- For Survivors
- Resource Center
- Make a Difference
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: 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)
Posted on: Saturday, October 21, 2017
If you are a social conservative, big business does not want your business.
By Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was first published on October 20, 2017, at The Stream.
If you’re a social conservative, big business does not want your business. I found that out the hard way. Vanco, the company that used to process on-line donations for my organization, the Ruth Institute, informed us that they would no longer do business with us. A few weeks later, they came back to us to say they could “reinstate” our account. We asked them a few pointed, but polite, questions. Based on their (non)answers, I concluded they don’t need our business.
That’s ok. I don’t need them either.
Here’s what happened.
At 2 PM on August 31, 2017, we received this terse email:
Vanco has elected to discontinue our processing relationship with The Ruth Institute. The organization has been flagged by Card Brands as being affiliated with a product/service that promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse. Merchants that display such attributes are against Vanco and Wells Fargo processing policies.”
We went to our website and discovered they had already closed our processing. No notice. Zip. Nada.
We issued a news release:
We had to inform our monthly donors that we would have to make other plans to process their contributions. Naturally, they were upset. Some of our friends sent letters to Vanco. We had a petition, asking Vanco to reconsider their reliance on the Southern Poverty Law Center, presumably the source of their designation of us as a “hate group.”
For whatever reason, we received a phone call from the CFO of Vanco on September 26. She told me they had reviewed our case and they could reinstate our account. I asked her to send me a letter. Here is what she sent:
Jennifer, thank you for the conversation yesterday. As discussed on our call, Vanco has completed our re-underwriting process with our Banking partner and secured the ability to reinstate The Ruth Institute as a client. If you would like to reinstate your account, please contact me at the email above.
The rest of the letter was a description of their pricing. As if price were my principle consideration.
I replied on September 29:
For us to consider returning to Vanco, we would require, at a minimum, the following:
- An explanation of why we were terminated. What policies had we violated?
- An explanation of the investigation which took place which uncovered these violations.
- The appeals process a client could go through, should we, or any other client, find themselves in this position of immediate, unexplained termination.
- An explanation of the “re-underwriting process (which) … secured the ability to reinstate The Ruth Institute as a client.” What exactly changed between August 31st and September 26th?
- A personal, and a public apology. Neither your phone call, nor your email contained even a hint of an apology.
I am sure you can understand that switching credit card processing is no small matter. We finally have our new systems up and running. All things considered, it would take an extraordinary effort on your part to get us back. Your correspondence thus far, does not rise to that level.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse
As discussed on the phone and via email, Vanco has secured the ability to reinstate The Ruth Institute as a client. Based on your feedback, we understand you are working with another payment processor. Please know that if for some reason that does not work out, we would welcome the opportunity to have you back as a client.
In other words, still no apology. Not even any acknowledgement of our questions. No recognition of any inconvenience to us or wrong-doing by them.
Vanco markets itself to religious organizations. “More churches trust Vanco for e-Giving than any other faith-based payments provider! 20,000 churches and growing.” Yet, Vanco dropped us because we hold views about marriage, family and human sexuality that were the belief of all Christian groups, until five minutes ago. In fact, a PJ Media story had this headline: “Will the Southern Poverty Law Center Brand the Roman Catholic Church a ‘Hate Group’?”
Many of our supporters are believers: Catholics, Evangelicals, and Latter-Day Saints. They had already figured out that if the Ruth Institute is a “hate group,” then so are they. These are the people who pay the fees Vanco collects. We don’t pay: our donors pay. These dear people give us $10 or $25 per month. They deserve an explanation and apology. Reinstating service with Vanco without both an explanation and apology would be breaking faith with them.
Vanco has not admitted any connection with the Southern Poverty Law Center, (SPLC) nor any pressure from Wells Fargo. But Vanco is acting as if they believe the position of the SPLC is correct. Vanco boasts that it processes over $13 billion in transactions. This is not a small organization. Neither is Wells Fargo (whatever their part in this whole affair may be.) And neither is the Southern Poverty Law Center. Their CEO’s salary is more than the entire budget of the Ruth Institute.
All I know is that these groups participated in a public shaming of my organization. Indirectly, they have slandered everyone who has ever given me ten bucks. I’m not going to stand for it. They have made it clear that they don’t need my business.
