In Defense of the Two-State Solution

by Justin Soutar

As a freelance writer who has been following the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a Catholic perspective for twenty years, it’s heartbreaking to watch what is now happening in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories, especially Gaza, as the dangerous radical Zionist ideology unleashes its destructive power against hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and the historic Christian community in the Holy Land continues to dwindle toward extinction. No less disturbing is the hard-heartedness of well-intentioned American conservative politicians, TV and radio commentators, magazine editors, and citizens who, blinded by their wholehearted support for Israel, cannot see the naked evil of radical Zionism or the havoc it is wreaking in the Holy Land and the surrounding Middle East.

Radical Zionism is the fundamental root cause of the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Without the existence and activity of this century-old ideology and movement, no such conflict would have arisen and persisted so stubbornly. The radical Zionists’ trademark crime of seizing Palestinian property outside Israel’s internationally recognized borders, evicting or killing its owners and tenants, and handing it over to illegal European Jewish settlers has instigated and fueled the conflict while provoking occasional wars between Israel and surrounding Arab nations as well as radical “Islamic” terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians by a handful of Palestinians. In this vicious circle of injustice perpetuated by Israeli and Palestinian extremists, radical Zionists bear greater responsibility, as they initiated the cycle of violence and consistently kill and displace far more innocent people than the radical “Muslims” do.

The radical Zionist ideology and movement were founded by a handful of non-religious European Jewish intellectuals who settled illegally in British-occupied Palestine in the early 1900s, often forcing native Palestinians off their ancestral lands in the process. An offshoot of the mainstream (that is, peaceful and legitimate) Zionist movement, which led to the creation of the modern nation of Israel in 1948 and has generally dominated its politics since then, radical Zionism has much in common with the better-known twentieth-century ideologies of Nazism and Communism: it is fundamentally atheistic, secularist, utopian, racist, violent, and genocidal. Its ambitious goal is to expand Israel’s territory until it includes all of the land that was part of the ancient biblical Kingdom of Israel, which stretched from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in present-day Iraq, and to create therein an earthly paradise reserved exclusively for European Jews. The radical Zionist ideologues have used, are now using, and will continue to use any and all means necessary to achieve this goal of restoring the “Eretz Yisrael” (“Greater Israel”), including anti-Palestinian propaganda and economic warfare; the Israeli electoral process; mass forced displacement of Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews; illegal immigration and settlement of Palestinian land; bribery; intimidation; terrorism; arbitrary arrest and detention; military invasion, occupation, and annexation; and mass murder.

In their blissful ignorance of radical Zionism, American conservative commentators cite radical “Islam” as the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East. From the perspective of the radical Zionists, this common misconception conveniently deflects public attention from the elephant in the room. Radical Zionism is the more dangerous of the two ideologies because its followers are more widespread, more professional, better organized and trained, better funded, more secretive, more determined, and more violent. Its adherents in Israel, the U.S. and Europe range from headline-grabbing settler-terrorists to behind-the-scenes intelligence operatives to politicians in business suits. Their visibility, activities, and locations may differ, but they are united in a single purpose: to make the dream of the Greater Israel a reality. The radical Zionist movement of the twenty-first century wields an international terrorist organization of greater reach, destruction, and effectiveness than any radical “Muslim” terrorist network, and it is operating virtually unchecked.

The success and influence of the radical Zionist settler movement has waxed and waned through the years depending on various political, diplomatic, social, cultural, and economic factors. Concomitantly, the methods used to illegally acquire Palestinian land parcels and the number of illegal settlements have fluctuated significantly over time. For much of its existence, the movement was limited to small and scattered groups of European Jewish illegal immigrants living permanently in Palestinian territory with the knowledge, if not always the approval or permission, of the Zionist council or the Israeli government. Israeli leaders unsympathetic to radical Zionism have attempted to halt illegal settlement construction altogether, which allowed the peace process to move forward. On the other hand, during those occasional periods when the radical Zionists managed to gain control of the Israeli government and military, illegal settlement construction boomed, provoking further violent conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

We are in such an unfortunate period now. Following the murder of more than 1,000 Israeli civilians by terrorists from the violent wing of Hamas in October 2023, radical Zionists cunningly played on Israeli citizens’ fears of additional attacks to seize full control of the Israeli government and armed forces. The recent pattern of official Israeli statements and actions clearly indicates the current government’s aggressive and unconditional support for the radical Zionist movement and betrays its genocidal intentions. The current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a lifelong radical Zionist who committed terrorist attacks against Palestinian civilians in his youth. His regime is dramatically accelerating the process of establishing the Greater Israel through forced displacement and slaughter of the Palestinian people. The killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and the expulsion of one million more from Gaza is just the tip of the iceberg. Building the Greater Israel will require the unilateral annexation of all Palestinian territory and, eventually, parts of nearby Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt; the obliteration of priceless Jewish, Christian, and Muslim holy sites; the massacre of several million innocent Palestinian and other Arab civilians; and the forced displacement of many millions more Arabs into nearby countries and areas. In other words, genocide, a regional war, cultural destruction, and a massive refugee crisis are in the offing, to say nothing of the environmental and economic devastation the war will inevitably cause. These regional hostilities will expand into a world war if the international community intervenes decisively to stop the radical Zionists from founding the Greater Israel, just as it did eighty-plus years ago to prevent the Nazis from establishing the Third Reich.

In the violent conflict of the last two years (not a “war,” properly speaking, as wars are fought by nation-states, such as Russia and Ukraine) between “Islamic” terrorists from the radical wing of Hamas and the radical Zionist-controlled Israeli military, approximately 3,000 innocent Israelis and 65,000 innocent Palestinians have been killed. It is clear from the outrageously disproportionate nature of the casualties—more than twenty Palestinians for every Israeli—which ideology is bloodier, yet American conservative commentators do not sound the alarm about the dangers of radical Zionism, dismissing factual reports of Palestinian genocide by Israel out of hand, blaming radical “Muslim” terrorists for the Palestinian refugee crisis, and denouncing criticism of Israeli policies as “anti-Semitic”. Whenever an Israeli civilian is killed, these commentators speak and write all about it; but when a Palestinian civilian is killed by violence or starvation, they remain silent or mention it in passing, seeming not to notice or care. Are Israelis and Palestinians not both children of God? Has the Creator not equally endowed them with inalienable rights?

