If I had newspapers from late 2010 on certain issues, and compared those with what I am seeing now, I am sure the distinctions would be clear. The left is rabidly anti-Christian. One only has to get a glimpse of television commentaries to see this.
The voice of the "socially conservative" has been severely marginalized. A neighbor asked me quietly if I was "socially conservative", which in this area, in this state, which allows ssm, means being against ssm. I said "yes" and she was obviously relieved. Again, social conservatives find themselves marginalized and even afraid to speak up concerning their views. She had been involved in politics in her youth, but has stepped down in old age.
Now, the state of Iowa and the state of Illinois have both been liberal for a long time. I had to deal with ssm in RCIA classes which I was teaching in the Summer of 2010. Iowa was one of the first to pass the law allowing ssm. Some of my catechumens were confused.
But, the overwhelming problem is the lack of discussion, the lack of even trying to find common ground with which to start a discussion.
Gone are the rational arguments, or rational discourse. Part of that huge problem is that the last two generations of high school students or college students were not required to take logic.
The second problem is one of those on the right. Too many want to avoid conflict totally and not engaged in discussions or even politics. They are too afraid of standing up for their opinions. Someone recently told me that he has to keep all his opinions to himself at work, or he would lose his jobs.
This is the gagging of the right. I no longer can discuss anything and retreated into silence in discussions in Iowa. This is even true on Public Television in this state, which is so liberal, there is never any discussions revealing both sides of issues.
Labels now define us, not rationality or natural law. Sadly, this is one of the signs of the last stages of persecution-complete marginalization.
PS. There are many Catholics in this area who do not understand or even know that many, many Catholic universities have sued the government over the contraception and abortion mandate. Why they do not know, is that is not covered in the msm.
The NDU lawsuit has been renewed recently
Here is the original statement on the lawsuit from Notre Dame from http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/21/catholic-colleges-hospitals-sue-obama-admin-over-mandate/
May 21, 2012
A Message from Father John Jenkins, C.S.C.,
President, University of Notre Dame
President, University of Notre Dame
Today the University of Notre Dame filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana regarding a recent mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching. The decision to file this lawsuit came after much deliberation, discussion and efforts to find a solution acceptable to the various parties.
Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about: it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services. Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non-Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs. And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents. We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.
This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives. For if we concede that the Government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions. For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements. If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.
The details of the process that led to the mandate are publicly known. In an Interim Final Ruling issued August 3, 2011, the federal government required employers to provide the objectionable services. A narrow exemption was given to religious institutions that serve and employ primarily members of their own faith, but, departing from a long tradition in federal law, organizations like Notre Dame—schools, universities, hospitals and charitable organizations that serve and employ people of all faiths and none—were granted no exemption, but instead were made subject to the law to the same extent as any secular organization. On September 28, I submitted a formal comment encouraging the Administration to follow precedent and adopt a broader exemption.
Despite some positive indications, the Administration announced on January 20, 2012, that its interim rule would be adopted as final without change. After an outcry from across the political spectrum, President Obama announced on February 10 that his Administration would attempt to accommodate the concerns of religious organizations. We were encouraged by this announcement and have engaged in conversations with Administration officials to find an acceptable resolution. Although I do not question the good intentions and sincerity of all involved in these discussions, progress has not been encouraging and an announcement seeking comments on how to structure any accommodation (HHS Advanced Notification of Proposed Rule Making on preventative services policy, March 16, 2012) provides little in the way of a specific, substantive proposal or a definite timeline for resolution. Moreover, the process laid out in this announcement will last months, making it impossible for us to plan for and implement any changes to our health plans by the government-mandated deadlines. We will continue in earnest our discussions with Administration officials in an effort to find a resolution, but, after much deliberation, we have concluded that we have no option but to appeal to the courts regarding the fundamental issue of religious freedom.
It is for these reasons that we have filed this lawsuit neither lightly nor gladly, but with sober determination.
Hopefully, I can put those on later.
