Grover Norquist is Over-stating the Anti-Catholic Bias at Harvard

Grover Norquist told the Daily Caller that President Barack Obama's HHS regs reflect the anti-Catholic bias to which Obama would have been exposed at the Harvard Law School.

Norquist was graduated from Harvard College and the Harvard Business School. “He went to Harvard, I went to Harvard, I know the level of anti-Catholic animosity you run into from people at Harvard,” said Norquist. “It usually doesn’t translate into government policy, and with Obama it does.”

I beg to differ. Norquist is five years older than the president and I, so he attended Harvard that much earlier. Five years is not a generation, however, so I find it hard to believe that Norquist's Harvard experience was that different from mine or from Obama's.

I cannot say I ever encountered any anti-Catholic sentiment at Harvard. To the contrary, the Catholic student community there was quite vibrant, so much so that in those early years after graduation, I donated to the Catholic Student Center rather than to the law school.

And since Norquist hones in on the law school, I must likewise point out that the Harvard Law School Catholic community was strong enough that we started having our own Sunday night masses at the law school (Pound Hall), so we wouldn't have to walk three blocks in the cold.  In fact, we had an ordained priest in the class ahead, who acted as our own unofficial law school priest. I also recall one student who attended the Sunday law school mass who decided to stay after graduation and attend Harvard Divinity School. He would have moved on if the bias was as Grover portrays.

It's too bad that Grover's experience was so different.  Based on my own not that many years after him, I tend to think he was exaggerating.

Obama's policy as manifested in the HHS regulations, coercing people to violate their conscience, is abhorrent. But it cannot be blamed on Harvard.

Beshear Ad Gets Disclaimer

Gov. Steve Beshear's radio spot on the Louisville Christian radio station, WJIE, now comes with a disclaimer from the station. Immediately preceding the ad, an announcer states that the following ad "does not necessarily reflect the views" of WJIE.

I have listened to this station for years and do not recall anything similar. Then again, it is not a station on which Democrats typically advertise.

WJIE is financed in large part from listener contributions. It's a socially conservative station that targets a socially conservative audience: the dreaded "religious right."

Apparently enough members in that audience, and perhaps some of the WJIE staff, did not appreciate Kentucky First Lady Jane Beshear touting her husbands religious bona fides as he runs for reelection.

Obama Claims That Bitter Israelis Cling To His Middle Name

How does one explain when others don't agree with your policies? Blame it on prejudice and ignorance, says President Obama. His reason for why Israelis are concerned about him? "Some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion," he said in an interview with an Israeli television station on Wednesday. That line is as much insulting to Israelis as was Obama's infamous line during the 2008 campaign with regard to voters in middle America who didn't support him: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustration."
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Can Rand Paul Connect With People of Faith?

Joe Arnold has linked up an interesting post from a Bill Johnson supporter who makes the case that Dr. Rand Paul's libertarian views must be rejected by Christian voters.

In fairness to Paul, the post neglects to note that unlike many libertarians, Paul opposes abortion.

Arnold's take is that the talk about Paul hiring Mike Saltsman (formerly of the Huckabee campaign) was intended to reach fundamentalist Christians.

Christians, of course, are not the only "values voters." A comment from a Paul supporter to this blog raises the question of whether Paul will be able to appeal to Jewish voters. "Nobody" writes:

If you want to see the reality of what is truly happening, go open your eyes and follow theAIPAC and the ADL which both organizations have been instrumental in controlling our media and information we receive to protect Israel as they massacre and admit to brutalizing millions of people in gestapo-like tactics that once were used against them by Hitler.

[AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby; ADL is the Anti-Defamation League, dedicated to fighting defamation of Jews.]

To be sure, a candidate cannot be held accountable for the views of follower -- though if the anti-Semitism of the commenter called "Nobody" is more than just a fluke, then Paul must disavow it.

What may give Jewish voters more pause about Paul is the sincerity and depth of his support of Israel. When I asked the campaign last Fall about U.S. support of Israel, I was told "Israel is a friend of America, he [Paul] supports all allies with the United States." It is hard to know if the shallowness of that response reflects a lack of enthusiasm or a lack of reflection. It is not exactly a pledge to go to the mat for Israel. That may appeal to some Paul supporters, but may make it difficult to reach out to voters who care about Israel -- that includes Christian as well as Jewish voters.

The dilemma for Paul is that if he shows too much enthusiasm for supporting Israel, he will alienate some of the libertarian voters -- like "Nobody"-- who see Jewish conspiracies everywhere. If Paul does not show enough supporters for Israel, he risks alienating not only Jewish and Christian voters but anyone who recognizes that Israel is one of our closest allies, an important source of intelligence and the only democracy in the region.

For Paul, the issue of support for Israel dovetails into the issue of how to keep America safe in the age of terrorism without losing our civil liberties.

Trey Grayson, in contrast, has visited Israel twice and has written about it extensively. In fact, Grayson traveled with AIPAC. He is unequivocal about his support for Israel. Unlike Paul, Treyson does not have to finesse the issue.

Did Reagan Save Gorbachev's Soul?

The Wall Street Journal has a piece that documents President Ronald Reagan's secret attempts to proselytize former Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

At a 1988 summit in the former U.S.S.R., Reagan brought up the human rights issue of freedom of religion. The converstation then became more personal.

