If you read only one book this year, make it this one.

If you read only one book this year, I hope it will be:

What We Can't Not Know, by Professor J. Budziszewski

Not only will I be re-reading it myself, it will also be required reading for my older children.

I think I may be obsessed with it.

It takes me an inordinate amount of time to read a book these days, and in the past several months, I have been stealing every spare moment to read this one. I finally completed it. All along the way, I have been wanting to blog about what I have learned, and yet I knew I should finish it before I posted about it.

For years, I have had a vague notion of the natural law. And throughout the year or so that I have written this blog, I have alluded to natural law time and again, each time learning a little more about it myself. But I needed more.

Why?

Well, all the discussions we have had on this blog with our leftist/secular/atheist friends like College Student, L, Miss Gwen, MaiZeke, Michelle and Peter, have left so many of us Catholics frustrated, and even baffled. If you're like me, you have asked yourself a thousand times, "Did I read that right?" "Is that what she really wanted to say?" "He couldn't really mean that, could he?" and "How did we get to this place?"

I have often been kept awake at night, going over some of the positions and arguments of those whom we debate. The overriding sentiment of my heart and mind in the throes of the most troubling exchanges is: "But she knows that isn't right!" and "He can't not know that!"

Professor B helped me make sense of what we see playing out here on the Bubble, and even among our own friends and family. It is charitably written (Professor B himself was once a committed atheist), but clear and honest, pulling no punches. He covers the natural law tradition in a way that is understandable and then applies it to the cultural situation in which we find ourselves today.

It's important to note: The book is written for a Christian audience (or those who are "half-persuaded"), and not for atheists and secularists (although I cannot wait for that book, Professor B!). However, he does invite the secular left to read along if they are interested in how we Christians discuss this subject among ourselves. He says this to those on the other side of the culture war:

[Y]ou are not part of my expected audience. But that does not mean that I want to hide the book from you; you are welcome to be a fly on the wall and listen in. Nor does it mean that I don't want to talk to you; this particular book is not a good vehicle of that hoped-for conversation, but by all means let us talk. But let us be honest too. We are on different sides.

Some people consider it "uncivil" to say so. They think the "culture war" is the fault of people who admit there is a culture war, and that the very use of terms like "culture war" demonizes people on the other side. In their view, we must pretend that we all want the same things. But we don't all want the same things, do we?

No, we don't. And lemme tell you, that type of honesty and clarity is so refreshing in this politically correct, morally confused world. While it can be unsettling and overwhelming to be presented with a true picture of the problem that lies before us, it is necessary to know what we are up against. The book is also balm for my own soul, personally, as it confirms that what we have been doing here in the Bubble has a good purpose.

The book is divided into four main sections:

I. The Lost World 

(includes just what it is we can't not know)

II. Explaining the Lost World 

(includes the "four witnesses" to the natural law and some objections)

III. How the World was Lost 

(this is the section you must read; I'll get to that in a minute)

IV. Recovering the Lost World 

(includes the "public relations" of moral wrong and moral right)

My hope is that each and every one of you would have your own copy of the book to read for yourself and to have available for your children. But, realistically, I know that is not going to happen. So, here is my proposition to all of you busy folks who, like me, find it very difficult to commit (in time or finances) to yet another book. I originally read What We Can't Not Know on my Kindle. However, I recently bought two "real" copies of the book: One for me, and one for all of you.

Here's how I want it to work: I will mail the book to anyone who is committed to reading at least Section III of the book ("How the World Was Lost") in no more than seven days (it should take you much less time than that -- less than a day, actually -- but I want to give everyone a good week to get to it*). Then, your only other task is to mail it to the next person on the list, whose address I will supply to you. If you are interested, please email me at littlecatholicbubble@gmail.com, and I'll take it from there.

Catholics, I think it's that important. Understanding what Professor B lays out really is the key to understanding the morally chaotic world swirling around us. Please get this book. Or email me and I will get it to you.



*Of course, if anyone wants to read the whole book in those seven days, feel free! I just want to make sure the book keeps moving to those who want to read it. And don't be shy if you've never commented before but still want to receive the book. E-mail me!


-

The sliding scale of "personhood": A license to kill?

I love clarity.


For a Catholic and a pro-lifer, the issues of humanity vs. "personhood" are clear: All human beings are persons. No exceptions.

This is a human person.