During the twentieth century, Turkey slaughtered its Armenians, Germany killed its Jews, and Pakistan butchered its East Bengalis, to mention just a few modern examples of ethnic cleansing. Yet in most cases, the genocidal tyrants were defeated, often at the cost of a bloody war, and the victim peoples survived to realize their dream of self-determination. In the case of the East Bengalis, the independent nation of Bangladesh came to birth on India’s east-central border. The good of natural law ultimately triumphed over the evil of ideology. Taking a lesson from history, this author predicts that the Palestinian people will survive the current genocide and return to their homeland to establish the independent nation that is rightfully theirs.

In 1948, after careful and extensive research, the recently founded United Nations Organization, led by the United States, approved the establishment of the modern nation of Israel with specific borders and with the understanding that within ten to twenty years, a modern nation of Palestine would be established alongside it. Unfortunately, due to the persistent and outsized influence of the radical Zionist ideology, modern Israel has always illegitimately claimed and occupied various portions of territory beyond its internationally recognized borderlines, and the birth of the Palestinian nation has been delayed indefinitely. Meanwhile, demographic shifts during the past eight decades have only strengthened the Palestinian position. The number of Palestinians during this time has grown rapidly, leading to a high population density in the Palestinian Territories, while the number of Israelis has increased quite modestly by comparison. So if anything, the borderlines drawn by the UN in 1948 are considerably more generous to Israel than they were almost eighty years ago.

It has been the position of the Holy See for decades, which this author shares, that the long-proposed two-state solution, with two independent nations of Israel and Palestine existing side by side within internationally recognized borders and the historic Old City of Jerusalem in a special international zone, is the only way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bring real and lasting peace to the Middle East. There can be no peace without justice, and there will be no justice for the Palestinian people until the radical Zionist ideology and movement are defeated. Let us pray daily for the conversion of the radical Zionists and of those well-intentioned commentators whose ignorance and silence allow the evil of radical Zionism to grow more powerful with each passing day.

Copyright © 2025 Justin D. Soutar.

The Natural Law Basis for Dobbs and Eliminating Legalized Abortion

by Justin Soutar

Like many other Americans of good will, during the past ten days I've been offering prayers of thanksgiving for the historic Supreme Court decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned the Court's terrible 1973 ruling in Roe vs. Wade. At the same time, I've been offering prayers of petition for the continued growth and spread of a culture of respect for life throughout our land.

The Dobbs decision is a credit to the fine legal minds and devout Catholicism of Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Writing for the majority, Alito is absolutely correct that the reasoning underpinning Roe was egregiously flawed, and that there is no "right to abortion" in the U.S. Constitution. These five justices performed their sworn duty before God to the American people by strictly interpreting the Constitution according to its original text, meaning, and intent with regard to abortion law. That is exactly what all Supreme Court justices are supposed to do in every legal case, regardless of the issue. They are not supposed to "legislate from the bench," twisting the Constitution's original meaning to impose a contemporary ideological viewpoint on the entire nation, as they did in Roe and have unfortunately done many times since then on other important issues.

So what does Catholicism have to do with the majority's ruling in Dobbs? Two things. First, the Catholic Church teaches that there is no conflict between faith and reason, properly understood and applied, because both come from God and are sources of objective truth. When taken seriously in its totality, when believed and practiced as intended, Catholicism not only encourages faith in God (religion) and love of God and neighbor (morality), but also good critical thinking, coherent logical reasoning, and sound judgment. This is why the Catholic Church founded the modern university system in Europe in the High Middle Ages, and it is a major reason why these five justices earned great legal reputations and were appointed to the highest court in the United States.

Secondly, as Catholic League president Bill Donohue pointed out in his excellent book Why Catholicism Matters (2012), the foundation of inalienable human rights originating from the Creator on which our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were built was given to the world by the Catholic Church. While some of her members have notoriously violated her teachings in these areas, the Church has steadfastly maintained the sacredness of human life and the immorality of abortion since ancient times and has developed her doctrine on ordered liberty in the course of centuries. Our nation's Founders inherited the timeless natural law principle of inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness primarily from Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Robert Bellarmine, and they explicitly constructed a new nation on this principle written by the Creator into the fabric of human nature.

The idea of objective and universal moral truths of divine origin existing outside of ourselves and to which we must humbly submit is anathema to the morally relativistic and radically secularist thinking that has poisoned our society with a hedonistic "culture of death" in recent years. As a result of Roe vs. Wade, during the past fifty years, more than sixty million innocent unborn children (potential citizens) of the United States have been brutally denied the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that were theoretically guaranteed to them by the Constitution for the sake of convenience. Simultaneously, the number of violent crimes against born human beings in this country has increased dramatically, and several states have legalized euthanasia. This should come as no surprise. Saint Teresa of Calcutta declared truthfully that abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace because if a woman can kill her unborn child, there is nothing to stop anyone else from killing whomever they wish to kill.

But the reality of inalienable human rights exists in all times and places, whether it is fully acknowledged and respected or not. The grave evil of African-American slavery was both legal and common throughout much of the United States for more than eighty years, and the alleged "right" to own slaves was even upheld for a time by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott vs. Sanford. Someday, the citizens of this country will rightly look back with utter horror at the Roe vs. Wade regime, viewing abortion the same way we view slavery today: How could this civilized nation founded on the principle of "liberty and justice for all" have tolerated such a grave injustice against so many millions of her own people for so many years?

