Are Liberals Disrupting Christianity?

Liberalism is infecting the Catholic Church leadership at an alarming rate which further proves the goal of the Democratic party of inciting a “Catholic Spring.”  At a recent conference, Bishop Robert McElroy of the San Diego Diocese, stated, “President Trump was the candidate of disruption. He was the disrupter, he said. Well now, we must all become disrupters. We must disrupt those who would seek to send troops into our streets to deport the undocumented, to rip mothers and fathers from their families. We must disrupt those who portray refugees as enemies rather than our brothers and sisters in terrible need. We must disrupt those who train us to see Muslim men and women and children as sources of fear rather than as children of God. We must disrupt those who seek to rob our medical care, especially from the poor. We must disrupt those who would take even food stamps and nutrition assistance from the mouths of children.”

 

Bishop McElroy’s statements reflect liberalism at its core; inciting unnecessary and unwarranted fear, labeling conservatives (including faithful Catholics) as uncaring racists, calling for disruption of the current administration, encouraging lawlessness and ignoring national security.  His statement is not only inflammatory but also further attempts to delegitimize the Presidency and voice of the people. 

 

As Christians, we are called to care for those less fortunate, but not at the expense of the hardworking American taxpayers who are supporting a system of handouts rather than hand-ups.  Welfare and food stamps are temporary aides to citizens in need, not a way of life – which it has become.  The incentive to find work, even when jobs are available has diminished.  The welfare and food stamp programs were not designed to support millions of illegal immigrants that work under the table and fraudulently receive assistance at the same time. 

 

As Christians, we are called to help the oppressed, but not at the expense of National Security and the security of our families.  Contrary to liberalist arguments, President Trump is doing what he swore to do…. protect the citizens of the United States.  It has nothing to do with “Muslim Hating,” but rather the country from which refugees are coming  - the countries identified by this and the prior administration of having terrorist ties -  the countries that tout hatred of Americans and our way of life. 

 

Contrary to what Bishop McElroy claims (as do other liberals), President Trump is not out to destroy families.  He has publicly stated his concern, consideration, and compassion for the children, but of course, those comments were not reported by the liberal media. He is rounding up illegal immigrants and deporting those who have criminal records and considered a threat. He is not taking food away from the mouths of the hungry. Instead, he is creating jobs so people can feed their families rather than rely on public assistance, and at the same time identifying the fraud and abuse that is rampant.  He is not taking away medical care, but revamping the travesty called Obamacare that failed in all its promises.  It’s not affordable, many lost their trusted physicians, and those who can’t afford the increasingly rising premiums are penalized by the IRS for not buying it. 

 

What Bishop McElroy should be disrupting is the lack of common sense within the Democratic party as it pertains to immigration.  We are a nation of immigrants that came here to for a better, secure life – willing to work and defend our Country and its flag – not take advantage of overwhelmed social programs, disrespect our laws and refuse to learn our language and assimilate.  He should be disrupting the public acceptance of moral decline.  If he is concerned about families being torn apart, he should be disrupting babies being torn from the womb, piece by piece.  Abortion is the greatest disrupter of families.  He should be disrupting those who are suing and forcing Catholics and other Christians to abandon their beliefs by accepting and performing actions or services contrary to their faith.  He should be disrupting substandard care for United States Veterans, the unlivable salaries of the military, and lack of concern for the elderly barely able to survive on Social Security. 

 

As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:

2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."

2246 It is a part of the Church's mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

 

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens. 

To Bishop McElroy and other left-leaning church leaders:  Your words are alienating the faithful ...  Those who love God and country – those who want to keep our families and country safe - those who want to mend the tattered moral fabric of our nation - those who fight for the rights of the unborn, disabled and elderly - those who want America to be strong and prosperous. 

Don’t be the pawns in the call for a “Catholic Spring” or demise of Christianity as a whole.   

The Sin of Security?

President Trump’s executive order banning entry into the United States from citizens of several countries that have established ties to terrorism has unleashed undue hysteria by the left.  It's difficult to understand why, because those countries in question were originally identified by the Obama administration.  The ban is not unconstitutional by any means, and the judge in Seattle had no right to interfere with the executive order, especially with an opinion based on liberal ideals, not the U.S. Constitution.  The same applies to the Ninth "Circus" Court … more liberalism and no constitutionalism.   

