lifesitenews--2020-06-01--Bishop Schneider: How Church could correct erroneous view that God wills diversity of religions

June 1 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – There is sufficient reason to suggest that a cause and effect relationship exists between the Second Vatican Council ’ s Declaration on Religious Freedom , Dignitatis Humanae , and the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together , signed by Pope Francis and Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb in Abu Dhabi , on February 4 , 2019 .
On his return flight to Rome from the United Arab Emirates , Pope Francis himself told journalists : “ There is one thing … I would like to say .
I openly reaffirm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view the Document does not move one millimeter away from the Second Vatican Council .
It is even cited , several times .
The Document was crafted in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.
” Dignitatis Humanae reaffirms the Church ’ s traditional doctrine , stating : “ We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church , ” and it reasserts the “ moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ ” ( n.1 ) .
Unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Council undermines this truth by setting forth a theory never before taught by the Church , i.e.
, that man has the right founded in his own nature , “ not to be prevented from acting in religious matters according to his own conscience , whether privately or publicly , whether alone or in association with others , within due limits ” ( ut in re religiosa neque impediatur , quominus iuxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice , vel solus vel aliis consociatus , intra debitos limites , n. 2 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have the right , based on nature itself ( and therefore positively willed by God ) not to be prevented from choosing and practicing , also collectively , the worship of an idol , and even the worship of Satan , since there are religions that worship Satan , for instance , the “ church of Satan.
” Indeed , in some countries , the “ church of Satan ” is recognized with the same legal value as all other religions .
The only condition that Dignitatis Humanae places on religious freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be observed ( n. 2 ) .
And so a religion called “ the church of Satan ” is able to worship the Father of Lies , so long as they observe “ public order ” within due limits .
Hence the freedom not to be prevented in choosing and practicing the worship of Satan , individually or collectively , would be a right that has its foundation in human nature , and is therefore positively willed by God .
The dangerous ambiguity of this statement is concealed by the fact that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose first part obviously corresponds to the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church .
This first part says : “ in religious matters , no one should be forced to act against his conscience ” ( ut in re religiosa neque aliquis cogatur ad agendum contra suam conscientiam , n.2 ) , i.e.
, no one should be forced against his will to believe in God and accept a religion , even the only true one religion , which is the Christian religion .
Truth and error are being asserted in one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same breath , so to speak .
The existence and exercise of free will and , consequently , the freedom from external coercion , are founded in human nature itself , and are therefore willed by God .
The faculty to choose between good and evil , truth and error , between the only one and true religion and other religions , is founded in human nature .
However , one can not conclude from the existence of the faculty to choose between good and evil , between truth and error , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and execute error , i.e .
a false religion .
Immunity from external coercion in accepting the Faith or a religion is a natural right .
However , it does not follow from this that God wills positively ( natural right ) , that man should not be prevented from choosing and carrying out evil ( sin ) or error ( false religion ) .
One has to keep in mind this fundamental distinction between the faculty to choose evil , and the right to choose and do evil .
God tolerates evil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even tolerates the worship of the so-called “ church of Satan.
” However , God ’ s tolerance or allowance ( His permissive will ) of evil and error does not constitute in man a natural right to choose them , i.e .
it does not constitute God ’ s positive will .
Christian Apologists in the first centuries told the pagan civil authorities that , if Christians would worship a false religion , the State could forbid such a religion .
The key point in the first-century Christian apologetics was this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion and the falsehood of pagan religions .
Tertullian said that all pagan , i.e .
non-Christian religions , are “ worshipping a lie , and they commit the crime of real irreligion against the truth ” ( Apologeticum , 24 ) .
How can immunity from coercion in choosing and committing a crime against the truth be a right positively willed by God ?
St. Melito of Sardis , a holy bishop and apologist from the second century , said : “ The greatest of all errors is this : when a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in God ’ s stead worships that which is not God ” ( Eus .
h.e .
4 , 26 ) There are two distinct realities .
It is one thing to force someone against his conscience to accept a religion and carry out religious acts .
It is another to proclaim a natural right , positively willed by God , to choose and spread error and false religions , as in the case , for instance , of choosing and spreading the religion of the “ church of Satan.
” For anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not seeking to square the circle , it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae , according to which every man has the right based on his own nature ( and therefore positively willed by God ) to practice a religion according to his own conscience , does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration , which says : “ The pluralism and the diversity of religions , color , sex , race and language are willed by God in His wisdom , through which He created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.
” How can this fact be explained , given that the aforementioned problematic statement in Dignitatis Humanae was made by an Ecumenical Council ?
The first basic thing to consider is the fact that both Popes of the Council — John XXIII and Paul VI — and Vatican II itself , clearly stated that , unlike all previous Councils , it had neither the aim nor the intention to propose its own doctrine in a definitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his address at the solemn opening of the Council , Pope John XXIII said : “ The main purpose of this Council is not , therefore , the discussion of one or another theme of the fundamental doctrine of the Church.
” He added that the character of the Council ’ s magisterium would be “ predominantly pastoral ” ( October 11 , 1962 ) .
For his part , Pope Paul VI said in his address at the last public session of the Council , that Vatican II “ made its program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 7 December 1965 ) .
Furthermore , in a note made by the Council ’ s Secretary-General , on November 16 , 1964 , one reads : “ Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council , the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.
” There have been statements made by other Ecumenical Councils that have become obsolete and been forgotten or have even been corrected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few of the obsolete and erroneous statements made by previous Ecumenical Councils , so as not to be scandalized by the fact that a non-infallible affirmation in a conciliar Declaration ( not even a Constitution or Decree ) like Dignitatis Humanae , can be corrected by the Magisterium in the future .
The IV Ecumenical Council of Constantinople ( 870 ) harshly condemned Photios , Patriarch of Constantinople , in Canon 4 , declaring that he was a “ dangerous wolf in Christ ’ s flock and that he filled the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that he was never a bishop , and all the churches and altars , consecrated by him , should be re-consecrated.
” Yet the Byzantine Orthodox Church venerates this same Photios as “ Saint Photios the Great and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople , ” and it celebrates his liturgical feast on February 6 .
With a future union of the Byzantine Greek Orthodox Church and the Holy See , Canon 4 of the IV Council of Constantinople would most certainly be abolished .
The III Ecumenical Lateran Council ( 1179 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nor Muslims , could employ Christians as workers in their homes .
It also said that Christians who dared to live in the homes of Jews and Muslims should be excommunicated .
Can the Catholic Church today still maintain such an affirmation made by an Ecumenical Council ?
The IV Lateran Council ( 1215 ) titled an entire Constitution ( Constitution 4 ) , “ On the pride of the Greeks against the Latins ” ( De superbia Graecorum contra Latinos ) .
Such an affirmation is surely offensive to our separated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution ( Constitution 26 ) “ The Jews must be distinguished from the Christians by their clothing.
” And Constitution 27 states that Jews should not hold public offices .
The Ecumenical Council of Constance ( 1415 ) , in its 13th session , excommunicates those priests who administer Holy Communion under both species .
Let us consider another example .
The Ecumenical Council of Florence ( 1439 ) stated that the matter ( materia ) of priestly ordination was the delivery of the chalice , and completely omitted any mention of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It stated : “ The sixth is the sacrament of the Order .
The matter of this sacrament is what confers the Order .
Thus , the presbyterate is conferred with the delivery of the chalice with wine and the paten with bread ” ( Bull of the union with the Armenians Exultate Deo , 22 November 1439 ) .
In 1947 , Pope Pius XII corrected this error by reasserting the perennial Catholic doctrine , which also corresponded to the liturgical practice of the universal Church , in both East and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , using the following expressions : “ After invoking the divine light , We by Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare ” and “ In order to remove all controversy and preclude any doubts of conscience ” .
This is the decisive statement : “ We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare , and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary , We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis , 30 November 1947 ) .
One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Council will correct the erroneous statement made in the Second Vatican Council ’ s Declaration , Dignitatis Humanae .
This error has precipitated a series of disastrous practices and doctrines , such as the interreligious prayer meeting in Assisi in 1986 , and the Abu Dhabi Document in 2019 .
Such practices and doctrines have greatly contributed to the theoretical and practical relativization of the divinely revealed truth that the religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Incarnate Son of God and only Savior of mankind , is the only religion positively willed by God .
In accord with the perennial Magisterium , Pope Paul VI taught that the “ Christian religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing , even though they have , as it were , their arms stretched out towards heaven ” ( Paul VI , Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi , 53 ) .