So be it. The Ruth Institute doesn’t need them. I bet your church doesn’t need them either.
Posted on: Saturday, October 14, 2017
by Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was first published July 8, 2017, at Clash Daily.
The Benedict Option has taken up a lot of bandwidth in cultural conservative circles, more than it deserves, frankly. A much better book has come out: The Marian Option by philosophy Ph.D. and homeschooling mother of four, Dr. Carrie Gress.
Before I tell you about the book, let me tell you a joke related Dr. Gress relates. You may have already heard this joke. Bear with me.
A man whose house is flooding is confident that God will save him. As the water rises, a farmer in a truck comes by to offer him a ride. “Oh, no, the Lord will save me!” Next, as the water rises to the first floor of his home, a rescuer in a boat comes by. “Oh, no, the Lord will save me!” he says, again refusing help. Finally, perched on his roof because the water has nearly covered his entire home, a helicopter comes by to pluck him off the shingles. “Oh, no, the Lord will save me!” The man is washed away and drowns. At his arrival at the pearly gates, the man says to God, “Why didn’t you save me?” God says, “I tried. I sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter”.
I’ll come back to this joke.
The subtitle of the book encapsulates Dr. Gress’s theme: God’s Solution to a Civilization in Crisis. Throughout history, Mary has come through during multiple confrontations with Islam. The Christian West won the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, while the entire city of Rome prayed the Rosary. Polish King Jan Sobieski defeated the Turks on September 11, 1683, after asking Our Lady of Czestochowa to intercede with her Divine Son. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.
Then there is the most famous apparition of the twentieth century, Our Lady’s visit to three shepherd children in Fatima, Portugal. She made geo-political predictions the illiterate children simply could not have invented. No less an intellectual than Pope St. John Paul II credited Our Lady of Fatima for her aid in the collapse of communism.
You may think these are all overwrought ravings of hysterical simpletons. You should know that getting Church approval for an apparition is quite rigorous. Hundreds of alleged apparitions have NOT been approved as being of supernatural origin, or worthy of belief.
I recommend Carrie Gress’s book, The Marian Option, if you are looking for simple ways to fight the spiritual battles of our time. Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option is not as useful, principally because people can’t figure out what the heck he is talking about. The Marian Option has no such problem. Anyone can carry out the simple acts of devotion Dr. Gress suggests. Even children. In fact, perhaps, especially children.
I am well aware this is not a Catholic publication. And I am certainly aware that many non-Catholic Christians are fearful about “Mary worship.” When the Gospel of John refers to “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” we might assume he is talking only about himself. But Jesus loves each of us, doesn’t He? So, we can put ourselves into that slot: when John says, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” we can see ourselves. On that perfectly innocent reading, Jesus meant for His mother to be the mother of us all, the entire human race, when He said, “Behold your mother.” (John 19:26-27)
Catholics don’t worship Mary. We never did. No offense, but that is so five hundred years ago. We’ve got other things to worry about. Like the complete de-Christianization of the West.
If you’re a lapsed Catholic, you already know how to talk with the Mother of God. I’ve never heard of anyone who left the Catholic Church over Mary. People leave because they are mad at God, or at a priest, or because they are fed up with the hypocrisy and lukewarm-ness. But I have never heard anyone say they were angry at Mary. In fact, I’ve heard people say that Marian devotions are one of the things they miss about being Catholic. I felt that way when I was away from the Church for twelve years.
Back to the joke I opened with. I can imagine Jesus saying to us:
“I sent my mom to Portugal in 1917. I sent her to Belgium in 1932 and again in 1933. I sent my mom to the Netherlands. (1945) She went to Japan in 1973 and Venezuela in 1976. I sent my mom to Nicaragua in 1980 and to Rwanda in 1981. I sent her to Argentina in 1983, and to Brazil in 1994 and to Egypt 6 times between 1968 to 2009. Her message has always been the same: love God. Do penance for your sins and those of others. Say the Rosary, meditating on her life and Mine. These are simple things anyone can do. Get a clue, people.”
I’m pleading with you, whatever your Christian background may be. Forget The Benedict Option. Pick up The Marian Option. Consider talking with the Mother of God. Talking with her does not equal worshiping her. Trust me: she will lead you closer to her Divine Son. I mean, why would she want to do anything other than that?
Who knows: her intercession may just bail us out one more time.
