- For Survivors
- Resource Center
- Make a Difference
- Book Clubs
This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.
Posted on: Tuesday, February 06, 2018
by James V. Schall, S. J. (close friend of Dr. Morse)
As I watched the Super Bowl, which turned out to be a very good game, what rapidly grew in my conscience was the sustained egalitarian propaganda in so many of the unavoidable ads we watched. One could not but notice that Turkish Airlines was a major sponsor, though we are by now used to ads from the Emirate airlines in many sports venues.
The rhetoric of the ads and the story line presented obviously had something to do with the NFL’s problem with player protests against America. Some of this may have been manifest, but if so, I missed it. T-Mobile seemed to sponsor the egalitarian line in almost evangelistic fashion.Three sequences in particular are worth recalling. The first one showed a taxi drive up to a Catholic church. A vigorous, rather tough-looking young cleric in Roman collar got in the cab. This scene was followed by stops at the local mosque, Buddhist center, and at a synagogue where clerics in colorful garb also got into the same cab. The viewer could have gotten the impression that this country is mainly populated by eastern religions.
But the message all along was that we all can and must get along together, no matter what our doctrinal differences. Live and let live. We can all enjoy the same games, no problem. The message had, to me at least, a bite to it. That is, these religions better get along together in this land. No conflict can exist between the culture and any religion. We do not tolerate anyone who cannot go along with the reigning civic orthodoxy.
Another sequence showed acts of charity and kindness, gays and poor, and minorities being helped by others. We just needed to get along. Everyone needed to help everyone. We can change, we are again and again told.A new day is dawning. The media now take an active role in changing views to conform to the reigning orthodoxy.
The final series was perhaps the most disturbing. In a nursery, we suddenly see one infant after another lined up next to each other. One is white, one is black, one Latino, one Chinese, and others of some other hue. The point was, evidently, all these little tykes are pretty much alike. How could anyone think otherwise?
Yet, these babies were all but recently born. They were shown without their parents, almost as if the parents were irrelevant. The children were not seen as members of a family. What was not mentioned or indicated was that any one or all of these infants could have been legally aborted with no questions asked had their photos been taken in utero a couple of months earlier.
So my brief conclusion from this year’s Super-bowl ad-watching saga is that we are being subjected to a heavy dose of propaganda about equality. The swirl of the myriads of identical dancers at half-time left the same impression. Besides a universalized egalitarianism, no other distinctions about the human good are permitted. Fundamental differences of belief, custom, genes, virtue, and prospect are evil and must be eliminated, evidently by what? My guess is the state, or perhaps the NFL.
James V. Schall, S.J. taught political philosophy at Georgetown University for many years until recently retiring. He is the author of
numerous books and countless essays on philosophy, theology, education, morality, and other topics. His most recent book is Reasonable Pleasures: The Strange Coherences of Catholicism (Ignatius Press). Visit his site, "Another Sort of Learning", for more about his writings
Posted on: Monday, February 05, 2018
Keeping your marriage healthy is paramount for your mental, physical, even financial health.
By Betsy Kerekes
This article was first published January 15, 2018, at Christian Post.
This time of year, people tend to look at their waistline, their exercise goals, or that unfinished project in the garage. How about a New Year's resolution that's more lasting and more important? Keeping your marriage healthy is paramount for your mental, physical, even financial health. It has a powerful impact on your children and influences your friends and other family members as well. That's a big responsibility! Here are 10 tips for making your marriage stronger and happier than ever.
1. Remember that love is a decision, not a feeling.
It's impossible to keep warm fuzzy feelings for your spouse constantly, especially when you have children taking up much of your time and energy. In the year ahead, there are sure to be challenging times, but remember to love your spouse, even when you don't feel like it. Your children are important, but your relationship with your spouse comes first. Period. Keep making the decision to love him or her even, and especially, when it's hard.
2. Put your spouse first.
Even though we all learned to share in kindergarten, we are still selfish beings. We want what we want when we want it. Technology and society as a whole aren't great at helping and encouraging us to break this habit, but the happily functioning marriage should be anything but selfish. Always ask yourself, what would your spouse like? Whether it's what to eat for dinner, what movie to watch, or what dessert you share at a restaurant, let your spouse choose. Having a happy spouse makes you a happy spouse. Let his or her happiness bring you happiness.
3. Keep dating each other.
Just because you're married, and especially if you have kids, doesn't mean your dating life is over. You still need to spend quality time together, or out with friends, but especially alone together. Getting out of the house for a date isn't always possible with sitters or finances, but you can have dates in, too. Rather than spend your evenings in separate rooms on separate phones, unplug - everything except your TV. Snuggle on the couch with popcorn or a glass of wine and a good movie. Better still, pull out a deck of cards or a board game. Every couple should have one indoor and one outdoor activity that they enjoy doing together. Schedule it on the calendar if necessary.
4. Have couch time.
This should happen daily. If it's difficult to talk about your day at the dinner table because you're too busy haranguing Penelope to eat her peas, or keeping Bobby from dunking his face in his soup, get your quality time on the couch when the children aren't around. Sit next to each other. Snuggle. Have at least some part of you touching. Physical touch soothes you. And as an added bonus, if you're touching even in some small way when you're upset with each other, the physical contact will ease tension and help you work out your troubles in a calmer, quicker manner.
