Usurpações aterradoras - por Nuno Serras Pereira

Cada vez tem havido mais casos vindos a público de roubos violentos, por parte do estado, de filhos a seus pais. Os tribunais conluiados com assistentes sociais arrogam-se o direito a um poder absoluto contra a família determinando se podem ou não ter filhos, e impondo ameaçadoramente o que têm que fazer para os evitar. Isto, tanto quanto sei, começou com o então chamado “rendimento mínimo garantido”, o qual exigia que quem dele quisesse usufruir fosse obrigado ao uso contínuo da contracepção, mesmo a abortiva precoce. Esta brutalidade totalitária não incomodou os altos prelados que se desfizeram em elogios à introdução daquele sem atender a este monstruoso “detalhe”. 

Ontem foi noticiado por um semanário o mais clamoroso dos casos conhecidos. A coisa é medonha. Um juiz determinou a esterilização permanente de uma mãe em virtude da pobreza em que vivia com os filhos. Como ela felizmente, e ajuizadamente, não o fez e se atreveu a procriar mais, o tribunal determinou, para gáudio das assistentes sociais, que lhe fossem extorquidos sete dos dez filhos, deixando-a só com os mais velhos. A ferocidade controladora e predadora do estado, em nome do bem-estar material, da higiene e da pontualidade escolar, ignora friamente os vínculos familiares, os laços de amor filiais, maternos, paternos e fraternos, e em vez de colaborar com a sociedade civil e com as Instituições de solidariedade para melhorar as condições de vida desta sociedade natural, anterior ao estado, entretém-se sadicamente a escaqueirá-la. Por este andar tardará muito até assistirmos impávidos e serenos, como temos estado ao longo destes anos, a decisões judiciais que imponham aos pobres o aborto forçado? Aliás, se esta mãe tivesse abortado os sete filhos não a espoliariam de nenhum dos que restassem nem padeceria controlos das assistentes sociais nem poria o pé em qualquer tribunal. Seria, pelo contrário, apontada como uma progenitora responsável, inteiramente capaz de cuidar da família, enfim uma mulher exemplar. Esta mentalidade inoculada sistematicamente ao longo das últimas décadas pela APF, prodigamente protegida e subsidiada por todos os governos, continua coadjuvada pela introdução da ideologia do género (ver os dois primeiros parágrafos deste discurso de Bento XVI e a entrada ideologia do género no blogue Logos), desde 1995, a sê-lo maciçamente com a cooperação activa dos mesmos políticos germinados nesse caldo infeccioso e pestilento em que se transformaram os partidos que têm estado nos governos.

Baste para exemplo o encontro, no próximo 13 de Fevereiro, organizado e promovido pelo ministério dos negócios estrangeiros. 

Eduardo Pinto da Silva (Divisão de Direitos Humanos - Human Rights Division - SPM-DGPE - Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros - Directorate-General for External Policy - Ministry of Foreign Affairs) numa mensagem-e enviada para uma extensa lista de representantes e associações da sociedade civil escreve: “Tenho a honra de informar V.Exas que a Comissão Nacional para os Direitos Humanos (CNDH) se reunirá em formato alargado a representantes da sociedade civil no próximo dia 13 de fevereiro, às 9 horas e 30 minutos, no Auditório do Instituto de Defesa Nacional (Calçada das Necessidades, nº 5, Lisboa) … Na qualidade de Presidente da Comissão Nacional para os Direitos Humanos, o Senhor Secretário de Estado Adjunto e dos Assuntos Europeus fará a abertura da reunião e dirigirá os respetivos trabalhos (ordem de trabalhos em anexo).”

O anexo da “comissão nacional para os direitos humanos” apresenta na sua ordem de trabalhos, entre mais uma ou duas coisas o seguinte:

“Igualdade de Género - Esclarecimento de Conceitos” - Apresentação pela Presidente da Direção da Associação Portuguesa de Mulheres Juristas, Dra. Mª Teresa Féria de Almeida 

“Globalização: Porquê a necessidade de sensibilizar para a Igualdade de Género?” – Apresentação pela Presidente da Delegação de Matosinhos da Cruz Vermelha Portuguesa, Dra. Joana Salinas”

Não resta pois dúvida alguma de que o estado português dominado pela agenda “gay”, “lgbt”, etc., em nome dos direitos humanos, “catequisa” a sociedade civil com estas nefandas ideologias que têm o propósito de acabar com os mesmos, invertendo-os, de modo a que o seu poder tentacular se vá fortalecendo, ainda mais, até ao ponto de estabelecer o seu totalitarismo intrinsecamente perverso, que perseguirá implacável e desalmadamente os cristãos e todas as demais pessoas que queiram viver de acordo com a recta razão.