I was disappointed but not surprised that Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the pro-Roe minority in the Dobbs case. Appointed to the High Court by President George W. Bush in 2005, Roberts was a faithful Catholic with apparently stellar conservative credentials. Just seven years later in 2012, however, Roberts was the deciding vote upholding the Affordable Care Act in United States vs. ObamaCare. He is an example of the unfortunate trend among many justices and judges in the United States in recent decades pointed out by Robert Bork in Slouching Towards Gomorrah (1996): when conservative lawyers are placed in U.S. courts, they often become less conservative.

The Supreme Court was right to return the issue of abortion to us, the people and our elected representatives. Unfortunately, while many states will now vote to restrict abortion or to outlaw it altogether, some will keep it legal with few if any restrictions. The monumental challenge now facing the pro-life movement in the United States is to sufficiently educate and mobilize the public and elected representatives to eradicate the evil of legalized abortion from all fifty states, either state by state or through Congressional legislation. President Ronald Reagan foresaw the latter method in his famous "Evil Empire" speech of 1983, declaring, "Human life legislation ending this tragedy [abortion on demand] will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must not rest until it does."." 

If the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mean anything, the inalienable right to life of American unborn children cannot be protected in some states and left unprotected in others per the differing whims of majority vote, court ruling, state law, or executive order. As a matter of basic justice, it must be legally guaranteed throughout the nation. Given the controversial nature of the issue, this won't happen without a fight. As we fought a Civil War for the just cause of eliminating legalized slavery, we may well have to fight another for the just cause of eliminating legalized abortion. Our national transformation from a culture of death to a culture of life will not happen overnight, and prayer and fasting will play a critical role in its success. The closing lyrics of our national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner," come to mind:

O thus be it ever, when free men shall stand 

Between their loved homes and the war's desolation.  

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n-rescued land 

Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Copyright © 2022 Justin D. Soutar. All right reserved.

Quote of the Day

“Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.”

--Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929--1968)

Quote of the Day

"Genuine human rights are inalienable and must be universally respected and advanced. In consequence, however, the term 'human right' must be strictly and prudently applied, lest it become a rhetorical catch-all, endlessly expanded to suit the passing tastes of the age. Such an elastic approach would discredit and undermine the very concept of human rights. A responsible exercise of human rights necessarily implies a faithful fulfillment of their corresponding responsibilities."

--Archbishop Bernardino Auza, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, July 12, 2016

Quote of the Day

 

“Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.”

--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929--1968)

On Welcoming the Stranger

I would like to offer a few reflections on the Middle Eastern refugee crisis, which is currently absorbing much of the attention of our government and news media.

First of all, I believe that the position of our Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators on this issue--namely, that the U.S. should categorically refuse to grant asylum to any innocent refugees from Syria or Iraq whatsoever--is sadly misguided, as it is based on fear and unhealthy nationalism rather than facts and clear rational thinking. Those who hold this position are painfully aware of the ongoing violence being perpetrated in Syria by anti-government rebels and terrorist guerillas affiliated with the notorious organized crime ring known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and they are rightly concerned to protect our national security by ensuring that such violent and lawless fanatics do not find their way onto U.S. soil. However, their jingoistic and exclusionist approach of "Just say NO" to allowing any Syrian or Iraqi refugees into our country is a simplistic and inadequate solution to a complex and far-reaching problem.

To begin with, it is worth reminding ourselves that the vast majority of the so-called "Syrian rebels" belonging to ISIS who are engaged in conflict with the Assad regime are not native to Syria at all, but are actually foreign fighters who have been recruited by ISIS from neighboring countries. Secondly, by its outrageously immoral and recklessly dangerous foreign policy strategy of arming and funding these ruthless "Syrian rebels," the Obama administration is directly responsible for the growth of ISIS into a powerful totalitarian guerrilla terrorist organization that has spread all over the Middle East, seizing control of large portions of Iraq and Syria and wreaking such terrible havoc in those areas. Thirdly, by gratuitously feeding the ISIS monster, our own government is indirectly responsible for the resulting mass exodus of refugees from the heartland of the Middle East. The least we can do to make amends for such madness is to offer safe haven to some of these innocent refugees who have lost their homes, their possessions, their churches, and their homelands at the hands of U.S.-sponsored terrorists.

Opponents of allowing Iraqi and Syrian refugees into our country assert that we should help resettle them elsewhere in the Middle East. Easier said than done. The entire Middle East is about half the size of the continental U.S. and ISIS cells are all over the place, including North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Where can four million refugees go? Several million Iraqi and Syrian refugees are already packed into UN-administered camps in Jordan and Lebanon, the two friendliest countries in the region, and these nations' already strained resources simply cannot accommodate another vast influx of refugees. Some could perhaps find refuge in Israel, but that nation's population density is already high so only a few if any would be allowed in there. Religious freedom is under attack in Turkey and Iran. Egypt has its own issues to deal with. And forget about Saudi Arabia, where it is illegal to be a Christian. Thanks to the misguided and foolish foreign policy of Presidents Bush and Obama, the Middle East is now an unstable and dangerous place. Trying to convince and help the refugees to stay there would not be wise and would not yield positive results. Most of them would prefer to relocate to Europe, Canada, or the United States. And who can blame them?

Fears that ISIS terrorists will take advantage of a Middle Eastern refugee influx to sneak into this country legally through our refugee system are groundless. Under current law, all refugees seeking to enter the United States must go through a lengthy and rigorous one and a half to two year screening process involving extensive background checks for the sake of our national security. No ISIS terrorist suspect disguised as a refugee would ever make it all the way through this stringent system. As proof of this, it should be pointed out that of the 750,000 refugees who have entered the U.S. through our refugee process since September 11, 2001, not a single one has been arrested on charges of domestic terrorism. We can admit Iraqi and Syrian refugees into our country without compromising our national security one iota.

