposing their belief systems on others, now can we? Clarkson continues:

Don't you love the rhetoric? It's now "propaganda" to suggest that elective abortion available to all is just wrong. But his defense of PP is outrageous as he, always, ignores the racism and eugenics of the organization, its founder, and the movement's underlying principles. And he also ignores the massive amounts of monies that flow through PP as a government-subsidized agency of death.

We could just shut up and go away. But we won't, no matter how loudly these radicals cry out.

Behind Clarkson's remarks is the ever-present concern that we avoid becoming a theocracy. But theocracy to Clarkson is far more broad than it is to most of us. He seems to think that any law with a religious foundation is theocratic. I wonder -- was it the religious voice that ended slavery? Now, one might argue that it was a Christian voice infused with a bit of modern liberalism, and we can grant that. So let's get closer to today. Was it not first the religious voice, speaking about health, that saw the closing of gay bath houses? It was certainly not the various health departments. Would Clarkson support the re-opening of these since came out of a Christian ethic about life and health?

The place for a Christian ethic is real. Secularism lacks the restraint that we Christians can provide. No theocratic system is necessary as we bring the benefits of redemption to a lost world. And hopefully this type of influence can be seen as one benefiting the Kingdom and furthering the redemptive message of the Gospel.

If the core data of a model is proven to be false, is it still a valid model?  Worse yet, what if the very model itself becomes meaningless?  What are we to do with a "science" where that "science" lacks either soundness or substance?  The situation we know as climategate will not go away -- not until the situation is resolved.  Today's editorial by Daniel Henninger clarifies the situation:

A line has been crossed.  But this is only a recent step, as during the last century the sciences behind naturalism have notably created a myriad of false evidences to support a model which is vague and hardly sufficient to answer the question that it raises.  Whether Piltdown Man or Brontosaurus, the errors may be later written off, but in their times each is respectively held up as an undeniable proof that the model is both correct and sufficient.

This ability of scientists so-called has been transmitted to politicians.  These men, after all, are the most self-agrandizng of all (except for hollywood, of course).  Some thrive on the ends that they can produce while others are so bold as to try to shape, or should I say reshape, the fabric of our society:

And let you think it's just about a few policies or helping the poor, the efforts go much further:

This is the effort of radical leftist anti-capitalists.  Not a "communist" and not the type of "socialist" that we see in Europe, but a new, very American thing I like to brand a nouveau-communist that has taken permanent levels of control in the auto industry, in finanace, and is today making the same efforts into banking and insurance.  They attack speech regularly, supposing that liberty is somehow "unjust" and requires a new media justice to resolve the undesirable disagreement that is broadcast by Fox News and Clear Channel Communications.

All of these energies can be summarized in the words of Saul Alinksy, mentor of President Obama (see Legacy), at the very beginning of his 1971 work, Rules for Radicals:

We've heard the lame excuses for the Ft. Hood killings where words like deranged get thrown around like candy from a parade wagon.  Nobody wants to offend, at least nobody on the Left wants to offend radical Muslims.  (Not the average, peace-loving kind -- they'll offend them later.)  I wonder why.

Barber's excuse started out sounding almost reasonable:

Critics have jumped on liberals in the Army for being more devoted to civil rights than national security for refusing initially to suspect that Major Hasan's Fort Hood rampage that cost 13 lives might have been an act of terrorism motivated by fundamentalist zealotry. Instead, they seemed to favor the knee-jerk notion that he was unstable, perhaps deeply troubled by the prospect of shipping out to a war zone.

But then he misrepresented the whole problem.

For political correctness rests on a liberal refusal to stereotype.

I wonder how many peace-loving jihadists he knows.  Is he unable to make a precise identification of the specific mindset behind this action?  Is this his only way to avoid the stereotype?  But he went further:

So here's the tough call we have to make: should the army bar Muslims from service? If you say no, as I say no, then it isn't fair to complain about political correctness because that's just a nasty name for upholding the rights of individuals and shielding them from stereotyping groupthink.

As you can see, he missed the whole point of hitting the problem directly.  (To be fair, he did say that there is a specific problem with this mindset, but he refused to acknowledge that there is any problem with PC thinking when it comes to making, or rather avoiding, this clarification.)  But he goes too far.:

In this case, it was a high price indeed, certainly not one to be dismissed. But it turns out to be the price of government by law, of innocent till proven guilty, of refusing to ask individuals to carry the burden of guilt by association based on groups to which they belong by virtue of race, religion or ethnicity.

And painful as it is, this is a good thing - even when it is called political correctness and even when we are compelled to pay the dreadful price of Fort Hood. Liberty's price is never cheap.

Again, is he not capable of separating the belief systems of various groups?  If he is, then why is he not doing so?  Why does he persist in allowing this high price for the sake of PC?  It is an excuse which we should all find disgusting. 

And this all comes to you by way of Arianna Huffington.  Because for HuffPo, mass murder is the price of liberty.  What a disgusting bunch of Leftist thugs.

Does the church have the right to teach its own members its belief system?  Yes.

