Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Gov. Schwarzenegger Accused of "Squashing Religious Freedom"

From Cybercast News Service:
(CNSNews.com) - A conservative advocacy group says California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has betrayed California families by signing a bill that will force faith-based colleges to either abandon their biblical standards on sexuality, or else reject students who receive state financial aid.

SB 1441 says state-operated and state-funded programs may not discriminate against anyone based on their sexual orientation (among other things).

"People of conscience are appalled that Arnold Schwarzenegger has trampled religious freedom to satisfy hyperactive sexual activists," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF).

Thomasson accused Schwarzenegger of having two faces: "He speaks at churches and says he believes in religious freedom and family values, yet he's stabbing pro-family Californians in the back."

The Campaign for Children and Families is urging its supporters to call Schwarzenegger's office "to express how appalled and angry you are at him for attacking religion, and what his signing SB 1441 means to you as a voter."

SB 1441, sponsored by lesbian Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Democrat, specifically says that "any program or activity that...receives any financial assistance from the state" must give "full and equal access" to Californians without regard to "race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability."

Conservatives say the addition of the "sexual orientation" category means state programs must now "support transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality or lose state funding."

Conservatives are especially upset that SB 1441 contains no exemption for Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or other religious colleges and universities that accept students with Cal Grants, or for child-care providers that accept CalWORKS vouchers.

"If signed into law, SB 1441 would mean religious colleges (which accept students with state financial aid), children's day care centers and after-school programs (many of which receive state funding) could be forced to allow men to wear women's dresses and hire transsexual, bisexual or homosexual instructor," CCF said.
(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Just a sign of the coming schism between people of faith and the GOP.

The Democrat Party - the "party of death" - offers no refuge. Where shall we turn when the day of reckoning finally comes (for example, if Rudy Giuliani becomes the GOP presidential nominee)?


At 8/29/2006 8:54 AM, Blogger St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...

This is just another reason why a new party, advocating policy consonant with Catholic teaching is needed. Reaally, we're being stabbed in the back at every turn by both Dems and GOPs. Is it really worth it to remain with these parties and their lukewarm lipservice to the Faith?

At 8/29/2006 9:09 AM, Anonymous Donald R. McClarey said...

No surprise from Arnold, he has never been with us. As for a new party, dream on. The last successful third party created in this country was the Republican party in the 1850s. In the US attempts to create a new party are merely a short pathway to political oblivion. Vanity third parties are sometimes created by political mavericks and insiders who have become outsiders. The Bull Moose party in 1912 by Teddy Roosevelt, the American Party by George Wallace, and Perot's party in 1992. They all have zero influence after the men at the top move on. The Libertarians are a good example of how little can be accomplished by third parties on the American scene after decades of work.

At 8/29/2006 9:21 AM, Blogger Christine said...


More reasons to NEVER live in California.

At 8/29/2006 9:24 AM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

I agree, Donald. But has there ever been a serious "movement" party? Most of the 3rd parties, including the Libertarians, have not had cohesive agendas that appeal to a large number of Americans, but rather have been "reform" parties.

The Republicans were the last serious "movement" party, being a party opposed to the expansion of slavery.

A "movement" party of religious people with a strong cohesive agenda MIGHT be in order, if nothing else to slap the Republicans back into line.

At 8/29/2006 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Schwarzenegger is a Republican, but he's not representative of the national or grassroots GOP. Yes, there are plenty of problems and issues with and within the party, but it's not accurate to say GOP = Arnold

At 8/29/2006 10:46 AM, Anonymous Donald R. McClarey said...

I never exclude any possibility Jay, but based on past history I simply think that such a third party would be very much a long shot. Additionally a grass roots movement would probably be insufficient. When the Republican party came into being quite a few elected officials in the north, Whigs and Democrats, immediately embraced the new party and proclaimed themselves Republicans. A successful third party, in my opinion, would need that type of response from elected officials, and the people who back them.

At 8/29/2006 11:02 AM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

"Yes, there are plenty of problems and issues with and within the party, but it's not accurate to say GOP = Arnold."

But if the GOP nominates someone like Giuliani in 2008, it WILL be accurate to say "GOP = Rudy", which, in my view is actually worse than "GOP = Arnold".

At 8/29/2006 11:49 AM, Blogger PB said...

Granted I am only recalling what I read in The Catholics Guide to Voting back before the 2004 elections, but I remember it being our moral obligation to only support candidates who support life in all forms, from conception to natural death. Which was very strict with limited exceptions to that rule, while I don’t recall the exceptions, I doubt Rudy would fall under any. Personally, I would have to vote third party, but for whom? I will have to cross that bridge when I get there.

At 8/29/2006 5:09 PM, Blogger Fidei Defensor said...

The parties around do change, the republicans and democrats as we know them certainly weren't around when the country began. Whigs, Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Know-Nothings, Populists, Anti-Masonics, Free Soilers, and Prohbitionist candidates have all marched through the parade of US history.

This is an interesting discusion, just recently a (Lutheren) friend of mine was saying how the US needs a political alternative to the Dems and GOP and that he thought the only system to do that would have to be inspired by the teachings of the Catholic Church! A sort of "Catholic Center Party" if you will. Of course something so overtly denomonational would not do well in politics, but I think a candidate or even a party could go far with ideals such as distributionism, just war, consistent ethics on the life issues, etc.

At 8/29/2006 7:46 PM, Blogger St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...

If we pull care of the poor and Just War tradition out from under the Dems, and pull Pro-life and family issues out from under the GOPs, we'd really take the earnestly christian center. We may not have an outright majority, but we'd be weighty enough to tilt most debates.

At 8/30/2006 10:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We may not have an outright majority, but we'd be weighty enough to tilt most debates.

The problem is that our electoral laws are built around the two-party system and make the entrance of a third party most difficult. Now if we had run-offs in elections and a plurality system in the electoral college, then a potential third party would have at least a bit more of a chance. As it is, it has none.

At 8/30/2006 2:03 PM, Blogger St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...

Well, Publius, the status quo isn't getting it done either, so something has to give. Shall we just continue to get shafted and kvetch about it in out blogs? It's an old routine, and I'm longing for something different.


Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter for blogger