However, on the pro-"choice" side, the determination of which human beings merit "personhood" is fuzzy, adjustable, arbitrary, relative, and even emotion-based. 


I've always wondered: Why would someone go that shadowy route when we are talking about life and death?


Then a few days ago, I read a comment on Jill Stanek's blog that shocked me with its clarity. A pro-lifer named Lauren stated the obvious:

"It is so clear that someone only questions the personhood of a human she wishes to harm."

That stopped me in my tracks. It's been right there in front of my face all along, but I never really noticed it. Read that sentence again:


It is so clear that someone only questions the personhood of a human she wishes to harm.


So many times I've asked the question of abortion advocates: "If you can't know with absolute certainty when 'personhood' begins, shouldn't you always err on the side of life?" No one has ever answered: "You know, that's a good point! Yes, we must always err on the side of life." It frustrates me.


But of course Lauren's comment makes it clear why I never get that answer. Abortion advocates will not err on the side of life, for one reason: Arguing on the murky, indistinct basis of "personhood" is the only way to justify the killing of a fellow human. There is simply no other reason one would argue it.

Try to think of a time when human beings' "personhood" was questioned for a motive other than using, harming, or killing them. Wasn't it a loose and subjective view of "personhood" that justified slavery? Or the Nazi Holocaust? Or even the killing of Terri Schiavo and others like her? 

In fact, the whole point of questioning the "personhood" of others is to deny them human rights. It's a rhetorical technique used to exclude, not include. 


It's like a sliding scale.

Here's how it works:


If I want to be able to kill the small human early on, like some readers, then I slide the "personhood" marker to the first trimester or so. 


If I want to be able to kill the small human up until the last toe exits the birth canal, like some feminist U.S. Senators, then I slide the "personhood" marker to birth.


If I want to be able to kill the small human in infancy, like some esteemed professors who occupy Ivy League bioethics chairs, then I slide the "personhood" marker to weeks or months after birth.


See how that works? It's easy. License to kill on a sliding scale, depending on my comfort zone. That's the core of the "personhood" debate.


Pro-lifers, please don't be fooled or intimidated. The abortion advocates' "complex, philosophical" discussion of "personhood" is not some high-minded, noble, nuanced, or inscrutable search for what is True about the human person. It's simply a way for one group of humans to dehumanize, oppress and kill another group. These advocates presuppose the good and necessity of abortion, and then they use language manipulation to justify it and cleanse their own consciences.

Pro-"choicers", if what I've written is inaccurate, please show me how. If I'm wrong, then tell me: Why do you debate the "personhood" of unborn humans, if not to have legal permission to kill them? 

There may be a reason that I haven't heard yet. I'm listening.

Answer to Doctrinal Quiz Show: Communion of Saints. Plus, Bubble Awards!

Once again, you guys amaze me with your knowledge of the Faith! I knew none of this stuff until well into adulthood, so you all give me hope!


All right, let's revisit the Quiz challenge:

Define and describe the "Communion of Saints"; if possible, use some traditional terms and designations in your answer.


My answer:

The Communion of Saints is the spiritual union of all Christians, on earth, in Purgatory and in Heaven. This Communion is also known as the Body of Christ, which St. Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 12:12-26.


The traditional designations are these:



The Church Militant

These are the Christians (us!) still on earth, fighting the good fight against the devil and our own sin. We are "soldiers for Christ", fighting for all things True, Good and Beautiful. We rely on other members of the Body for encouragement and prayers.

The Church Suffering

These are the souls who have left this earth and are undergoing their final purgation (Purgatory). They are assured of Heaven, but need to be cleansed of any last vestige of self-love and imperfection before they can stand in God's presence. The prayers of the Church Militant for the Church Suffering are powerful and efficacious. We must never forget those brothers and sisters who have gone before us.

The Church Triumphant

These are all the saints in Heaven, both canonized and unknown. These souls enjoy the beatific vision, and they are constantly interceding on our behalf, waiting for the day when we and the Church Suffering can join them at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, united in perfection, living eternally in the Heart of the Holy Trinity.


The "Communion of Saints" is referenced in the Apostles' Creed of antiquity. The Resurrection of Christ has taught us that death does not separate Christians. We are all one Body in Christ, and each part of the Body loves and needs and cares for the others. Any artificial separation of "living" and "dead" Christians, and any implication that an impenetrable wall has gone up between those of us on earth and those who have gone before, is not a Christian understanding of the subject.

