Mandeville, LA –This Clip of The Day was originally aired and published on May 29,2014 and is part of the Founders Pass Flashback Collection.
FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Audio Clip of The Day files, Project 76 feature presentations, Church Doctrine audio & video clips and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7, here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike
HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW! FOR HUNDREDS MORE CLIPS, VISIT THE CLIP OF THE DAY ARCHIVE HERE
Exclusive Transcript – Dr. O’Donnell, what I call that is paganization. And this will come to our shores, if it’s not already here, as we rapidly evolve or I would say voluntarily matriculate towards becoming — a term I’m going to start using more and more often — PagaNation. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: This is a story from The Tablet news service. I’ll just read you the headline, “Catholic doctors who follow church teaching advised to emigrate.” This is a story from the UK.
Charlie O’Donnell, a consultant in emergency and intensive care medicine, said the best advice he could give to an “orthodox” Catholic wishing to specialise in obstetrics and gynaecology would be to “emigrate”.
Dr O’Donnell told the conference at Ealing Abbey, west London, on 17 May that a Catholic training to be a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology would soon find he or she had conscientious objections to such tasks as prescribing artificial contraceptives, giving unmarried couples fertility treatment or Viagra to gay couples.
He said that supervising consultants do not have the backup to allow trainees to opt out if they have moral objections to such work. However, conscientious objection to abortion is allowed because of specific provision in the 1967 Abortion Act.
“To be a sound Catholic regarding sexual ethics it is not possible to train as a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist but this is not because of discrimination against Catholics. There is a total conflict of culture of what is good sex, a dichotomy of belief between what we as Christians believe is good overall for the individual and what secular society believes,” said Dr O’Donnell.
Mike: Dr. O’Donnell, what I call that is paganization. And this will come to our shores, if it’s not already here, as we rapidly evolve or I would say voluntarily matriculate towards becoming — a term I’m going to start using more and more often — PagaNation.
Then there’s this — I don’t know if Professor Gutzman has seen this story, but there is this pair of students at the University of Virginia. They have filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding that one of the professors at UVA be forced to fork over his cell phone, bank transactions, and travel transaction records so that the university going public can see what that professor is up to, and can see that he’s using his position at the University of Virginia to help others discriminate against women who want to have abortions and against homosexuals who want to pursue same-sex unions or marriages or whatever it is they term them. The professor has said: Look, I’m just out there doing what I’ve been doing for years, and that is pursuing and advising people on the legal defense of civil liberties. It’s Professor Douglas Laycock of UVA. I didn’t get a chance to get the story in. I have commentary on it in today’s Pile of Prep and the link to it if you’d like to read it for yourself.
Without further ado, let’s go to the Dude Maker Hotline and we will now talk about the introduction of the Virginia Plan in the Federal Convention of 1787, which occurred on this day 227 years ago. Professor Kevin Gutzman is author of James Madison and the Making of America and Virginia’s American Revolution. In James Madison and the Making of America we get the behind-the-scenes view of all this. I’ll let Professor Gutzman explain all that to you. Kevin, good morning. How are you, sir?
Kevin Gutzman: Good morning, Mike. I’m very well. How are you? Before we get started, can I say something about the Laycock thing at UVA?
Mike: I baited you into it. I’d absolutely love for you to say something about it.
Gutzman: Doug Laycock is maybe the foremost expert on the constitutional law of church-state relations in the United States. When I was in law school at the University of Texas Law School, he was on the faculty there. He famously criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in the Smith case. That’s the one where they held, in an opinion written by Justice Scalia, that if a facially neutral statute were applied neutrally and had a negative impact on people’s religious practice, that was not inconsistent with the free exercise clause. The free exercise clause only required neutral statutes. It didn’t require that government try to accommodate religious practice. Laycock famously blasted that. As I say, he’s extremely prominent in academia. He ended up at UVA when his wife became the president of UVA, which is where she stands now.
This is a very interesting event, I think. I think, myself, of all kinds of legal arguments against his having to turn over his personal cell phone records. I can’t really quite imagine that he’s going to be ordered to turn over his personal cell phone records. It’s interesting that the judiciary has essentially allowed this kind of harassment to go on. I guess it seems the next step, after forcing bakers and photographers to participate in homosexual unions, to say: Okay, now we’re going to go after state employees and see whether they’ve been talking about and trying to help people avoid doing that. It’s not quite surprising to me, although obviously it is, to the extent that it amounts to harassing someone for stating his opinion, entirely obnoxious.
Besides that, Laycock is a famously liberal professor. There’s no doubt in my mind that he’s sympathetic with people who want to say that homosexual unions should be allowed. I’ve not read him saying that, but I can’t quite imagine, given what I know about his opinions about other things, that he’s not sympathetic with these students, except when it comes to harassing him. This is the way things are going in our culture. To a growing degree, it’s impossible to dissent without finding yourself hauled before the legal authorities. As you said earlier, that’s what people are being warned about in the UK, too.
I might add that, besides Catholics in the UK — I’m Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Primates, the Patriarch of Moscow, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Archbishop of Athens, all the Orthodox Patriarchs recently, including the Primate of North America, who is the Archbishop of North America, came out and said marriage is between a man and a woman. There’s no way we can change this. That’s just the way it is. I imagine that along with Catholics in the UK, Orthodox people are being told the same thing. If you want to be an obstetrician and continue to be an Orthodox Christian in good practice, you’re going to have to leave the United Kingdom.
Mike: If they come here, it’s just going to follow them over here.
Gutzman: It looks like it, yeah.
Mike: Quite the wicked web we have woven. By the way, Kevin, just so you’ll know, in the Daily Caller piece, which is where I got the story about Professor Laycock, the guy who wrote the story, he called Laycock and got a quote from him. Laycock said or intimated that he is sympathetic to gay marriage. He doesn’t really have an issue with it. What he has an issue with is compelling people, like in the case of New Hampshire, compelling them to bake cakes, like you said, and doing those other things. That’s just not part of a society that cherishes and preserves civil liberties. The civil liberties of one cannot be infringed so that the desires of another — your desire to have something is not a civil liberty. You can’t compel someone to do it for you.
Gutzman: So once again what we find here is that there’s an inconsistency between traditional American understandings of liberty and the latest left-wing project for forcing people to cooperate in their agenda. These recent decisions about the bakers and photographers and so on do exactly that. They basically dragoon people into helping do these things. Of course, that amounts to saying instead of defining marriage the way it’s always been defined, from now on we’re going to define it a different way and make you participate in it. If somebody became a wedding photographer because she was a devout Baptist and wanted to be participating in people’s weddings, she’s suddenly found that this means she’s going to participate in something that Baptists say is a sin.
What to do about that? It seems obvious to me that Laycock’s position is the one that really the courts ought to be enunciating, that being free to do something doesn’t mean being free to make other people participate in it. Unfortunately in the United States, that’s not where the courts tend to go. They tend to make people participate in various new projects that the left have dreamed up. Freedom is not available, essentially.
End Mike Church Show Transcript