Any statement must be avoided that , even remotely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth that the religion born of faith in Jesus Christ , the Incarnate Son of God and only Savior of mankind , is the only religion positively willed by God .
Dignitatis Humanae ’ s assertion that man has a natural right ( positively willed by God ) not to be impeded in choosing and exercising , even publicly , any form of religion according to his conscience , and the Abu Dhabi Document ’ s assertion that God wills the diversity of religions , in the same way as He wills positively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will surely one day be corrected by the Papal Magisterium of the Cathedra of St. Peter — the cathedra veritatis .
Indeed , the Catholic Church is and will always remain in time ( semper ) , in space ( ubique ) and in perennial consent ( ab omnibus ) the “ the pillar and bulwark of the truth ” ( 1 Tim 3:15 ) .

'There have been statements made by other Ecumenical Councils that have become obsolete and been forgotten or have even been corrected by the later Magisterium'
PETITION: Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society! Sign the petition here.
June 1, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – There is sufficient reason to suggest that a cause and effect relationship exists between the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, and the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, signed by Pope Francis and Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb in Abu Dhabi, on February 4, 2019. On his return flight to Rome from the United Arab Emirates, Pope Francis himself told journalists: “There is one thing … I would like to say. I openly reaffirm this: from the Catholic point of view the Document does not move one millimeter away from the Second Vatican Council. It is even cited, several times. The Document was crafted in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.”
Dignitatis Humanae reaffirms the Church’s traditional doctrine, stating: “We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church,” and it reasserts the “moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (n.1). Unfortunately, just a few sentences later, the Council undermines this truth by setting forth a theory never before taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church, i.e., that man has the right founded in his own nature, “not to be prevented from acting in religious matters according to his own conscience, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits” (ut in re religiosa neque impediatur, quominus iuxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice, vel solus vel aliis consociatus, intra debitos limites, n. 2). According to this statement, man would have the right, based on nature itself (and therefore positively willed by God) not to be prevented from choosing, practicing and spreading, also collectively, the worship of an idol, and even the worship of Satan, since there are religions that worship Satan, for instance, the “church of Satan.” Indeed, in some countries, the “church of Satan” is recognized with the same legal value as all other religions.
The only condition that Dignitatis Humanae places on religious freedom is that “just public order” be observed (n. 2). And so a religion called “the church of Satan” is able to worship the Father of Lies, so long as they observe “public order” within due limits. Hence the freedom not to be prevented in choosing, practicing and spreading the worship of Satan, individually or collectively, would be a right that has its foundation in human nature, and is therefore positively willed by God.
The dangerous ambiguity of this statement is concealed by the fact that it is part of a single sentence, whose first part obviously corresponds to the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church. This first part says: “in religious matters, no one should be forced to act against his conscience” (ut in re religiosa neque aliquis cogatur ad agendum contra suam conscientiam, n.2), i.e., no one should be forced against his will to believe in God and accept a religion, even the only true one religion, which is the Christian religion.
Truth and error are being asserted in one and the same sentence — in the same breath, so to speak. The existence and exercise of free will and, consequently, the freedom from external coercion, are founded in human nature itself, and are therefore willed by God. The faculty to choose between good and evil, truth and error, between the only one and true religion and other religions, is founded in human nature. However, one cannot conclude from the existence of the faculty to choose between good and evil, between truth and error, that there follows the natural right to choose, execute and spread error, i.e. a false religion.
Immunity from external coercion in accepting the only one true Faith is a natural right. It is also a natural right not to be forced to carry out evil (sin) or error (false religion). However, it does not follow from this that God wills positively (natural right), that man should not be prevented from choosing, carrying out and spreading evil (sin) or error (false religion). One has to keep in mind this fundamental distinction between the faculty to choose and do evil, and the right to choose and do evil. God tolerates evil and error and false religions; He even tolerates the worship of the so-called “church of Satan.” However, God’s tolerance or allowance (His permissive will) of evil and error does not constitute in man a natural right to choose, practice and spread them, i.e. it does not constitute God’s positive will. Christian Apologists in the first centuries told the pagan civil authorities that, if Christians would worship a false religion, the State could forbid such a religion. The key point in the first-century Christian apologetics was this: to prove the truth of the Christian religion and the falsehood of pagan religions. Tertullian said that all pagan , i.e. non-Christian religions, are “worshipping a lie, and they commit the crime of real irreligion against the truth” (Apologeticum, 24). How can immunity from coercion in choosing and committing a crime against the truth be a right based on man’s nature itself and, therefore, positively willed by God? St. Melito of Sardis, a holy bishop and apologist from the second century, said: “The greatest of all errors is this: when a man is ignorant of God, and in God’s stead worships that which is not God” (Eus. h.e. 4, 26)
There are two distinct realities. It is one thing to force someone against his conscience to accept a religion and carry out religious acts. It is another to proclaim a natural right, positively willed by God, to choose, practice and spread error and false religions, as in the case, for instance, of choosing, practicing and spreading the religion of the “church of Satan.”
For anyone who is intellectually honest, and is not seeking to square the circle, it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae, according to which every man has the right based on his own nature (and therefore positively willed by God) to practice and spread a religion according to his own conscience, does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which says: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.”
How can this fact be explained, given that the aforementioned problematic statement in Dignitatis Humanae was made by an Ecumenical Council? The first basic thing to consider is the fact that both Popes of the Council — John XXIII and Paul VI — and Vatican II itself, clearly stated that, unlike all previous Councils, it had neither the aim nor the intention to propose its own doctrine in a definitive and infallible way. Thus, in his address at the solemn opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII said: “The main purpose of this Council is not, therefore, the discussion of one or another theme of the fundamental doctrine of the Church.” He added that the character of the Council’s magisterium would be “predominantly pastoral” (October 11, 1962). For his part, Pope Paul VI said in his address at the last public session of the Council, that Vatican II “made its program” from “the pastoral character” (7 December 1965). Furthermore, in a note made by the Council’s Secretary-General, on November 16, 1964, one reads: “Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.”
There have been statements made by other Ecumenical Councils that have become obsolete and been forgotten or have even been corrected by the later Magisterium.
Let us consider a few of the obsolete and erroneous statements made by previous Ecumenical Councils, so as not to be scandalized by the fact that a non-infallible affirmation in a conciliar Declaration (not even a Constitution or Decree) like Dignitatis Humanae, can be corrected by the Magisterium in the future.
The IV Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (870) harshly condemned Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, in Canon 4, declaring that he was a “dangerous wolf in Christ’s flock and that he filled the entire world with a thousand riots and agitations, and that he was never a bishop, and all the churches and altars, consecrated by him, should be re-consecrated.” Yet the Byzantine Orthodox Church venerates this same Photios as “Saint Photios the Great and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople,” and it celebrates his liturgical feast on February 6. With a future union of the Byzantine Greek Orthodox Church and the Holy See, Canon 4 of the IV Council of Constantinople would most certainly be abolished.
The III Ecumenical Lateran Council (1179) stipulated in Canon 26 that neither Jews, nor Muslims, could employ Christians as workers in their homes. It also said that Christians who dared to live in the homes of Jews and Muslims should be excommunicated. Can the Catholic Church today still maintain such an affirmation made by an Ecumenical Council?
The IV Lateran Council (1215) titled an entire Constitution (Constitution 4), “On the pride of the Greeks against the Latins” (De superbia Graecorum contra Latinos). Such an affirmation is surely offensive to our separated brethren.
The same Council titled another Constitution (Constitution 26) “The Jews must be distinguished from the Christians by their clothing.” And Constitution 27 states that Jews should not hold public offices.
The Ecumenical Council of Constance (1415), in its 13th session, excommunicates those priests who administer Holy Communion under both species.
Let us consider another example. The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439) stated that the matter (materia) of priestly ordination was the delivery of the chalice, and completely omitted any mention of the laying on of hands by the bishop. It stated: “The sixth is the sacrament of the Order. The matter of this sacrament is what confers the Order. Thus, the presbyterate is conferred with the delivery of the chalice with wine and the paten with bread” (Bull of the union with the Armenians Exultate Deo, 22 November 1439).
In 1947, Pope Pius XII corrected this error by reasserting the perennial Catholic doctrine, which also corresponded to the liturgical practice of the universal Church, in both East and West. He proposes a definitive teaching, using the following expressions: “After invoking the divine light, We by Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare” and “In order to remove all controversy and preclude any doubts of conscience”. This is the decisive statement: “We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary, We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy” (Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, 30 November 1947).