5. When it's time to speak your mind, do so in a gentle way.
Don't keep a laundry list and dump all your grievances at once. No one likes being attacked. This is all the more reason to speak up when something is getting you down. And whenever possible, do so in a self-effacing way to lessen the blow. For instance: "We should probably both work on keeping the kitchen a little tidier." Even if you know full well it's the other person who's a slob, this phrase comes off much nicer than: "You need to clean up your mess! I'm tired of picking up after you!" That approach only leads to more yelling, childish name calling, and pointless comparisons of who does what and how often. It never ends well. Instead, be nice.
6. Don't let Robin rule the roost.
If your devotion to your children has gotten to the point where it feels more like they're in charge, tension is bound to occur in your home. It might be with a spouse who disagrees with your discipline methods, or within yourself because you're whipped by your own two-year-old. When it comes to discipline, it's imperative that both parents are on the same page. When there are cracks in the foundation of the castle, Little Prince or Princess will find them and take full advantage, turning you into court jesters. Your marriage will be happier if an agreed upon discipline is firmly in place.
7. Always be open with communication.
Whether it's discussing synchronizing your parenting styles or realizing when you last had an intimate moment alone together, you need to be open and honest. "Communication is key" is a cliché, but they're also words to live by. If you have something to say to your spouse, out with it. If it's unfortunately negative but needs to be said, don't keep it bottled up where it will only fester and grow to the point of explosion. If it's something positive, all the more reason to share it! It takes ten positive statements to push aside the sting of a negative statement. Don't be stingy on the praise. Only be negative when absolutely necessary.
8. Go to sleep at the same time.
This provides you with another opportunity for communication: verbal or physical. You decide. Be open. Enjoy each other's company. If you're normally too tired to do more than collapse into bed and fall directly to sleep, get yourselves in bed sooner. This is more needed couple time.
9. Maintain an attitude of gratitude.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are not Wonder Woman or Superman. You cannot do it all on your own. Sometimes you'll need help from your spouse. Allow your spouse to help you. Ask for help, but don't demand it. Ask kindly without whining or complaining. And accept graciously. When help comes unsolicited, be grateful and don't shy away from showing your gratitude. The words "thank you" and "I love you" go a long way. Kisses can go even longer.
10. Focus on the positive things in your life.
Maybe you're not as thin as you'd like to be and the garage or laundry room are still a mess, but how adorable was it when the baby blew raspberries at you? You may have been in your pajamas all day, but your spouse brought home dinner! Can't remember the last time you showered? Try instead to remember your wedding day in every blissful detail. Don't get down on the negative. Nobody ever promised life was easy. You do the best you can. If you're Debbie Downer, you won't be fun for your spouse to be around. Everything else will get taken care of in due time. Take that to heart by enjoying all the good and filtering out the bad.
Betsy Kerekes, editor at the Ruth Institute, is co-author with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage (Ave Maria Press 2013) and 101 Tips for Marrying the Right Person (Ave Maria Press 2016). She blogs at Parentingisfunny.wordpress.com.
Posted on: Sunday, February 04, 2018
By Brandon Showalter
This article was first posted on Christian Post on December 19, 2017.
A new Senate report is highlighting the effects of unwed childbearing and family breakdown as approximately 40 percent of births in the United States now occur outside of wedlock. And what are known as "shotgun" marriages are largely a thing of the past.
The sharp rise in nonmarital births is a result of a complex mixture of moral, behavioral, and social changes given how the Sexual Revolution overhauled the American landscape, noted Robert VerBruggen, deputy managing editor of National Review, writing on the blog of the Institute for Family Studies Monday. Two out of every five pregnancies in the United States now occur outside of wedlock.
"Married couples' fertility rate plummeted by about a third in the 1960s and early 1970s, almost certainly thanks to the introduction of the Pill at the beginning of that period," he wrote.
"Married people have always been sexually active, and the Pill allowed them to continue doing what they were doing with a drastically reduced risk of pregnancy if that was what they wanted."
But such a shift in mindset about sex has reorganized adult priorities while having grievous consequences on children, another scholar pointed out.
"People today generally believe that unlimited sex is an entitlement and that children have only the rights adults choose to give them. This is called 'reproductive justice,' because it neutralizes the impact of children on education and career, and supports 'equality' between men and women," said Jennifer Roback Morse, president of the Ruth Institute, in an interview Tuesday with The Christian Post.
"But if you believe that kids need and are entitled to a relationship with both their own parents, the moral calculus changes considerably."
Sex outside of marriage puts the prospective children at risk of experiencing at least one form of injustice, Morse went on to say. They are either killed via abortion; put at risk of a weak or nonexistent relationship with one parent, often the father; or are placed for adoption, separating the child from their biological parents, at least for the duration of their childhood, she explained.
The Senate report, "Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: The Rise in Unwed Childbearing," was released this month and prepared by the vice chairman's staff of the Joint Economic Committee at the request of Senator Mike Lee (Republican of Utah). The findings examine the trends and aim to understand how the United States arrived at its current social state.
The report also reveals that "shotgun" marriages — where the woman's father supposedly enforced the social norm of marriage by threatening to shoot the guy who impregnated his daughter — have tanked.