These millions of refugees are not terrorists, and they do not pose a credible threat to our national security. On the contrary, they are innocent victims of terrorism--ordinary men, women, and children who have lost everything at the hands of godless ISIS fanatics and who are simply looking for a place where they can live decent and normal lives in peace, security, and freedom. Many of them share our Christian faith, which was originally brought to their lands by the Apostles themselves. They keep alive a rich and ancient cultural heritage. Like most immigrants from Mexico and Central America, they are willing to work hard to support their families and would make a significant contribution to our nation's economy if given the opportunity to do so. Some would probably want to stay here only temporarily and then return to their homeland in a few years or so once conditions improve there, while others would wish to settle here permanently and eventually become full-fledged American citizens. And we have a large country with plenty of room, lots of opportunities, freedom and security, a secure refugee admission process, and a long and proud history of welcoming and assimilating millions of immigrants and refugees who fled unfavorable conditions in their home countries. It would be the height of arrogance and a repudiation of our national heritage to simply shut and lock the doors of our borders in the faces of these desperate refugees without a second thought. That is not how a Christian country like ours should act in response to a refugee crisis like this.

As Pope Francis reminded us in his address to Congress this past September, the Golden Rule should guide our nation's policy toward those innocent human beings seeking to enter our nation. We should treat the Syrian and Iraqi refugees as we would want to be treated if we were in their place. If we want security, we should provide security for those at risk who face an uncertain future. If we want opportunities, we should provide opportunities for those whose options are limited. It's a matter of basic justice and respect for human rights. Where justice and human rights are not recognized and respected, peace cannot flourish. Furthermore, we should bear in mind that these refugees are actually Christ Jesus in a distressing disguise, and that whatever we do for them, we do for Christ himself. "'"I was...a stranger and you welcomed Me"'" (Matthew 25:35). This doesn't mean we have to admit all four million refugees into our country in the next couple of years, which would be impossible to do in any case given the necessary rigors and limitations of our refugee admission system. Besides, many will no doubt find refuge in Europe and Canada, where quotas are already being set. However, as part of the world community, we can and should be open to helping these other countries shoulder and absorb part of this massive refugee burden.

We should commit to admitting a certain number of Syrian and Iraqi refugees over the next two to three years--50,000 at the very least, perhaps even 100,000 to 150,000. While the exact quota to be determined by our government is a matter for healthy debate, we should all agree that zero is not an acceptable number. We must not abandon hundreds of thousands of our fellow brothers and sisters to homelessness and deprivation without expecting the negative consequences to affect our own country sooner or later. Such a foolish rejectionist policy reeks of callousness, prejudice, xenophobia, and indifference.

Welcoming a certain number of refugees from Syria and Iraq into the U.S. through the appropriate official channels will have great benefits not only for the refugees themselves, but for our country as well. In addition to the boost they will give our struggling economy, their presence here will present an opportunity for mutual cultural exchange and friendship that will enrich the lives of  Syrians, Iraqis, and Americans, building lasting bridges for a better future for everyone. By providing a friendly safe haven to these marginalized individuals, we will have made a significant contribution to building a more just, more humane, and more peaceful world. And by acting in a truly Christian manner towards these people, we will win the favor of Divine Providence and earn the heavenly reward promised to those who care for the least of Christ's brethren. In short, while there are many good reasons to admit Syrian and Iraqi refugees into the United States, there are no good reasons whatsoever to keep them out.


Copyright 2015 Justin D. Soutar.

The Tyranny of Radical Secularism (Part 2 of 3)

by Justin Soutar

A major propaganda weapon in the militant secularists’ assault on America’s Christian identity and on religious liberty is their re-interpretation of the concept of the “separation of church and state” implicitly enshrined in the First Amendment. Our nation’s founders intended the distinction between religious and civil authority to allow each governing entity to fulfill its proper public role. Radical secularists reinterpret this common-sense distinction as a radical divorce between the religious and civil spheres. In their view, every trace of religion must be scrubbed from American public life: no references to God should be made by government leaders; no symbols of the Christian religion should be displayed on public property. This malicious anti-God and anti-Christian animus would have struck the Founders as not only quite alien but extremely dangerous to the well-being of our nation. Here is what General George Washington wrote to the governors of the original thirteen states in a letter announcing the disbanding of the Continental Army on June 8, 1783 (note that this was an official U.S. military document):

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.

 And James Madison said the following in an address to the Virginia General Assembly in 1778: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

 

The Founders’ Vision for America

Many of us today take it for granted that the United States is a natural product of Christian European civilization. However, we shouldn’t forget that at a time when most European Catholic and Protestant nations were governed by absolute or constitutional monarchies in which Church and state authority were closely linked and intertwined, the concept of a secular republic built on Christian religious and moral values was quite novel. As men of the Renaissance period, our nation’s devout Christian Founders did not eschew experimentation, but their experimentation flowed from the religious and moral principles they held dear. What they gave the world was something altogether unique and unprecedented—a secular Christian republic. What they created has come to be known as the “American experiment.” The Christian religion and Judeo-Christian moral code formed the foundations of this experiment and have contributed enormously to its remarkable success. Without those religious and moral foundations, the experiment would have failed long ago and our nation would never have achieved greatness.

The Founders’ vision for America was simple, intuitive, holistic, and brilliant. Today it appears utterly sane and reasonable when contrasted with the dangerous alternative vision that radically secularist ideologues are working so hard to put into practice. The Founders believed that God created all human persons equal in dignity and endowed them with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believed that the role of civil government is to protect these unalienable human rights. They believed that such government comes from God and derives its legitimate authority from the consent of the governed. They were also profoundly aware of the fact that human nature has been corrupted by original sin, so they designed a three-branch system of government with checks and balances to minimize corruption and abuse of power. They believed that freedom is sacred because it is a gift from God our Creator, and that the truth is what makes people free. They understood freedom as the right to act in accord with the natural moral law and to practice one’s religious beliefs without government interference. They knew that religion and morality are powerful safeguards of human liberty, and considered both essential to the survival and well-being of America. Most importantly, the Founders agreed that without God’s guidance, protection, and assistance, the American experiment would be a failure.