Para concluir volto ao princípio do texto somente para dizer que, se dependesse de mim, aquela mãe que, não obstante a pobreza, tem um amor maior que todas as riquezas, seria condecorada com o mais alto galardão nacional como exemplo de generosidade em tempos de tanto egoísmo, como modelo do maior contributo que se pode dar para o futuro deste país que se encontra em estado adiantado de suicídio demográfico.

19. 01. 2012

Ele sou eu - por Nuno Serras Pereira

Numa Comunidade não muito distante de Lisboa três Sacerdotes, dois Priores e um mísero franciscano, solenemente revestidos, numa antiga Igreja belíssima, recentemente restaurada, celebravam, com uma assembleia de cerca de cem pessoas, os Santos Mistérios. Todos se reuniam, como outrora diante do Presépio, na expectativa de uma regeneração, de um novo nascimento, “não do sangue nem da vontade da carne nem da vontade do homem, mas sim de Deus”. 

No banco da frente um casal, matrimoniado há treze anos, com cinco filhos gerados de sua união amorosa. A mais nova de três anos e meio é um mês mais velha do que o irmão adoptado aí apresentado ao Mergulho na Morte e Ressurreição do Deus humanado, Jesus Cristo, para n’ Ele ser feito participante da Vida Divina, Filho de Deus, membro do Corpo Místico de Cristo (a Sua Igreja), Templo vivo do Espírito Santo.

Antes da celebração o franciscano insignificante teve a dita de conhecer, de espaço, não já por fotografia mas pessoalmente, o novo filho e irmão daquela família e, espiritualmente falando, de todos nós. Num carrinho de bebé, gesticulava e entoava exclamações de alegria. Os irmãos, quatro raparigas (para os brasileiros: moças) e um rapaz, rodeavam-no, com uma alegria que surpreendentemente excedia a que estamos habituados a ver em crianças. Ele era claramente o centro das atenções, das brincadeiras, dos carinhos, do entusiasmo. O pai explicou-me que o recém-acolhido, o novo filho, era cego de nascença, sem possibilidade de cura. Não quis perguntar, por pudor, qual a outra deficiência, evidente, de que era portador, mas pareceu-me com o decorrer do tempo que seria autismo. Tudo isto se passou na sacristia revestida de belíssimos azulejos antigos que narram catequeticamente prodígios e milagres operados por Deus, no Antigo Testamento, em prefiguração dos ainda maiores do Novo, em favor do Seu povo e da humanidade: A travessia a pé enxuto do mar vermelho em que se salva o povo hebreu e perecem os perseguidores egípcios - antevisão do Baptismo; outros painéis representando a Arca da Aliança, sombra da Virgem Maria e da Santa Igreja que trazem em si a Cristo Jesus, Lei e Alimento da vida do mundo. Se Deus, como o conhecemos pela Fé, e ali estava representado, tudo pode no Seu Amor Omnipotente que mistério se esconde naquela criança, tão pobre e destituída a nossos olhos? Por que foi gerada? Para que nasceu? Naqueles momentos, considerando o magnífico Crucificado sofredor, carregado de nossas culpas, com o esplendor da Sua Glória assim adquirida, não pude sofrer dúvida de que o pequeno era um grande despertador ou desencadeador de amor, uma presença do Crucifixo nas nossas vidas.

Na celebração não pude deixar de reparar mais atentamente que o polarizador de amor embora envergasse roupa alva do pescoço até à cintura tinha uns calções vermelhos, cor de sangue, semelhantes ao enroupamento do Crucificado de Rafael, muito apropriados para indicar que o preço da inocência e da eternidade, significado no branco, tinha sido a Paixão Redentora do Redentor.

