Our country’s religious foundation is crumbling

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” said John Adams in 1798. Some things don’t change, even after 221 years, and Attorney General William Barr quoted Adams to say so in a stellar speech at Notre Dame about American politics and our crumbling moral foundation.

Barr, a devout Catholic, made the case that modern Americans have replaced dependency on God with dependency on government. He also argued that modern secularists are not merely non-religious; they are outright hostile to religion.

“The campaign to destroy the traditional moral order has coincided [with] — and I believe has brought with it — immense suffering and misery,” Barr asserted. “And yet the forces of secularism, ignoring these tragic results, press on with even greater militancy.”

He wondered, “Among the militant secularists are many so-called progressives. But where is the progress?” Worse, he implied regression: “The secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of religion, including inquisitions and excommunication. Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake — social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social-media campaigns.”

In any case, says Barr, the government is a poor substitute for true religion. “Today, in the face of all the increasing pathologies, instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have cast the state in the role of the Alleviator of Bad Consequences,” he said. “We call on the state to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility.”

“So, the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion. The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites. The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the state to set itself up as an ersatz husband for the single mother and an ersatz father for the children. The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with this wreckage. And while we think we’re solving problems, we are underwriting them. We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a coercive state on whom we depend.”

Wow.  The Leftists are sure try to impeach Barr now.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/66120?

President Trump as defender of religious freedom

I was puzzled that the Washington Post editorial board was attacking the Bible as literature in schools today; after all, you can't read a history of rock or pop music or understand Shakespeare if you are illiterate in the Bible. But the attack by its "editorial board" is tied to Trump. He tweeted it is a good idea, therefore, it must be awful, oppressive and fascist.

The president made promises as a candidate about restoring our religious freedom, and it was one of the earliest promises he kept and with little fan-fare. The MSM haven't said a lot, but the left continues to attack nuns, bakers, and Catholic school kids at a march for life even after the Supreme Court returned to them their constitutionally protected rights.

I urge you to go on line and print out "Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty" from the Office of the Attorney General, Oct. 6, 2017. Give it to your pastors, priests and professors. No other country has this; and no other U.S. president has told his AG to compile an easy to understand guide of laws, regulations, court cases and litigation results concerning that most precious of all our freedoms.

During the eight years of Obama, our freedoms were eroded in small but alarming ways with, "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone" to "fundamentally change" our nation. From announcing embryonic stem cell research at a Catholic university to setting up bureaucratic regulations in various agencies which bullied people of the book to using a website announcing which religious schools were receiving exemptions from Title IX, President Obama, a professed Christian, ground his heel on religious liberty in the United State.

Slowly the agency actions which were chipping away at our freedoms are being undone. That website which was used by the left to harass and mock people of faith, has been taken down. Other changes are being made in hostile bureaucracies in the Department of Labor and State Department and there is an ambassador at large for international religious freedom. HHS now has a division devoted to conscience protections and religious freedom.

Use it or lose it applies to religious freedom, too.

For more on this important issue see May 2019 issue of First Things. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/05/trump-and-religious-liberty

President Trump and religious freedom—know your rights

Trump has done more for religious freedom in the U.S. than many recent presidents, but the media neglect to do their homework and some recent reporting shows the ignorance of journalists raised and educated in the late 20th-21st centuries. They hate him so therefore never dig into the laws and regulations. President Trump's executive order on religious liberty in May 2017 noted, "Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion." No new laws, no convoluted regulations. Simply implement the laws we had. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/05/04/read-the-full-text-of-trumps-executive-order-on-religious-freedom/?

Section 4 provided guidance (by then AG Jeff Sessions) on 20 principles of religious freedom and guidance for their implementation, followed by an appendix with supporting case law. I wonder how many journalists, pastors, church boards or school principals have read it? https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1001886/download?

Every American Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, others and atheists needs to print and save Sessions' guidelines so they don't look foolish arguing and making charges about settle law.

Was it Obama, Trump or Clinton who declared federal employees may keep religious materials on the private desks and read them during breaks? Clinton. Was it Obama, Trump or Clinton who said federal employees can wear religious jewelry, invite coworkers to attend services, and discuss religious issues? Clinton.