One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecumenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made in the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration, Dignitatis Humanae. This error has precipitated a series of disastrous practices and doctrines, such as the interreligious prayer meeting in Assisi in 1986, and the Abu Dhabi Document in 2019. Such practices and doctrines have greatly contributed to the theoretical and practical relativization of the divinely revealed truth that the religion born of faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God and only Savior of mankind, is the only religion positively willed by God.
In accord with the perennial Magisterium, Pope Paul VI taught that the “Christian religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven” (Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, 53).
Any statement must be avoided that, even remotely, might weaken or obfuscate the divinely revealed truth that the religion born of faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God and only Savior of mankind, is the only religion positively willed by God. Dignitatis Humanae’s assertion that man has a natural right (positively willed by God) not to be impeded in choosing, exercising and spreading, even publicly, any form of religion according to his conscience, and the Abu Dhabi Document’s assertion that God wills the diversity of religions, in the same way as He wills positively the diversity of sex (based on man’s nature itself), will surely one day be corrected by the Papal Magisterium of the Cathedra of St. Peter — the cathedra veritatis. Indeed, the Catholic Church is and will always remain in time (semper), in space (ubique) and in perennial consent (ab omnibus) the “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
May 31, 2020, Feast of Pentecost
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-01--States bear responsibility tor avoidable elderly deaths from COVID-19

June 1 , 2020 ( Personhood Alliance ) – COVID-19 has rocked our nation to its core .
So far , more than 103,000 U.S. deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus .
Over 43,000 of those deaths have been in long-term care facilities .
Have we done all we can to protect our vulnerable elderly population ?
Or have we , as a society , deemed their lives less valuable and allowed our leaders to facilitate their deaths ?
In the United States , approximately 0.06 % of the population resides in long-term care ( LTC ) facilities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an astounding 42 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in the country have taken place in nursing homes and assisted living facilities .
And this could be an undercount .
States like New York exclude from their nursing home death tallies those who die in a hospital , even if they were originally infected in an assisted living facility .
Outside of New York , more than half of those who have died were residents in LTC facilities .
Given the fact the elderly population and those with pre-existing conditions are more susceptible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is simply a sad , yet unavoidable outcome of the coronavirus pandemic .
However , closer analyses show wide variation between levels of infection and death from state to state and a strong correlation to policies requiring LTC facilities to accept COVID-19 patients into their care .
On March 25th , New York became the first state to issue a ruling prohibiting nursing homes from denying admission or re-admission to residents because they were infected with COVID-19 ( that ruling has reportedly been scrubbed from the state ’ s health website ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing patients for the disease before they were admitted and allowed workers who tested positive for coronavirus , but were asymptomatic , to continue working – effectively allowing the virus to spread unmitigated .
When met with pushback , Gov .
Anthony Cuomo doubled down , saying : The American Health Care Association , which represents LTC facilities , stated , “ The bottom line is that nursing homes are not a priority in the public health system and this policy reflects that.
” Brendan Williams , president and CEO of the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed the order was “ tantamount to genocide.
” On May 10th , Gov .
Cuomo released new guidance that prohibited hospitals from sending people who tested positive for COVID-19 back to nursing homes .
His administration said the new guidance added to – but did not replace – the original order .
However , the damage had already been done .
The latest state numbers indicate that 36 nursing homes in New York have seen at least 10 percent of their residents succumb to the virus .
This includes two nursing homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents have reportedly died of COVID-19 .
A total of more than 5,800 people have died in New York nursing homes since March 1st – arguably a direct result of these misguided policies .
The governors of New Jersey , Michigan , and California made similar mandates requiring nursing homes to accept patients with active COVID-19 infections who were being discharged from hospitals .
The California Department of Public Health mandate reads : In an interview with the Los Angeles Times , Patricia McGinnis , executive director of California Advocates for Nursing Home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest percentage of COVID-19 deaths of LTC residents in the nation .
In spite of this fact , Minnesota officials continue to transfer infected patients into these facilities , and almost no local media are calling them out .
On May 7th , almost two months after Minnesota Gov .
Tim Walz issued his executive order in response to COVID-19 , Walz outlined a new five-point plan to protect long-term care residents from COVID-19 .
However , since the announcement , Minnesota ’ s percentage of deaths in LTC facilities has increased by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
Mitch Berg , a moderator from the Facebook group Essential Minnesota , made the following statement : “ According to the data available , over 81 % of Minnesota ’ s COVID deaths are long-term care ( LTC ) residents .
That is , in fact , the highest share of a state ’ s death toll in the country .
To date , 2.8 % of Minnesota ’ s entire long term care population have died of Covid19 – the 14th worst per capita death toll in the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s more sobering to note that , in the past two months , almost 10 % of the entire long-term care population in New York , Connecticut , and New Jersey have died .
That total is considerably higher than in Mississippi ( 1.9 % ) and Florida ( 1.5 % ) , both of which locked down nursing homes right away , and barred readmitting COVID-positive patients to LTC facilities early in the crisis .
And how about MN ’ s neighboring states ?
Iowa has lost 1 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and South Dakota have lost 0.1 % – a tenth of a percent each .
Minnesota ’ s LTC death toll is 28 times that of our neighbors to the west , and that ’ s per capita , not absolute numbers.
” Berg goes on to say that as many as 30 percent of LTC residents die in a typical year .
“ But even so , death rates like those in the hardest hit states are a huge surge in mortality among our most vulnerable citizens.
” COVID-19 patients continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guise of ensuring Minnesota keeps ICU beds open , but this practice begs the question : Why aren ’ t infected patients being placed into COVID-only facilities , rather than exposing an already vulnerable population to the deadly virus ?
Unfortunately , it appears Gov .
Walz is not even considering this line of questioning .
Instead , he recently signed off on a $ 6.9 million purchase of a 75,000-square foot refrigerated warehouse to house the bodies of the dead .
What about the facilities themselves ?
LTC facilities are often ill-equipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents are simply unable to comply with basic infection control measures , like hand-washing or mask-wearing , and suffer from underlying health conditions that make them more likely to succumb to the virus .
Insufficient coronavirus testing and personal protective equipment shortages further fuel the outbreak in nursing homes .
Additionally , nursing home administrators argue that , while state and federal officials have encouraged or mandated taking on COVID-19 patients , they have failed to provide adequate resources and guidance to protect other residents and staff from transmission .
Is this merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicative of a deeper problem in terms of how we value people who are no longer “ useful ” to society ?
Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic , we have seen an increase in discriminatory attitudes toward the elderly on social media and in the press .
Comments such as “ They ’ re on their way out anyway ” or the blatantly ageist term “ Boomer Remover ” illustrate the underlying supposition that older human beings , or those that are chronically ill , are somehow less deserving of protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our utilitarian culture envisions our elders as people who are no longer equal partners in matters that make for a viable and thriving society .
The concept of “ culling ” elderly human beings is offensive in the extreme .
It disregards their personhood and forgets that they , too , are image bearers of Almighty God .
But it ’ s also a fallacy to assume that older people are “ on their way out.
” Most elderly people are not dying .
Not only are the “ old ” getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the next year for a 70-year-old man is just 2 percent .
Likewise , an 80-year-old woman has only a 4 percent likelihood of dying in the coming year .
Often , our elders have many good years ahead of them – time in which those of us who are younger could learn from their depth of experience .
We must remember that COVID-19 is not less of a threat if it is confined to a nursing home .
It is actually more of a threat .
The lives of the elderly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not erase .
Deborah Stilt is the social media coordinator for the Personhood Alliance and has been active in pro-life media for several years .
But most importantly , she ’ s a California mom who is fighting against the lies of the culture and for the protection of every human being without exception .

June 1, 2020 (Personhood Alliance) – COVID-19 has rocked our nation to its core. So far, more than 103,000 U.S. deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus. Over 43,000 of those deaths have been in long-term care facilities. Have we done all we can to protect our vulnerable elderly population? Or have we, as a society, deemed their lives less valuable and allowed our leaders to facilitate their deaths?
~~~~~
In the United States, approximately 0.06% of the population resides in long-term care (LTC) facilities. However, as of May 22, an astounding 42 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in the country have taken place in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. And this could be an undercount. States like New York exclude from their nursing home death tallies those who die in a hospital, even if they were originally infected in an assisted living facility. Outside of New York, more than half of those who have died were residents in LTC facilities.
Given the fact the elderly population and those with pre-existing conditions are more susceptible to COVID-19, one might assume this statistic is simply a sad, yet unavoidable outcome of the coronavirus pandemic. However, closer analyses show wide variation between levels of infection and death from state to state and a strong correlation to policies requiring LTC facilities to accept COVID-19 patients into their care.
