Trump Has Our Back

POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
by David Trumbull
January 17, 2020

A little more than a year into Trump’s presidency I had dinner with a friend who is the pastor of a church in the Reform tradition, but who came from the Evangelical tradition. I’m a Catholic, so our combined experiences cover most of the Christian experience in American. We were talking about how clueless the media are about Trump and his appeal. My friend noted that the media doesn’t understand why Evangelicals support Trump. I responded, “I can sum it up in one word, ‘Cy’” and my friend responded with, “rus.” We were referring to Cyrus the Great, the Sixth Century B.C. king of Persia who released the Jews from their Babylonian captivity, returned them to their homeland, decreed that the temple in Jerusalem be rebuilt, and provided the money to build it. You can read the account in the Bible, in verses one though eight of the first chapter of the Book of Ezra, as well as several favorable mentions in the Book of Isaiah.

There is no record, not even a hint, that Cyrus became a worshipper of the God of the Jews. His policy of religious tolerance was applied across his empire to all religions. He took the golden temple vessels that the Babylonians had seized from the Jerusalem temple and returned them to the Jews, but there is also an account of his paying for the restoration of a Babylonia idol. In short, he seems to have understood that the best way to rule a multi-ethnic empire with many religions was to be the guarantor of freedom to any and all religions. He wasn't a Jew, but as we say, he had their back. In fact, according to the Bible, he was chosen by God.

Fast forward about 850 years to the Year of Our Lord 313. That's when the persecuted Christians in the Roman Empire gained their freedom of religion. Emperor Constantine the Great issued the Edict of Milan which, like Cyrus' policy, established freedom of religion in the Empire for all faiths. In the Eastern Church Constantine is recognized as a saint. In the Western Church he is highly revered, but not officially recognized as a saint. His personal live was hardly saintly, he had his wife and child murdered, and was otherwise cruel when he believed the situation called for cruelty. Perhaps his knowledge that governing the Empire would require ruthless acts was why he delayed Christian Baptism until he was on his deathbed (Baptism washes away all sins). During his life, Constantine was favorable to Christians, but he was not one himself and -- he had their back.

In 2012 President Obama pushed for an Obamacare mandate that if enforced in the way he wanted would have forced the closure of Catholic and many Protestant hospitals and schools. It was clearly unconstitutional, but the legal battles alone would likely have been crippling to faith institutions. In response, here in heavily Catholic Boston Cardinal O'Malley urged us to pray:

"Almighty God, Father of all nations, for freedom you have set us free in Christ Jesus. We praise and bless you for the gift of religious liberty, the foundation of human rights, justice and the common good. Grant to our leaders the wisdom to protect and promote our liberties; by your grace may we have the courage to defend them for ourselves and for all those who live in this blessed land. We ask this through the intercession of Mary Immaculate, our patroness, and in the name of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, with whom you live and reign, one God, for ever and ever. Amen."

Many people of various religions in America believe that prayer may have been answered on November 8, 2016. Is President Trump my idea of a good example of Christian living? No. He doesn’t have to be one of us to have our back.

Rendering unto Caesar and unto God.

Res Publica
Rendering unto Caesar and unto God.
by David Trumbull -- March 8, 2013

The United States Commission on Civil Rights has announced that it will hold a briefing, in Washington, Friday, March 22nd, to examine recent legal developments concerning the intersection of non-discrimination principles with those of civil liberties.

Two topics will serve as starting points for a discussion involving religious liberties and non-discrimination rules and their broader implications for civil liberties: the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC case and student group non-discrimination policies, including the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case. Also at issue are religious liberty claims under First Amendment provisions other than the Religion Clauses.

There will be two panels at the briefing. The first panel will be composed of scholars involved in the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC or Christian Legal Society v. Martinez litigation: Kimberlee Colby, Senior Counsel at the Christian Legal Society, Ayesha Khan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Daniel Mach, Director, American Civil Liberties Union Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief and Lori Windham, Senior Counsel, Becket Fund.

The second panel will consist of experts who will discuss the broader conflict between anti-discrimination norms and civil liberties. Experts scheduled to appear on the second panel include Alan Brownstein, Professor, University of California at Davis Law School, Marc DeGirolami, Associate Professor, St. John's University School of Law, Leslie Griffin, Professor, University of Nevada Las Vegas Law School, Marci Hamilton, Professor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Michael Helfand, Associate Professor, Pepperdine University School of Law, and Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center.