Why do Lutheran schools have the right to employ only practicing Lutherans, or set codes of conduct for non-Lutheran employees? Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964.

Advent and Christmas Schedule, 2015, UALC

Happiness is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iK9PLdVXK4

The General Social Survey (GSS) of the University of Chicago NORC  has been monitoring societal change and studying the growing complexity of American society since 1972. In his book “Coming Apart” (2012) Charles Murray uses its data on self-reported happiness.

For U.S. whites (which is the group to which he limits this discussion) between 30-49 from 1990-2008 31% described themselves as “very happy,” 59% “pretty happy,” and only 10% as “not too happy.” However, when it comes to our closest relationships, family, the currently married report the highest level of happiness—40%. Separated, 16%; divorced 17%; widowed 22%; and never married 9%.

Ladies, ready for this?  The happiest, most satisfied work/vocation category is homemakers at 57%, with paid employment at 44%. For attendance at religious services, those who attend more than weekly are at 49%, with weekly at 41%; those who attend once a year or less are at 26% and 25% (I call them Creasters if they attend at Christmas and Easter and then eat a holiday meal together). Also Murray reports that your involvement in your community contributes to your sense of happiness whether that is in a group, as a volunteer, in politics or even informal social interactions.

All of these relationships and activities add up to what Murray calls “social capital”—satisfying work, happy marriage, strong social relationships and strong religion. You can add to your capital and invest in your future and the future of your country.

And isn’t it interesting the very things that make us happy are those most maligned by media, Hollywood, pop culture and internet memes—it’s almost as though someone/something wants us to be miserable.

“How much does it cost to kill a man?”

That was the title of a Bishop Fulton J. Sheen’s 1968 television program—he was the master of the green chalk board, looking into the camera with piercing eyes, posing questions which he then answered, and pregnant pauses to let his audience catch up.  Even my parents watched him, after they finally got a TV in the mid-1960s.  (If you’ve ever watched Glenn Beck, I wonder if he watched old tapes of Sheen to develop his style).  You don’t need to be afraid of this Catholic  Bishop—he doesn’t talk dogma or Catholic ceremonial worship.  He emphasizes history and values—and he’s the master of the medium.

In the 1950s, Sheen was firmly anti-Communist—predicted the worst.  And we were at war in 1968, and I wonder if he was having second thoughts—at least about the tactics being used. First he discussed the uselessness of peace treaties—4,568 between WWI and WWII (didn’t supply the source).  In one year before WWII, he said there were 211 peace treaties.  He calculates how often the western world (he doesn’t say western, but those were his examples) has been at war.  Using, I believe, a 500 year time frame (counting back from 1968) he said Great Britain had been in 76 wars, France, 61, and Russia 63. Then he made a startling observation—at least to me--about Russia which made me think of President Obama’s current methods of containment.  He said (paraphrasing here) that the U.S. method of war was to first send in armaments and weapons, then to later send U.S.  troops.  Russia was different, Sheen said, that after sending armaments and weapons it finds dupes in other nations to do their dirty work—they don’t send troops, so it can appear that they are  lovers of peace. Technically, they don’t kill anyone, just their machines.  I assume he was referring to the U.S. struggle with the North Vietnamese who were being funded and weaponized by outside Communist countries like USSR and China—while we and the Vietnamese were losing men, they were just losing machines.

Then he quoted the research (missed the source, but he did give it) of someone who had calculated the cost of killing a man in war (collateral damage to civilians not noted).  For Cain to kill Abel it took nothing but brute force; for Julius Caesar to conquer what is now western Europe was about 75 cents per man; for Napoleon it had increased to $700; in WWI it was $21,000 and WWII, $200,000 per death; and for Vietnam War he estimated it was $1,000,000 an hour.  Then he warned of the earth being destroyed by mistake, and told the story of King Arthur and his son reaching a peace agreement, when one soldier’s sword flashed in the sun, and the opposing sides attacked, killing all but four.

