Plano Independent School District wants to ban First Amendment rights of elementary students who want to reference Jesus or God

An article from World Net Daily is reporting that, "A hearing is scheduled Monday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that could determine if students in elementary schools have the protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The case arose in the Plano Independent School District in Texas where Thomas Elementary School Principal Lynn Swanson and Rasor Elementary School Principal Jackie Bomchill were sued for restricting student speech when it referenced 'God' or 'Jesus.'

According to the Liberty Institute, in the first incident, officials banned 8-year-old Jonathan Morgan from handing out candy canes with Jesus' name on them to classmates at a school party.

'Then they confiscated a little girl's pencils after school because they mentioned 'God,'' the Institute reported.

But that's not all, the group said.

'They even banned an entire classroom from writing 'Merry Christmas' on cards to our troops serving in Iraq.'

The dispute went to district court then to a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit where school officials' efforts to have the complaint rejected because of their 'immunity' failed.

Now the appeals court has agreed to an en banc hearing in which 17 judges will listen to arguments and decide the dispute.

The school officials are arguing 'that the First Amendment does not apply to elementary school students,' explains the appeal brief submitted by Liberty Institute."

Well then, Plano Independent School District officials are wrong.  The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, that, "Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact...The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech.  This provision means what it says.  We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances.  But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom."

What the Supreme Court said in Tinker is that free speech rights of students can only be "carefully restricted" or "reasonably regulated" by school administrators.  And only if these school administrators can show that such free speech rights would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission. Is there anyone out there - who is sane - who can argue that a pencil which mentions God or a candy cane with Jesus' name on it constitutes a substantial disruption of a school's educational mission?

It is my firm belief that the Plano Independent School District officials in question could benefit greatly from a mental-health checkup.  Not to mention a brief primer in constitutional law.

Read More

President Obama, who claims to be a Christian, has denied that America is a Christian nation

Back in 2009, in an article for Salon.com entitled "America is not a Christian nation," Michael Lind wrote, "Is America a Christian nation, as many conservatives claim it is?  One American doesn't think so.  In his press conference on April 6 in Turkey, President Obama explained: 'One of the great strengths of the United States is...we have a very large Christian population - we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.'  Predictably, Obama's remarks have enraged conservative talking heads.  But Obama's observations have ample precedent in American diplomacy and constitutional thought..."  (See here for full article).

Unfortunately for Mr. Lind, the facts of history do not support his theory.  The Charter of New England of 1620 declared that the primary objective of the colony was "the enlargement of Christian religion, to the Glory of God Almighty."  The Mayflower Compact stated clearly that the purpose of the colony was the "advancement of the Christian Faith."  Larry Schweikart notes, in his book "48 Liberal Lies About American History," that: "The founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies reveals them to be awash in the concepts of Christianity and God.  Whatever the documents intended by 'religious freedom,' they never in any way, shape, or form intended the state to interfere with Christian religious expression.  It is therefore silly and unsupported to claim, as religious historian Jon Butler tries to do, that "Revolutionary America Wasn't a Christian Nation.'  Christians played so dominant a role in the American revolution that Joseph Galloway, a Loyalist, complained that the rebellion was led by "Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Smugglers.'.." (Larry Schweikhart, 48 Liberal Lies About American History, p. 75).

President Obama and his minions may believe that America was not founded as a Christian nation.  But the Supreme Court, in its unanimous decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), said that: "Our laws and institutions necessarily are based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind...In this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian...This is a Christian nation."

President Obama and his minions, in their push for a secularist Socialist State, are engaging in revisionist history when they deny that America was founded as a Christian nation.  Again Larry Schweikart:

"The Continental Congress in 1777 ordered a day of thanksgiving and praise that the people 'join the penitent confession of their manifold sins...that the day, through their humble and ernest supplication...may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ..." (Schweikart, p. 73).  If America was not a Christian nation, what was the Continental Congress doing praying - and exhorting others to pray - through the merits of Jesus Christ?  This is, of course, an insurmountable problem for historical revisionists such as Michael Lind and Barack Obama.

Schweikart continues:

"Even the supposed Deist Benjamin Franklin urged the members of the Constitutional Convention to pray, saying, 'I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men.  And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?  We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'" (Schweikart, p. 73).

While Barack Obama and his minions are doing their best to re-write American history and to deny our Christian heritage, a Chinese think tank has said that Christianity is what made America great. See here.

Read More

Stephen Hawking: The Prince of Fairy Tales

British scientist Stephen Hawking is at it again.  In an interview with The Guardian, Hawking said, "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail.  There is no heaven for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."  See here.

Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, refutes this argument nicely explaining that, "A computer is not reliable if it has been programmed by chance rather than by rational design (e.g., by hailstones falling at random on its keyboard).  The human brain and nervous system are a computer.  They may be much more, but they are not less than a computer.  So the human brain is not reliable if it has been programmed by mere chance..if materialism is true, if the soul is only the brain, if there is no spirit, no human soul and no God, then the brain has been programmed by mere chance.  All the programming our brains have received, through heredity (genetics) and environment (society), is ultimately only unintelligent, undesigned, random chance, brute facts, physical causes, not logical reasons.  Therefore materialism cannot be true.  It refutes itself.  It destroys its own credentials.  If the brain is nothing but blind atoms, we have no reason to trust it when it tells us about anything, including itself and atoms...If materialism is not true, this means there is immaterial reality too.  And that immaterial reality - usually called spirit, or soul - need not be subject to the laws of material reality, including the law of mortality."