If you are concerned about current domestic threats to religious liberty, including the Obama Administration's attack on Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities, this is your opportunity to comment. Public comments are being accepted until April 21st. Lawyers and professors of law may dominate the Washington briefing later this month, but the public comment period is open to anyone who is distressed that our First Amendment Right to Free Exercise of Religion is being attacked by the very federal officials who took oaths to defend the Constitution.

Comments may be submitted to publiccomments@usccr.gov, or send written correspondence to:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1150
Washington, DC 20425

"We need to render unto Caesar those things that bear his image. But we need to render ourselves unto God -- generously, zealously, holding nothing back. To the extent we let God transform us into his own image, we will – by the example of our lives – fulfill our duty as citizens of the United States, but much more importantly, as disciples of Jesus Christ." --Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Philadelphia.

The King's Good Servant, but God's First

Res Publica
The King's Good Servant, but God's First
by David Trumbull -- January 25, 2013

I did not watch the ceremonies attendant on President Obama's swearing-in as chief executive for a second term. It was not because I disagree with just about every policy of his and believe he is harming the Republic and is a danger to the liberty of every citizen, including the ones most lauding him. No, I'm just not that into it.

For his true "inaugural," that is his first taking of office, I attended a festive event here in Boston with great satisfaction in living to see the first African-America president, even though I knew then that his policies would be severely misguided. I attended, in Washington, the inaugural of his predecessor, George W. Bush, but I took little notice of the official commencement of his second term. So I'm an equal opportunity second "inauguration" snubber.

I missed the whole thing. The comments, in print and on radio and television, regarding his speech have warned me away from reading it for fear of elevating my blood pressure. I missed news coverage of the various gala balls, so I don't even know what the First Lady wore, which is probably just as well, as her past selections have been under whelming, or worse. From what I have seen, after the event, of commentary, the only note-worthy fashion statement came from a highly improbable source, United State Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Scalia has set cyberspace atwitter with his selection of headgear for last Monday's inauguration ceremony. He wore a black hat, a replica of the hat depicted in Hans Holbein's well-known portrait of St. Thomas More. The hat was custom-made and was a gift, in 2010, from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia.

Thomas More, familiar to many from his depiction in Robert Bolt's play (and movie) A Man for All Seasons, was martyred by the tyrant Henry VIII of England when he stood against the King's pretended supremacy over the church.

As Matthew Schmitz, Deputy Editor of First Things wrote: "Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will."

What Part of " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Don't You Understand, Mr. President?

POST-GAZETTE, Res Publica
What Part of " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Don't You Understand, Mr. President?
by David Trumbull - July 20, 2012

Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R., Wisconsin) has introduced legislation, H.R.6097, the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act, to stop the Obama Administration from taxing religious institutions and employers for choosing to follow core tenets of their faith rather than bow to the HHS mandate that violates their conscience rights.

As you know, on January 20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") reaffirmed a rule forcing health care plans to cover sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Many religiously-affiliated school, hospitals, and social service agencies cannot comply with this mandate. Obama's response is to tax them out of existence.

“Obamacare gives the federal government the tools to tax religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, universities and soup kitchens right out of existence," said Representative Sensenbrenner, who pointed out that the fine for following your conscience is $100 per employee per day. As Sensenbrenner explained, "A religious institution that, say, has a church and an elementary school beside it that employs fifty employees total, which include the administrative and maintenance personnel, ends up being taxed $36,500 per employee per year." For that church and school with 50 employees the tax on the right to follow church teaching would be nearly $2 million per year, every year.

Boston has Catholic schools that would be forced to close if the Obama Administration war on religious freedom is allowed to go forward. Sensenbrenner, who is an Anglican, pointed out that in his state of Wisconsin there are many Lutheran schools as well as Catholic schools that will be forced to close if Obama has his way.

Sensenbrenner is joined by 56 cosponsors of the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act. All the sponsors are Republicans. Not a single Democrat in Congress has been willing to oppose the President and stand up in support of our First Amendment freedom to practice religion.

The HHS mandate is just the latest Obama Administration attack on religion. Back in January the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Lutheran school (Hosanna-Tabor) had a First Amendment religious freedom to choose its own ministers and that the Obama Administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's attempt to meddle in the church's employment practices was unconstitutional.

The HHS mandate must, and will, be overturned!

A Fortnight for Freedom

POST-GAZETTE Res Publica
A Fortnight for Freedom
by David Trumbull -- June 22, 2012

Intolerance -- official state-sponsored intolerance -- is on the rise in American to an extent not seen since the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s or even the period of the "Know Nothings" in the mid 1800s. America's Catholic bishops have characterized the Obamacare HHS mandate as unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional.