Neither leader trusted the other, so they ordered their knights to attack immediately if anyone pulled their sword. Surrounded by a small band of knights, Arthur and Mordred held their discussion. While they spoke, a snake slithered through the grass and bit a knight on the heel. Acting on reflex, the knight pulled his sword. Both armies saw the flash of the sword. Suddenly, the ranks of knights gave a shout and advanced into battle. For the next several hours, England’s greatest knights slaughtered each other, until only two were left standing. http://superbeefy.com/how-did-king-arthur-die-in-the-battle-against-mordreds-army-and-what-happened-to-his-sword-excalibur/

Maybe Sheen will never make it to sainthood (there is a fight over his body by dueling interests), but he certainly has something to say many years later.

Not much has changed in a thousand years

When you have access to a library of a few million books and journals just two miles away and freedom to browse in the stacks, it is easy to come home with topics about which you never gave a thought, such as The reformation of the 12th century by Giles Constable (Cambridge University Press, 1996). So far, I've only made it through the preface and introduction, the extensive bibliography and index, and skimmed a few chapters, but I've seen so much that looks familiar in the religious and secular life of the 11th and 12th centuries that reminds me of the 21st. Other names, titles, and concepts are totally unfamiliar like names of monasteries, phrases in Latin that don't translate well into English, places, and Roman Catholic theology. Even when I get out the dictionary, or check the extensive index, I don't have a frame of reference to understand. A Cluniac is not someone obsessed with movie star George Clooney, nephew of Rosemary, for instance. And black and white monks have nothing to do with race. And then there's the internet problem, always there when I read a book, finding things like The Medieval Sourcebook, which I didn't know I needed until I started browsing.

But before I run off on another tangent about medieval times I'll just note a few phrases that caught my eye, that reminded me that everything we (or at least I) think is contemporary, happened before, because human nature really doesn't change that much.

• . . . reform and revival was seen as a result of the increasing population and approaching end of the world. Whether you're a global warmist fanatic follower of Al Gore, holy Cap and Trade, robed in the vestments of green hype or a Christian dispensationalist scanning the headlines to compare with the Books of Daniel and Revelation--this should sound familier
  
• whether the reformers were from wealthy or humble origins, their followers were often well off [and from my cursory reading, feeling a bit guilty about it], but since it is the writings of the reformers that are available, the diversity and equality that is described may be the exception rather than the rule
  
• charismatic preachers [politicians] recruited actively for converts to their reform movement--transfers from one house or community to another created personal, legal and political problems
  
• rules circulated in written form, such as manuscripts and letters, but were carried out mainly through associations, personal contacts and visits--personal influence and connections were paramount
  
• opponents of reform were not necessarily bad men, but they were set in their ways and opposed to change in principle as well as in practice
  
• when faced with change, they resisted both passively and actively
  
• resistance to change has been recorded by the reformers, not the resisters so is distorted or left out of the record
  
• it was easier to start a new house than reform an old one
  
• reforms of existing institutions and communities almost always involved some pain and difficulty, occasionally with activie resistance and open violence
  
• an involuntary reform or change of order was a blow to the self-esteem of members and resistance was not always selfish or unreasonable
  
• even the poorest monastic community needed land, buildings, books, vestments and other supplies, thus it needed patrons as well as spiritual founders, and these patrons often claimed rights over the community so the interests often clashed
  
• even the most generous patrons hoped to get away as cheaply as possible
  
• some reformers removed existing settlers
  
• recruiting the next generation [of the reformed group] was always a problem when the first generation died out--newcomers didn't share the memories and ideals of the early years. The second generation was often the most dangerous period of institutional development
  
• almost every new, reformed house that survived and flourished later went through a painful period, even a crisis as it grew in wealth and numbers
  
• the new orders and reforms created diversity in the 12th century, with unforeseen consequences of competition and eventually greater uniformity and traditional solutions, so that as the age of experiment drew to a close, the traditional ideals and institutional patterns reasserted themselves within the monastic order and brought the period of change to an end.

Ah, change. It's an interesting concept, isn't it?