We are One Body, of which Jesus Christ is the Head. We are mystically bound through God's grace and love. If one member of the Body suffers, we all suffer. If one member is honored, we all rejoice.


The Communion of Saints is a comfort and gift to us all. We are a family.

+++++++

Now, on to the most coveted of all awards... The Bubble Awards!


The Oh!! Lost By a Hair! Award goes to K, who not only got the right answer, but did it as quickly (and succinctly) as I've ever seen, which also earns her the Quick Draw McGraw Award and the Brevity is the Soul of Wit Award. She was only one phrase away from winning her 2nd Grand Prize.


The I'm Lovin' the Link! Award goes to Brent Stubbs, who not only had a great answer chock full of Scripture (which I would expect from a former Protestant preacher!) and references to the Holy Eucharist, but who also linked to a fabulous post on the subject! I must say that the photo of Heaven as "big happy hugfest" made me laugh and cringe at the same time: Brent, did you get that image out of one of my CCD books from the 1970s?!


The "Lazy Answerer" Redeems Herself By Diligence Award goes to Nubby, for her excellent response to an anonymous commenter who challenged the Church's terminology. Nubby's always up for a good dialogue, and ready to give a reason for the hope that is within her! My kinda gal.


The Lazy Host of DQS Award goes to ME! For cutting the awards short due to my daughter needing the computer so that she can make a resume, and the pressure is on me right NOW, so I have to hurry. (Hey, that's my first Bubble Award! I am so honored!)


And the Grand Prize Bubble Award, here in all its glory...

…goes to JOY BEYOND THE CROSS!!

Yes, our own saint-loving JBTC has won not only for her incredible knowledge and enthusiasm, but because she mentioned all four of my predetermined "terms and designations": Church Militant, Church Suffering, Church Triumphant and Body of Christ! For this (sort of arbitrary, yet accurate) criteria for winning, JBTC will receive a most excellent prize, donated from our generous blogger friend, Stacy, over at Accepting Abundance:

Scott Hahn's CD set on Mark's Gospel!!!

Okay, that sounds amazing, and I am envious!! You are one lucky member of the Church Militant, JBTC! Enjoy your prize, and thank you, Stacy!

And before I run off, if any of you are new to the blog and would like to catch up on back episodes of Doctrinal Quiz Show (they are riveting!), just click on the label "Doctrinal Quiz Show" below this post, and you will be transported to all of them. 

See you all next time, and thanks for playing Doctrinal Quiz Show!!

-

Doctrinal Quiz Show: The Communion of Saints!

After months of longing and anticipation (by one reader -- thanks, Lauren!), the drought is over! Doctrinal Quiz Show is back with a vengeance!

Now it's time to reach into the recesses of your catechetical lobe, and get ready to play!


Today's challenge:


Define and describe the "Communion of Saints"; if possible, use some traditional terms and designations in your answer.


If you dare to cheat, go straight to confession, do not pass GO and do not collect a Bubble Award.


*Relevant teaching opportunity: Remember, it is a Christian moral principle that the ends do not justify the means. We are never permitted to do evil so that good will result. So, even if you want a Bubble Award more than anything else in the universe, you are not allowed to cheat to get it!


Okay, now. As to the Grand Prize...hmmmm...lemme see.... Well, either someone can e-mail me with an offer of a super-cool Grand Prize to award, or I will come up with something that will be awesomely edifying or edifyingly awesome (depending on my mood), and it will come from my own stash of goodies. 


I can only imagine the kind of excitement that must rouse in you, dear readers. When I get back to my regular internet access in a few days, a winner will be crowned.


Okay contestants.... GO!!

Just Curious: Practical advice

I am going to be away from the computer for a while (if I have the willpower!), so I need to be non-controversial until next week.

To that end, how about a fluffy, innocuous Just Curious?

Since I can use all the productive suggestions I can get, I am just curious if you all have any practical advice... on any subject at all!

I personally can't think of much to offer in this department, but I will throw out two quick thoughts:

1) Don't buy a two-story house. (Oh, how I long for my one-story days!)

2) If you are over 40, do yourself a favor and use pink lipgloss. Trust me, you will look instantly fresher and younger, without looking like you are trying to be 25 again.

Okay, go ahead and give us your quick, practical tips for better living!