Já baptizado, ao colo do pai que o apresentava à assembleia litúrgica, não pude deixar de meditar sobre o amor de Deus comunicado àqueles pais que acolhiam assim no seio da sua família aquele filho tão limitado, incapaz, destituído de qualquer mérito, insciente da grandeza do momento, do que lhe era dado, da mudança transfiguradora nele operada, da magnificência do amor gratuito que lhe era concedido, apreendi num repente não que eu era ele mas que ele era eu. Daí o título gramaticalmente incorrecto deste pequeno texto: ele sou eu. Poderia descrever eu sou ele, mas não, ele tem prioridade, e revelou-me o que sou. Houve alturas em que me julguei tanto - delírios estapafúrdios, alucinações bizarras, manias de grandeza -, quando afinal não passo de uma enorme dívida insolvente. Obrigado Bernardo pelo bem imenso que me fizeste, pela consciência aguda de mim mesmo que me proporcionaste! Quem me dera ser tu, chegar um dia a ser como tu! E como os pais que te puseram nos seus corações e nas suas vidas apesar das dúvidas, dos medos, das hesitações, das dificuldades, dos sacrifícios. Abraçaram-te com o Amor com que Cristo cingiu a Cruz, aquela Cruz que O conduziu à Ressurreição.  

Aqueles Párocos, um dos quais Padrinho da criança, como o Bom Pastor, pela Sua Graça, muito foram também neste amor cristão e em muitos outros, que se um dia não vierem a público para edificação do género humano serão conhecidos no Céu.

Yet More Christians Silenced in Europe…and America - by Austin Ruse

In CRISIS

Homosexual groups are celebrating in Europe this week as once more they have triumphed in a court of law over believing Christians. The European Court of Human Rights upheld decisions of British courts that had decided homosexual rights trump the rights of Christians whose faith teaches them homosexuality is wrong.

To be sure, the results of a handful of cases before the court were ever so slightly mixed. The single victory was limited. A woman is now allowed to wear her cross necklace to her job at British Airways, though another woman in a linked case lost her right to wear the same necklace to her hospital job.

The other cases, however, were substantial and far-reaching and make it plain that with impunity Christians will be hobbled in the outward expression of their faith and continue to be driven from their jobs.

The decisions were reached by the European Court of Human Rights, which is the court that oversees human rights issues in the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, which reviewed cases already decided in British courts.

The truly troubling cases involved two British subjects who objected to working within the regime of homosexual marriage in the UK. Lillian Ladele spent 16 years as a marriage registrar. By all account she had an exemplary record. When the British government mandated homosexual marriage, she asked to be exempt from registering such couples.

The second case dealt with Gary McFarlane who worked as a counselor for a large national counseling service. He was fired from his job for “gross misconduct” after a training course during which he told superiors that providing homosexual couples with “psycho-sexual therapy” would violate his “conscience” and his “deeply held religious beliefs.” He was fired simply for voicing his concerns.

In both cases the British courts held that marriage between one man and one woman were not core Christian beliefs and therefore not protected. The European Court upheld this dim view.

Homosexual groups are jubilant that freedom of religion has taken a beating by the court. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association “welcomed this decision and especially the Court’s recognition that preventing sexual orientation discrimination is an important and legitimate purpose that justifies restrictions on freedom of religion.

Some conservative pundits have suggested that the debate over homosexual marriage—and all that comes with it—is over and that what we should focus our attention building certain fire walls that allow religious folk to practice their religion.

If someone in Europe cannot express his reservations about homosexual marriage without losing his job, and if another person’s religious objection to registering homosexuals for marriage cannot be accommodated, then it seems, at least in Europe, that the firewall has been breached.

These European decisions clearly demonstrate that the firewall will not hold if marriage itself crumbles. Europe largely allows for homosexual marriage. Has that slaked the thirst of the homosexuals? No, they want it all. They want Christians prostrate before them and before the law.

Here is a similar example from the US just a few days ago.

An Evangelical Pastor was disinvited from delivering the Invocation at the President’s Inauguration next week.  His crime was that once long ago he said the homosexual “movement is not a benevolent movement. It is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle as it relates to marriage.” Other than saying the movement is “not benevolent”, this remark could easily be the mission statement of the Human Rights Campaign. In this context, though, it was a firing offense.

Janice Crouse wrote an op-ed about this in the Washington Times. “The Obama administration has thrown down a gauntlet, declaring that anyone who espouses historic, biblical Christian teaching will be prohibited from participation in events in the public square,” wrote Crouse. “As Christians, we cannot back down from our religious freedoms, nor can we betray our faith by watering down scripturally based Gospel.”

Wayne Beeson of something called Truth Wins Out, a group that persecutes those who believe homosexual behavior can change, went on the attack. “No one is taking away her right to hold backward beliefs or speak out against what she regards as sin. However, Crouse and other evangelicals routinely confuse freedom with having free rein to insult and demonize others without suffering consequences.”

But then Beeson goes on to say, “Crouse can either find a new way to interpret her Bible or people will increasingly interpret her offensive views as unfit for polite company.”