New York’s plight
On March 25th, New York became the first state to issue a ruling prohibiting nursing homes from denying admission or re-admission to residents because they were infected with COVID-19 (that ruling has reportedly been scrubbed from the state’s health website). The order also banned the facilities from testing patients for the disease before they were admitted and allowed workers who tested positive for coronavirus, but were asymptomatic, to continue working – effectively allowing the virus to spread unmitigated. When met with pushback, Gov. Anthony Cuomo doubled down, saying:
“They don’t have a right to object. That is the rule and that is the regulation, and they have to comply with that.”
The American Health Care Association, which represents LTC facilities, stated, “The bottom line is that nursing homes are not a priority in the public health system and this policy reflects that.”
Brendan Williams, president and CEO of the New Hampshire Health Care Association, said he believed the order was “tantamount to genocide.”
On May 10th, Gov. Cuomo released new guidance that prohibited hospitals from sending people who tested positive for COVID-19 back to nursing homes. His administration said the new guidance added to – but did not replace – the original order. However, the damage had already been done. The latest state numbers indicate that 36 nursing homes in New York have seen at least 10 percent of their residents succumb to the virus. This includes two nursing homes where more than 20 percent of the residents have reportedly died of COVID-19. A total of more than 5,800 people have died in New York nursing homes since March 1st – arguably a direct result of these misguided policies.
COVID in California
The governors of New Jersey, Michigan, and California made similar mandates requiring nursing homes to accept patients with active COVID-19 infections who were being discharged from hospitals. The California Department of Public Health mandate reads:
“SNFs (skilled nursing facilities) shall not refuse to admit or readmit a resident based on their status as a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 case.”
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Patricia McGinnis, executive director of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, stated:
“Sacrificing the lives of beloved nursing home residents is beyond unconscionable. California’s directive is nothing less than a death sentence for countless residents.”
A growing scandal in Minnesota
Minnesota has the highest percentage of COVID-19 deaths of LTC residents in the nation. In spite of this fact, Minnesota officials continue to transfer infected patients into these facilities, and almost no local media are calling them out. On May 7th, almost two months after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz issued his executive order in response to COVID-19, Walz outlined a new five-point plan to protect long-term care residents from COVID-19. However, since the announcement, Minnesota’s percentage of deaths in LTC facilities has increased by 2 percent and now is nearing 82 percent.
Mitch Berg, a moderator from the Facebook group Essential Minnesota, made the following statement:
“According to the data available, over 81% of Minnesota’s COVID deaths are long-term care (LTC) residents. That is, in fact, the highest share of a state’s death toll in the country. To date, 2.8% of Minnesota’s entire long term care population have died of Covid19 – the 14th worst per capita death toll in the country. That is some horrific carnage indeed – but it’s more sobering to note that, in the past two months, almost 10% of the entire long-term care population in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey have died. That total is considerably higher than in Mississippi (1.9%) and Florida (1.5%), both of which locked down nursing homes right away, and barred readmitting COVID-positive patients to LTC facilities early in the crisis. And how about MN’s neighboring states? Iowa has lost 1% of its LTC population. North Dakota and South Dakota have lost 0.1% – a tenth of a percent each. Minnesota’s LTC death toll is 28 times that of our neighbors to the west, and that’s per capita, not absolute numbers.”
Berg goes on to say that as many as 30 percent of LTC residents die in a typical year. “But even so, death rates like those in the hardest hit states are a huge surge in mortality among our most vulnerable citizens.”
COVID-19 patients continue to be transferred into LTC facilities under the guise of ensuring Minnesota keeps ICU beds open, but this practice begs the question: Why aren’t infected patients being placed into COVID-only facilities, rather than exposing an already vulnerable population to the deadly virus?
Unfortunately, it appears Gov. Walz is not even considering this line of questioning. Instead, he recently signed off on a $6.9 million purchase of a 75,000-square foot refrigerated warehouse to house the bodies of the dead.
What about the facilities themselves?
LTC facilities are often ill-equipped to handle COVID-19 patients. Many elderly residents are simply unable to comply with basic infection control measures, like hand-washing or mask-wearing, and suffer from underlying health conditions that make them more likely to succumb to the virus. Insufficient coronavirus testing and personal protective equipment shortages further fuel the outbreak in nursing homes. Additionally, nursing home administrators argue that, while state and federal officials have encouraged or mandated taking on COVID-19 patients, they have failed to provide adequate resources and guidance to protect other residents and staff from transmission.
Is this merely an oversight? Or is it perhaps indicative of a deeper problem in terms of how we value people who are no longer “useful” to society?
COVID-19 and personhood
Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, we have seen an increase in discriminatory attitudes toward the elderly on social media and in the press. Comments such as “They’re on their way out anyway” or the blatantly ageist term “Boomer Remover” illustrate the underlying supposition that older human beings, or those that are chronically ill, are somehow less deserving of protection, healthcare, and even life itself. Our utilitarian culture envisions our elders as people who are no longer equal partners in matters that make for a viable and thriving society.
Journalist Jeremy Warner put it bluntly:
“Not to put too fine a point on it, from an entirely disinterested economic perspective, the COVID-19 might even prove mildly beneficial in the long term by disproportionately culling elderly dependents.”
The concept of “culling” elderly human beings is offensive in the extreme. It disregards their personhood and forgets that they, too, are image bearers of Almighty God.
But it’s also a fallacy to assume that older people are “on their way out.” Most elderly people are not dying. Not only are the “old” getting older, but the risk of death in the next year for a 70-year-old man is just 2 percent. Likewise, an 80-year-old woman has only a 4 percent likelihood of dying in the coming year. Often, our elders have many good years ahead of them – time in which those of us who are younger could learn from their depth of experience.
We must remember that COVID-19 is not less of a threat if it is confined to a nursing home. It is actually more of a threat. The lives of the elderly are ours to protect and defend – not erase.
Deborah Stilt is the social media coordinator for the Personhood Alliance and has been active in pro-life media for several years. But most importantly, she’s a California mom who is fighting against the lies of the culture and for the protection of every human being without exception.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-01--Pro-life leaders denounce George Floyd’s ‘horrific killing,’ urge citizens to ‘stop the violence’

ATLANTA , George , June 1 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― Pro-life leaders have denounced both the unlawful killing of George Floyd while in police custody and the violence that has broken out across America in response .
George Floyd , 46 , died while police officer Derek Chauvin , 44 , kneeled on his neck in a Minneapolis street on May 25 .
A teenaged employee of Cup Foods grocery store summoned police after Floyd allegedly gave him counterfeit money in exchange for a packet of cigarettes .
Floyd ’ s slow and painful death , during which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horrified people in the USA and abroad , bringing attention once again to the problem of police brutality .
Chauvin has been charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter .
Shops have been looted and churches vandalized and set ablaze as protests turned violent in Minneapolis , Atlanta , Charlotte , Columbus , Denver , Fr .
Lauderdale , Los Angeles , New York City , Miami , Phoenix , Seattle , Richmond , and Washington , D.C .
Violent assaults on both men and women have been reported and , in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journalists have described being menaced by protestors and shot by rubber bullets , apparently by police .
Numerous cities across the U.S. have instituted curfews in an attempt to stem the unrest .
The damaged churches include St. Patrick ’ s Cathedral in New York City , the Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis , and St. John ’ s Episcopal Church in Washington , D.C .
Although looters initially raided local neighborhood chain stores like Minneapolis ’ Target , they have since branched out to attack such luxury shops as the Chanel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles ’ Rodeo Drive .
Pro-life advocate Alveda King , niece of Martin Luther King , told Fox News yesterday that her uncle , father , and grandfather , all civil rights heroes , would not condone the lawlessness .
She believes that they would tell protestors to go home , pray , and talk to community leaders .
“ Certainly this horrendous killing is terrible , ” King , 69 said .
“ However , we can lead from our own hearts and our own community , and say to each other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must stop the violence ’ .
” In response to her late uncle ’ s suggestion that “ riots are the language of the unheard , ” King underscored that such leaders as Donald Trump and Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms are indeed “ hearing.
” “ People of America , your voices are being heard , ” she said .
“ Now let us come together in unity , in faith , in love , and communicate , solve the problem .
Violence will not do that.
” Flipping the social justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace , ” King declared that “ without peace there can ’ t be justice.
” “ No peace , no justice , ” she continued .
“ As we peacefully communicate―and protest―then people can hear each other and move together towards healing.
” Rev .
Patrick Mahoney , a pro-life Presbyterian minister and pastor of Church on the Hill in Washington , D.C. , today contrasted pro-life activism to the violence that has followed initially peaceful protests concerning Floyd ’ s death .
