Over one hundred Catholic bishops and institutions across the nation have issued statements denouncing the Obama administration’s national requirement to include contraception in employees’ health benefits.  Bishop Thomas G. Doran of the Rockford Diocese issued a strongly worded statement urging parishes to stand up against what he calls an assault on religious liberty.

“The federal government, which claims to be ‘of, by and for the people,’ has just dealt a heavy blow to at least a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful,” reads the letter, which is signed by Bishop Doran.

The Affordable Care Act mandates faith-based employers offer employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and contraception.  Bishops across the nation are asking Catholics to voice their opposition by contacting Congress to support legislation that would reverse the Obama Administrations health care reform law.

“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law,” the statement said. “People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom.”

Catholic Church teachings oppose contraceptive use.  According to Church teaching, suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity.

Doran’s letter reads “Unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics must be prepared either to violate our consciences, or drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so).”

While churches themselves are exempt from the law, religiously affiliated institutions, including non-profits, schools and hospitals, must comply by August 2013. On Jan. 20 the Department of Health and Human Services finalized a rule requiring “preventive care” insurance coverage for sterilizations and contraception, including the abortifacient drug Ella.

Barack Obama won the Catholic vote in 2008 in his bid for the White House.  Catholics supported Obama over GOP nominee John McCain by a nine-point margin (54 percent vs. 45 percent). By contrast, four years ago, Catholics favored Republican incumbent George W. Bush over John Kerry by a five-point margin (52 percent to 47 percent).

Les Rayburn, a highly decorated combat veteran, said President Obama lied to Catholics to get their support in 2008.

“This is flat wrong on so many levels,” said Rayburn. “It is about time to stand up to Obama.  He threw the Jews under the bus and now he has thrown the Catholics under the bus.  Maybe people are going to wake up and realize that it is time to break away from the Democratic Party because they really don’t take care of [Jews and Catholics].”

Under the change, the Department of Health and Human Services is giving organizations up to a year to comply, but religious liberty experts believe the law is certain to face a legal challenge.  Two religious colleges have already sued over the law.

In response to these threats to religious liberty and rights of conscience posed by President Obama’s National Health Care law, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act has been introduced in Congress (H.R. 1179 and S. 1467).  This proposal will ensure that those who participate in the health care system “retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.” It is more important than ever that members of Congress be urged to co-sponsor this measure.   Illinois Congressional co-sponsors include U.S. Representatives Jerry Costello, Randy Hultgren, Adam Kinzinger, Dan Lipinski, Don Manzullo, Peter Roskam, Robert Schilling, Aaron Schock and Joe Walsh.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to President Barack Obama, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Mark Kirk and your U.S. Representative to ask them to support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179, S. 1467) and help enact it into law.

You can also call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: (202) 224-3121 to reach your Congressional members.

On Tuesday, November 29, 2011, the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) will again erect a natNativity Scene depicting the birth of Jesus Christ. For the third year in a row, the crèche will stand in the State Capitol Rotunda Building in Springfield, Illinois.

In 2008, the SNSC made history when the Secretary of State’s office granted a permit to the group, allowing the Nativity Scene to go on display. The crèche stood in the State Capitol Building, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution which provides for such religious expression in the public square as long as such displays are privately-funded.

The SNSC’s primary goal is to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. A secondary mission of the group is to inform the public regarding the constitutionality of such expressions of faith in the public square.

Most Rev. Thomas Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield’s Roman Catholic Diocese, will address those gathered in the Rotunda to celebrate and bear renewed witness to the birth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Tom Brejcha, Esq., president and chief counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, a member of the SNSC and its legal counsel, will briefly explain the constitutional rights of private citizens to erect Nativity Scene as a form of free speech and free exercise of religion in America’s “public square”. Other SNSC members scheduled to speak include Beth Rogers of Springfield, pro-family activist; Dave Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute; and Arlene Sawicki, a pro-family activist from South Barrington.