(Wouldn't it be ironic if this turned into the most controversial post yet?)



-

Motherhood: It ain't all wine and roses!

You know me, I like to keep it real.

Here's how it went down yesterday….

I told my six-year-old that he could not attend a lengthy middle school/high school awards ceremony last evening. He really wanted to go (for the potential desserts at the end), so he began to beg. I told him again that he could not come with us.

He soon presented me with this:

"That is why my mom is evil."

FYI: My son told me later that this is a picture of me (Leila), as an evil wizard (note the hat and magic wand). Our house is being hit by lightning strikes. At least I am smiling!

When informed that he still could not attend, he soon handed me this:

"Well, I don't like you."

And then, this:

"Then I don't like you at all."

Next, in case I missed his point:

"I said, 'I don't like you.'"

When the answer was still "no", he brought out the big guns:

"If you don't let me go, I will never let you tuck me in,
and you do not get to spend time with me."

Alas, the answer remained "no", and he followed-up with my personal favorite:

"Wow. You are a horrible mother."

But never fear. There are moments of great joy, which sweeten the stings of parenting. For eventually, his final note to me was this:

And best of all, even though he was not allowed to go yesterday, he does get to attend the long high school graduation of his brother, tonight. I hear there will be desserts!

_

My first real Quick Takes!

I can't believe it. It's my first official Quick Takes!

In no particular order:

1.  I want to take "Gender Spectrum Diversity Training" and punch it in the nose. Oh, and if it comes near my kindergartner, I will kick it in its genderless area.

2.  I had something else written here for #2, but I thought better of it. Instead, I offer this: Whenever I get down about the state of the world and the blurry, relativistic road this culture is sliding down, I smile at Jesus. Literally, I look at my crucifix, and I smile at Him. His words are unambiguous: 

"In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world." 

Yes, Lord, You have.

And when I have a particularly difficult time with some of the ideas that come across this blog or in the news, I look up ever so slightly to see the lovely figure of my Blessed Mother Mary, smiling down at me. And the peace comes. And I smile back and thank her.

My view when I blog.
(When I remember to look up!)

We are so blessed. How can we help but be joyful?

3.  Yesterday I had a kindergarten graduate!

4.  Tomorrow I have a high school graduate!

5.  Unanswered questions. Miss Gwen, I would sincerely appreciate a response to my comment. I truly don't get it. Also, still looking for someone who can walk me through an alternate scenario (if Jesus didn't die and rise). For example, "After the wild dogs came and ate Jesus' body, the Apostles did such and such because of this and that…." Just something specific and plausible. Anyone?

6.  I seriously wish I could make my home pretty like so many of my fellow bloggers do. Or, I wish I had a budget which would allow for a decorator to help my sorry self in that area!

7.  I did something soooooo stupid. During my attempt to get (even better) photos of my crucifix and Mary statue on this blog post, I accidentally put the camera's memory card in the slot where a DVD/CD is supposed to go (which, on my Mac, is slightly above where the memory card slot is located). With one ill-advised push of my finger, the memory card was almost completely swallowed up! So, I quickly found some thin sharp objects and a flashlight and began to extricate the memory card from the wrong slot. My efforts resulted in pushing the memory card further in and completely out of sight! I guess I have to take my computer to the Apple store now to get the stinkin' thing out?? It could be worse: I could still have all the photos of Kindergarten graduation on that lost memory card, but I had uploaded them minutes earlier. Whew!  **Update! My wonderful husband found an online tutorial for how to get a memory card out of that CD slot! He got it out! Yay!

I'm not sure this first Quick Takes was very interesting. Will it be my last?? In any event, thanks to Jen for hosting! Have a great weekend!

_

Race, class and gender…less

_

When Complicated Life alerted me to the following story, I first felt sick to my stomach:

Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret

Then, I just felt profoundly sad for the children. It is heartbreaking, and I can barely write about it.

However, it did not surprise me that the father of these "genderless" children teaches in a small school "whose lessons are framed by social-justice issues around race, class and gender" (emphasis mine). I've talked extensively about my disdain for the "race, class and gender" paradigm which is the lens through which the secular Left sees the world. I have also heard from readers who do not see any essential difference between men and women, or between motherhood and fatherhood.

Lately, I sometimes feel like Alice down the rabbit hole.

