When religious universities lose their moral compass - they give Obama an honorary doctorate degree.

There's a good bit of controversy over Notre Dame's the invitation to President Obama to not only speak at their commencement ceremony but also receive an honorary doctorate of law.

It's another example of moral confusion and relativism infecting the thinking of Christians. Or maybe more accurately, the existence of individuals who are not Christian, in this instance Roman Catholics, running a Catholic higher education institution.

A great analysis of the situation is written by Professor Francis Beckwith who writes in First Things about the invitation. After discussing Obama's stridently pro-abortion positions and actions, Beckwith notes:

So, this is the man on whom the University of Notre Dame wants to bestow an honorary doctorate of laws? But, as we have clearly seen, Obama, in spite of all his personal talents and accomplishments, explicitly and unapologetically rejects the intrinsic dignity of the human person, the proper subject of the natural and canonical laws on which the university’s jurisprudential patrimony rests. It is a jurisprudential patrimony that the university not only claims to believe, it claims both to believe that it is true and that it knows that it is true.

I have no doubt that Notre Dame would never bestow an honorary doctorate in science to an astronomer who vigorously advances the agenda of geocentricity or a chemist who refuses to teach his students the periodic table, or award an honorary doctorate in divinity to a theologian who is an unrepentant apologist for racial apartheid and white supremacy, regardless of what these three individuals may have accomplished or how well their celebrity may be received by the wider culture and its influential institutions.

Why then would the University of Notre Dame bestow an honorary doctorate of laws on someone who for his entire public life has enthusiastically fought for a segment of the human population, the unborn, to remain permanently outside the protections of the law? Not only that, he has also demanded that our legal regime require that his fellow citizens, including Catholics, underwrite the destruction of these prenatal human beings. And not only that, he is right now preparing to remove by executive order protections that were put in place so that pro-life physicians, nurses, medical students, and others in the health care field may not be forced to participate in abortions or be discriminated against for refusing to do so or even harboring such beliefs.

Unless the university does not believe that the Church’s understanding of the moral law is true and knowable, it can no more in good conscience award an honorary doctorate of laws to a lawyer who rejects the humanity of the proper subjects of law than it could in good conscience award an honorary doctorate in science to a geocentric astronomer who rejects the deliverances of the discipline he claims to practice.

At some point, a Christian university must recognize that the truth it claims to know matters, even if the truth is unpopular, and even if the propagation and celebration of that truth may put one’s community at odds with those persons and centers of influence and power that dispense prestige and authority in our culture.

We should defer again to the words of Martin Luther King Jr.:

There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.” But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent—and often even vocal—sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth [and twenty-first] century.

As the Martin Luther King quote points out, one of the things at sake is relevancy of the church in society. When the church fails to speak and stand for truth, it's good for nothing but to be cast out and trappled by men, to paraphrase Jesus' words. I don't think this will ever be true of the entire church but merely those segments which have lost their saltiness.

Projected federal deficits under Obama make Bush look like a pauper when it comes to deficits.

A graph from the Heritage Foundation comparing federal budget deficits under President Bush to those projected under President Obama is an eye opener.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
• President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

No doubt if Bush were still in office budget deficits would have increased but I don't think near the levels projected under Obama. Partly because Obama is keen on expanding government spending on a wide range of initiatives.

President Bush received much criticism from conservatives for his unwillingness to rein in federal government expenditures. But when compared to the budget deficits projected under President Obama's Administration, Bush's deficits look downright skimpy.

Pro-marijuana legalization folks not happy with Obama's comments on marijuana.

President Obama who admitted to being a youthful user of marijuana recently commented on the subject and made light of the subject to the consternation of individuals working for it's legalization.

Here's a sample from one disgruntled supporter of legalization of marijuana.

Had Barack Obama merely addressed the question of marijuana legalization with his trademark gravitas at the Open For Questions forum, the sane among us would likely have just grumbled and sighed, disappointed but not horrified. But Obama’s answer to the question was mired in the same outdated War on Drugs mentality that frames this issue as a Footloose-style quarrel between stoners and respectable citizens:

There was one question that voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy [audible snickering] and job creation. And, uh, [Obama snickers] I don't know what this says about the online audience, [audience and Obama laugh] but ... this was a fairly popular question. We want to make sure it's answered. The answer is no, I don't think that's a good strategy [laughing and clapping] to grow our economy.

Politically, this is a staggering miscalculation by the typically savvy Obama; why on earth would you laugh at “the online audience” during the first online town hall meeting in presidential history? Have you forgotten who helped get you elected in the first place? And isn’t this the candidate who finally moved us beyond the ridiculous Clinton-era tap dance around this issue, stating in the debates, “I inhaled frequently… that was the point”?