The ceremony will begin at 11:30 A.M. and run through 1 P.M.

Three of Illinois’ Catholic dioceses have decided to drop their lawsuits against the State of Illinois regarding the termination of foster care and adoption services contracts with their Catholic Charities affiliates.

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services announced that it was revoking its contracts with the Catholic agencies because they refused to place children with same-sex and cohabiting “couples.”  The state action followed passage by the Illinois Legislature of a new law legalizing same-sex “civil unions.”

The bishops of the Springfield, Joliet, and Belleville dioceses announced they were abandoning their legal action against the state because of the financial toll involved.

“The decision not to pursue further appeals was reached with great reluctance, but was necessitated by the fact that the State of Illinois has made it financially impossible for our agencies to continue to provide these services,” says Belleville Bishop Edward Braxton.  “Since we now need to close offices and lay off employees, further appeals would be moot.”

Catholic officials estimate that the state’s decision will affect approximately 1500 foster children.  “While the State has forced the Catholic Church out of state-supported foster care and adoption services, the losers will be the children, foster care families, and adoptive parents who will no longer have the option of Catholic, faith-based services,” the bishops said in a joint statement.

However, the bishops also noted:  “The silver lining of this decision is that our Catholic Charities agencies going forward will be able to focus on being more Catholic and more charitable, while less dependent on government funding and intrusive state policies.”

The public has likely heard that the ironically — or deceptively — named “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act” has resulted in the state of Illinois engaging in religious discrimination by refusing to renew its contract with Catholic Charities adoption agencies. The reason for this travesty is that Catholic Charities refuses to capitulate to homosexual tyrants who seek to compel them to contravene their religious beliefs by placing children in the homes of men and women who affirm homosexual “identities.”

What many do not yet know but should have expected is that the state is discriminating against another religious foster care agency, refusing to renew its contract with the Evangelical Child and Family Agency (ECFA), which has done commendable work for children since 1950, for the same reason.

Homosexuals and their ideological allies are feebly trying to assert that the central problem is that these agencies receive state funds. Somehow that wasn’t a problem in 1965 when the state first asked ECFA to partner with the Department of Children and Family Services to help place needy children in good homes.

Nor was it a problem every year thereafter — at least not until the civil union law was passed. This is the law that during the floor debate in Springfield, State Senator David Koehler (D-Peoria), the bill’s sponsor, stated would not affect child welfare agencies. Homosexual activists have made a liar out of him.

Like Catholic Charities, ECFA is steadfastly adhering to its religious commitments. Unlike Catholic Charities, however, ECFA has chosen not to oppose the outrageous DCFS decision, thus allowing the state to abrogate religious freedom.

ECFA’s decision not to oppose this assault on religious freedom may reflect their troublingly evasive approach to the entire imbroglio. During sixty minutes of discussion over the course of a two-day interview with ECFA director Ken Withrow, he carefully parsed his words in response to all direct questions regarding ECFA’s obvious position that they will not place children in the homes of homosexuals because ECFA believes homosexuality is sinful.

When asked if he thought the civil union law is connected to DCFS’s decision to sever relations with ECFS, he paused and then said “yes.” When asked specifically how it was connected, he said “DCFS needed to look at policies and practices to make sure all organizations that they partner with are in compliance.”

When asked, “In what specific way does ECFA fail to be in compliance with DCFS practices and policies?” Withrow said “ECFA’s policy is to recruit, license, and place with Evangelical families, and DCFS wants anyone who fulfills DCFS requirements to be considered.”

Multiple times in multiple ways I attempted to engage Withrow directly on the salient issue of homosexuality, but he studiously evaded any discussions of the rainbow-colored elephant in the room. In fact, it was clear that he became annoyed with the questions. When asked directly about placing children in the homes of homosexuals, Withrow responded repeatedly with the well-rehearsed talking point: “We recruit, license and place only with evangelical families.”

And this folks is one of the reasons we are in the cultural mess we’re in today. When leaders in distinctly Christian organizations and churches steadfastly refuse to courageously, unambiguously, and publicly affirm truth on the issue of homosexuality, they become part of the problem.