Then, sweet relief! Balm for the soul in the form of a post by Sarah at Sarah's Journal. She takes on the issue of the "genderless" baby better than I ever could. Run, don't walk, to her latest offering, which includes truthful gems like this:

From a Catholic perspective, the body isn't just a shell in which our "true selves" are trapped. Our bodies don't conceal our identities but are in fact an integral part of our unique selves. 

And this:

When a person asks if a baby is a boy or girl, they aren't really asking about details of their genitalia. Instead, they are hinting at a deeper truth: the reality that our bodies, including our sex, are an integral part of our identities as whole, complete human beings and that a person's femininity or masculinity will be expressed in a myriad of ways.

Sarah reminds us that the antidote to the confused, misguided, and even tragic push for a "genderless" society can be found in Blessed John Paul II's seminal work, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. (Or, for beginners, an easier treatment of TOB, here).

I've spoken before about the need to frame things in terms of ordered vs. disordered. There is nothing ordered about a "genderless child". Please Lord, open our eyes and our hearts to see the truth, goodness, and beauty of Your design for our bodies. 

___ 

What I Never Learned, Part II

Years ago, I sent out some "catechesis emails" to interested friends and family. They, like me, never really learned much in Catholic religious education and CCD classes (I was catechized in the 1970s and '80s). What I wrote was pretty basic stuff, and I thought some of the Bubble readers might like the overview. Part one of this salvation history overview can be found here.

Welcome back!

So, what happened to humanity after Adam and Eve’s fall from grace and banishment from the Garden of Eden?

Well, life got pretty rough (it always does when humans are separated from God). When sin entered the world, so did toil, suffering, disorder and death. Everything that was easy in the Garden was now difficult and required great effort. Adam now had to work the land, laboring and sweating, in order to bring forth food (whereas in the Garden, food was abundant and available). Eve would have to bear children in pain and suffering (whereas in the Garden, childbirth would have been painless and effortless).

The things that bring forth life (tending the fields; giving birth) became works of great suffering and sacrifice. It is significant that when Jesus Christ came later to clean up our mess, He gave us the gift of eternal life through His great suffering and perfect sacrifice.

Please keep that in mind: In our fallen world, the things that are truly life-giving require suffering and sacrifice. It doesn’t sound pleasant, does it? In our fallen state, we humans have a disordered inclination to seek pleasure and comfort above all else, and we are uneasy when we think of suffering and sacrifice. And yet, we are called to endure suffering patiently and offer ourselves sacrificially.

Yep, there's a reason Jesus calls His way the “narrow road” that is not often willingly traveled! But that narrow road leads to abundant and eternal life. It is our suffering and sacrifice (offered to God in union with Christ's suffering and sacrifice) that sanctifies us, and it is in our sanctification (i.e., holiness) that we attain the perfection of Heaven.

But, I digress!

Adam and Eve went about their lives outside the Garden, they were “fruitful and multiplied,” and they taught their children about God. But because of sin and its effects (concupiscence), human thoughts became confused, consciences dulled and hearts hardened. It wasn't long before the first human blood was spilled: Adam and Eve's son Cain murdered his brother Abel, out of envy. And things spiraled down from there.

Essentially, what happened back then still happens today: People get caught up in their lives and do not think of God, Who becomes less and less important. As His memory fades from their minds and hearts, sin increases (sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will, so this downward spiral happens quite easily). Some deny His existence completely, while others acknowledge Him but keep Him far enough away so that He doesn’t interfere with their lives. Others resent and defy God when life is difficult and full of pain. However it happens, God is rejected, and we put ourselves in His place.

He doesn’t abandon us, we abandon Him.

So, way back then, as the generations marched on, most folks eventually abandoned God. However, then – as now – there was a handful of people who remained faithful and obedient to the Lord. God worked closely with those faithful ones throughout the generations, planning an opportunity for all of mankind to be saved. (It's been said that God’s mercy is His most beautiful attribute, and I tend to agree!)

Within every soul -- even the souls who do not love God or who do not believe in Him -- God has left His “echo” or his “thumbprint.” Deep down, every soul knows of God, every soul is hurting because of separation from God, and every soul is trying to find its way back to God. God alone knows what each of these souls needs, and He alone can provide it. Like a loving Father, He patiently waits for His children to reach for Him.

He waits now, He waited then.

Back in the ancient centuries, those who still remembered the God of the Garden tried to work their way back to Him….