There is little doubt that the Wayne Beeson’s of the world would love to silence Janice Crouse like they are silencing those in Europe. In Europe they are farther down that road than here. Over there they can now use courts to uphold unjust firings.

Over here they can only go after those who work in government or those who work for private companies that can be bullied into discriminating against those who hold nothing more and nothing less than the ancient teachings of Christianity.

This madness one day shall pass. Who knows when? Certainly no time soon. In those happier and saner days, people will marvel at how this ever happened. How did the tiniest of minorities—no more than 2% of the population—get in a position to silence the beliefs and punish the practices of hundreds of millions?

What we know is this. No matter how many Christians they persecute and prosecute, no matter how much society tolerates or even celebrates their sexual proclivities, no matter how many Gay-Straight Alliances are foisted upon our public schools, none of that will still in them the nagging feeling that what they do in bed is unnatural, and their attraction to their own sex is morally wrong. That nagging voice will never go entirely away.

Social Justice and the Radical Left - by Christopher White

In CWR

Donald T. Critchlow is the Barry Goldwater Chair of American Institutions at Arizona State University, editor of the Journal of Policy History and general editor for Cambridge Essential Histories (CUP). His new book, Takeover: How the Left Corrupted Liberalism in the Pursuit of Social Justice (co-authored with William Rorabaugh, published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2012), is an indictment of the leftist radicalism that persists in American politics today. For Critchlow, this radicalism has led to unprecedented attacks on religious liberties, a looming financial crisis, abortion on demand, and a redefining of freedom. Recently, in late 2012, CWR contributor Christopher White spoke with Critchlow about the political and cultural challenges that will significantly shape the future of the United States—and why Catholics should be both aware and concerned. 

CWR: In Takeover, you refer frequently to the "New Progressives." Who are the New Progressives and how did they emerge? 

Donald T. Critchlow: Takeover: How the Left Corrupted Liberalism in the Pursuit of Social Justice answers an important question that many Americans began asking with the ascent of Barack Obama to the White House:  How did the Democratic Party become so radical? Takeover shows that liberalism underwent a profound transformation with the rise in the late 1960s and the early 1970s of a radical political formation the authors describe as the New Progressives. 

By the early 1970s, the New Left’s anti-Vietnam War protests and other street activism had faded away. But the radicalism remained. The activists simply changed their tactics for remaking American society. After fighting against the establishment, radical leaders discovered that they could achieve much more by working within the system. They learned to harness politics and the courts to pursue what they thought of as social justice. Becoming lawyers, professors, journalists, consumer advocates, union leaders, community organizers, and even politicians, left-wing activists morphed into a new movement—the “New Progressives.” Takeover examines how the New Progressives colonized many areas of American life in creative and powerful ways. 

CWR: You note that the civil rights revolution introduced “moral politics.” What do you mean by moral politics—and do you consider this a positive or negative development? 

Critchlow: The struggle for black civil rights and opposition to the Vietnam War inspired the generation of radicals who came out of the 1960s. Yet while the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King, Jr. sought racial integration and equal opportunity for all Americans, radicals sought a revolutionary transformation of society. At first these radicals were hostile to electoral politics.  Liberalism and the Democratic Party were seen as enemies.  

Left-wing activists wanted to radically transform American society—by pursuing militant environmentalism; tearing down corporate power; crusading for population control, abortion, and euthanasia; pushing for nationalized health insurance; and more. They brought to these movements a moral fervor of the earlier civil rights movement, but their moral passion was translated into a vision—often based more on sentiment than a coherent philosophy—to remake American society through the expansion of the federal government to control, through sheer political power, and through the courts. 

CWR: Social justice is a frequently used phrase—what do you interpret it to mean?  

Critchlow: New Progressives seek to control American consumption from health care, energy use, the cars we drive, the light bulbs we use, to what we eat and drink.  All in the name of social justice. Their vision of social justice is not based on a systematic ideology; or a well-developed doctrine of social justice found in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It based on sentiment and rhetoric. Their use of the term social justice is ill-defined intellectually.  It is no less radical and transformative—and illusive politically. At issue is an understanding that Americans are confronting something never witnessed before in our history—a direct challenge that seeks to transform the political and economic order.  This is an unprecedented threat to the free-market economy and to those who believe in constitutional government, a balance between federal and state power, individual rights, and freedom itself. 

Radicals have never defined the exact meaning of “social justice.” The concept appeals to the heart and to good intentions. It has allowed New Progressives to form alliances, at various times, with concerned Americans who would resist being called radicals. Even some activists drawn to the New Progressive banner have been well-intentioned reformers who sought answers to legitimate problems related to poverty, environmental pollution, health care, and corporate abuse. 