On Friday, June 8th, several hundred of us gathered on Boston Common to rally against the mandate's unconstitutional interference with the free exercise of religion. We were Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even a few non-believers who understood that the issue is not the Church's teaching on sexuality, but our Constitutional freedom as Americans to practice religion, or no religion, unimpeded by unjustifiable government intrusion,

The Catholic bishops have called for the fourteen days from June 21st to July 4th to be dedicated as “fortnight for freedom.” and have issued the following Q & A to explain what is at issue.

"What do we mean by religious liberty?

"Religious liberty is the first liberty granted to us by God and protected in the First Amendment to our Constitution. It includes more than our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It also encompasses our ability to contribute freely to the common good of all Americans.

"What is the First Amendment?

"The First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights states the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

"What does “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” mean?

"This phrase, known as the “Establishment Clause,” started out as a prohibition on Congress’ either establishing a national religion or interfering with the established religions of the states. It has since been interpreted to forbid state establishments of religion, to forbid governmental preference (at any level) of one religion over another, and to forbid direct government funding of religion.

"What does “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” mean?

"This phrase, known as the “Free Exercise Clause,” generally protects citizens and institutions from government interference with the exercise of their religious beliefs. It sometimes mandates the accommodation of religious practices when such practices conflict with federal, state, or local laws."

Obviously the bishops know the Constitution, which is more than we can say for our "constitutional scholar" President.

Prayer for Religious Freedom

Cardinal Sean is asking Catholics to recite this prayer for religious freedom as part of the "Fortnight for Freedom" initiative which runs from June 21 to July 4.

Almighty God, Father of all nations, for freedom you have set us free in Christ Jesus. We praise and bless you for the gift of religious liberty, the foundation of human rights, justice and the common good. Grant to our leaders the wisdom to protect and promote our liberties; by your grace may we have the courage to defend them for ourselves and for all those who live in this blessed land. We ask this through the intercession of Mary Immaculate, our patroness, and in the name of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, with whom you live and reign, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Our First, Most Cherished Liberty

Res Publica
Our First, Most Cherished Liberty
by David Trumbull -- April 20, 2012

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops recently published a statement on the attacks, by local, state and federal government, on religious liberty now happening across America. They cite case after case.

• The Obamacare mandate that Catholic institutions pay for medical procedures they find morally impermissible.
• The singling out of Christian student groups for expulsion from the campuses of public colleges.
• The banning, as in Massachusetts and other states, of Catholic organizations from assisting in adoptions of children.
• A City of New York "crackdown" on small Protestant churches.
• Actions in several states to prohibit Catholic, Episcopal, and Methodist churches from performing their long-recognized role of providing sanctuary for the oppressed.

Intolerance -- official state-sponsored intolerance -- is on the rise in American to an extent not seen since the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s or even the period of the "Know Nothings" in the mid 1800s.

The bishops have characterized the Obamacare mandate as unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional.

In the early days of our Republic Thomas Jefferson assured the an order of nuns who served a mostly non-Catholic population by running a hospital, an orphanage, and schools that the principles of the Constitution were a “sure guarantee” that their ministry would be free “to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority. Such was the law in the 19th century and such was the law through the 20th century, and into the 21st century until the Obama Administration announced that Catholic institutions would have to operate as Washington bureaucrats dictated rather than in according with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The bishops have announced plans to pursue both "legislative and judicial efforts to restore respect for religious freedom in the nation." I am please to say that Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown supports legislation to restore the religious liberty we had for 224 years until August 2011. His Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren, says that makes Senator Brown "extreme." The voters can settle that one in November.

In the meantime, the bishops have suggested that the fourteen days from June 21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to July 4, Independence Day, be dedicated as a “fortnight for freedom” and have urged Catholic institutions to work "in cooperation with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths, and indeed, all who wish to defend our most cherished freedom."

Repugnant to the Constitution and Void

POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica

Repugnant to the Constitution and Void

by David Trumbull -- March 30, 2012

Last Friday, March 23rd, over 50,000 concerned citizens gathered at public rallies in over 100 American cities to Stand Up For Religious Freedom. The Boston rally was well attended, in spite of change of location to the Boston Common less than 48 hours prior to the rally and an erroneous rumor that it was being cancelled entirely.