Withrow explained that ECFA offered to refer people in whose care ECFA would not place children (e.g. homosexuals) to other adoption agencies. But is this something that any Christian organization should do? If a group of polyamorists were to seek to adopt, would it be morally permissible for any Christian to direct them to an agency that would place children in such a household?

Or imagine a Christian crisis pregnancy center telling a woman who seeks an abortion, “We don’t perform abortions because they offend God, but we can tell you where you can get one.”

We either believe homosexuality is a grave moral offense against a righteous, holy God — or we don’t. And if it is, we have no business facilitating it in any way.

When I asked Mr. Withrow why ECFA is not fighting DCFS’s decision, he stated that “DCFS has the right to determine the practices and policies of the agencies with which they contract.” But, I asked, “Should the state be permitted to engage in religious discrimination?”

In a recent CNN debate among candidates running in the Republican primary, Princeton law professor, Robert George asked the following important and illuminating question and in so doing, told Illinois Congressmen and women what they should do:

In Illinois, after passing a civil union bill, the state government decided to exclude certain religiously affiliated foster care and adoption agencies, including Catholic and Protestant agencies, because the agencies, in line with the teachings of their faith, cannot in conscience place children with same-sex partners.

Now, at least half of Illinois’ foster and adoption funds come from the federal government. Should the federal government be subsidizing states that discriminate against Catholic and other religious adoption agencies? If a state legislature refuses to make funding available on equal terms to those providers who as a matter of conscience will not place children in same-sex homes, should federal legislation come in to protect the freedom of conscience of those religious providers?

Now, that didn’t seem so hard to say. Quite publicly and with apparent ease, Professor George managed to say exactly what Mr. Withrow refused to say: ECFA lost their contract with the state because they will not place children with homosexual couples.

IFI’s hope is that some courageous Illinois Congressman or Congresswoman will propose such federal legislation. Such legislation may help stop federal legislation proposed by far left U.S. Congressman, Pete Stark (D-CA) that calls for prohibiting “discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent.” Stark’s bill, the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act,” would prohibit federal funds from going to any states that allow adoption/foster care agencies — including religious agencies — to refuse to place children in the homes of homosexuals or cross-dressers.

It’s remarkable that homosexuals who constitute less than 3 percent of the population are capturing virtually all of our cultural institutions. They couldn’t do it without the complicity of conservatives who only rarely, awkwardly, and self-consciously defend their beliefs in the public square. If we would proclaim our beliefs with the conviction, boldness, and tenacity that homosexuals proclaim theirs, we could protect our religious liberty and help create a better culture for the next generation.

TAKE ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative and ask him/her to sponsor legislation to prohibit federal funding to state agencies that engage in religious discrimination, like Illinois’ DCFS. Tell him/her that state sponsored discrimination against people of faith, or faith-based organizations should not be subsidized by federal tax dollars.

There’s troubling news coming out of Florida that provides evidence that the cultural movement to normalize homosexuality poses a serious threat to First Amendment speech and religious rights.

Mount Dora High School social studies teacher and winner of the 2010 “Teacher of the Year” award, Jerry Buell, wrote this on his private Facebook page during non-work time:

I’m watching the news, eating dinner, when the story about New York okaying same sex unions came on and I almost threw up.

If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool as same-sex whatever! God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable???

The administrative response to this veteran teacher’s condemnation of government-endorsement of abominable (God’s word, not Buell’s) relationships is to suspend him from the classroom and begin an investigation.

Society has become so desensitized to the offense of cesspoolish acts that calling them cesspoolish constitutes an offense. Our cultural moral compass has become so broken that citizens do not recognize that homosexual acts are, indeed, cesspoolish. In a very literal sense, the primary sexual act engaged in by homosexual men is cesspoolish in that a cesspool is a waste receptacle, but the term “cesspool” also refers to corrupt, depraved acts. Although Buell’s word choice was indelicate and politically incorrect, it strikes me as accurate. (For recent CDC information on HIV infections among Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM), click HERE, and for shigellosis information click HERE.)