However, the topic of this post is not the constitutionality of the ban or subsequent leftist court cases.  Let's discuss the moral side of this issue from the Catholic standpoint. 

There have been several Church leaders blasting the Trump administration over the ban, stating it does not follow Christian beliefs.  Now, when these opinions came out, those of us who are devout Catholics and agree with the ban found ourselves questioning whether we are living in a state of sin.  It’s not that we don’t care about refugees, we do, but we also care about our families and national security.     

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens. 

According to Section 2241 – Paragraph 1:  If our nation is prosperous and if we are able to assist, we should, but are we prosperous and is the ability available?  Look at our deficit - that is not a sign of prosperity ... And one would think that since our social programs are already financially burdened by record numbers of recipients, including illegal immigrants, allowing refugees into our country would put them into those same social programs until (or if) employment is found. The only way to increase funds in social programs would be to increase taxes, which puts the burden on us … the taxpayers and it is a known fact non-citizens have taken many jobs away from citizens because they are willing to accept lower pay (or get paid under the table).        

The same applies to Section 2241 – Paragraph 2:  One would think President Trump is acting for the sake of the common good for which he is responsible.  If we cannot properly vet the refugees coming in from the countries in question, we cannot be assured they would respect the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, obey its laws, etc. 

We mean no disrespect, but it appears the Catechism is quite clear and should be interpreted with a literal, NOT liberal spin.  We understand the compassion and concern of Church leaders behind the criticism of the executive order, but that compassion and concern needs to be first afforded those of us living in the United States.  Our faith, compassion and concern should not be questioned, nor should wanting to protect our families considered a sin. We care about the refugees and appreciate the position they are in; however, we’ve also seen and experienced the devastation from terrorist attacks inside our borders.  We know the chances of more attacks are likely due to the lack of due diligence by the former administration.  In fact, both sides of the aisle have agreed the current vetting process is lacking.  Until a more thorough vetting process can be implemented, we expect this President to protect us and he swore to God he would do so.  Let him do his job.   

And, let us not forget: 

1 Timothy 5:8 – “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

 

Ezekiel 33 - …”But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.”   

Slime is Obstructing Confirmations

With the election of President Trump, our country is heading in a positive direction.  His election also provides a plethora of blog post topics thanks to the childish and divisive behavior of the Democrats.   

The complete cabinet should have been sworn in by now.  Obama’s cabinet picks sailed through but thanks to the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, and Maxine Waters,  confirmations are dragging.  These delays are unprofessional, unpatriotic, attention-seeking tirades from crybabies who still cannot believe their beloved Hillary lost.  They refuse to “man-up,” respect the election results and support the newly elected President by confirming his team along with his Supreme Court nomination.   

Of course, their followers … the leftist, zombie, mostly non-voting, unemployed koolaid drinkers are just as childish and dispicible.  Along with engaging in riots (or for the faint of heart snowflakes -  cowering in corners with sippy cups of hot chocolate), they recently attacked black Senator Tim Scott for supporting Senator Sessions as Attorney General by tweeting racial epithets.  This is tolerance?  Which party is racist?   

Delaying confirmations hurts our country.  It impedes the progress President Trump promised for all Americans.  Elizabeth Warren and her cronies aren’t doing any of this for the benefit of citizens, it’s out of spite and to boost their political bankrolls for the next election cycle.  Their lack of respect for the President and the American political process is contemptable.   They are the slime in the swamp that will hopefully be removed come reelection time. 

Liberal Democrats: A Platform of Tolerance or Terrorism?

Enough is enough.  While leftist politicos do their best to disrupt a peaceful transition of power, Kool-aid drinking followers continue their tantrums … protesting at UC Berkeley because of a scheduled appearance by conservative activist and journalist Milo Yiannopoulos.  Protest?  No, it was a riot plain and simple … property damage, threats to the life of the President of the United States and physical attacks on conservatives wanting to exercise their freedom and educate themselves.    

This is not free speech, folks.  This is not civil disobedience.  This is domestic terrorism.  All who participated in the riot should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Prosecuted not for misdemeanor property damage or assault, but for felony hate crimes.  