Does a fellowship have the right to discipline its members who reject the church's doctrinal and ethical standards.  Yes.

Does this mean that a church may discipline a member who is engaged in politics?  Yes.

The discussion, in the video below, is all about how the church has engaged one of the Kennedy clan and whether the church should be speaking to the issue.

Chris Matthews says that this discipline amounts to telling a politician how to vote.  WRONG.  Kennedy can vote however he chooses. 

Susie Madrak, one of those anti-lifer Leftists at C&L, says that prosecuting for abortion means prosecuting the women who have abortions:

Because here's the moral hypocrisy at the heart of the Church's abortion position: If it's really and truly murder, you're talking about prosecuting mothers, sisters, lovers and friends for having them. Tweety is quite aggressive with the bishop, demanding to know exactly what legal penalties he thinks should be legislated.

No, Susie.  Except for a few exceptions, the general position is that the doctors are the ones who do the killing and who would be treated as the killers.  But sucy misrepresentation is not below the posters at C&L, and one can expect this type of rhetoric to continue.

So how does this affect religious liberty?  For Madrak and Matthews the church has crossed the line.  But the reality is that it has not.  The church is neither writing nor dictating legislation, but instead asking for consistency from its member.  The member is free to come and go as he chooses.  It's too bad that these Lefties would deny this liberty.  Then again, Leftists don't know what liberty is.

We now know of the hoax of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.  The revealed emails show the manipulation of information.  There is nothing left to doubt except the leftist politicians.  But what do we do now?  Here are some ideas:

1) Ask Honda and Toyota to produce diesels instead of hybrids.

2) Challenge Congress on the Cap & Trade tax excuse.  Challenge them to shelve it entirely.  And return any tax dollars disbursed to reinforce this hoax.

3) Challenge President Obama to apologize for his error.

4) Challenge Al Gore to apologize.

5) Challenge the emergent and postmodern theologians to apologize and remediate their accompanying theological errors.

Of course there is much more that we can do.  But we must begin by actively communicating with the apologists.

The Washington D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has made its understandings of the law clear -- that somehow homosexual marriage is required by law.  You can read the whole document here.  The board finds its motivation in the modern feminist movement.  In evaluating two matters, the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act (JAMA) and the Human Rights Act (HRA), the board came to the conclusion that

While neither the HRA nor its legislative history explicitly mentions same-sex marriage, it is without question that the HRA must “be read broadly to eliminate the many proscribed forms of discrimination in the District.”40 Since JAMA’s enactment, the District recognizes same-sex marriages that have been properly entered into, performed, and recognized by other jurisdictions. This did not exist when Dean was decided. Consequently, couples who fall within JAMA’s purview are entitled to the same benefits of marriage that are afforded heterosexual married couples, and the denial of these benefits to married couples on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individuals who comprise the couples now constitutes a “proscribed form of discrimination.” It is clear that this result is the intent of the Council, which voted 12-1 to pass JAMA. The Initiative seeks to deny recognition to JAMA marriages on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individuals who comprise the couples. As a result, the Board finds, and both the District’s Attorney General and the General Counsel for the Council agree, that the Initiative authorizes or would authorize discrimination proscribed by the HRA and is therefore not a proper subject for initiative.

This is dangerous.  The D.C. board considers the disallowance of homosexual marriage recognition, in principle, to be a "proscribed form of discrimination" -- and "proscribed" means dangerous and illegal.  The D.C. board has used specific terminology that declares the Christian view of marriage, that marriage must be between one man and one woman, and the practices of hiring and service, to be dangerous and illegal.

It doesn't take long to go back and look at the government's confrontation of Bob Jones University for its institutional racism.  The school was, in my understanding of the Word, practicing an immorality for which it deserved condemnation.  But the power of the federal government to intrude into religious organizations has been established, against Bob Jones and elsewhere, as the Left continues its assault on individual liberty.

And the board has let its intentions regarding any initiative to change this ruling:

IV. Conclusion Under current law, the District recognizes same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions. The proposed Initiative seeks to prohibit the District from continuing to recognize these same-sex marriages. The Initiative instructs that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the District of Columbia.” If passed, the Initiative would, in contravention of the HRA, strip same-sex couples of the rights and responsibilities of marriages currently recognized in the District.

The District’s Initiative, Referendum and Recall Procedures Act requires the Board to refuse to accept referenda and initiatives which violate the HRA. Because the Initiative would authorize discrimination prohibited by the HRA, it is not a proper subject for initiative, and may not be accepted by the Board.

The board's appeal to the Human Rights Act leaves open a door for a new type of discrimination:  Where do religious charities that participate with the government stand when it comes to their hiring practices and where does the expression of the Chrisitan faith end and responsibility to the state end?  This Human Rights Act is Section 14, Title 2 of the D.C. code, and as later clarified:

But is the district's law even legal?  Sounds strange, but the question must be pursued.  Does the district's denial of initiative and referrendum amont to an unconstitutional  limitation of the rights of the citizens of the district.  Could it be that the very definition of discrimination as used by the District is one which is politically motivated and of merely partisan convenience?  Should not the citizens be allowed -- they are by the Constitution, though not by District leadership -- to correct the error of the District?  They do, after all, regard us as dangerous.  This type of rhetoric is hardly tolerant.