Part III here.

Christians: The ACLU is not your friend

When I read this beyond-the-pale story yesterday*, which (yet again) exposes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for the anti-Christian organization that it is, I remembered a conversation I had a while back with an atheist reader of the Bubble, MaiZeke.

MaiZeke made the following claim:

The ACLU fights for the rights of Christians, Muslims, and the non-religious to practice their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs in the case of the non-religious).

I took issue with the statement, and MaiZeke responded with links to a few cases or letters of Christians being defended by the ACLU.

I subsequently contacted family friend Alan Sears, who happens to be the head of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). The ADF and its attorneys boldly take on the ACLU every day, and are intimately familiar with the organization's history, philosophy and tactics. In addition to running ADF, Alan literally co-wrote the book on the ACLU's attacks on our nation's Judeo-Christian roots, The ACLU vs. America:

I told Alan of my exchange with MaiZeke and sent him her link. He promptly responded with the following:

The ACLU has a long history of providing token defense to Christians in carefully selected cases in order to advance its radical agenda. ACLU founder Roger Baldwin laid out this strategy in 1934 when he said, “If I aid the reactionaries {i.e. Christians and conservatives} to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties.”

The bottom line: The ACLU generally only defends Christians when it serves their greater agenda, and often the cases they take on are “easy” ones that will not set any lasting legal precedent that will benefit Christians. However, there are numerous examples where the ACLU has been on the forefront of silencing, or attempting to silence, Christians.

In 2006, Jeremy Gunn, the ACLU’s “Director of Religion and Belief,” said that military chaplains who share their faith with soldiers, “should find another career.”

In 2003, the ACLU of Iowa tried to intimidate the small Iowa town of Tipton, to stop its yearly tradition of a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn. In the letter, the ACLU “kindly” agreed to assist the city on how it could “choose a constitutionally appropriate way to celebrate the Solstice Season.”

The ACLU has waged a systematic “war on the cross”, demanding that cross memorials to fallen military veterans -- such as Mt. Soledad in San Diego and the Mojave Desert Cross -- be taken down.

The ACLU has time and time again filed lawsuits against Christians who are simply trying to live out their faith:

In New Jersey, the ACLU is backing same-sex couples in a civil rights complaint against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church -- in order to force the ministry to open up its worship pavilion for same-sex “civil union” ceremonies in direct opposition to the association’s stated beliefs. 

In Kentucky, the ACLU took on a Baptist adoption ministry that works with the commonwealth to place children in loving two-parent homes, and backed a former ministry employee who had "come out” as a lesbian. The Baptist ministry's offense? Requiring its employees to adhere to Baptist beliefs regarding human sexuality. In its lawsuit, which has been unsuccessful thus far, the ACLU has tried to force the adoption ministry to either compromise its core beliefs or lose the funding it has received from the government to assist with adoptions.

It was the ACLU, in a friend-of-the-court Supreme Court brief filed in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that came up with the distortion that the words “separation of church and state” appear in the U.S. Constitution. (They don’t.) Associate Justice Hugo Black picked up that phrase in the minority opinion, and the ACLU was off and running ever since, to use what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit has called a “non-Constitutional construct” to engage in a war of fear, intimidation, and disinformation meant to bully public officials into silencing any religious expression in the public square – and in particular Christian religious expression. As a result, the ACLU participated in case after case at the United States Supreme Court that eventually outlawed school prayer, moments of silence, and eventually non-sectarian prayers by ministers and rabbis before public high school graduation ceremonies.

When school officials in Louisiana allowed a prayer before an awards banquet, the then-head of the ACLU of Louisiana compared praying Christians to Islamic terrorists, and demanded they be put in jail so they could be “removed from society.”

With regard to peaceful pro-life advocates at abortion clinics, the ACLU has not only attempted to strip them of the constitutionally-protected right to free speech, but some ACLU members have advocated using RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) laws – which were intended to financially cripple organized crime by tripling court awards – to bankrupt those who simply want exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

The ACLU’s assaults on Christianity in the public square go on and on, and are too countless to post in a forum such as this. One thing does become clear: The ACLU is the number one religious censor in America today.

One need only go back to the news article linked in my first line to have firm evidence of that.

The ACLU is a friend of Christians? You know what they say: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Christians, don't be fooled.

*Unfortunate resolution to the story, here.

___