What is more reprehensible is the lack of public outrage from the progressive side of the Democratic party.  Outrage?  Of course not, they are not only ignoring these crimes but also encouraging them.  For crying out loud, even a former member of Obama’s administration called for a coup.  We can thank Obama and his leftist cronies for pampering and coddling rather than promoting responsibility and accountability. We can thank them for dividing our country by fear-mongering and flat out lies.   We can thank them for redefining tolerance.  Robert Green Ingersoll once said, “Tolerance is giving every other human being every right that you claim for yourself.”  Not any more, tolerance is now blessed only upon those who agree with liberal ideology. 

When Obama was elected, those not happy with the results didn’t riot.  Colleges did not cancel classes and offer safe areas, hot chocolate and play dough.  There wasn’t a despicable woman’s march that had no real “theme,” but preached tolerance while featuring celebrities spewing nothing but expletive laced hate towards our President and anyone believing differently than them.

Political correctness be damned.  If you don’t love our country enough to respect the voice of the people and be a messenger of hope, healing and true tolerance, then you don’t deserve the freedoms and benefits she provides.  Pack your bags and get out.  That goes for the cry-baby liberal members of the House and Senate as well.  You are all a disgrace and embarrassment deserving of nothing but removal from office.

BREAKING!!! The Most Vulnerable Already Banned Entry

Liberals are protesting President Trump’s recent executive order postponing entry into the United States of people from seven countries identified by the Obama administration as risks to national security.  The countries currently included in the ban do have Muslims, but other countries have a higher population and are not on the list. The ban is based on areas with known terror ties, not religion. 

 

“We the People” are once again being erroneously branded with descriptors such as heartless, un-Christian, cruel, etc., and once again Hollyweird is getting on the bandwagon, even though no one has seen them open the doors to their mansions.  (Let us not forget, Mr. George Clooney was upset a refugee camp was just outside his villa in Italy.  He should have been thrilled and allowed them to camp on his lawn, don’t you think?) 

 

President Trump is doing what he swore an oath to do – protect the citizens of this country, just as previous Presidents have done – Democrat and Republican.  The anger is coming not because of a Muslim ban reported in fictional lamestream media stories, but from the same snowflakes that are continuing their temper tantrum over President Trump’s election.  What comes next will be more hot chocolate, play dough and college students missing classes due to trauma. 

 

Do you know where the anger should be focused?  Planned Parenthood’s ban on babies - the most marginalized citizens within our own borders.  3,000 babies are ripped from the womb and callously dismembered each and every day.

Hey, libs ... you cry out BIGOTRY?  Nothing cries out bigotry more than the 14,500,000 black babies aborted since 1973.  Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) and account for approximately 36% of the abortions because Planned Parenthood strategically locates their clinics in minority neighborhoods. 

 

Instead of ranting and raving over President Trump’s temporary ban on people entering our country, remember that CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME.  It’s time to hold Planned Parenthood and all abortion mills accountable for the permanent ban they instituted on the unborn and end it's mission of death and dismemberment. 

SCIENTOLOGY: PROMOTING THE CULTURE OF DEATH

In the A&E series, “Scientology- and the Aftermath,” Claire Headley, a former member, revealed she was forced into having an abortion because she was in a division of Scientology that forbade children.  “If a woman got pregnant, she would instantly be scheduled to get an abortion.”  She explained that this was because getting pregnant while a member of the Sea Organization was tantamount to wanting to leave.  She also revealed she knew women who had “up to six” abortions.   Through her tears, she spoke of regret for acquiescing to their demands, and I can relate in some respects.

I had two abortions in my younger years.  The first one was my decision - out of fear my parents would find out, and concern my upward mobility in the federal government would stall.   A few years later I got pregnant again.  Settled into my career, I felt I could handle being a single parent and that my parents would understand.  They advised me to abort, worrying my being an unwed mother would tarnish the family’s reputation.  Fearing the loss of their love and support, I complied.  In retrospect, I know my parents would never have abandoned me if I had held my ground.  I was probably not as ready as I thought and used them to justify my actions. 