He told Gorbachev that what he was about to say would be considered entirely secret. According to the notetakers, Reagan told Gorbachev that "if word got out that this was even being discussed, the President would deny he had said anything about it." To emphasize this point, Reagan said again a few minutes later that "if there was anyone in the room who said he had given such advice [to Gorbachev about religion], he would say that person was lying, that he had never said it."

. . .

The president said he had a letter from the widow of a young World War II soldier. He was lying in a shell hole at midnight, awaiting an order to attack. He had never been a believer, because he had been told God did not exist. But as he looked up at the stars he voiced a prayer hoping that, if he died in battle, God would accept him. That piece of paper was found on the body of a young Russian soldier who was killed in that battle.

Gorbachev tried to switch the subject. Perhaps the United States and the Soviet Union might open the way for greater cooperation in space, he told the president. But the president wasn't to be diverted. According to the transcript, Reagan told Gorbachev that space was in the direction of heaven, but not as close to heaven as some other things that they had been discussing.

As the meeting ended, Reagan became even more direct and personal. He noted that his own son Ron did not believe in God either. "The President concluded that there was one thing he had long yearned to do for his atheist son. He wanted to serve his son the perfect gourmet dinner, to have him enjoy the meal, and then to ask him if he believed there was a cook."

A member of the clergy told me a few years ago that Gorbachev was a Christian, a fact Gorbachev revealed at considerable personal peril. I don't know the date of that profession (and will try to find out).

We don't know if when Reagan took the Great Commission to Russia, he was preaching to the choir, so to speak; Reagan had long suspected that Gorbachev believed in Christ. If so, how much comfort that fellowship must have brought Gorbachev, who for all his vast power could not worship freely.

Even more remarkable, Reagan may have helped bring Gorbachev to Christ. Winning the Cold War, restoring American supremacy after the disastrous Carter administration, saving our economy -- Reagan could take credit for all these feats. But none of these accomplishments compares to the value of one man's soul.

Federalist Society & Religious Liberty

The Federalist Society is holding a seminar Friday, March 14 at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. It's called "The Things That Are Not Caesar's: Religious Organizations as a Check on the Authoritarian Pretensions of the State." Rsvp here.

Thankfully, the excellent panel does not include the Archbishop of Canterbury. This seminar would be particularly helpful to those readers interested in intra-church disputes and the ensuing litigation over church property.

Yarmuth and the Ghost of Christmas "Present"

Congressman John Yarmuth understands that it's important to keep on good terms with the "nutroots" -- those far left blogs like Page One, where Andrew Horne announced his candidacy today.

So when Page One castigated Congressman Geoff Davis for co-sponsoring a Congressional Resolution "recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith," Yarmuth took note.

Congressional Resolution 847 provides in pertinent part:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

That doesn't sound particularly controversial. Yet Yarmuth refused to vote for it. Nor did he have the courage to oppose it. Instead, he voted "present." Thankfully, the rest of the Kentucky delegation got it right and voted "aye."

Yarmuth's refusal to support the Christmas resolution is particularly troubling in light of some of his other votes.

In early October, Yarmuth voted "aye" for a resolution in favor of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting. A few weeks later, Yarmuth voted in favor of recognizing the "religious and historical significance of Diwali." (Diwali, for the uninitiated, is a Indian and Nepalese holiday associated with the religions of Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism.)

Page One complained that the resolution "recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith" is akin to a "resolution supporting our favorite puppies and rainbows."

Here's news for Yarmuth and Page One. Christians are being persecuted in China, India the Mid-East and Africa, among other places. Some Christians are subject to "forced conversions." Others are just murdered.

For Page One to compare their martyrdom to "puppies and rainbows" trivializes the violation of human rights -- a cause the left likes well enough when it's applied to terrorist detainees.

Page One rationalized its opposition to the Christmas resolution: "can you even imagine what would happen if someone tried to pass a resolution recognizing the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world?"

The thing is, we don't have to imagine. Nor need we imagine Yarumuth's voting record in response: Ramadan, "aye." Diwali, "aye." Christmas, "present."

Blessed Thanksgiving

Political correctness has undercut the meaning of Thanksgiving for some small children and historically-challenged adults. As a result, there is some confusion about to whom the Pilgrims gave thanks that First Thanksgiving.

Though the Pilgrims invited the Indians (or Native Americans, if you prefer) to their feast, in gratitude for the Indians' kindness, the point of the feast was to worship and thank the Lord -- not the Indians.

George Washington understood that distinction and amplified it in his Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789. Our first president reminded us that "it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor."

America's exceptionalism is a direct blessing that flows from the faith of Washington and many of our other Founders.

In addition to gutting the reason for our most sacred holidays, political correctness also teaches us that we should dismiss the Founding Fathers as a bunch of "dead white guys." And any time a public official refers to the Lord, we are warned that the "religious right" stands ready to impose a theocracy.

Washington's Proclamation reminds us, however, that we are a country founded upon Judeo-Christian values. The Pilgrims sought freedom of religion -- not freedom from religion.

Our first president's directive speaks to us as forcefully today as it did to our new country in 1789: we are to give thanks to the "great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be."