The reliance on governmental power, the faith in elites to be able to determine the collective good, and the suspicion of free markets are all the New Progressives. Takeover does not dismiss the importance of moral passion, either in religion or politics. What we—my co-author William Rorabaugh and I—criticize is moral passion based on a single goal of gaining political power to serve elite and special interests. 

CWR: Can you describe the origins of the “rights” movement, and specifically, the “right to choose”? 

Critchlow: The “rights” movement came out of the earlier (and justified) civil rights movement. Coinciding with the black civil rights movement there emerged movements for women’s, Native American, Asian, and gay rights. Identity politics emerged full-blown by the early 1970s, reinforced by the implementation of federal affirmative action under the Nixon administration. 

The feminist and pro-abortion movement seized upon the term “right to choose” as essential to their call for abortion on demand. Actually, Roe v. Wade limited constitutionally the absolute “right to choose” by women by declaring that in the last two trimesters of pregnancy that physicians and the government had a say in when a pregnancy could be terminated. 

CWR: How did the new progressives use the language of individual freedom to promote their involvement in family planning and international population control? 

Critchlow: The origins of family planning, as your readers know, had historical roots in the eugenics and population control movement. The Nazis gave eugenics a bad name, but even after the Second World War when John D. Rockefeller III established the Population Council, with the goal of controlling global population growth, he wanted to include in its mission a eugenics statement. He was talked out of this by his advisers. The rise of the feminist movement in the 1960s and the environmental movement in the late 1960s advanced the language of individual freedom related to family planning. Sarah Weddington, who argued Roe v Wade before the Supreme Court in 1971, was closely associated with the women’s liberation movement in Austin, Texas. These feminists were strong advocates of population control. Her then husband, Ron, was a fervent advocate of population control. He was not alone. Many of the leading advocates of abortion saw this as an instrument to control population growth. Harriet Pilpel, a skilled lawyer who worked for Planned Parenthood, saw abortion as a women’s right and as a means of population control. She declared that to cut down on population growth abortion should be made easy and safe, while developing other methods of family limitation. She was joined by many others who feared an approaching population crisis. 

The euthanasia movement also took up the rhetoric of rights. This language of rights was used in the passage of assisted suicide in Oregon in 1994. Advocates of euthanasia, such as Derek Humphrey, the founder of the Hemlock Society, used the rhetoric of individual freedom to promote assisted suicide. The forces behind the Oregon law effectively used the language of individual choice, contrasting it with the “unique” theology of the Roman Catholic Church, to win public approval for the passage of the first state assisted suicide act in American history. The appeal to individual rights argument ultimately functioned, in effect, to advance elite goals of controlling demographic outcomes. In this way individuals are offered apparent choice, while elite-controlled government extends its powers to manage individual lives.

 CWR: How did Planned Parenthood acquire its untouchable status that is has today? 

Critchlow: Planned Parenthood’s “untouchable” status became apparent in this last presidential election.  Any answer to this involved question needs to begin with the vast cultural changes we have seen since the 1960s’ sexual revolution. That many women believe the right to contraception means a right to have the federal government fund contraceptives, without distinction to income or ability to pay, is an extraordinary extension of the rights argument. It comes at a time when the nation is in debt to the tune of $16 trillion and the government is running an annual deficit of $1 trillion. It’s another entitlement at a time when Medicare and Social Security are going broke. Yet any attack on Planned Parenthood, a major proponent of free conception on demand, or Obama’s executive order extending free contraception, was seen as part of a “war on women.” In a secular age, calls to protect religious freedom, however justified, simply did not persuade many unmarried women. It might be added that the contraception revolution has coincided with an out-of-wedlock birth rate today of over 40 percent. This is hardly healthy for a nation. 

CWR: What are the historical origins of Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act?  

Critchlow: The New Progressive agenda to control American consumption finds its fullest expression in national health insurance. When Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of March 23, 2010, he fulfilled the long-term dream of progressives to move the nation away from private insurance into a government-regulated and government-controlled national health care system. The dream was not fully realized—it was not socialized medicine per se—but a major advance toward it. Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted a national health insurance system mandating that all Americans carry insurance through their employers, state-run health insurance exchanges, or Medicaid. 