“ Operation Rescue had 70,000 arrests for our peaceful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a violent act at any of our events , ” he wrote on Twitter .
“ That makes OR , the MOST PEACEFUL social protest movement in America history !
” He stated also that “ as a Christian and peacemaker ” he was against all violence , including that experienced by George Floyd and that “ we are now experiencing on the streets of America.
” Mahoney tweeted on May 28 that his heart was “ heavy ” after seeing violence break out in Minneapolis .
“ My heart is very heavy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Minneapolis , ” he wrote .
“ Violence is NEVER the answer , even to the most horrific acts of injustice and racism !
Pray that God brings justice and healing to this situation.
” Ryan Scott Bomberger of the Radiance Foundation , a charity devoted to affirming human dignity , made a statement over Facebook yesterday condemning both Floyd ’ s killing and the resultant “ thuggery.
” “ George Floyd 's horrific killing deserves better than this SJW/MSM justified thuggery , ” he wrote .
“ Yes , THUGS .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ between who loot , destroy & cause chaos.
” Bomberger stated that police who abuse their power “ regardless of pigmentation ” must be held accountable “ not just fired.
” He also noted that looting and arson do not make abusive police officers accountable .
“ Sorry , anarchists .
Stealing a high-def TV or setting businesses on fire wo n't do that , ” he wrote .
“ It just creates more injustice and causes harm to those not responsible , in any way , for the wrongs.
” “ Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rioters and looters need to face criminal charges .
This nation needs to face reality.
” Bomberger , who is mixed race , said that “ race hucksters ” and “ politics ” should not dominate the conversation .
“ George Floyd 's death is a tragedy because he was a human being worthy of dignity but denied the unalienable right to life , liberty and pursuit of happiness , ” he wrote .
“ Those were all inexplicably stolen from him by those tasked with protecting these most fundamental rights .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrative .
We can not allow confusion to fill spaces that need clarity .
We can not allow race hucksters to be louder than healers.
” Today the Radiance Foundation noted that the number of black people killed by the police annually are identical to those killed in utero by Planned Parenthood daily : 250 .
“ Either # AllBlackLivesMatter or they do n't .
You ca n't pick and choose.
” On Saturday Bishop Samuel J. Aquila of Denver , Colorado issued a statement in which he condemned the killing of George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inhumane.
” The bishop asserted that racism “ has no place in the Gospel message or any civil society.
” “ The Catholic Church has always promoted a culture of life , but too often our society has lost its sense of the dignity of every human being from the time of conception until natural death , ” Aquila , 69 , said .
“ Every Catholic has a responsibility to promote the dignity of life at every level of life .
Too many have made their god their ideology , political party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not the Gospel of Life and the dignity of every human being.
” The bishop demanded justice for Floyd but condemned the violence rocking American cities as advancing the “ culture of death.
” “ ...
The violence that we have seen throughout the streets of Denver and other cities in our country only advances a culture of death and hatred , ” he stated .
“ Violence against innocent people has no place in a civil society and must come to an end.
” Several commentators have allegedly identified instigators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anarchist group known as “ Antifa ” .
Claiming to be a vigilante force against neo-Nazis , Antifa is a loosely-knit international organization of left-wing activists characterized by facemasks , black clothing , and street violence .
Yesterday President Trump tweeted that he was going to take action against the group .
“ The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization , ” he wrote .

Pro-life advocate Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, said her uncle would not condone the lawlessness.
ATLANTA, George, June 1, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― Pro-life leaders have denounced both the unlawful killing of George Floyd while in police custody and the violence that has broken out across America in response.
George Floyd, 46, died while police officer Derek Chauvin, 44, kneeled on his neck in a Minneapolis street on May 25. A teenaged employee of Cup Foods grocery store summoned police after Floyd allegedly gave him counterfeit money in exchange for a packet of cigarettes. Floyd’s slow and painful death, during which he begged for his life, has horrified people in the USA and abroad, bringing attention once again to the problem of police brutality.
Chauvin has been charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
Shops have been looted and churches vandalized and set ablaze as protests turned violent in Minneapolis, Atlanta, Charlotte, Columbus, Denver, Fr. Lauderdale, Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, Phoenix, Seattle, Richmond, and Washington, D.C.
Violent assaults on both men and women have been reported and, in some cases, caught on camera phones. Journalists have described being menaced by protestors and shot by rubber bullets, apparently by police. Numerous cities across the U.S. have instituted curfews in an attempt to stem the unrest.
The damaged churches include St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, the Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis, and St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C.
Although looters initially raided local neighborhood chain stores like Minneapolis’ Target, they have since branched out to attack such luxury shops as the Chanel and Gucci branches in Manhattan and Los Angeles’ Rodeo Drive.
Pro-life advocate Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, told Fox News yesterday that her uncle, father, and grandfather, all civil rights heroes, would not condone the lawlessness. She believes that they would tell protestors to go home, pray, and talk to community leaders.
“Certainly this horrendous killing is terrible,” King, 69 said. “However, we can lead from our own hearts and our own community, and say to each other ‘This is bad, but we must stop the violence’.”
In response to her late uncle’s suggestion that “riots are the language of the unheard,” King underscored that such leaders as Donald Trump and Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms are indeed “hearing.”
“People of America, your voices are being heard,” she said. “Now let us come together in unity, in faith, in love, and communicate, solve the problem. Violence will not do that.”
Flipping the social justice cry of “no justice, no peace,” King declared that “without peace there can’t be justice.”
“No peace, no justice,” she continued. “As we peacefully communicate―and protest―then people can hear each other and move together towards healing.”
Rev. Patrick Mahoney, a pro-life Presbyterian minister and pastor of Church on the Hill in Washington, D.C., today contrasted pro-life activism to the violence that has followed initially peaceful protests concerning Floyd’s death.
“Operation Rescue had 70,000 arrests for our peaceful pro-life witness with NOT ONE conviction of a violent act at any of our events,” he wrote on Twitter.
“That makes OR, the MOST PEACEFUL social protest movement in America history!”
He stated also that “as a Christian and peacemaker” he was against all violence, including that experienced by George Floyd and that “we are now experiencing on the streets of America.”
Mahoney tweeted on May 28 that his heart was “heavy” after seeing violence break out in Minneapolis.
“My heart is very heavy this morning as I am watching events in Minneapolis,” he wrote.
“Violence is NEVER the answer, even to the most horrific acts of injustice and racism! Pray that God brings justice and healing to this situation.”
Ryan Scott Bomberger of the Radiance Foundation, a charity devoted to affirming human dignity, made a statement over Facebook yesterday condemning both Floyd’s killing and the resultant “thuggery.”
“George Floyd's horrific killing deserves better than this SJW/MSM justified thuggery,” he wrote. “Yes, THUGS. White, black or any hue in between who loot, destroy & cause chaos.”
Bomberger stated that police who abuse their power “regardless of pigmentation” must be held accountable “not just fired.” He also noted that looting and arson do not make abusive police officers accountable.
“Sorry, anarchists. Stealing a high-def TV or setting businesses on fire won't do that,” he wrote. “It just creates more injustice and causes harm to those not responsible, in any way, for the wrongs.”
“Floyd's killers need to face justice. Rioters and looters need to face criminal charges. This nation needs to face reality.”
Bomberger, who is mixed race, said that “race hucksters” and “politics” should not dominate the conversation.
“George Floyd's death is a tragedy because he was a human being worthy of dignity but denied the unalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” he wrote.
“Those were all inexplicably stolen from him by those tasked with protecting these most fundamental rights. We cannot allow politics to control the narrative. We cannot allow confusion to fill spaces that need clarity. We cannot allow race hucksters to be louder than healers.”
Today the Radiance Foundation noted that the number of black people killed by the police annually are identical to those killed in utero by Planned Parenthood daily: 250.
“Every life unjustly killed deserves justice,” its spokesperson wrote on Facebook.
“Either #AllBlackLivesMatter or they don't. You can't pick and choose.”
On Saturday Bishop Samuel J. Aquila of Denver, Colorado issued a statement in which he condemned the killing of George Floyd as “horrifying” and “inhumane.”
The bishop asserted that racism “has no place in the Gospel message or any civil society.”
“The Catholic Church has always promoted a culture of life, but too often our society has lost its sense of the dignity of every human being from the time of conception until natural death,” Aquila, 69, said.
“Every Catholic has a responsibility to promote the dignity of life at every level of life. Too many have made their god their ideology, political party, or the color of their skin, and not the Gospel of Life and the dignity of every human being.”