Mr. Hawking has made bizarre claims in the past.  He has advanced abiogenesis in a desperate attempt to uphold failed evolutionary theories while warning anyone who will listen that humanity faces a potential threat on its horizon from "aliens" from outer space.

It would appear that Stephen Hawking is eminently qualified to speak on fairy stories.  For he is the Prince of Fairy Tales.

Read More

Constructing a New World Order Police State

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  But there are forces in this country which are striving to undermine these constitutional protections.

This past Thursday the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.  Justice Steven David, writing for the court, said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.  See here.

William Parker, in an article entitled "Your fourth amendment rights under attack by Obama, DOJ," writes:


There is no talk of 'the slippery slope' anymore, which so many people used as an argument against many policies enacted by the Bush administration. Yet, now more than ever, it seems the slippery slope has given way to the sheer drop from the cliffs of sanity. There are intentional actions already in progress to simply take from us the rights we have apparently taken for granted. The Dept. of Justice apparently believes that U.S. citizens do not enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with respect to cell phone use, and have been attempting to acquire the ability to simply demand user information from the cell phone companies without going through standard procedures to obtain a warrant for specific information on specific individuals for use in specific prosecutions. They are assaulting the fourth amendment in yet another case, asserting that "email over 181 days old should not be protected from warrantless search and seizure."

Where is the outrage? These are not things that are occurring as a consequence of, or as a by-product of, some other action being taken for some otherwise lofty purpose. The government means to take these freedoms, piece by piece, with the hopes that nobody will care until it's too late."  Full article here.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

Two years ago I argued that the United States was in twilight.  It would appear that the darkness is now falling swiftly.  And where is all of this leading?

Another chilling development noted here.

Read More

Elizabeth Dreyer, guest speaker at the 2011 Gather Us In Conference: "There's a lot of misogyny and oppression" in the Catholic Church

"The history of the church is complex. There have been many opportunities in the church for women to obtain dignity and rights. And, then, on the other side, there’s a lot of misogyny and oppression, and they’re both there in quite large doses. I think it’s amazing that the memories of Jesus in the New Testament escaped sexism to the extent that they did. But by the early second century the cultural context of patriarchy reasserts itself." - Elizabeth Dreyer, feminist theologian who advocates women's ordination and who has been invited to appear as a guest speaker at the 2011 Gather Us In conference of the Worcester Commission for Women [Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts].  See full interview with citation here.

In an article entitled "A Gender Gap in the Church?," Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of two rural parishes in the Diocese of Charleston, South Carolina who holds a Licentiate in canon law from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, writes: "Even a cursory glance at most newspapers and magazines, both Catholic and secular, suggests that there is a wide gulf of misunderstanding and mutual suspicion between men and women in the Church - especially between women and the aging, all-male, celibate hierarchy.

The basic story line runs thus: The all-male priesthood is the last redoubt of absolute patriarchal authority left in the Western world, and those in power -particularly in Rome-will do anything to preserve their positions of prestige and prevent women from breaking this last irrational barrier to their full participation in public life.

The story continues by pointing out that every major Protestant communion now has female clergy and by suggesting that Rome's failure to respond to this simple demand of justice is yet another indication that Catholicism-as all reasonable people know-is and always has been a force of oppression and domination. So runs the standard story, but is it true?"  Fr. Newman then proceeds to dismantle this childish notion of "patriarchal oppression" and "misogyny" which is part and parcel of Elizabeth Dreyer's worn-out theology which is driven by the demonic drive to enslave women to the tyranny of a purely masculine criteria.

Women are not made whole by being turned into copy-cat men.  They are truly whole and free when their own genius is respected.

Read More

The Worcester Commission for Women invites dissident theologian Elizabeth Dreyer to speak at its "Gather Us In" conference

In previous posts I have looked at the Worcester [Massachusetts] Commission for Women and their promotion of New Age spirituality and relativism.  See here and here for example.  I have also examined some of the past speakers of the Commision's "Gather Us In" conference.  See here.

The Commission for Women has invited feminist theologian Elizabeth Dreyer to speak at their 2011 conference.  Ms. Dreyer is one of 16 dissident theologians who signed what is known as The Madeleva Manifesto.  This manifesto states:

"In the tradition of Sister Madeleva Wolff, CSC, we sixteen Madeleva lecturers have been invited to speak a message of hope and courage to women in the church. Reflecting the diversity of gifts bestowed on us by the Spirit, we speak from our particular experiences and vocations, yet share in a universal vision that is faithful to our catholic tradition.



• To women in ministry and theological studies we say: re-imagine what it means to be the whole body of Christ. The way things are now is not the design of God.