"We ridicule this norm, because we forget that it had the benefit of protecting the interests of children in having relationships with both parents," Morse commented.
"The most just solution for the child, is for the parents to marry each other, and work together for a lifetime for the good of the child, and their whole family. We accept injustice to children as the price we are willing to pay for adult sexual freedom and 'gender equality.'"
The report data shows that in the early 1960s, 43 percent of unwed pregnancies precipitated a hasty, "shotgun" marriage. Today, only 9 percent of unwed pregnancies result in such quick marital arrangements. Young couples no longer see the necessity of getting married because a child is coming.
Unmarried people as a group had previously limited their sexual activity, concerned about both unwanted pregnancy and social stigma, the report found. But they, too, began having sex earlier and more frequently as they gained access to hormonal contraception and as changing attitudes made premarital sexual relations more acceptable.
"Further societal changes made unmarried childbearing, not just sex, more acceptable, such that half of births from nonmarital pregnancies today are intended," VerBruggen observed.
The authors of the report do not think that abortion is a significant contributor to these trends, he explained. The abortion rate increased during the 1970s but dropped in the following decades and remains by all measures lower today than when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.
"It's a frustratingly complex picture; and half a century after the Sexual Revolution, with no reversal in sight, these may primarily be academic questions anyway. But if we're not happy where we are in this regard — and we shouldn't be, given the harms children have suffered from family breakdown — it can't hurt to know how we got here," VerBruggen said.
Posted on: Saturday, January 20, 2018
by Doug Mainwaring
This article was first published at Life Site News on December 22, 2017.
LAKE CHARLES, La., December 22, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The Ruth Institute is once again encountering difficulty in securing the services of an online donation processor because of its orthodox Christian views regarding marriage, family, and human sexuality.
The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization that seeks to create “a mass social movement to end family breakdown by energizing the Survivors of the Sexual Revolution,” paying special attention to the needs and rights of children.
In late August, the Ruth institute was notified that its online donation processor, Vanco, had discontinued providing services to the pro-family, pro-children’s rights organization for allegedly promoting “hate, violence, harassment or abuse.”
At the time, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, the Institute’s founder and president, said, “[Our] primary focus is family breakdown and its impact on children: understanding it, healing it, ending it. If this makes us a ‘hate group,’ so be it.”
“The Ruth Institute is listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s ‘Hate Map,’ which was recently in the news,” continued Morse. “We have been on this ‘Hate Map’ since 2013. To the best of our knowledge, no one has ever been inspired to riot or shoot anyone by our activities.”
Now, a different donation processor may be using similar tactics against the pro-family group.
Benevity is a company that facilitates employer matching donations. Someone wanted to ask his employer to match his donation to the Ruth Institute, so he asked the organization to sign up with Benevity.
“We make it easier for nonprofit organizations to establish their eligibility for our client’s corporate giving programs, reducing the burden on charities while enabling companies to adhere to their own program guidelines,” claims Benevity on its website. “We’ll determine if an organization is a registered charity in good standing, assess whether the charity meets eligibility guidelines, ensure they are not on relevant watch lists and that they comply with non-discrimination, anti-bribery and secular fund uses.”
According to a posting on its website, The Ruth Institute filled out an application and waited for a response. They were surprised that rather than being immediately accepted for the program, Benevity expressed concern about supposedly problematic statements on the Ruth Institute website.
Benevity suggested that the Ruth Institute is discriminatory because it didn't appear the pro-family advoacy group would be open to running programs for homosexuals or abortion and contraception advocates.
In particular, Benevity pointed to the fact that the Ruth Institute said on its application that it does not discriminate, yet “Upon checking your website and related blog posts, we thought it would be pertinent to reach out to you to check [w]hat you meant … would it mean for example, that your organization would be fine with hiring or running programs for homosexual people, people who did not agree that abortion is wrong, or those who advocate the use of contraception etc.”
“Is this correct?” continued the letter. “It would seem from reading your website and associated links that your organization does not support such views and presumably wouldn't hire or run programs supporting those who do.”
Dr. Morse responded in part, “We would certainly not provide programs that affirmed procuring an abortion, using artificial contraceptives, engaging in non-marital sexual activity or engaging in homosexual sexual activity.”
Benevity’s Charity Relations Specialist, Richard Paxton, responded: “Some of our clients will prohibit their employees from donating to and/or receiving matches for organizations which limit the people they help on the basis of their sexuality, beliefs around sex before marriage, contraception etc.”
Morse explained to Brevity’s Paxton, “I am unaware of any statute or case law that prohibits ‘discrimination’ based on ‘beliefs around sex before marriage, contraception, etc.’”
“Holding certain beliefs is not an immutable characteristic,” Dr. Morse continued. “Holding certain beliefs does not make one a member of a protected class, as far as I am aware. On what basis then do you include ‘beliefs around sex before marriage, contraception and especially the open-ended category, ‘etc.’ in your anti-discrimination question?”
Paxton countered, “We did find some content on your website and subsequent posts which suggest clearly that certain groups are excluded from attending some of your programs on the basis of their religion.”
The example he gave was a statement at the end of a post on the Ruth Institute's website:
Paxton explained that this would contradict the Ruth Institute’s self certification that it is not discriminatory.