First, I do not and will not promote insurrection.  But I will promote active dissent, even active disobedience when it comes to maintaining the practice of one's faith.  The time is coming closer with the current situation in D.C.  As report in the Washington Post today, the D.C. council has taken upon itself the authority to decide when one can or cannot practice their religious beliefs.

Under the bill, headed for a council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings.

How dare they!  They should be silent on the matter.  They should speak neither positively nor negatively.

But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

Well, not yet. But it looks pretty likely. Washington, D.C., the city that should be the protector of liberty is now bent on reducing liberty. Specifically, the city is bent on reducing religious liberty. And they are doing it in the same fashion as Massachusetts did a few years ago.

Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post report today (Nov. 12, 2009, front page) that

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage la, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness, and ehalth care.

Under the bill, headed for a D. C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay mean and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

If you are unfamiliar with the happenings in Massachusetts a few years ago, the Catholic Church was forced to withdraw from participation in the foster care and adoption system of the state because of moral objections to having to place children into homosexual households. The state could have accommodated the church and modified their procedures, but they chose to do otherwise, thus removing the church from equal rights to participate in civic matters on account of religious beliefs.

The Post article goes further:

If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city’s long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

And of course there is the expected accusation from the homosexual community:

Peter Rosenstein of the Campaign for Alll D.C. Families accused the church of trying to “blackmail the city.” 

“The issue here is that they are using public funds, and to allow people to discriminate with public money is unacceptable,” Rosenstein said.

And

“If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer cake city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes,” Catina said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.

Terry Lynch, head of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations, said he did not know of any other group in the city that was making such a threat.

“Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?” Cheh asked. “I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat.”

craigt@washpost.com

boorsteinm@washpost.com

Now, is anyone outraged? Well, the homosexual advocates are. But are we? Can we promote liberty while they, under their special-rights processes, seek to secularize society and turn the church into a servant of the secular state. This is statism at its worst.  Discrimination against religious beliefs and related liberty, under law.  But what has changed, really?  The homosexual thugs will not stop at restricting religious liberty to enforce their agenda.  They will go further if they are allowed to win more of these battles.  They want control of your belief system and find the church to be their greatest opponent. 

Your tax dollars at work.

Step 1 was our identity crisis. From the beginning through the Civil War we sought to clarify our system of government, leaving the Articles of Confederation and moving onto the more centralized Constitution. We ended our bout with slavery and secured rights. We secured the hemisphere from European expansion and the threat it posed.

Can the U.S. survive itself? Some days I wonder. While I think the classic liberal position holds great hope for the world, today's Marxists leave no hope for a free society to survive.

Mr. Robinson begins his Oct. 13 editorial comment Obama's High Bar in this manner:

Somebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world's most prestigious honor? The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation's leader -- elected, you will recall, by a healthy majority -- as unworthy of such recognition?

Does Mr. Robinson really want an explanation?  No.  He is enamored with the Nobel Peace Prize, an honor only given to progressive American presidents.  In this case it was given to Obama quite early, even before he could sacrifice Israel or any other ally.  Before he could surrender our Iraq victory or any success in Afghanistan where we might catch OBL.  Before he could take control of the census, before more than half of the economy could be placed under federal control.  Before he could take ownership in GM away from stockholders (many retired people) and give it to the union.  Before his nouveau Communist method could take control of private business and economy, despite the Tenth Amendment.  No, Mr. Robinson did not want an answer to the question.  He believes that President Obama deserves this just for doing nothing productive.

Mr. Robinson's opinion of critics follows the party line.

Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?

Mr. Robinson apparently believes that anyone who disagrees with President Obama hates America.  Hmmm.  Just a year ago dissent was patriotic.  It seems that the Left has had a change of heart.

Mr. Robinson does not believe that there is any sound reason to reject recoginition of the legitimacy of this award.

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn't possibly do anything right ...

Well, if the nomination was done in February, what had he yet accomplished.  And really, what has he done?  It's the Dem's Senate and House that are doing the work.  He talks about his health care plan, but he has none.  He denounces police for doing their job even when he says that he does not have the facts.  He has done nothing to control federal spending.  He has devalued our currency by monetizing our economy and bringing inflation.

Mr. Robinson seems to have idea what Obama's foreign policy is about

Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush's cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach. He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama's credit -- and to our country's.

Yes, Obama has shifted away from an independent America to the traditional and Leftist perspective of the Wilsonians.  There is nothing new here.  There is no change.  It is the imperialism of socialism that seeks to use multilaterism to impose purportedly American interests on the world.  We saw the destructiveness of Clinton's neo-liberal economic policies on Latin America.  We can anticipate the same from President Obama.  Assuming, that is, if he is actually going to do something positive, something other than posturing.

Yes, President Obama has taken this nation further Left than we might have imagined.

This type of emperor worship is destructive.  It leads to a surrender of intelligence to the unquestioned goals of The Leader.  And that is dangerous.