Christians have become deluded into believing that saying that homosexual acts are cesspoolish is an unchristian act, and they have been bullied into self-censorship by exactly the kind of repercussions Buell is experiencing.

Americans, including leaders in government, education, and even the church, increasingly accept the dangerous notion that the First Amendment should be subordinate to the “feelings” of homosexuals. What next? Will speech rights and religious liberty be subordinated to the feelings of “minority-attracted” persons (aka pedophiles) and polyamorists? How long will it be before yet another group committed to normalizing their particular sinful proclivity starts talking about how marginalized, stigmatized, and “unsafe” they “feel”?

Some questions for Mount Dora High School administrators:

• If teachers are not permitted to express their moral and political beliefs during their free time on their private Facebook pages, should they be permitted to express their beliefs on blogs?
• Should they be permitted to express them in letters to their local press?
• Should they be permitted to express them in conversations in public restaurants where they may be overheard by others?
• Should they be able to express them in radio or print interviews?
• Was it the word “cesspool” that generated the investigation and suspension of Buell, or was it his disapproval of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality?
• If it was the word choice that got the administrators’ panties in a bundle, will these language-dictators provide a list of acceptable denunciatory words? Remember, it’s our educators who are promoters of diversity and the free exchange of ideas and defenders of even obscene language when it’s found in the books they teach our children.
• If it were not merely the word “cesspool” but rather any expression of disapproval of homosexuality, is it just homosexuality that teachers may not condemn in their free time or are there other topics of which they may only safely express approval? If so, what are those topics and who decides?
• The First Amendment was intended to protect the expression of even unpopular ideas. How does Big Brother — I mean the Mount Dora High School administration — reconcile its draconian response to Buell with the First Amendment?

The Mount Dora administration might defend their actions by citing the need to keep students “safe.” What school administrations rarely do, however, is define “safety.” The entire homosexuality-affirming juggernaut depends on the tricksy manipulation of rhetoric. “Safety,” which formerly meant the absence of physical threat, has now come to mean the absence of emotional or intellectual discomfort. Of course, liberal activists in public schools won’t admit this (and conservative teachers are too fearful to expose it).

Intellectual and ethical consistency — never the forte of liberals — is not found in public schools even on the topic of “safety.” Liberal activists have no problem making conservative students feel uncomfortable (i.e., “unsafe”) if it’s in the service of eradicating conservative moral beliefs. In so doing, increasing numbers of homosexual students and their “allies” (another rhetorical buzz saw in the homosexuality-normalizing tool box) are becoming presumptuous ideological dictators. They treat all encounters with dissenting moral propositions with high dudgeon and an expectation of administrative censorship.

The exaltation of subjective feelings through the self-actualization and self-esteem movements and the demonization of shame have collided with the tyrannical homosexual “rights” revolution, resulting in the cultural collapse that’s happening right in front of our eyes. (And what do conservatives do? Cover their eyes, plug their ears, and shut their mouths.)

My advice: exercise your right to express unpopular ideas while you can.

Post script:

1. A fellow conservative with whom I discussed this article prior to posting expressed concern over any mention of sexual acts, arguing that we should not “dwell” on them.

I completely agree: dwelling on sexual acts is neither necessary nor constructive. I wish we had a society that valued modesty and privacy, but we don’t and the other side is making public statements about sexual acts and promoting images and ideas about sexual acts that are shaping the beliefs of Americans.

The current cultural problem is not that conservatives dwell on sexual acts, but that we ignore them. In my approximately 800-words above, I have about 80 words that address sexual acts. That hardly constitutes “dwelling.”

We are derelict in this cultural battle if we cede through silence the battle about the true nature of homosexuality, including the sexual acts in which homosexuals commonly engage. Our silence — which the other side covets — leaves homosexuals free to create and promulgate an unchallenged message. Even our high school comprehensive sex ed classes, purportedly concerned with adolescent health, rarely provide to students information on the astonishing array and rate of sexually transmitted infections associated with what the CDC calls Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM).