In the end, the Ruth Institute revised its application, forced to answer “yes, we do discriminate.”
“We could have withdrawn our application altogether. I chose instead, to fill it out, under duress, as it were,” Dr. Morse elaborated. “I wish to state in no uncertain terms: I do not agree with the definition of ‘discrimination’ presented to me in this correspondence. In my mind, we do not ‘discriminate’ against anyone. Please notice that my request for clarification about whether holding views on ‘contraception,’ ‘abortion’ or especially ‘etc.’ constitutes discrimination did not receive any response whatsoever.”
It is unclear if any church-based ministry would meet Benevity’s standards for non-discrimination.
Posted on: Monday, January 08, 2018
Posted by Marc & Julie Anderson on in Archdiocese, Leaven News
What part will you play in the future of the family?
It is a question that is on the mind of more than a few Catholic leaders these days, as we see the primary institution of our society fracture under seemingly insurmountable stress.
But the Catholic Church is not the only institution unwilling to throw in the towel on the institution of the family.
The Ruth Institute, founded in 2008 by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, is a global nonprofit organization aimed at ending family breakdown by energizing survivors of the Sexual Revolution.
And it’s a movement that is coming to the archdiocese next month.
On Jan. 27, the archdiocesan office of marriage and family life will host the institute’s “Healing Family Breakdown” spiritual workshop at the Church of the Ascension in Overland Park.
The event is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic, and, according to Morse, is meant to accomplish three goals: (1) heal families; (2) help participants prevent family breakdown; and (3) help participants become agents of healing within society at large.
When families attend the workshop, Morse added, something important and life-changing happens to them.
“You realize you and your family are not the only ones,” she said. “For a lot of people, that is huge.”
That realization is an important first step in healing, she said, and is often made manifest to her in a tangible way in the seating arrangement of workshop participants.
“The Holy Spirit has a way of seating people at the table who belong together,” Morse said.
For example, at a past workshop, she witnessed a teenage girl’s perspective change as a result of a conversation she had with a man at her table.
The girl was the daughter of divorced parents. She blamed her father for the situation and did not want anything to do with him.
However, also seated at her table was a divorced man experiencing loneliness as his children would not talk to him. A conversation between the two, Morse said, led the young lady to consider the hurt and loneliness her father might be experiencing, a perspective the teenager had not considered previously.
And that’s just one type of healing and paradigm shift The Ruth Institute is trying to bring about in the world.
On the nonprofit’s website — www.ruthinstitute.org — Morse identifies a dozen different types of survivors of the Sexual Revolution, ranging from children of divorce and of unmarried parents, to a pornography addict or a post-abortive man or woman.
If you recognize yourself, a family member or a friend in one of the 12 survivor descriptions, Morse discourages you from trying to go it alone. Participate in the workshop and begin the healing process, instead.
“We need [survivors’] participation,” she said. “We need you to be witnesses to say the church was right all along [about its teachings on family and sexuality].”
Morse calls survivors “the secret weapon” to restoring the family to its greatness and its rightful place in society.
“All these wounded souls need to speak up,” she said.
“Many people leave the faith over sexual issues,” Morse explained. “I know. I stormed off in a huff.”
But just as people leave the faith over sexual issues, Morse said, countless people later realize the beauty of church teaching and return to the faith.
“I was completely wrong, of course,” she said of her departure from the faith.
Later, by studying the church’s teachings and by watching her adopted and biological children grow, Morse said she realized how much children need their father and mother as well as how much they want their parents.
“That’s how I got interested in the family and how the family fits into society,” said Morse.
As she has watched the family structure in modern society continue to deteriorate, however, Morse is not without hope.
“A lot of what society is trying to do is undoable,” she said. “We believe it is possible to make the family great again.”
Posted on: Tuesday, December 19, 2017
By Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was first published at Clash Daily on Dec. 13, 2017.
Former comedian Al Franken is resigning his seat as a Minnesota senator. Multiple women accused him of sexual harassment. The most notorious incident was the photo of him groping a female journalist, while she slept.
In his resignation speech, he made this
“I am proud that, during my time in the Senate, I have used my power to be a champion for women – and that I have earned a reputation as someone who respects the women I work alongside every day.”
I see no surprise here at all. Voting for abortion on demand, paid for if necessary by taxpayers, is only “pro-woman” in a most peculiar sense. It is “pro-women-deserve-to-have-as-much-sex-as-men-do-and-on-the-same-terms.” This is “equality,” you see.
Just one problem. Men don’t have babies, trans-activists to the contrary notwithstanding. For women to have sex on the same terms as men, they must get rid of the baby.
In a sane world, a man of any amount of wealth, power, and influence would understand that children need their own parents. People should only have sex with someone with whom they are willing to co-parent. Which means, be committed to for a lifetime. Which means, or used to mean, getting married. Preferably before the child is even conceived. This connection between sex, babies, and marriage used to be understood by all social classes.
Any sane person should realize that sex has different consequences for men than for women. But in our world, recognizing and making provision for these differences between men and women is discrimination against women. The ideologues of the Sexual Revolution insist that men and women are identical.