For me the highlight of the Boston rally was C.J. Doyle, Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts (www.catholicactionleague.org), addressing the substantial arguments against the constitutionality of the Obama Administration's Department of Health and Human Services mandate that religiously affiliated hospitals and other institutions purchase products and services they find morally impermissible.

Mr. Doyle spoke of an earlier state attack on freedom of religion and how the United States Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that such attacks against Church-related institutions were "repugnant to the Constitution and void."

In 1922 the Ku Klux Klan in the state of Oregon pushed for passage, by popular initiative, of a law to ban private schools and to require all children to attend state schools. When Republican governor Benjamin W. Olcott issued a 1922 executive proclamation condemning the Klan that violent organization put its support behind the election of a new governor, Democrat Walter M. Pierce, who supported the anti-Catholic school ballot initiative.

The Klan celebrated two victories in the November 1922 elections in Oregon, the anti-Catholic bigot, Democrat Pierce, defeated Republican Olcott for governor, and the voters enacted the anti-Catholic school law.

The Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary sued to stop enforcement of the law and the case went, in 1925, to the U.S. Supreme Court where the law was held unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court declared:

"The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

This past week the court heard arguments regarding the unconstitutional Obama health care law. Undoubtedly it, too, will be struck down in whole or in part.

President Obama's HHS Mandate Sparks Nationwide Demonstrations

Res Publica
President Obama's HHS Mandate Sparks Nationwide Demonstrations
by David Trumbull
March 16, 2012

The controversy over President Obama's HHS Mandate is now pouring out onto the streets. On March 23, concerned citizens in over 100 cities will gather at federal buildings for a rally with the theme "Stand Up for Religious Freedom—Stop the HHS Mandate!"

The rallies are scheduled from noon to 3:00 p.m. and in Boston will be at the J.F.K Federal Building in Government Center. Rallies will also be held in New Hampshire, at the federal building in Concord, and in Rhode Island, at the federal district court in Providence.

Thousands of Americans of all faiths are expected to participate in these rallies to oppose the new mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that requires all employers provide free contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans. Religious leaders and other public figures will speak out against the HHS Mandate.

The HHS provided a "religious exemption" so narrow that it would exclude Catholic hospitals, universities and charities, forcing these institutions to act in direct opposition to Catholic teaching through the health care plans they provide.

The Catholic bishops are supported by organizations representing the Jewish faith, as well as Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox Christian bodies, in opposing this Obama Administration violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. In addition, seven states -- Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas -- are suing the Obama Administration to stop this violation of basic human rights.

"With the HHS Mandate, the Obama administration has presumed upon itself the authority to decide what counts as a religious institution in this country," said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League. "This is an unprecedented attack on the free exercise of religious faith protected by the First Amendment."

"The Obama mandate is a complete affront to religious liberty," said Monica Miller, director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society. "Persons of faith or no faith at all should be alarmed at Obama's riding rough-shod over the conscience of American citizens. We are calling on all people of good will to rise up and vigorously oppose this ruling."

More information is available at the website http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/. There you will find information in rallies in other cities

On Friday, March 23rd, join Liberty activists of all faiths - and no faith - as we demonstrate FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and against the HHS contraception mandate.

Whose Ox Is Being Gored

POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
Whose Ox Is Being Gored
by David Trumbull -- March 9, 2012

"The numerous academies in New England have been established substantially in the same manner. They hold their property by the same tenure, and no other. Nor has Harvard College any surer title than Dartmouth College. It may to-day have more friends; but to-morrow it may have more enemies. Its legal rights are the same... They are founded by private persons, and on private property. The public cannot be charitable in these institutions. It is not the money of the public, but of private persons, which is dispensed. It may be public, that is general, in its uses and advantages; and the State may very laudably add contributions of its own to the funds; but it is still private in the tenure of the property, and in the right of administering the funds."

The quotation above is from Daniel Webster's 1818 argument before the United States Supreme Court in the Dartmouth College case. At issue was whether the government, in this case the State of New Hampshire, could tell a private corporation, Dartmouth College, what to do. I thought of this celebrated case recently when I read that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops plans to pursue both "legislative and judicial efforts to restore respect for religious freedom in the nation."

The points-at-law raised successfully by Webster in the Dartmouth College case -- the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws and the inviolability of contract -- differ from the First Amendment freedom of religion and speech arguments likely to be used in the bishops' brief, however, the parallel in the implication of the cases is forceful.