The bishop demanded justice for Floyd but condemned the violence rocking American cities as advancing the “culture of death.”
“…The violence that we have seen throughout the streets of Denver and other cities in our country only advances a culture of death and hatred,” he stated.
“Violence against innocent people has no place in a civil society and must come to an end.”
Several commentators have allegedly identified instigators of the violence overshadowing peaceful protests with the anarchist group known as “Antifa”. Claiming to be a vigilante force against neo-Nazis, Antifa is a loosely-knit international organization of left-wing activists characterized by facemasks, black clothing, and street violence.
Yesterday President Trump tweeted that he was going to take action against the group.
“The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization,” he wrote.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-01--Trans activist tries to sink JK Rowling: ‘She can no longer be trusted around children’

June 1 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Early last year , I noted in a column for LifeSiteNews that billionaire Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling had done something exceptional : She had proven that the power of the transgender mob could be broken .
For those who missed the story at the time , Rowling had expressed her support for Maya Forstater , a woman fired for expressing her view that men could not become women by simply identifying as women .
“ Dress however you please , ” Rowling , who is pro-LGBT , tweeted .
“ Call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any consenting adult who ’ ll have you .
Live your best life in peace and security .
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real ?
# IStandWithMaya # ThisIsNotADrill.
” As the trans activists raged , LGBT groups offered to re-educate her , and columnists condemned her .
Rowling simply ignored it all .
She said her piece , and then let the waves of wrath roll and break without giving the activists what they wanted .
Eventually , they were forced to quiet down and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notice that for one of the first times , their attempts at blackmail had failed—because their target had refused to give in to them by quailing in fear and offering the required apology .
But even Rowling has her limits , and transgender LGBT activist Nicola Spurling discovered what they were after tweeting a link from the Guardian about Rowling ’ s new children ’ s book , The Ickabog .
Spurling , who is a former candidate for Canada ’ s Green Party , captioned the tweet thusly : “ Definitely something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In recent years , Rowling has made it clear that she can no longer be trusted around children.
” Rowling responded : “ Unless you want to hear from lawyers , you might want to rethink that tweet .
I ’ m not wasting time arguing with wilful misrepresentations of my views on transgenderism—your timeline shows you ’ re not big on truth—but making serious insinuations like this comes with consequences.
” Spurling at first attempted to double down , tweeting back : “ If you feel that the transphobia you ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to children you are more than welcome to have your lawyer send me a cease & desist letter .
I ’ m sure the media would love to write articles about how you attack I trans folk and then try to silence them.
” Rowling responded : “ Truth has always been far more important to me than clickbait , Nicola .
Please provide your evidence that a ) I can ’ t be trusted around children and b ) that I ‘ attack trans folks ’ .
” Spurling , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s only foray into the trans debate—her support for feminist Maya Forstater .
“ I ’ m also very much interested in the truth , ” she shot back .
“ Tweeting support for someone who is indisputable [ sic ] transphobic is transphobic in and of itself .
Suicide rates among trans people are so high due to lack of acceptance , hence transphobia is dangerous to children.
” Rowling , perhaps realizing the rabbit hole Spurling was heading down , cut it off : “ I ’ m afraid your lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweet in support for Maya Forstater , who believes that humans are a dimorphic species , but who has stated her unequivocal commitment to treating trans people with respect .
Again , I must ask you to provide evidence of your published claims that 1 ) I can not be trusted around children and 2 ) that I have ‘ attacked trans people.
’ ” Later that day , clearly noting that the thin ice beneath her was making dangerous noises , Spurling deleted the tweet and issued a new statement : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the advice of my lawyers , I have deleted my original tweet .
The tweet , when read on its own , lacked clarity and , right or wrong , wealth is powerful .
With that said , I stand behind the intent of the tweet , which is to highlight the dangerous nature of transphobia .
Children are particularly vulnerable and must be accepted for who they are , not told that who they are is wrong .
With great power comes great responsibility.
” This little spat is notable not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to threaten a small-time transgender activist with legal action , although that is obviously interesting in and of itself .
It is notable because it illustrates , once again , precisely how trans activists go after anybody who disagrees with them : By accusing them of being a danger to children .
This is one of the worst things you can accuse anybody of , especially the way Spurling worded it .
It carries the sinister implication that the person being accused is pedophilic in some way , and that implication is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully willing to smear the reputations of their opponents in the vilest terms possible .
As long as it works , they ’ ll do it .
Spurling ’ s accusation is also notable because those who do not have the power and wealth and access to highbrow lawyers that Rowling has will also be facing similar accusations in the years to come .
Parents who want their children to be at home will be accused of posing a danger to their own sons and daughters .
Pastors who preach the Bible honestly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to children .
Christian school teachers , therapists , medical professionals , psychologists : If they do not believe what Spurling and the LGBT movement believe about gender , they will be labeled “ unsafe ” and “ dangerous ” and “ not to be trusted.
” Instead , Spurling and the trans activists will advocate that the children will be entrusted to those who believe that puberty blockers , sex-change surgeries , and cross-dressing are the best thing for gender-confused children .
Jonathon ’ s new podcast , The Van Maren Show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pro-life and pro-family movement .
A recent documentary , AKA Jane Roe , released last month claims Norma McCorvey , the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade , was paid to join the pro-life movement .
In today 's episode of The Van Maren Show , four of McCorvey 's close friends join Van Maren in speaking about her dedication to the pro-life movement .
Listen to McCorvey 's godmother , Lynn Mills , pro-life activist Karen Garnett , President of Operation Rescue Troy Newman , and pro-life activist Patrick Mahoney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the episode below :

'Trans activists go after anybody who disagrees with them: By accusing them of being a danger to children'
June 1, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Early last year, I noted in a column for LifeSiteNews that billionaire Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling had done something exceptional: She had proven that the power of the transgender mob could be broken.
For those who missed the story at the time, Rowling had expressed her support for Maya Forstater, a woman fired for expressing her view that men could not become women by simply identifying as women.
“Dress however you please,” Rowling, who is pro-LGBT, tweeted. “Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill.”
As the trans activists raged, LGBT groups offered to re-educate her, and columnists condemned her. Rowling simply ignored it all. She said her piece, and then let the waves of wrath roll and break without giving the activists what they wanted. Eventually, they were forced to quiet down and skulk away for fear that everyone would notice that for one of the first times, their attempts at blackmail had failed—because their target had refused to give in to them by quailing in fear and offering the required apology.
But even Rowling has her limits, and transgender LGBT activist Nicola Spurling discovered what they were after tweeting a link from the Guardian about Rowling’s new children’s book, The Ickabog. Spurling, who is a former candidate for Canada’s Green Party, captioned the tweet thusly: “Definitely something to keep a close eye on. In recent years, Rowling has made it clear that she can no longer be trusted around children.”
Rowling responded: “Unless you want to hear from lawyers, you might want to rethink that tweet. I’m not wasting time arguing with wilful misrepresentations of my views on transgenderism—your timeline shows you’re not big on truth—but making serious insinuations like this comes with consequences.”
Spurling at first attempted to double down, tweeting back: “If you feel that the transphobia you’ve put into the world is not dangerous to children you are more than welcome to have your lawyer send me a cease & desist letter. I’m sure the media would love to write articles about how you attack I trans folk and then try to silence them.”
Rowling responded: “Truth has always been far more important to me than clickbait, Nicola. Please provide your evidence that a) I can’t be trusted around children and b) that I ‘attack trans folks’.”
Spurling, of course, immediately referred back to Rowling’s only foray into the trans debate—her support for feminist Maya Forstater. “I’m also very much interested in the truth,” she shot back. “Tweeting support for someone who is indisputable [sic] transphobic is transphobic in and of itself. Suicide rates among trans people are so high due to lack of acceptance, hence transphobia is dangerous to children.”
Rowling, perhaps realizing the rabbit hole Spurling was heading down, cut it off: “I’m afraid your lawyers might need a little more than my tweet in support for Maya Forstater, who believes that humans are a dimorphic species, but who has stated her unequivocal commitment to treating trans people with respect. Again, I must ask you to provide evidence of your published claims that 1) I cannot be trusted around children and 2) that I have ‘attacked trans people.’”
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
Later that day, clearly noting that the thin ice beneath her was making dangerous noises, Spurling deleted the tweet and issued a new statement: “At the request of @jk_rowling and on the advice of my lawyers, I have deleted my original tweet. The tweet, when read on its own, lacked clarity and, right or wrong, wealth is powerful. With that said, I stand behind the intent of the tweet, which is to highlight the dangerous nature of transphobia. Children are particularly vulnerable and must be accepted for who they are, not told that who they are is wrong. With great power comes great responsibility.”