This is the real significance of Franken’s 100% pro-abortion voting record. It is not about “liberation” or “equality” for women. It never was. It is now, and always has been, about providing rich and powerful men sexual access to women’s bodies without having to face the natural consequences.
Men like Franken, Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer have plenty of money, power, and influence. Their privilege should not permit them to do whatever the hell they feel like, and face no consequences. But in our Sexual Revolutionary world, they generally do get to do whatever they want.
As long as they can keep all these pesky women from complaining about being used.
Why do women among the Elite classes put up with it? Delayed childbearing is the price of entry into the professions and elite jobs. Women who are highly placed in politics, law, and media cannot imagine how they would have the jobs they have, without abortion as a back-up for contraceptive failure. That is why so many women among Elites are completely committed to the Sexual Revolution. The fact that some women want their babies, doesn’t dawn on them. Neither does the possibility that some women want their babies’ father to be committed to them. Nor does the possibility that they themselves might be better off in a different, more respectful, more reality-based, sexual regime.
When Franken’s senate colleagues, male and female alike, claimed they agonized over asking him to step aside, you may safely assume they were calculating the political costs and benefits. The real impact on real women: not so much. And calling into question the underlying premises of the Sexual Revolution: absolutely out of the question.
Elites, male and female, in both parties, in business, law, media and academia, like the Sexual Revolution, just the way it is. Their current concern for victims of sexual assault and harassment is strictly for show, and will quickly fade. The men like an ideological system that presents them will a steady flow of willing sex partners. Elite men and women alike like a legal system that permits them to wipe out pregnancies, and hence excuse them from the “inconveniences” of parenthood.
Don’t be fooled by Senator Franken’s faux apologies and his colleagues’ faux outrage. He, and they, are only sorry he got caught.
Image: CC by 2.0; https://www.flickr.com/photos/56881272@N02/6761048993
Posted on: Monday, December 18, 2017
A friend of Ruth wanted to ask his employer to make a matching donation to the Ruth Institute. He asked us to sign up with Benevity, a company which, according to their website,
We make it easier for nonprofit organizations to establish their eligibility for our client’s corporate giving programs, reducing the burden on charities while enabling companies to adhere to their own program guidelines. We’ll determine if an organization is a registered charity in good standing, assess whether the charity meets eligibility guidelines, ensure they are not on relevant watch lists and that they comply with non-discrimination, anti-bribery and secular fund uses.We filled out the application, and thought no more about it.
Then, on Tuesday, November 28, we received the following:
Thanks for completing the self-certification for the Ruth Institute Benevity profile (https://causes.benevity.org/c
I noticed that you answered 'No' to question 2, which reads:
'Does Your Organization Discriminate against any person or group of people in its hiring and employment practices, codes of conduct, programs, services or in any other aspect of its operations or activities on the basis of that person or group of people's personal characteristics or attributes?'
For clarity, Discrimination in this Question includes (but is not limited to), hiring and employment policies or practices that discriminate against a person or group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, even if such policies and practices are permitted under applicable law.
Upon checking your website and related blog posts, we thought it would be pertinent to reach out to you to check that you meant to answer this question in this way. Answering 'No' to question 2 would mean, for example, that your organization would be fine with hiring or running programs for homosexual people, people who did not agree that abortion is wrong, or those who advocate the use of contraception etc.
Is this correct? It would seem from reading your website and associated links that your organization does not support such views and presumably wouldn't hire or run programs supporting those who do.
If you would like to amend your answer, you can do so by submitting a new Self-Certification, which is a legal online document that our clients use to determine your eligibility for their matching and giving programs, you can do so by [following the instructions below]:
If you do not intend to amend your answer, please let me know by responding to this email.
Richard Paxton | Charity Relations Specialist
Dr. Morse replied the same day:
This is Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, President of the Ruth Institute. Thank you for reaching out to us. My colleague Rachel forwarded your letter to me.
You are correct in your surmise that we interpreted the questions differently than you appear to do. We interpreted question 2 to be asking whether people could attend our programs or work for us or with us, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. The answer to that question is yes.
Your letter suggests however, that you mean something different. We would certainly not provide programs that affirmed procuring an abortion, using artificial contraceptives, engaging in non-marital sexual activity or engaging in homosexual sexual activity.
Given that this is the case, how would you suggest that we proceed? Is amending our profile the thing to do? Is there a place for offering this kind of clarification? Or is the non-discrimination question is simple "yes/no" without any qualification?
Once again, thank you for reaching out to us.
On November 30, we were again contacted by Mr. Paxton:
Thanks for getting back to me.
As you would intentionally restrict the direction of funds towards any activities which would assist such programs, the answer to question 2 that you have submitted would be incorrect. Some of our clients will prohibit their employees from donating to and/or receiving matches for organizations which limit the people they help on the basis of their sexuality, beliefs around sex before marriage, contraception etc.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Richard Paxton | Charity Relations Specialist
Dr. Morse responded the next day, December 1:
Thank you for your reply. However, I still need a bit of clarification.
You said, that some of your clients would "prohibit their employees from donating to and/or receiving matches for organizations which limit the people they help on the basis of their sexuality, beliefs around sex before marriage, contraception etc."