As policy, however, this answer is outrageous. The justifications for legalizing pot are many and varied, from the unbelievable stress that the drug war places on our criminal justice and law enforcement systems to the fact that such policy has done nothing to curb marijuana use over the last decade; more people are going to jail for nonviolent crimes, while production of opium and cannabis have both doubled and the society-wide rate of use has remained at 1998 levels. But more importantly, the economic crisis and the recent escalation of gang violence in Mexico have punctured whatever puritanical groupthink bubble remains in place to prevent this legislation from changing. We literally can’t afford to waste money and resources fighting this worthless battle anymore.

Obama’s tone-deaf response came within 24 hours of Hillary Clinton’s statement from Mexico that “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade.” Thousands of people have died in Mexico City as President Felipe Calderon tries to quell gang violence there; meanwhile, the U.S. has spent about $40 million annually over the last 10 years in its completely unsuccessful attempt to quash American usage. One would think—apparently even a Clinton would think—that the proper response would be to stop fighting a financially wasteful war against a phantom problem and instead find ways to separate American drug usage from the gang culture that currently and necessarily controls supply. This is no different from the agreed-upon need to free ourselves from reliance on foreign energy sources, and, as shown in Mexico, the security issues are equivalent—Obama will soon spend $725 million to bolster border security in response to the violence.

Even more egregiously, Obama laughingly dismissed what would be an instant revenue booster, at a time when the president should be willing to entertain any possible help in that area. A bill proposed by California state representative Tom Ammiano would legalize the sale and cultivation of marijuana for residents 21 and over, reaping an estimated $13 billion in the process. Not every state has the marijuana industry that California does, but imagine if even a fraction of such growth were to reach the other 49.

Obviously, Obama should feel free to defend a continued anti-drug policy if he sees fit. But laughing at the issue and rejecting legalization as he would a child’s request for more ice cream isn’t just bad politicking, it’s an indefensibly glib treatment of an issue that is literally a life-and-death matter. The cry for legalization has extended well beyond the pot-smoking community, and is no longer just a matter of users wishing to be left alone. (It would be a legitimate debate even if that were still the case, of course, but a little agreement from the square community only helps the cause.) For a great number of establishment writers and thinkers, this is no longer an outré issue of Prohibition-era “morality” versus societal degradation. Unless you’re Obama, apparently, who will likely turn out to be “on the wrong side of history” as the consequences of current American drug policy grow more costly and dangerous.

The legalization of marijuana constituency on the Left (though includes folks from the libertarian side of the Right) upset by Obama failure to push aggressively the Left's social agenda. While I'll be concerned with whatever steps he takes to advance the Left's cause, and there are plenty of them, I think those on the left will be frustration with too little. (Another example from today is Obama's commitment to a build-up in Afghanistan. Tom Hayden in The Nation doesn't like it.)

Bullying bill little more than ideology and sexual politics

If SF971/HF1198 were about eliminating bullying, I would support it, however the bills are a thinly disguised attempt to force Minnesota public schools to indoctrinate children and school officials into affirming same-sex marriage, and unhealthy sexual behavior.

Huh?

The mandate will require a curriculum, (conveniently left out of the bill) that will address GLBT bullying. One curriculum that is being used, (under duress at Hale Elementary) is called "Welcoming Schools" developed by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest GLBT lobbying group in the United States. After a careful review of “Welcoming Schools,” it is certain that the techniques, lessons and materials used – do indeed encourage and reward children to question what they are taught about healthy sexual behavior and the definition of marriage and family.

There is no scientific evidence that proves teaching children to affirm homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage will eliminate bullying, but there is a mountain of scientific evidence that shows homosexual sex is unhealthy and that children need a mother and a father.

Schools should be teaching children to affirm healthy sexual behavior and families, not indoctrinating them with ideology and sexual politics.

We can stop bullying without forcing elementary children to affirm unhealthy homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

Pro-homosexual anti-bullying bill would bully students, teachers and parents.

Homosexual activists are at it again. They're pushing a bill SF 971/HF 1198 which would replace Minnesota's anti-bullying policy, which requires school districts to develop policies addressing all forms of bullying, with one giving specific protections to homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites, etc. The goal of this policy isn't to address and stop all forms of bullying, something all people can agree with. Rather it seeks to insert "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" into the law so homosexual activists can then pressure school districts to introduce pro-homosexual, anti-bullying programs into the schools. This is a thinly disguised effort to promote acceptance of homosexual marriage, homosexual behavior and gender identity.

An example of this effort is the "Welcoming Schools" curriculum, a Human Rights Campaign creation, currently being pushed in Hale Elementary School in Minneapolis. HRC is the nation's largest homosexual advocacy group. The curriculum is billed as an anti-bullying program which seeks to address “family diversity, including LGBT families, and it addresses anti-gay bias within discussions of bullying”.

An example of their efforts is trying to “expand student’s notions of gender appropriate behavior” through such books as "King and King”, a fairy tale of two princes who fall in love, kiss and get married. This book is targeted at kids five and six years of age. You don't think this is trying to indoctrinate kids? It also seeks to evaluate and assess kids beliefs by having them regularly answer the question: “I used to think, but now I know….”

This bullying bill is merely an effort to bully parents and teachers into silence and have kids embrace the homosexual agenda.