Takeover reiterates the costs and fiscal damage ObamaCare will cause the nation once fully implemented. We explore exactly how the New Progressives mobilized unions, hospital associations, and big health insurance to support ObamaCare. Unions such as the United Automobile Workers Union and the Service Employees International Union proved critical in this mobilization. By 2007, the SEIU had formed an alliance with the Kaiser Foundation, Kaiser Hospitals, and Catholic Health Care West to promote health care entitlements. 

While labor was organizing its troops, other activists were rallying the base in support of nationalized health care. Especially important was the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a grassroots radical group closely aligned with SEIU. In Chicago, SEIU Local 880 was ACORN. They shared the same office and same staff. Although ACORN received national notoriety after Obama’s election—and ultimately would be forced into bankruptcy—the importance of this organization in the New Progressive agenda should not be underestimated. Formed in 1970, by former New Leftist and welfare rights organizer Wade Rathke, ACORN grew into a major activist organization. It became a major advocate of national health insurance.  

Following Obama’s election in 2008, ACORN launched a vigorous campaign on behalf of national health insurance. Tamecka Pierce, a member of ACORN’s national board, was the leader in the national Health Care for America. This 46-state coalition was supported by more than a thousand organizations. Included in this coalition were progressive unions, community activists, civil rights groups, feminists, pro-choice groups, health activists, church groups, and physician and nursing organizations. Following the election, this alliance rallied to fulfill the long-sought dream of progressives: national health insurance—that is, the federal government’s takeover of the nation’s health. 

CWR: What is likely to be on the progressive second term agenda for the Obama administration?  

Critchlow: Obama Democrats have proclaimed the results of the 2012 election a mandate to go forward with their agenda.  Two things stand in the way of fulfilling this agenda. No, not the 48 percent of Americans who voted for Romney or the Republican-controlled House. The two things are a financial crisis and the potential of a foreign affairs crisis. The financial crisis this country confronts means, whatever else, that federal spending is going to have to be cut. This means addressing entitlement programs—including Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, welfare costs, student loans—and many, many other programs. 

Already “stakeholders” in these entitlement programs are demanding that cuts not be made. SEIU and AARP have been running television commercials not to cut entitlements until a full national conversation can be held. Cuts in spending threaten to divide congressional Democrats, special interests such as Democratic-aligned unions, and constituent groups from the administration. The Obama coalition is loose and fragile. 

Obama began his 2008 campaign as an anti-Iraq War candidate. In his reelection, he claimed to have ended Bush’s wars. The United States is still keeping 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014. Obama might wish a world of peace—but given the world financial crisis, the rise of our enemies, this next four years won’t be tranquil. We should pray for peace and world understanding between peoples, leaders, and nations, while preparing for the worst.  

CWR: For advocates of religious freedom, what do you predict will be the future of the now infamous HHS mandate?

Critchlow: This is a tough question, especially knowing that the majority of Roman Catholics voted for Obama. We can dismiss these voters as not regular church-goers, but their votes reveal the weakness of Catholic vote. In the end, the Church needs to stand on principle, not just political expediency. In an age of growing secularism, religious arguments have less power. In the end, however, the Church is answerable to God, not public opinion. We can only hope that in the meantime standing on principle will maintain the respect of the faithful and ultimately win over those repulsed by the language of religious belief. 

Opponents of HHS faced immense media hostility in this last election. Nonetheless, the Catholic vote went up for Romney in the last election from 2008. It was not enough to win the election, but it’s a positive sign. The US Supreme Court recently ordered the Fourth Circuit Court to review arguments for the exclusion of religious organizations from the ObamaCare mandate in a case involving Liberty University. The fate of this mandate and other federal mandates remains uncertain at this point. 

CWR: What is the likely future of the New Progressives? How can conservatives compete with them? 

Critchlow: We are historians, so it’s easier for us to predict that past than the future. We can say that our study of American political history shows that one party cannot maintain power forever. Republicans and conservatives need to develop a language of freedom and liberty that appeals to a larger electorate. This is especially true for young voters and ethnic voters. Yet political rhetoric and public policy can only go so far. In the end, many political issues are cultural issues, and it is here that we are most concerned. We need a spiritual reformation at this point in our history. It has occurred in our nation’s past, so it’s not wishful thinking to believe that it can occur again. 

There is room for optimism in these difficult financial and political times. We are experiencing an unprecedented threat to our constitutional government, a balance between federal and state power, individual rights, and freedom itself. It is a challenge to preserve what our founders created and our forbearers fought and died to protect.  We must be no less heroic and equally determined to ensure our experiment in democracy is continued for our generation and for future generations of Americans to come.