We specifically said that we would be happy to help anyone who chooses to participate in our programs. We are fully aware that not everyone agrees with our analysis of the social problems which we study. We do not "limit" anyone. Many people choose not to attend, subscribe or participate. We do not "exclude" them. They "exclude" themselves. Anyone who participates or attends will hear what we have to say. They might not agree with it, but we would certainly not prohibit them from participating in our activities.
In that sense, we do not "limit the people we help" on any basis, including the bases you mention.
Also, we reviewed the form. I attach a screen shot of the window that pops up, if we were to answer "yes" to question 2. It asks, "Is your organization a religious or faith-based organization exempt from applicable laws that otherwise prohibit such Discrimination?"
This suggests that you are using a definition of discrimination that is based upon law. I am unaware of any statute or case law that prohibits "discrimination" based on "beliefs around sex before marriage, contraception, etc." Holding certain beliefs is not an immutable characteristic. Holding certain beliefs does not make one a member of a protected class, as far as I am aware. On what basis then do you include "beliefs around sex before marriage, contraception" and especially the open-ended category, "etc." in your anti-discrimination question?
To be clear: I am willing to revise our certification in accordance with your policies (or withdraw our application altogether, if need be.) But we would like to be clear on exactly what we would be and would not be saying, if we answer "yes" or "no" to question 2.
A week went by without anything; Dr. Morse re-forwarded the message on December 7 and, after a brief
Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you. I have been off with a sports injury and haven't had a chance to look at everything yet.
I am in conversation with a couple of my colleagues regarding the status of your cause and will be in contact with you later today.
Richard Paxton | Charity Relations Specialist
I left a voicemail with you yesterday, I'm not sure if you received it or not?
We did find some content on your website and subsequent posts which suggest clearly that certain groups are excluded from attending some of your programs on the basis of their religion. For example, the statement at the end of this post:
This kind of rule being in place would directly contradict your answer to statement 2 of the Self-Certification, so we would request that this be amended.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Richard Paxton | Charity Relations Specialist
Hmm. We responded:
Thank you for the clarification.
We will proceed.
We went back to our application and changed the answers. We said, "yes" we do discriminate. We said "no" we are not a religious organization exempt from applicable laws that otherwise prohibit such discrimination.
We could have withdrawn our application altogether. I chose instead, to fill it out, under duress, as it were. I wish to state in no uncertain terms: I do not agree with the definition of "discrimination" presented to me in this correspondence. In my mind, we do not "discriminate" against anyone. Please notice that my request for clarification about whether holding views on "contraception," "abortion" or especially "etc." constitutes discrimination did not receive any response whatsoever.
Ask yourself this: could your church-based ministry meet the criterion implied by Benevity's December 8 email?
Posted on: Monday, November 06, 2017
Sexual revolutionaries consistently change the subject away from medical risks and back to their favorite topic: the hatefulness of anyone who brings them up.
This article was first published on October 24, 2017, at The Stream.
The breathless headlines from the main stream media announced that the nefarious Donald Trump spoke to those nefarious Values Voters. “Trump Just Spoke At An Event Where Guests Were Warned Of ‘The Hazards Of Homosexuality,” BuzzFeed informed its readers. “‘Hazards of Homosexuality’ Flier Distributed at Values Voter Summit” screamed the NBC News headline.
Dig down a bit, what you find is a big nothing burger. The “anti-gay” flyer advertised a book that warned of the medical risks associated with homosexual activity. Oddly enough, the main stream media had no comment on the accuracy of the contents of the book.
BuzzFeed quoted Gregory T. Angelo, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, an LGBT group, “I’d expect nothing less from the wingnuts at MassResistance.” NBC News quoted Sarah Kate Ellis, president of GLAAD, which they described as a “media watchdog group”: “This morning, addressing a gathering of some of the most extreme anti-LGBTQ activists in the country, Trump once again legitimized hate speech.”
BuzzFeed couldn’t even get the title of the book right, calling it, The Hazards of Homosexuality, when the correct title is The Health Hazards of Homosexuality. Neither BuzzFeed nor NBC News quoted a single person denying a single point in the book, or the advertising flyer. Their stories were about the people who wrote or promoted the book. MassResistance authored it. Dr. Michelle Cretella of the American College of Pediatricians endorsed it. The Family Research Council organized the Values Voters Summit. The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated all three organizations as “hate groups.”
Full disclosure: I too, am a certified hater, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. For the sake of argument, let’s take as a given that I am the meanest, most hate-filled person on the planet, and that my hatred is directed at sexual minorities.
Now that we have that out of the way, can we please discuss two serious questions: Is homosexual activity riskier than heterosexual activity? And if it is, does it matter?
As a certified hater, I’m friends with most of the other certified haters. I happen to have a copy of The Health Hazards of Homosexuality on my shelf. I’ve read it cover to cover. I have not checked out all 1,800 footnotes. But I am familiar with many of the references cited. Let’s look at a few topics, that can be easily checked with the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control.
Syphilis: the CDC reports that “MSM continued to account for the majority of Primary & Secondary syphilis cases in 2016 (Figures 35 and 36). Of 27,814 reported P&S syphilis cases in 2016, 16,155 (58.1%) were among MSM, including 14,553 (52.3%) cases among men who had sex with men only and 1,602 (5.8%) cases among men who had sex with both men and women (Figure 36).”