The great majority of the Founders were Protestants who hailed from eighteenth-century England, where theocratic monarchs forced the state religion of Anglicanism on their subjects and outlawed the public practice of Catholicism and Protestantism. As a result of this experience, the Founders decided that the United States would not have an official religion. They understood that religious freedom is a two-sided coin consisting of these basic elements, one negative and the other positive: 1) freedom from religious compulsion (negative), and 2) freedom to practice one’s own religion (positive). To guarantee religious freedom in the new nation, our founders wisely integrated these two essential elements into the First Amendment to the Constitution: 1) they forbade Congress from passing any law that would institute an official American religion, and 2) they forbade Congress from passing any law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus the First Amendment authors intended to safeguard our republic from the opposite extremes of totalitarian theocracy and religious repression.

The careful distinction between religious and civil authority in the First Amendment (commonly known today as the separation of church and state) was intended to allow each governing entity to fulfill its proper public role unimpeded by the other. The First Amendment may be considered a blueprint for the secular Christian nation that the United States was founded and intended to be.

 

Secularism v. Radical Secularism

What are some characteristics of a secular nation, properly understood as such? First and most importantly, a secular nation is a religious nation, a nation “under God.” It recognizes that human rights and state authority both come from God and that the state is the guardian of these rights. This proper understanding of the source of human rights and the role of the state makes a secular nation a place of freedom and justice. It is a nation that values religion and morality as “indispensable supports” of its political prosperity (George Washington). It is a nation where church and state coexist harmoniously, each respecting the legitimate authority of the other. It is a place where each citizen is free to practice the religion of his or her choice, or to not practice any religion if that is his or her choice. It is a place where the contributions of religious believers to public life are recognized, welcomed and encouraged, even by those who are not religious themselves. It is a nation where traditional family values are highly esteemed and diligently safeguarded by those in authority. It is a place where government leaders are public servants, chosen by the people and responsible to them, subject to the same laws, who strive to promote the common good of all citizens. All these characteristics of a secular nation have allowed the United States of America to flourish and become the world’s greatest nation.

On the other hand, a “radically secularist” nation is a nightmarish place where atheism has become the official state “religion” and where all genuine religions are suppressed by law. This kind of nation is a nation without God. It recognizes no authority above that of the government. It is a place where human rights are believed to come from the government and may thus be given or taken away as the state sees fit. This false subjectivist understanding of human rights and government power renders it a place of bondage and injustice. It is a nation that rejects religious faith and absolute moral standards as obstacles to its freedom and progress. It is a nation where the church is completely subordinated to the state, and where public practice of religion is either severely curtailed or absolutely forbidden. It is a place where religious believers must leave their faith behind if they are to make any substantive contributions to public life. It is a nation where traditional family values are openly scorned and deliberately attacked by those in authority. It is a place where government leaders are self-appointed elitist dictators, not responsible to the people and not subject to any laws, who use their power to advance their own private interests. Such a godless, radically secularist nation is a nation in despair—a living hell. Within a relatively short time, it self-destructs and usually leaves behind an infamous legacy of violence, war, and mass murder. Historic examples include France under the Jacobins, late 1920s Mexico, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Maoist China. Contemporary examples would include Communist China and North Korea.

Many countries of the world, including the United States, Canada, Australia, the nations of Western Europe, and Communist China and North Korea, are currently at various intermediate stages on the road to the radically secularist inferno. Abortion on demand is legal in all these countries; in China, parents are forced by law to abort every child after their first. Euthanasia is gradually becoming acceptable and legal everywhere. More than a dozen nations on four continents have already passed laws making same-sex “marriage” the legal equivalent of traditional marriage. In Western Europe, radical secularism has gained significant ground. While freedom of religion still largely exists and the people still elect their government leaders, hostility to religion now permeates Western European culture. A few years ago, a law was passed in Ireland attempting to force priests to violate the seal of confession by reporting sins of sexual abuse heard in confession to the government; a similar attempt was made with a priest in Louisiana last year. The Catholic Church in China is officially suppressed by the government, which recognizes only its own National Catholic Patriotic Association. And North Korea resembles one large prison camp ruled by a military dictatorship.

 

Lessons from History

As hinted above, the takeover of a country by the forces of militant secularism is usually not a “bolt from the blue,” a sudden and swift affair imposed on unwilling and unsuspecting masses by an elite coup with whom they have nothing in common. On the contrary, it is typically a gradual process occurring over several decades or generations that involves a progressive and widespread decline of religious faith among the general population, eventually leaving a yawning vacuum to be filled by the pseudo-religion of radical secularism. This is exactly what took place in Orthodox Russia in the late 1800s and early 1900s: a steady loss of religious faith among the bourgeois paved the way for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In early twentieth-century Mexico, unscrupulous Catholic landlords had amassed great wealth through unjust exploitation of their tenant farmers and neglected to share their resources with the less fortunate. Plutarco Elias Calles, the radically secularist dictator who took control of Mexico in the 1920s, had grown up in abject poverty that left him extremely bitter and convinced that organized religion was the enemy of the Mexican people. The French Revolution offers another example of this general rule: in late eighteenth-century France, corruption within the Catholic monarchy generated popular resentment, which the Jacobins unhesitatingly exploited to push their fanatically secularist agenda. (Poland is a somewhat different case, as it did not experience a homegrown revolution but was occupied by militantly secularist foreign invaders, while its own people remained devoutly religious under Communist rule.)