This little spat is notable not primarily because a world-famous author got angry enough to threaten a small-time transgender activist with legal action, although that is obviously interesting in and of itself. It is notable because it illustrates, once again, precisely how trans activists go after anybody who disagrees with them: By accusing them of being a danger to children. This is one of the worst things you can accuse anybody of, especially the way Spurling worded it. It carries the sinister implication that the person being accused is pedophilic in some way, and that implication is made very consciously. Trans activists are fully willing to smear the reputations of their opponents in the vilest terms possible. As long as it works, they’ll do it.
Spurling’s accusation is also notable because those who do not have the power and wealth and access to highbrow lawyers that Rowling has will also be facing similar accusations in the years to come. Parents who want their children to be at home will be accused of posing a danger to their own sons and daughters. Pastors who preach the Bible honestly will be accused of posing a danger to children. Christian school teachers, therapists, medical professionals, psychologists: If they do not believe what Spurling and the LGBT movement believe about gender, they will be labeled “unsafe” and “dangerous” and “not to be trusted.”
Instead, Spurling and the trans activists will advocate that the children will be entrusted to those who believe that puberty blockers, sex-change surgeries, and cross-dressing are the best thing for gender-confused children.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement.
A recent documentary, AKA Jane Roe, released last month claims Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, was paid to join the pro-life movement. In today's episode of The Van Maren Show, four of McCorvey's close friends join Van Maren in speaking about her dedication to the pro-life movement. Listen to McCorvey's godmother, Lynn Mills, pro-life activist Karen Garnett, President of Operation Rescue Troy Newman, and pro-life activist Patrick Mahoney.
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-01--Inspiring talks to strengthen the faithful during this unprecedented time

To help keep this and other programs on the air , please donate here .
Watch Mother Miriam 's Live @ @ @ @ @ , Mother speaks about the feast of Pentecost and the talks from the Rome Life @ @ @ @ @ to view the talks to grow in their understanding of the faith and what they @ @ @ @ @ times .
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our @ @ @

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
Watch Mother Miriam's Live show from 6.1.2020. Today, Mother speaks about the feast of Pentecost and the talks from the Rome Life Forum. She encourages listeners to view the talks to grow in their understanding of the faith and what they can do during these unprecedented times.
View the Rome Life Forum talks here.
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.
Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live emails here.


lifesitenews--2020-06-01--As shops reopen, UK cardinal says ‘it’s time to move to the phased opening of our churches’

LONDON , June 1 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The leading Catholic cleric in the U.K. has said that “ [ i ] t is now time to move to the phased opening of our churches ” after the government announced that most shops can open on June 15 .
Many restaurants and pubs in the U.K. have already re-opened for takeaway orders .
“ Last week ’ s announcements by the Prime Minister that some indoor sales premises can open tomorrow and that most shops can open on 15th June , questions directly the reasons why our churches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , archbishop of Westminster , said during a homily yesterday .
“ We are told that these openings , which are to be carefully managed , are based on the need to encourage key activities to start up again .
Why are churches excluded from this decision ?
” Nichols asked .
In March , the Catholic bishops of England and Wales prohibited the celebration of public Masses before the lockdown came into force and , according to their own statement , played a crucial role themselves in convincing the government to require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an empty Westminster Cathedral on Pentecost Sunday , Nichols compared his waiting for the U.K. government to okay the opening of churches with the apostles at Pentecost .
“ Today we think of the group of disciples , with Mary , waiting , as they were bidden , in the Upper Room .
The doors were closed .
Jesus came and breathed upon them and said , ‘ Receive the Holy Spirit.
’ Then they were empowered , fired by that gift which is also described as being ‘ like tongues of flame.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they came , ready at last for their mission , ” he said .
“ We , too , are waiting to open these doors , the doors of our churches .
The waiting has been hard , but we have accepted the government 's decision to close our churches because the protection of life required it.
” Churches and other places of worship in the U.K. have been closed since Prime Minister Boris Johnson first announced a nationwide lockdown in response to the coronavirus on March 23 .
When the U.K. government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May , it was initially said that places of worship wouldn ’ t be permitted to open before July 4 .
But the government has now established a “ task force ” in consultation with senior religious leaders , including Nichols , to discuss the possibility of opening churches sooner than that date .
“ The importance of faith to so many people is clear , ” Nichols said yesterday .
“ The role of faith in our society has been made even clearer in these last weeks : as a motivation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dying ; as providing crucial comfort in bereavement ; as a source of immense and effective provision for those in sharp and pressing need ; as underpinning a vision of the dignity of every person , a dignity that has to be at the heart of the rebuilding of our society , ” he continued .
Nichols stressed that opening churches “ must be done safely , ” adding that he is confident they could be and that the bishops “ are ready to follow the Government 's guidelines as soon as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British members of Parliament wrote to Prime Minister Boris Johnson asking for churches to be allowed to open for private prayer , weddings , and funerals in June .
Last week , 24 Christian leaders , including Church of England bishop Michael Nazir-Ali , wrote to the U.K. government , urging officials to open the churches and contesting the legal status of the lockdown measures .
“ There is no precedent for state legislation which in any manner limits and/or criminalises church services or sacraments , ” the letter states .

'We are told that these openings ... are based on the need to encourage key activities to start up again,' Cdl. Vincent Nichols complained. 'Why are churches excluded from this decision?'
LONDON, June 1, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The leading Catholic cleric in the U.K. has said that “[i]t is now time to move to the phased opening of our churches” after the government announced that most shops can open on June 15. Many restaurants and pubs in the U.K. have already re-opened for takeaway orders.
“Last week’s announcements by the Prime Minister that some indoor sales premises can open tomorrow and that most shops can open on 15th June, questions directly the reasons why our churches remain closed,” Cardinal Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster, said during a homily yesterday.
“We are told that these openings, which are to be carefully managed, are based on the need to encourage key activities to start up again. Why are churches excluded from this decision?” Nichols asked.
In March, the Catholic bishops of England and Wales prohibited the celebration of public Masses before the lockdown came into force and, according to their own statement, played a crucial role themselves in convincing the government to require that churches be closed altogether.
Addressing an empty Westminster Cathedral on Pentecost Sunday, Nichols compared his waiting for the U.K. government to okay the opening of churches with the apostles at Pentecost.
“Today we think of the group of disciples, with Mary, waiting, as they were bidden, in the Upper Room. The doors were closed. Jesus came and breathed upon them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’ Then they were empowered, fired by that gift which is also described as being ‘like tongues of flame.’ Flinging open the doors, out they came, ready at last for their mission,” he said.
“We, too, are waiting to open these doors, the doors of our churches. The waiting has been hard, but we have accepted the government's decision to close our churches because the protection of life required it.”
Churches and other places of worship in the U.K. have been closed since Prime Minister Boris Johnson first announced a nationwide lockdown in response to the coronavirus on March 23. When the U.K. government made significant relaxations to lockdown restrictions in May, it was initially said that places of worship wouldn’t be permitted to open before July 4.
But the government has now established a “task force” in consultation with senior religious leaders, including Nichols, to discuss the possibility of opening churches sooner than that date.
“The importance of faith to so many people is clear,” Nichols said yesterday.
“The role of faith in our society has been made even clearer in these last weeks: as a motivation for the selfless care of the sick and dying; as providing crucial comfort in bereavement; as a source of immense and effective provision for those in sharp and pressing need; as underpinning a vision of the dignity of every person, a dignity that has to be at the heart of the rebuilding of our society,” he continued.
Nichols stressed that opening churches “must be done safely,” adding that he is confident they could be and that the bishops “are ready to follow the Government's guidelines as soon as they are finalised.”
Last month, 20 British members of Parliament wrote to Prime Minister Boris Johnson asking for churches to be allowed to open for private prayer, weddings, and funerals in June.
Last week, 24 Christian leaders, including Church of England bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, wrote to the U.K. government, urging officials to open the churches and contesting the legal status of the lockdown measures.
“There is no precedent for state legislation which in any manner limits and/or criminalises church services or sacraments,” the letter states.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-01--Supreme Court’s chief justice joins liberals in upholding California church restrictions

WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 1 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The state of California may continue to limit church attendance during the coronavirus pandemic , according to the U.S. Supreme Court .
Chief Justice John Roberts , who was nominated to his position by Republican president George W. Bush in 2005 , sided with the liberal justices in a 5-4 vote in favor of the Golden State ’ s restrictive measures .
