Nov 28, 2007

Coming soon...

A 1982 US Supreme Court decision said "An institution seeking tax exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy. To warrant exemption under 501(c)(3), an institution must fall within a category specified in that section and must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest." (Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 US 574 (1982)). Thus was Bob Jones University prevented from prohibiting inter-racial dating. Most would agree that dating should not be subject to racial criteria.

Fast forward to 2004 and now gays and lesbians have the civil right to marry in Massachusetts. Most do not equate being gay or lesbian with being black.

The Bob Jones University case is a precedent in which an activist judge could find a "public interest" in upholding the "civil right" to marry someone of the same sex, and which could lead to a denial of tax-exempt status to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage. Thus would Churches, and Synagogues, and Mosques be threatened with economic sanctions if they do not remain silent on the Judeo-Christian and Islamic prohibitions against homosexual relations.

It's only a matter of time.

Nov 23, 2007

More Holy Cross antics

Holy Cross's David O'Brien's proves that at least he, and possibly the Cross too, no longer think with Catholic sensibilities: in a Boston Globe opinion column on 11/16/07.

Professor O'Brien has made a “new” discovery in the world of morals and ethics, discovering a clear distinction between those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-abortion. He names three Catholic politicians; Mayor Thomas Menino, Senator Edward Kennedy and US Representative Jim McGovern. He asserts, "to call them pro-abortion is an insult to politicians and voters alike." He lamely asserts might be the better phrase.

Professor O'Brien goes beyond the pale of Catholic sensibilities when writes: "Voters who made antiabortion politics their priority must share responsibility for disastrous domestic, foreign, and military policies that violate almost every tenet of Catholic social teaching." In effect O'Brien is blaming Pro-Life Catholics and the Bishops for all of the ills in the world because they have prioritized abortion as the number one evil.

Contrast this with the Church teaching that abortion is intrinsically evil, and "that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them." CDF 11/18/1974 #18-22, quoting JPII. O'Brien simply does not have his priorities straight nor does he have Catholic sensibilities.

Nov 14, 2007

New Abortion expanded Buffer Zone

There is an inherent abuse of justice in the new Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Law in Massachusetts, which effectively abridges the free speech of Pro-Lifers while protecting the money interests of Planned Parenthood and the Abortion Industry. This law, which specifically targets anti-abortion speech, increases the current 18 foot buffer zone to 35 feet. Gov. Patrick is expected to sign the law this week. This law is inherently anti-adoption, anti-child and anti-woman; anti-adoption because it prevents a woman from considering adoption as she comes face to face with her 'choice' as she enters the abortion clinic, anti-child because abortion prevents beautiful and healthy babies from being born, babies that could, and would, be adopted - or kept by their mother's when those mother's fall in love at first sight with their baby, and anti-woman because recent studies in Finland and California concluded that the death rate over time associated with abortion is actually three times higher than that of childbirth.

Existing Law protects all citizens. Certainly it is currently against the law to obstruct, intimidate or harass anyone, so why does Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry rate special legislation? A better question is why does Planned Parenthood get away with breaking the law by not reporting statutory rape?

In responding to historical injustices, pro-lifers do what people through the ages have done, fight for those who are unjustly sentenced to death, fight for the weak--the unborn, the elderly, the infirm. Persecuted groups of people have always waited for someone to speak in their defense, and this help has always been delayed or undermined by those who turn a blind eye or seek to keep the silence. This expanded buffer zone is the latest tool to keep eyes turned and tongues silent. If the Abortion Industry were at all interested in 'Choice', they would encourage a fair opportunity for their customers to make an informed choice on this vital matter, a choice that would explain all the risks, and a choice that could show, through an ultrasound, exactly what, or whom, were being aborted.

It was not the people of the Commonwealth who called for this law, it was the vested moneyed interests of Planned Parenthood and their proxies in the Legislature and Executive branches of our State Government who’ve created this special privilege and simultaneous denial of free speech. If Anti-abortion people break the existing laws, arrest us, but if we do not, then please allow us to pray on the sidewalk, there is still plenty of room for those seeking abortions to drive into the Pleasant St. parking lot of Planned Parenthood and enter the building from the main entrance in the back. Lest you call us right wing religious nut jobs for opposing this law, I'd point your attention to the fact that the ACLU of Massachusetts agrees with us on this point, and is against the buffer zone expansion "on the grounds that they (the so-called buffer zone laws) are unnecessarily restrictive of freedom of speech and perhaps more importantly, establish a dangerous precedent for the restriction of protest in other areas".

Speaking out for injustice has been a protected right in this country. Why should pro-lifers receive harsher restrictions than other groups?