Given the critical situation in which America finds itself today, with the benefit of hindsight we may wonder whether the Founders made the right decision in not establishing Christianity as the official religion of the United States. It is certainly legitimate to raise this question and discuss and debate the answer as they pertain to both national religious identity and religious freedom. On one hand, making Christianity the official religion of the United States would have removed any ambiguity about our identity as a Christian nation, making it much more difficult for today’s radical secularists to successfully mount a vicious attack on that identity. On the other hand, however, we need to keep in mind that even countries with official religions are not immune to the forces of militant secularism. France, Mexico, Russia, Italy, Germany, Spain, and Poland—all either officially Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant nations—were shaken by convulsive revolutions in 1789, 1917, 1917, 1922, 1933, 1936, and 1939, respectively, that enthroned more or less short-lived totalitarian atheistic and socialist regimes (the Jacobins, the Federales, Communists, Fascists, Nazis).  

How did this happen? How did nations that had been Christian and free for centuries succumb to the tyranny of radical secularism? The answer is that, for a significant period of time prior to each revolution, the Christian people within those nations had been growing weak in their faith; as a result, injustices had crept into society and become entrenched, providing a fertile breeding ground for destructive revolutionary ideologies. When a country loses its faith, it then loses its freedom as well, with terrible social consequences. The rise of a godless dictator such as Hitler or Stalin is rarely an accident or anomaly, but rather an ordinary consequence of a religious vacuum and its attendant social turmoil, a predictable response to the need to fill that vacuum and impose order.

A lack of charity and justice properly grounded in the truth, especially from those who call themselves followers of Christ, lies at the root of all social problems. A serious and prolonged crisis of faith inevitably leads to crisis in society. Conversely, the solution to social problems is personal conversion to Christ. This is part of the reason why Pope Benedict XVI, during his papacy, declared a Year of Faith—to address the “profound crisis of faith” afflicting the contemporary global society by summoning all Christians “to an authentic and renewed conversion to the Lord, the one Savior of the World.” If bad Christians give religion a bad name, good Christians make religion look attractive and contribute to the building up of human society. As a Muslim sultan once famously remarked to Saint Francis of Assisi, “If all Christians were like you, I would become a Christian.”

Radically secularist despots such as Lenin, Calles, Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin who carried out their evil ideology to the letter inflicted untold human suffering and misery and are universally condemned as traitors to mankind (except by those freethinkers in their soap bubbles who think they were just doing what was “right for them”). By contrast, great Christian figures such as Saint Francis, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, Father Benedict Groeschel, Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis who live the Gospel authentically accomplish outstanding achievements for human society and are universally admired, loved, honored, and respected (except by radical secularists). The latter offer marvelous examples of how to authentically live one’s Christian faith in the modern world, while the former serve as ominous reminders of where the radically secularist path ultimately leads.

History also assures us that the stronger the religious and moral character of a people, the more likely their nation is to survive through and triumph over a radically secularist interlude. Poland is perhaps the best example of this: following fifty years of Communist rule there, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 left behind a nation still 90 percent devout Catholic.

 

(To be continued)

Archbishop Cordileone Fights the Good Fight

Some politicians, notably Catholic dissident Representative Nancy Pelosi, and some very vocal extremist homosexual activist groups have launched a vicious attack on Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, protesting his announced decision to participate in and speak at a rally preceding the second annual March for Marriage organized by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is being held tomorrow in Washington, D.C. Archbishop Cordileone has responded with an excellent letter addressed to his detractors, in which he defends his public defense of traditional marriage. Here are a few excerpts from this letter, followed by my comments:

"I appreciate your affirmation of my Church’s teaching—not unique to our religion, but a truth accessible to anyone of good will—on the intrinsic human dignity of all people, irrespective of their stage and condition in life. That principle requires us to respect and protect each and every member of the human family, from the precious child in the womb to the frail elderly person nearing death. It also requires me, as a bishop, to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing. I must do that in season and out of season, even when truths that it is my duty to uphold and teach are unpopular, including especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. That is what I will be doing on June 19th."

Yes, the good archbishop is simply doing his job to teach and consistently defend the full truth of what God has revealed and what the Catholic Church teaches about the human person and the Creator's institution of marriage. Whether people accept or reject certain divinely revealed truths is irrelevant. The fullness of the truth must and always will be proclaimed by the Catholic Church. Those who accept the fullness of that truth belong to the Catholic Church; those who claim to be Catholic while rejecting one or more Church teachings are heretics. Human fashions and opinions are subject to change, but God's truth doesn't change. And how dare Nancy Pelosi, who claims to be Catholic, attack her own archbishop as an intolerant, anti-gay bigot for publicly defending the truth of what the Church teaches regarding the sacred institution of marriage! Archbishop Cordileone addresses this latter point as follows:

"The March for Marriage is not “anti-LGBT” (as some have described it); it is not anti-anyone or anti-anything. Rather, it is a pro-marriage March. The latter does not imply the former. Rather, it affirms the great good of bringing the two halves of humanity together so that a man and a woman may bond with each other and with any children who come from their union. This is precisely the vision promoted by Pope Francis, who recently said, “We must reaffirm the right of children to grow up in a family with a father and mother.” Rest assured that if the point of this event were to single out a group of individuals and target them for hatred, I most certainly would not be there."

Right on. Part of the tired old mainstream media spin is to cast pro-life and pro-marriage Americans as wild-eyed, hateful, bigoted attackers of those who are pro-abortion or in favor of legally equating same-sex unions with traditional marriage. This highly inaccurate portrayal is in fact more descriptive of pro-abortion extremists and homosexual activists. On the contrary, the overwheling majority of pro-life and pro-marriage Americans are people of good will who love and respect their enemies and who are doing their fellow men and women a great service by defending basic human rights and institutions that come from our Creator and form the foundations of our society and civilization. Yes, we must reaffirm the basic right of children to grow up in a traditional family, with a Mom and Dad. Defending that right is in no way an attack on homosexual persons.

"It gives me assurance that we share a common disdain for harsh and hateful rhetoric. It must be pointed out, though, that there is plenty of offensive rhetoric which flows in the opposite direction. In fact, for those who support the conjugal understanding of marriage, the attacks have not stopped at rhetoric. Simply for taking a stand for marriage as it has been understood in every human society for millennia, people have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, and have suffered other types of retribution, including physical violence."