The Obama Administration demands that Catholic institutions bend to the will of the state and violate their consciences by either (1) paying for what they find morally impermissible or (2) abandon corporal works of mercy such as hospitals. As they can do neither 1 nor 2 and remain Catholic, Obama is, in essence, attacking the very existence of the Catholic Church in America. It is much as when the legislature of New Hampshire acted to dissolve Dartmouth College and reconstitute it along lines more conformable to the state's notions for the organization of a college.

Honest liberals of all religions or no religion who cherish their liberties should be as concerned as Catholics now are over the Obama Administration's threat to religious liberty. As I wrote here two weeks ago, if Obama can do this, then any President, liberal or conservative can force anyone to do anything he wants. To paraphrase Webster, other institutions (perhaps some dear to liberals now applauding the Administration's health care ruling) may to-day be stronger and have more friends than the Catholic Church, to-morrow they may have more enemies. To-day it is the bishops' ox. If this state over-reach into the private realm is successful, who knows whose ox will be next.

Sen. Brown Calls For Protection Of Religious Liberty

Res Publica
Sen. Brown Calls For Protection Of Religious Liberty
by David Trumbull -- February 24, 2012

U.S. Senator Scott Brown (Republican, Massachusetts) has issued the following statement on the Department of Health and Human Services mandate under the 2010 health care law that religious organizations either participate in health care plans that violate their religious beliefs or face punitive fines:

"One of our most cherished liberties is freedom of religion. Like Ted Kennedy before me, I support a conscience exemption for religious organizations in health care. No one should be forced by government to violate the teachings of their faith. I encourage President Obama to re-examine his health care law and make sure no one is being forced to do something that is contrary to their religious beliefs."

Recently The Pilot, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston reported that Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York said that President Barack Obama's revision to the contraceptive mandate in the health reform law did nothing to change the U.S. bishops' opposition to what they regard as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.

The Obama Administration has posted a set of false and misleading claims that the President has compromised with the Catholic Church. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has responded, pointing out that --

• The original rule that violated our religious liberty so severely has not been changed, but finalized.
  
• HHS has promised some kind of “accommodation,” but only after the election.
  
• The promised “accommodation”—even at its best—would still force our institutions to violate their beliefs.
  
• There is no exemption for objecting insurers, secular employers, for-profit religious employers, or individuals.

Speaking of the Obama Administration's attack on the Catholic Church, Cardinal Dolan said: "Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights."

Cardinal Dolan also said that some very prominent attorneys, some of them non-Catholic and even nonreligious, had already volunteered to represent the bishops. This is the central issue. If Obama can force Catholic hospitals to pay for something they believe to be morally impermissible, then any President, liberal or conservative can force anyone to do anything he wants. Liberals who think this through should be as afraid of the precedent as are conservatives.

Now it sits with Congress and the Courts to thwart the President's power grab. Will they act to protect freedom of religion in America? Or will our children and grandchildren see come to pass the prediction of Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago? Cardinal George, in 2010, said: “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”

Obama to Catholics, "To Hell with You"

POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
Obama to Catholics, "To Hell with You"
by David Trumbull
February 10, 2012

The harsh words that head this column paraphrase the words of the Bishop of Pittsburgh, David Zubik. The subject was the determination of the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals to pay for abortions, something that they cannot do and remain Catholic.

Bishop Zubik wrote: "It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, 'To Hell with you!'"

Bishop Slattery of Tulsa wrote: "As your bishop, I want to make it clear that I consider this mandate unconstitutional, unjust and evil.

"Because this mandate is unconstitutional, we will refuse to comply with it.

"This mandate is evil, because not only does it require that all Catholics cooperate in sin by providing for and paying for coverage for gravely immoral actions which have as their final end the destruction of human life, but also by requiring that Catholics who do not cooperate in this should be punished. Were we to comply with this law, we would offend God and imperil our souls. We will not comply.

"This mandate is unjust because it imposes a secular definition of religious freedom that makes it a crime to practice our faith in the public square... In this matter, President Obama’s administration has overstepped its authority. This is what Pope Leo XIII cautioned against when he wrote over a hundred years ago: 'if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, then those rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice. Nor can their authority be valid, since authority without justice is null.' From the founding of our nation, we Catholic have always obeyed the laws. But this law, we cannot obey."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said:

"The Catholic Church defends religious liberty, including freedom of conscience, for everyone. The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease."

* * *

I don't know what motivated Obama to pick a fight with the Catholic Church. Perhaps he believes it will please his liberal base which is disappointed in his failure to keep his campaign promises. Whatever the reason, he has made it clear he wants a fight with the Church. Well, then, BRING IT ON!