2. Over the weekend, I was sent a Christian Post article in which Neuqua Valley High School math teacher, Hemant Mehta, weighed in on the suspension of Jerry Buell. IFI readers may remember Mehta, or as he refers to himself and his blog, the “friendly atheist,” about whom I’ve written several times.

Initially, Mehta, who, according to the Christian Post views Mr. Buell as a “bigot,” wanted to “join in the backlash,” but some soul-searching restored Mehta’s reverence for the First Amendment. In his statement, Mehta implied that a situation involving IFI’s response to his blog was analogous to the Buell situation.

Several clarifications are in order. As I wrote in 2009, I did, indeed, contact Mehta’s administration and school board regarding something he had written on his blog, but I did not contact them because of his moral views or in order to have him suspended. In fact, I specifically said, “Of course, teachers have a First Amendment right to blog or speak publicly about anything they want.”

I contacted his administration and school board because Mehta had suggested on his public and widely read blog that it would be a good thing if homosexuals came and kissed in front of my home. His entire blog is an expression of his controversial social, political, moral, and philosophical beliefs, and I had never previously contacted his administration or school board. His suggestion, however, that homosexuals come to my home — whether delivered in jest or not — constituted an irresponsible, unprofessional comment that may have violated school policy regarding employee-community relations.

In subsequent articles, I urged parents to think about whether a teacher who publicly uses obscene language and vigorously promotes polyamory and atheism is a good role model for their children. The First Amendment prohibits the government from abrogating the right of citizens to express even unpopular ideas. It does not prohibit parents from making choices about the people with whom their children spend 180 hours a week.

To read more about Hemant Mehta’s blog, click HERE, HERE, and HERE.

One final note: I have met Hemant and find him a very nice person. Many people believe that condemnation of actions or passionate intellectual disputes indicate dislike or hatred of our worthy opponents. That’s nonsense or worse.

It’s not only possible but commonplace to like, value, enjoy the company of, and even love those whose beliefs and behavioral choices we find foolish and destructive.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced a new and onerous mandate which will force all health insurance policies to pay for free contraception without co-pays or co-insurance, including every “birth control” drug or device approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This means that every health insurance plan will be required to cover “emergency contraceptives” or “morning-after pills” such as Plan B. These abortifacient drugs act to break down the lining of the uterus so that it is either unreceptive to implantation by a fertilized ovum or unable to sustain an implanted embryo — killing a newly conceived human being.

The primary purpose of contraception is not to treat any disease or illness but to prevent the creation of human life. Why should every American be forced to subsidize the destruction of human life through abortifacients especially when there is a more effective and surer way to avoid unwanted pregnancies — abstinence? Why should Americans have to pay for sexual risk-taking or irresponsible behavior?

It is simply outrageous for the government to compel citizens to pay premiums to subsidize a drug many find morally objectionable.

Media reports claim that the Obama administration has incorporated an amendment to the new regulations that permit religious institutions that provide health insurance coverage to exempt themselves from the contraceptive mandate. But if you don’t happen to work for a religious institution, you have no individual conscience rights.

A bill has been introduced in the U.S. Congress to protect the conscience rights of Americans who do not want their health insurance premiums to pay for abortion-inducing drugs. The “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011” (H.R. 1179) was introduced by U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) in mid-March of this year. It is co-sponsored by 36 other Congressmen, including Illinois’ Jerry Costello (D-Belleville) and Daniel Lipinski (D-Chicago).

Take ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative to object to the mandate by HHS that will require pro-life citizens across the nation to pay for abortifacient drugs. Then urge your Congressman to support H.R. 1179, the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.”

Note: IFI recently sent a letter to the pro-life Illinois Congressional Delegation asking them to sign on as co-sponsors of the bill.

Read more:

Support Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)