The archbishop points out here that those, like him, who defend traditional marriage are increasingly under attack for doing so. In other words, most of the unjust bigotry and intolerance are coming from homosexual activists, not from defenders of traditional marriage. He also alludes to the crucial fact that marriage as the union of a man and a woman is not just Catholic teaching, but a fundamental principle of the natural law that has been recognized by all human societies throughout world history. Traditional marriage is God's design, engraved on the human heart; it is and always has been the basic building block of society. When people who espouse it can be unjustly attacked with impunity for doing so, something is seriously wrong with that society.

In closing, Archbishop Cordileone requests that his attackers get to know him before passing judgment on him:

"Please do not make judgments based on stereotypes, media images and comments taken out of context. Rather, get to know us first as fellow human beings. I myself am willing to meet personally with any of you not only to dialogue, but simply so that we can get to know each other....When all is said and done, then, there is only one thing that I would ask of you more than anything else: before you judge us, get to know us."

Good advice. But will Nancy Pelosi and her homosexual friends take it? I hope so. Let's pray for them.

I commend Archbishop Cordileone for his courteous, thoughtful, and well-reasoned response to his handful of vocal critics. His uncompromising defense of Catholic teaching and the natural law regarding the holy institution of marriage is refreshing. At a time when corruption is rampant in American politics and business, thank God that at least we have many fine bishops like Cordileone who are not afraid to teach and defend the truth about the human person and society against the despicable attacks of godless radical secularists, some of whom masquerade as Catholics and who are traitors to Christ and His Church. If America manages to survive the current onslaught of radical secularism, much of the credit will be due to the Catholic Church and to her faithful shepherds, including Pope Francis and Archbishop Cordileone. Let's keep them also in our prayers, that they remain faithful to Christ and His Church and continue fighting the good fight.

An Unnecessary Disaster: The Federal Anti-Life Earthquake Is Upon Us

The United States of America is now being shaken to its foundations by a devastating earthquake of unprecedented magnitude and proportions. The powerful shock waves of this tremendous seismic event are unleashing a flood of damage and destruction unlike anything the United States has ever experienced in its 238-year history. Never before have the timing, magnitude, cause, casualties, and effects of such a massive national emergency been predicted with such certainty and precision. Our elected officials were duly informed of the date this quake would occur, the severity of the event, what would trigger it, what it would destroy, and the consequences that would ensue. And the certainty of this foreknowledge conferred a corresponding obligation on our elected representatives, who are responsible for protecting the common good of all American citizens. But since appropriate action has not yet been taken by those in authority to halt this catastrophe, our nation is now beginning to suffer traumatic and incalculable loss.

This great earthquake was triggered by the collision of two massive tectonic plates on which our country rests—the Constitution and our federal government. The resulting shock wave is destroying our religious liberties and moral conscience rights. And the long-lasting moral, social, economic, and environmental effects of the quake will include millions upon millions of innocent unborn children slaughtered in their mother’s wombs; millions of families torn apart by immorality and love of pleasure; low birth rates and population decline; social chaos; record poverty rates; pollution of our rivers and farm soil by large quantities of toxic artificial chemicals; tens of thousands of hospitals, dispensaries, orphanages, nursing homes, soup kitchens, and crisis pregnancy centers, as well as thousands of businesses and scores of colleges and universities, shut down; thousands of lawsuits; financial instability; economic collapse; and a nationwide healthcare crisis that is already impacting every corner of America, leaving not a single community unharmed.

The worst part of this tragic ordeal is its unnecessary and preventable nature. Rather than a natural disaster, this horrendous and destructive earthquake is an unnatural disaster—-an entirely artificial event, deliberately inflicted upon our country by the godless, immoral, corrupt, irresponsible, and arrogant administration of President Barack Obama. That administration has decreed that ALL employers (except narrowly defined “religious employers”) MUST purchase health insurance coverage for their employees that includes abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilizations (pills and surgical operations that murder the unborn child or prevent parents from conceiving children); furthermore, ALL charitable agencies MUST provide these filthy anti-life drugs and procedures or referrals for such drugs and procedures to their clients. The massive law enforcement apparatus of our federal government will soon be slapping huge tax penalties on all American employers and charitable directors who fail to comply with this outrageous and draconian new law known as the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate.

This abominable law flagrantly violates the law of God, the Constitution of the United States, our fundamental rights and liberties as American citizens, and our dignity as human persons. It violates the Fifth Commandment by ordering employers and charity workers to help their employees and clients murder their unborn children; it also violates the Sixth Commandment by requiring the purchase and distribution of drugs that prevent married couples from conceiving new children. It violates the First Amendment by forcing religious believers and organizations to act contrary to their sacred beliefs. It violates our fundamental God-given rights of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. And it violates our dignity as human persons created in the image and likeness of God by reducing us to mere objects whose sexuality and fertility are arbitrarily controlled by our government for its own benefit.

Besides being immoral, unconstitutional, coercive, and anti-human, the HHS mandate is also impractical and downright foolish. Abortion has done irreparable harm to the physical and mental health of more than 56 million American women over the past forty-plus years. To keep it legal and make it even more widespread is irresponsible in the extreme. To encourage Americans to kill their own children and refrain from conceiving them is a recipe for national suicide. Furthermore, artificial contraceptives are destructive to our environment; they pollute our nation’s waterways and eventually work their way into our farm soil and our food supply. To make them a product that all insurance carriers must supply is to invite further degradation of our natural resources. In addition, the mandate will deal a fatal blow to our fragile economy (still struggling to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression) by imposing unsustainable tax burdens on thousands of business owners and charity leaders; discouraging the establishment of new businesses and charities; further reducing the available spending money of the average working American individual and family; and adding to an already grossly hyperinflated national debt.