HIV: “At the end of 2014, among a total of 722,244 males (aged 13 years and older at year end 2014), 70% of HIV infections were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.” Bear in mind: Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for about 2% of the population.
Anal Cancer: Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer.
The “wingnuts at MassResistance” quoted figures like these in The Health Hazards of Homosexuality. Do these facts matter? If you are an ordinary person, trying to figure out what to do and what to think, yes, I should think these facts matter greatly to you.
Why marginalize people who publicize facts like these? Because these facts interrupt the Grand Narrative:
Sexual activity is an entitlement for anyone able to give meaningful consent. There is no down-side risk associated with any kind of sex for anyone, if they use a condom every time. And if something bad happens to you, you must not have used the condom correctly or consistently.
In other words, the problems you experience are your fault. The Grand Narrative must never be called into question.
This is the same garbage Sexual Revolutionaries have been feeding straight women for years. Never mind the unwanted pregnancies or the STI’s or the broken hearts. Use a condom for “safer sex.” It’ll all be good. And anyone who connects the rather obvious dots between sexual activity and these outcomes, just hates you.
The Grand Narrative won’t work any better for gay men, than it has for us. Yes, of course, I am aware the gay men don’t experience unwanted pregnancies. They have other issues. Former gay porn star Joseph Sciambra reports on his experience with rectal incontinence. Not something most women have to deal with.
My point is this. Sexual Revolutionaries airbrush all the negative consequences out of the picture. They consistently change the subject away from these consequences and back to their favorite topic: the hatefulness of anyone who brings them up.
If you experience same sex attraction, you have choices beyond the Grand Narrative. Even if you have experienced same sex attraction all your life, so consistently that you think you must have been “born that way,” you still have choices about what to do, what to think, and how to describe yourself. The medical risks are not the result of stigma or “hate.” Anal sex is intrinsically risky, so much so, that the Surgeon General once declared it “simply too risky to practice.” Having large numbers of sexual partners increases the risks of STI’s. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not being truthful with you.
If you care about the health and well-being of sexual minorities, you should want them to have full information about the risks associated with various
practices. That is what the headlines screaming about “hate” get wrong. And that is what the “wingnuts at MassResistance” get right.
Posted on: Saturday, November 04, 2017
by Claire Chretien
This article was first posted October 16, 2017, at Life Site News.
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 16, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Liberal media and LGBT activists are outraged that President Trump spoke at a conference where an exhibitor warned people of the scientifically-documented health risks of sodomy.
On Friday, Trump became the first sitting U.S. President to speak at Values Voter Summit (VVS), an annual gathering of pro-life, pro-family activists hosted by the Family Research Council (FRC). The largely evangelical conference featured a number of Congressmen, pastors, and pro-life advocates.
Mass Resistance, one of the groups tabling in the conference’s exhibit hall, was selling and advertising its book titled The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals.
Mass Resistance was also selling copies of a book by Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez, a man who was raised by lesbians.
Buzzfeed and NBC News both wrote articles critical of Trump speaking at an event where vendors in the hall advertised for and peddled fact-based books about the risks associated with homosexual behavior.
Dan Gainor, Vice President of Business and Culture at the Media Research Center, said the left-leaning reports were biased.
“Conservatives need to understand that openly left-wing outlets like Buzzfeed will never cover conservatives fairly,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Editor Ben Smith says ‘there are not two sides’ on the issue, so why worry about what they say?”
The book in question used reputable sources for its information, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
“This book brings together information from widely dispersed and hard-to-find sources, summarizing recent medical and psychological research in laymen’s terms,” The Health Hazards of Homosexuality’s Amazon page says. “Sources include the Centers for Disease Control, medical professional groups, published medical research, media reports, plus LGBT medical and advocacy groups – all documented in 1,800 endnotes with up-to-date links.”
The book’s website says it covers “the politicized medical and mental health establishments,” the mental health issues of “depression, anxiety, suicidality, substance use, partner abuse, and BDSM (bondage/sexual sadomasochism),” the “sexual practices of homosexual men and lesbians” and “how HIV/AIDS is re-emerging as an epidemic among homosexual men.”
And it's not just conservative-based outlets that are writing about the sky-rocketing rates of sexually transmitted diseases among active homosexuals.
Just last month, the Washington Blade, which describes itself as “America’s LGBT News Source,” ran an article on the country’s “all-time high” STD rate.
Sexually transmitted “diseases are on the rise in a number of groups, including women, infants, and gay and bisexual men,” the Washington Blade reported. “Between 2015 and 2016, syphilis rates rose nearly 18 percent. Most cases occurred among men, especially gays and bisexuals. Half of the men in those two groups also had HIV, according to the report.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labels FRC and Mass Resistance “hate groups.” This claim was repeated in media coverage of the flier promoting the book.
The SPLC’s placement of FRC on its “hate map” inspired the first incident of armed domestic terrorism in Washington, D.C. in 2012. A man shot FRC’s security guard and planned to massacre FRC staff. He said he found FRC because the SPLC labeled it “anti-gay.”
Sarah Kate Ellis, President of GLAAD, said the flier was “unequivocally false and baseless.”
But the evidence says otherwise.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 2014, "gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 70% (26,200) of new HIV infections in the United States.” This is despite the fact that “gay and bisexual men made up an estimated 2% of the U.S. population” that year.