 

At the time, I didn't believe I was aborting a child, neither did my parents.  We bought in to the pro-choice rhetoric of it not being a real baby so early on – that it was just “tissue.”  Consciously, my buying into that rhetoric worked, but subconsciously the guilt and regret grew, suppressed for over two decades by promiscuity and the abuse of alcohol with devastating results: becoming suicidal and institutionalized.  My parents suffered as well, and it took until they were in their 80’s to talk about it and share their remorse, realizing the "tissue" they encouraged me to abort was not only a child, but their grandchild. 

 

The difference between my story and Claire’s is that my fears, however real they felt, were unfounded.  She faced isolation from her spouse, other family members and the group as a whole, along with forced manual labor had she not followed their demands.  She had seen it happen to other women.  During the interview, she said,  “Inside, I’m dying. It’s like, my worst fear come true.  I have three beautiful children (born after she and her husband escaped) who are my life, but it doesn’t make it any easier to deal with it.”  The other difference is that I, along with my parents, mistakenly justified the abortions by the pro-choice rhetoric … Scientology doesn’t provide any justification whatsoever.  It’s all about manipulation and control of emotionally vulnerable, frightened women. 

 

I am grateful Claire was able to escape and now able to hopefully heal from her experience. I understand the predicament she was in and can only imagine the helplessness she felt.  Scientology pushed her into a corner… she had no choice.  My heart breaks for her and for all who have been and are still being victimized.

 

AND, what about the women still behind the razor-wired confines at the Gold Base in Hemet, CA -- those who have had abortions that are suffering in silence?   If they express regret to their fellow members, they will be considered blasphemers, questioning the church leadership, thus relegated to God knows what type of punishment.  What about those who are pregnant, experiencing the consequences Claire faced? 

 

Scientology is not a church but a cult of control.  It has no concern for the emotional well-being of its followers whatsoever.  You follow the rules or else. It not only doesn’t want to save mankind as it advertises but further promotes the culture of death. 

 

For those who have left the “church,” struggling with the emotional, spiritual and physical devastation of forced abortion (women and men) – there are healing programs that provide hope and healing.  Go to www.silentnomore.com , www.priestsforlife.org or www.rachelsvineyard.org for resources or a program near you.

 

For all others reading this post, watch “Scientology – and the Aftermath,” and see for yourself.  I’m sure you will be shocked and appalled.  Then you have a choice.  You can remain silent or share the outrage.  Contact your legislators and ask for an investigation into Scientology and their reported human rights violations as well as their IRS tax-exempt status as a "church".   

Note:  The Church of Scientology disputes the claims against them and their letters to A&E are available here. 

Scientologists: Devoted or Downtrodden?

Although firmly committed to my Catholic faith, I have always been interested in understanding other belief systems.  I had heard about an off-beat religion called Scientology some time ago and picked up a few books about it.  I do not mean to be disrespectful towards any religion but the more I read, the more it appeared to be a cult, not a religion at all.  The past few years there have been several people coming out, claiming the abuses, etc., they experienced or witnessed within the church.  Their disclosures were horrifying.   Now comes the recent A&E series, “Scientology and the Aftermath.” 

In episode five, viewers are taken into the propaganda side of the so-called church along with another claim that brought me to tears.  Not only do followers have every aspect of their lives monitored and controlled, members of certain factions are forbidden to have children, and if a woman gets pregnant, she is coerced into getting an abortion or suffer dire consequences, i.e. segregation from other members, separation from her spouse and even forced into performing manual labor. After some further research, others have made the same claim.

What is wrong with this picture?  According to the Scientology website, “Scientology not only seeks to improve society through instilling a moral and ethical compass into people but also by getting them to do something positive to help others in society as a practical expression of their religious beliefs.” They also claim to be “the largest non-governmental Human Rights public information campaign on Earth, broadly promoting all 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to educate the public on everyone’s fundamental rights…”

Since when is forbidding procreation and forcing abortion moral or ethical? I wonder if the manual labor punishment used for those resisting abortion is their way to induce miscarriage? How can a religion educate the public on everyone’s fundamental rights (which includes LIFE) and refuse those rights to its followers and potential offspring?

Although the "church" disputes all claims against them, an in-depth investigation for potential human rights violations is called for ... don't you think?