The Obama administration has been patently dishonest and deceptive in its cleverly sanitized presentation of the “healthcare” mandate to the American public. For one thing, abortion, artificial contraception, and sterilization have nothing whatsoever to do with “health care.” Killing unborn children in their mother’s wombs is not health care; on the contrary, abundant research testifies that abortion is dangerous to female health. Preventing women and married couples from having children is not health care either. Abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations are designed to kill developing human life in the embryonic and fetal stages or to prevent its originating altogether. They are methods of population control entirely devoid of any health benefits. Were the Obama administration to more accurately designate its cherished decree the “life kill mandate”; the evil nature of this law would be clearer to the American people, who already oppose it by a substantial majority.

The Obama administration is also being dishonest about why it is forcing coverage of abortifacient drugs, birth control pills, and sterilization surgeries by all health insurance providers. The official reason for the compulsion is that the public health interest requires unlimited access to such anti-life drugs and procedures. This is ludicrous. Inexpensive artificial contraceptives are already widely available and purchased by millions. The real reason why the Obama administration is forcing coverage of immoral population control items by nearly all insurance providers is that it is aggressively pursuing a radically anti-life agenda driven by the money-hungry abortion, pharmaceutical and insurance industries that back it. In particular, the deceptively titled Affordable Care Act is the brainchild of Planned Parenthood and its loyal allies in the White House and the Senate, designed chiefly to subsidize the abortion cartel in the face of declining public demand for that horrific practice.

At the core of the mandate lies a twisted logic of injustice and selfishness. The duty of our federal government is to promote the common good of all Americans based on fundamental principles of justice and charity that come from God—principles that form the very foundations of human society, as Pope Benedict XVI reminded us in Caritas in Veritate. The HHS mandate is a direct violation of those fundamental principles: unjust because it encourages the murder of innocent unborn children and forces individuals and institutions to violate God’s law; and uncharitable because it leaves tens of millions of low-income Americans without health insurance and is forcing the closure of thousands of charitable institutions upon which millions of people depend for basic necessities of life. By issuing its pro-death mandate, the Obama administration has criminally abused its rightful authority, turned the power of government against the people, and sacrificed the common good to the “wealth care” interests of giant abortion, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies.

As unbelievable as it sounds, here in a Christian nation whose official motto is “In God We Trust,” in a “nation under God…with liberty and justice for all,” those employers and agencies who refuse to purchase and distribute gravely immoral products and services are being punished by their own elected representatives for obeying God’s law, their moral consciences, and their religious beliefs. The longer the HHS directive is allowed to remain in force, the more widespread, severe, and lasting chaos, distress, and human misery this artificial earthquake will unleash, dwarfing previous national crises such as the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, Watergate, and even the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

No government has the right to compel anyone to act contrary to the moral law, to their moral consciences, or to their religious beliefs. We the citizens of the United States have the right and the sacred duty to work hard for the full repeal of the HHS mandate as soon as possible. Not only for our own sake but for that of our children and our grandchildren, we must hold our elected representatives responsible for this unjust law accountable for the mischief they are unleashing in violation of the law of God, the Constitution of the United States, and our fundamental rights and liberties as human persons and as American citizens.

Unlike any other law in our nation’s history, the HHS decree is inherently destabilizing for our country because it officially prescribes immorality as the law of the land. It turns the moral order established by the Creator upside down by punishing good and rewarding evil. As Father John Corapi used to remind us, “Immorality is un-American and a threat to national security!” The HHS mandate is a direct assault on religion and morality, the very foundations and “indispensable supports” of our nation’s liberty. It remains to be seen whether these twin foundations will prove strong enough to withstand the enormous assault now being unleashed upon them by the Obama administration.

Looking beyond the tragic events currently unfolding across our nation to a less than encouraging future, two glimmers of hope beckon on the horizon. The first is that the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently hearing a case brought by Christian and Amish business owners against the HHS mandate, may rule it unconstitutional this coming June. Let us pray that our justices on the High Court will do their duty to strike down this flagrantly unconstitutional law and protect our religious liberties and moral conscience rights. However, given recent seriously flawed decisions by the Court such as its wholesale upholding of the Affordable Care Act in 2012, we should not be overly hopeful that this will happen; corruption has clearly infiltrated the High Court and is now influencing its major decisions.

The second glimmer of hope is that with the Congressional and gubernatorial elections this coming November, we the people will be given an important opportunity to bring a halt to the havoc being wrought by this great earthquake and to restore our cherished freedoms of religion and conscience. We must seize this opportunity to rescue our nation from the appalling crisis into which it has been so needlessly and recklessly thrown by the Obama administration. We will have both the opportunity and the responsibility to choose our governors, senators, and representatives. We must exercise that responsibility properly by voting only for true defenders of freedom who pledge to repeal the mandate, and by voting out of office every single elected official responsible for enacting and enforcing it. No enemies of liberty are fit to govern a free people.

As this great earthquake rocks our country, I find myself trembling for its security and survival. As I write this, a black curtain is being drawn across our Constitution and our cherished freedoms of religion and conscience for which our nation’s Founders laid down their lives are being crushed under the heavy boots of a tyrannical and totalitarian government. By arbitrary federal fiat, the United States of America is being transformed into a different country from what it was prior to the mandate. We are moving from being “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” to being one nation under Obama, indivisible, with tyranny and injustice for all enemies of the state. I shudder to think what it would be like to live under this regime of evil, frighteningly reminiscent of Communist China or the Soviet Union, for any length of time.

Although our elected representatives in the White House and the Senate have the duty and the power to halt this tremendous catastrophe, they are leaving our country exposed to dreadful ruin because they are corrupt and have little or no concern for the national well-being. Before laws and policies can change, hearts must change. Our Lady of Fatima said that many souls go to Hell because there is no one to pray and sacrifice on their behalf. We must continue to pray and fast for the conversion of those in the abortion, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries and in our government who are responsible for the HHS mandate and its damaging consequences. In the meantime, may God have mercy on our nation—-and may the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception, Patroness of the United States of America, pray for us.

Copyright © 2014 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.