“The comments in the BuzzFeed article are very revealing: none of them deny the facts, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control,” Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, told LifeSiteNews.
“Who is the real hater here?” Morse asked. “The person who points out highly skewed patterns of risk, or the person who understates or diverts attention [away from] from those risks?”
“No one has claimed that the book isn’t accurate or false,” Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance told LifeSiteNews. “They just don’t like that the information is being made available.”
The secular website WebMD reports that homosexual practice has "downsides.”
“There are a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons,” it states.
“Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure,” WebMD says.
“The anus is full of bacteria,” meaning even if neither partner has an STD, there’s still a chance of infections, it adds.
Posted on: Saturday, October 28, 2017
by Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was first posted October 26, 2017, at Crisis Magazine.
The Media-Entertainment Complex claims to be “shocked, shocked, I tell you,” to learn that powerful Hollywood men like Harvey Weinstein engage in a systematic pattern of sexual assault. Those of us outside Hollywood are not the slightest bit shocked. In fact, a lot of us in Fly-Over Country are just waiting for other powerful men to be implicated. This situation gives us an opportunity to unmask the ideology that enable predators like Weinstein.
One of the most revolutionary ideas of our time is that a good and decent society ought to separate sex and childbearing from each other. The Grand Narrative goes something like this:
Caring for unwanted children is an unjust demand on women. Sexual activity without a live baby is an entitlement for men and women alike. People need and are entitled to sexual activity. A life without sex is scarcely worth living.
Do I exaggerate? Perhaps a bit. But the United Nations makes a claim that is very nearly that stark. On its “Frequently Asked Questions” page, the United Nations Population Fund answers the question “What is Reproductive Health?”
Reproductive health can be defined as a state of well-being related to one’s sexual and reproductive life. It implies, according to the ICPD Programme of Action, “that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so.” (para. 7.2)
The United Nations never quite explains who has the responsibility to provide us with a “safe and satisfying sex life.” As for having the “capability to reproduce the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so”: that should not be rocket science, requiring a whole “Programme of Action.” A person who judges that the time is not right for a baby, has the option of not having sex. Pretty simple.
Evidently, it is not that simple. Somehow, the United Nations does not expect people to go without sex, even temporarily and even for serious reasons. Hence my initial claim: these people believe sex is an entitlement.
So here’s a question for the ordinary people, not employees of the United Nations, or Hollywood: who believes people are “entitled” to sex?
The rapist, that’s who:
I am entitled to sex. I am entitled to have only and precisely the consequences of sex that I choose to bear. I am not required to have responsibility for a child. I am not required to be committed to my sex partner. I can use people. I can do anything I can get away with.
Add to this mentality, the “pro-woman,” “feminist” position that men and women are identical in their sexual desires, that a hip modern woman craves sex without attachment, that only prudes and uncool losers even consider saving sex for marriage, and what do you get? A whole lot of women ideologically delivered over to predators.
Abortion is a “woman’s right to choose.” But how often are women pressured into having abortions by powerful men in their lives, employers, teachers, clergymen, even their fathers, to have abortions in order to cover up the evidence of predation? We don’t really know. No one seems to think this question is worth asking.
What does this have to do with Harvey Weinstein and his string of victims? Just this. Weinstein was a “bundler” for the Democratic Party. That means he raised a lot of money for the party that just happens to be completely committed to abortion on demand for any reason at any point during pregnancy. According to Business Insider, he contributed over $2 million to Democratic candidates, between his personal gifts and his activities as a “bundler.” He thought he was entitled. He had the power and money to get away with it. He used some of that power and money to keep the legal, political, and social climate favorable to that belief system.
It is quite true that the Republican Party has its share of predators. It is also true that many powerful Republicans wish the social issues and social conservatives would all go away. These people view the pro-life wing of the party as an embarrassment.
In all times and places, powerful men have abused their power, raped and assaulted women. It would be foolish to deny this. The difference today is that the moral structures that used to limit powerful men have been systematically dismantled.
“‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ are social constructs.”
Who benefits from that? The already-powerful.
“Sex is an entitlement.”
Who benefits from that? Those with the power to cash in on their entitlement.
The Democratic Party is distancing itself from Weinstein by making a big show of giving his contributions to “charity.” But when you drill down, you see the DNC gave away only 10 percent of the money Weinstein gave them. They gave to vehicles for getting women involved in pro-Sexual Revolutionary politics: Emily’s List, Emerge America, and Higher Heights. Please. Meanwhile, Weinstein spent much of his career making Catholic-bashing films, thus undermining his ideological opposition.
Alpha Males in both parties, in business, law and academia, like the Sexual Revolution, just the way it is. Their concern for victims of sexual assault is strictly for show, will quickly fade. They like an ideological system that presents them with a steady flow of willing sex partners. They like a legal system that permits them to wipe out pregnancies, and hence excuse them from the responsibilities of fatherhood. They like a Media Entertainment Complex that covers for predators, and marginalizes their victims and opponents. They are quite willing to invest their own millions of dollars to keep the political system firmly in the hands of those who keep this system chugging along.
That should be the real wake-up call from the Harvey Weinstein scandals.
(Photo credit: AP)