California ’ s guidelines for “ Places of Worship and Providers of Religious Services and Cultural Ceremonies , ” issued by the state government on May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worship must ... limit attendance to 25 % of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees , whichever is lower.
” South Bay United Pentecostal Church , located in Chula Vista , California , just south of San Diego , had challenged California ’ s restrictions on those wanting to practice their religion .
The Protestant community ’ s lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency injunction , commanding the state to cease and desist the “ biased shutdown of religious worship in California , in blatant violation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that citizens may freely exercise their religious faith.
” As the Thomas More Society , representing South Bay United Pentecostal Church , pointed out , the restrictions imposed by the state government “ are in violation of their constitutional rights to freely practice their religion via worship services , regardless of their plans to observe an entire litany of precautionary measures.
” In his concurring opinion , Roberts argued that the limits on church attendance “ appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
” The First Amendment tells Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibiting the free exercise ” of religion .
The chief justice continued by explaining that “ comparable secular gatherings , including lectures , concerts , movie showings , spectator sports , and theatrical performances , where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time , ” are faced with “ [ s ] imilar or more severe restrictions.
” California ’ s guidance for churches “ exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities , such as operating grocery stores , banks , and laundromats , in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain in close proximity for extended periods , ” Roberts added .
The Constitution , in Roberts ’ s understanding , gives government officials broad powers to act during “ a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement.
” Those officials “ should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘ unelected federal judiciary , ’ which lacks the background , competence , and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.
” Justice Brett Kavanaugh , nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump despite severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote a dissenting opinion .
He was joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch , also nominated by Trump , and Clarence Thomas , who became part of the Supreme Court in 1991 under President George H.W .
Bush .
“ I would grant the Church ’ s requested temporary injunction because California ’ s latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses , ” Kavanaugh bluntly stated .
“ Such discrimination violates the First Amendment.
” “ The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cap , including factories , offices , supermarkets , restaurants , retail stores , pharmacies , shopping malls , pet grooming shops , bookstores , florists , hair salons , and cannabis dispensaries , ” Kavanaugh explained .
He directly contradicted Chief Justice Roberts , who claimed that “ operating grocery stores , banks , and laundromats ” constitutes “ dissimilar activities ” to worship services .
“ What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between ( i ) religious worship services and ( ii ) the litany of other secular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupancy cap , ” according to Kavanaugh .
“ California has not shown such a justification .
The Church has agreed to abide by the State ’ s rules that apply to comparable secular businesses.
” As pointed out by the associate justice , “ California has ample options that would allow it to combat the spread of COVID–19 without discriminating against religion , ” for instance insisting on implementing social distancing during worship services .
South Bay United Pentecostal Church had , in fact , already “ agreed to abide by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparable secular businesses.
” “ In sum , California ’ s 25 % occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion , and such discrimination violates the First Amendment , ” Kavanaugh concluded .
Several organizations supporting religious liberty came out against the Supreme Court ’ s decision in favor of California ’ s restrictions on the free exercise of religion .
Charles LiMandri , special counsel to the Thomas More Society , which had prepared the emergency appeal on behalf of South Bay United Pentecostal Church , called Chief Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ that should have little or no precedential value.
” He cautioned that “ there is still a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeal , and this case is far from over .
We will proceed with our expedited appeal in the Ninth Circuit and , if necessary , seek a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on the merits under a much more favorable standard.
” LiMandri emphasized that “ without the filing and vigorous litigation of this lawsuit , churches would still be closed in California under Governor Newsom ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Mat Staver echoed LiMandri , predicting that the Supreme Court will get back to the question of restricting the First Amendment during the coronavirus pandemic .
“ The denial of emergency relief for the California churches does nothing to settle the matter , ” he said .
“ It is not a ruling on the merits .
The litigation will continue until the lower courts issue final rulings , at which time the Supreme Court will be able to consider one or more of these cases on the merits.
” Kelly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief counsel of First Liberty Institute , said , “ Treating churches unequally is wrong .
The Constitution specifically protects the free exercise of religion , it does not speak for the defense of laundromats.
” “ Churches and houses of worship just want to be treated equally and trusted to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices just like they do when they go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings , ” he added .
Based in the San Francisco Bay Area , The Mercury News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort — including religious services — were still banned Sunday by local orders in the Bay Area , ” some Christian groups “ decided to reopen their doors on Sunday in defiance of the orders.
” “ Germs are important , yes , absolutely , ” one San Jose pastor admitted to the newspaper .
At the same time , he added , saving a soul is of greater importance , and “ only Jesus Christ can save a soul .
”

Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the limits on church attendance 'appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.'
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 1, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The state of California may continue to limit church attendance during the coronavirus pandemic, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated to his position by Republican president George W. Bush in 2005, sided with the liberal justices in a 5-4 vote in favor of the Golden State’s restrictive measures.
California’s guidelines for “Places of Worship and Providers of Religious Services and Cultural Ceremonies,” issued by the state government on May 25, stated, “Places of worship must … limit attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower.”
South Bay United Pentecostal Church, located in Chula Vista, California, just south of San Diego, had challenged California’s restrictions on those wanting to practice their religion.
The Protestant community’s lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency injunction, commanding the state to cease and desist the “biased shutdown of religious worship in California, in blatant violation of the First Amendment’s constitutional guarantee that citizens may freely exercise their religious faith.”
As the Thomas More Society, representing South Bay United Pentecostal Church, pointed out, the restrictions imposed by the state government “are in violation of their constitutional rights to freely practice their religion via worship services, regardless of their plans to observe an entire litany of precautionary measures.”
In his concurring opinion, Roberts argued that the limits on church attendance “appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.” The First Amendment tells Congress it “shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.
The chief justice continued by explaining that “comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time,” are faced with “[s]imilar or more severe restrictions.”
California’s guidance for churches “exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods,” Roberts added.
The Constitution, in Roberts’s understanding, gives government officials broad powers to act during “a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement.” Those officials “should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump despite severe pushback from Democrats and liberal media, wrote a dissenting opinion. He was joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, also nominated by Trump, and Clarence Thomas, who became part of the Supreme Court in 1991 under President George H.W. Bush.
“I would grant the Church’s requested temporary injunction because California’s latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses,” Kavanaugh bluntly stated. “Such discrimination violates the First Amendment.”
“The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries,” Kavanaugh explained.
He directly contradicted Chief Justice Roberts, who claimed that “operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats” constitutes “dissimilar activities” to worship services.
“What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap,” according to Kavanaugh.
“California has not shown such a justification. The Church has agreed to abide by the State’s rules that apply to comparable secular businesses.”
As pointed out by the associate justice, “California has ample options that would allow it to combat the spread of COVID–19 without discriminating against religion,” for instance insisting on implementing social distancing during worship services. South Bay United Pentecostal Church had, in fact, already “agreed to abide by the State’s rules that apply to comparable secular businesses.”
“In sum, California’s 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion, and such discrimination violates the First Amendment,” Kavanaugh concluded.
Several organizations supporting religious liberty came out against the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of California’s restrictions on the free exercise of religion.
Charles LiMandri, special counsel to the Thomas More Society, which had prepared the emergency appeal on behalf of South Bay United Pentecostal Church, called Chief Justice Roberts’s concurring opinion a text “that should have little or no precedential value.”
He cautioned that “there is still a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and this case is far from over. We will proceed with our expedited appeal in the Ninth Circuit and, if necessary, seek a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on the merits under a much more favorable standard.”
LiMandri emphasized that “without the filing and vigorous litigation of this lawsuit, churches would still be closed in California under Governor Newsom’s original shut-down orders.”
Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver echoed LiMandri, predicting that the Supreme Court will get back to the question of restricting the First Amendment during the coronavirus pandemic.
“The denial of emergency relief for the California churches does nothing to settle the matter,” he said. “It is not a ruling on the merits. The litigation will continue until the lower courts issue final rulings, at which time the Supreme Court will be able to consider one or more of these cases on the merits.”
Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel of First Liberty Institute, said, “Treating churches unequally is wrong. The Constitution specifically protects the free exercise of religion, it does not speak for the defense of laundromats.”
“Churches and houses of worship just want to be treated equally and trusted to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices just like they do when they go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings,” he added.
Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, The Mercury News reported that while “gatherings of any sort — including religious services — were still banned Sunday by local orders in the Bay Area,” some Christian groups “decided to reopen their doors on Sunday in defiance of the orders.”
“Germs are important, yes, absolutely,” one San Jose pastor admitted to the newspaper. At the same time, he added, saving a soul is of greater importance, and “only Jesus Christ can save a soul.”
Share