• To young women looking for models of prophetic leadership, we say: walk with us as we seek to follow the way of Jesus Christ, who inspires our hope and guides our concerns. The Spirit calls us to a gospel feminism that respects the human dignity of all, and who inspires us to be faithful disciples, to stay in the struggle to overcome oppression of all kinds whether based on gender, sexual orientation, race, or class.


• To women who are tempted by the demons of despair and indifference, we say: re-imagine what it means to be a full human being made in the image of God, and to live and speak this truth in our daily lives.


• To women who suffer the cost of discipleship we say: you are not alone. We remember those who have gone before us, who first held up for us the pearl of great price, the richness of Catholic thought and spirituality. We give thanks to those who continue to mentor us.


• To the young women of the church we say: carry forward the cause of gospel feminism. We will be with you along the way, sharing what we have learned about the freedom, joy and power of contemplative intimacy with God. We ask you to join us in a commitment to far-reaching transformation of church and society in non-violent ways. We deplore, and hold ourselves morally bound, to protest and resist, in church and society, all actions, customs, laws and structures that treat women or men as less than fully human. We pledge ourselves to carry forth the heritage of biblical justice which mandates that all persons share in right relationship with each other, with the cosmos, and with the Creator.


We hold ourselves responsible to look for the holy in unexpected places and persons, and pledge ourselves to continued energetic dialogue about issues of freedom and responsibility for women. We invite others of all traditions to join us in imagining the great shalom of God."


April 29, 2000


Feast of St. Catherine of Siena, lay woman, Doctor of the Church


St. Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Ind.

See here.


Now, in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, No. 4, Pope John Paul II said that, “..the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women” and that “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”


Canon Law, specifically Canon 750, states that: “each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.”


The Madeleva Sixteen therefore are setting themselves against the teaching of the Church by treating the ordination of women as “an open question.” Deliberate nonassent is a grave matter. This situation is all the more serious since the judgment of Pope John Paul II (and he invoked his supreme authority in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) is to be “definitively held by all.”

I've said this before at this Blog: Because nonassent is serious in and of itself, and because deliberate nonassent interferes with communion in the Church and serves to polarize people, it is a grave matter. Pope Pius XII, in Humani generis, explains that once a pope makes a point of settling a matter which is disputed among theologians, it can no longer be treated as an open question.

But for Ms. Dreyer, who believes she is wiser than the Lord Jesus Christ who teaches us through His Church's Magisterium, the ordination of women is more than an open question.  She has demanded it, signing a petition which reads, "Break the Silence on Women's Ordination.  Shatter the Stained Glass Ceiling." 

And Bishop Robert J. McManus has no problem with any of this?  God help the troubled Diocese of Worcester, a diocese which has been crippled with the leaven of infidelity.  The same diocese which welomes practicing homosexuals and dissidents who reject the Church's authoritative and definitive teaching has no place for me.  And yet, I do live a chaste life while adhereing to everything the Church teaches.

Is this the work of the Holy Spirit or of some other spirit?

You decide.

Photo shows Bishop McManus (who couldn't even bother to respond to my letter expressing interest in pursuing a priestly vocation) at a "Gather Us In" conference.

Read More

Massachusetts officials, anxious to advance the radical homosexual agenda, reject their obligation to seek the truth

Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2 of the Second Vatican Council teaches us that, "It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.."

But some are not interested in this moral obligation to seek the truth, and especially religious truth, and to adhere to it once it is known.  Such people do not want to hear.  They refuse to open their eyes.  They refuse to be converted.  To such people Our Lord issues a stern rebuke: "He who is of God hears the words of God.  The reason why you do not hear is that you are not of God." (John 8:47).

For such people, the first demand of conscience, which is that the truth be honestly sought, is not essential.  For they have a different concept of conscience.  One which Pope Benedict XVI has rejected.  Our Holy Father explains that liberalism's idea of conscience, "...does not mean man's openness to the ground of his being, the power of perception for what is highest and most essential.  Rather, it appears as subjectivity's protective shell, into which man can escape and there hide from reality."  Such a notion of conscience, ".does not open the way to the redemptive road to truth - which either does not exist or, if it does, is too demanding.  It is the faculty that dispenses with truth.  It thereby becomes the justification for subjectivity, which would not like to have itself called into question.  Similarly, it becomes the justification for social conformity...The obligation to seek the truth terminates, as do any doubts about the general inclination of society and what it has become accustomed to.  Being convinced of oneself, as well as conforming to others, is sufficient.  Man is reduced to his superficial conviction.." (Keynote Address of the Tenth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Catholic Conscience: Foundation and Formation," February 1991).

The liberal notion of conscience becomes the justification for subjectivity and becomes the faculty that dispenses with truth.  This erroneous notion of conscience was in evidence in Massachusetts as one official called for those who oppose the homosexual agenda to be banned and another dismissed their concerns as "irrelevant and ignorant."  See here.

It was Noam Chomsky who wrote, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."  Apparently Massachusetts officials such as Jennie Caissie really do not believe in freedom of expression.  Further evidence of the truth that while the Church proposes, the world imposes.

Read More