Image: Square to the Basilica of Fatima; Excerpted from: Neokvp – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10259604
Posted on: Monday, October 09, 2017
By Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was first published September 2, 2017, at The Stream.
The dust has settled on the clash between the Alt-Right and the Left in Charlottesville. But the labeling (or libeling) of conservatives will be back. Powerful people and organizations on the Left want to link the Alt-Right with the entire Right, as a way of discrediting all conservatives.
I’m a Catholic, pro-life, pro-family Christian. No one would ever expect the Left to speak for me. But the Alt-Right does not speak for me either. In fact, I’ll say something stronger: The Alt-Right and the Life-Style Left have more in common with each other than either of them have with me and my friends.
Here’s why. My friends and I find eugenics self-evidently repulsive. But both the Life-Style Left and the Alt-Right take the correctness of eugenics for granted.
An article entitled, “The Pro-Life Temptation” published on a website entitled, Alt-Right.com, explicitly defends eugenics. “The alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense … The pro-life position is clearly dysgenic….”
Leftwing advocates for abortion do not tend to promote it as a eugenic measure. But they do promote the idea that a woman may have an abortion for any reason or no reason. And most abortion advocates would consider the desire to avoid a child with a disability a no-brainer of a reason for an abortion.
The Leftist may not have such an elaborate justification as the Alt-Rightist has for why killing a disabled child prior to birth is morally acceptable. But the mother’s desires trump all other moral considerations. If she thinks a disabled child would be too burdensome, expensive or painful to raise, that judgment is sufficient to justify killing the child before birth.
You could call it consumer-sovereignty eugenics. Give the customer whatever she wants. If the consumer of child-services wants a healthy baby, she is entitled to one. If she anticipates having an unhealthy baby, she is entitled to dispose of it.
The pro-life Christian takes a different view. Each child is an unrepeatable gift from God. We ask ourselves, “What is God trying to say to me, by giving me this particular child?” Christian families of Down Syndrome children, (are there any other kind any more?) and the Santorum family with their Trisomy 18 daughter Bella, have a profound answer to this question. God gave us this child to teach us how to love. This answer is unintelligible to both the Alt-Right and the Life-Style Left.
The author at Alt-Right.com continues with his diatribe against the “pro-life temptation”:
We on the alt Right have an appreciation of tribalism and identity. We realize that people are not just autonomous individuals. Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations. …
The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community. If it is not even wanted by its own mother, criminalizing abortion means that the state must step in and say that the individual has rights as an individual, despite its lack of connection to any larger social group. …
If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality. While it’s true that a blanket ban on abortion would probably increase the White population in their numbers, it would, no doubt, decrease the overall quality, as well and leave all races stupider, more criminally prone, and more diseased. …
It’s true that the Life-Style Left does not generally make this type of pro-abortion argument. But they also have no coherent answer to it. When pro-life legislators try to restrict sex-selective or race-specific abortions, the pro-abortion crowd has nothing to say except, “No! No restrictions on ‘choice!’” Under their breath, we can hear the embarrassed whisper, “No matter how heinous the reason for the choice!”
Sex-selection abortion is an odious fact. Some demographers talk about “117 million missing girls,” the excess of the abortions of female over male babies. The Life-Style Left surely must know this by now. They tacitly defend it, by refusing to oppose it.
Likewise, they are surely aware that black women have a disproportionate share of abortions. If they weren’t aware of it, Pastor Walter Hoye II, President of the Issues 4 Life Foundation, made them aware of it with his billboards showing cute black babies with the headline, “Endangered Species.” Or “too many aborted.” Reverend Hoye posted these billboards in predominantly black neighborhoods a few years ago, in Oakland and Los Angeles. The pro-abortion people went ballistic.
The Alt-Right supports killing black babies in utero. The Life-Style Left won’t come right out and agree with this view. But they refuse to condemn it.
The Christian pro-life position is completely different. We are not interested in tribal identities. We believe that every human being is made in the image of God. We really are all equal, in that context, and perhaps only in that context. For every one of us is “wonderfully made.” Yes, even the diseased and disabled, whom the Alt-Right considers “unfit.” Even the “unwanted,” whom the pro-abortion Left literally considers non-persons. The ability to give and receive love is every bit as important to human identity as IQ or health or self-awareness or any of the other arbitrary criteria the pro-abortion people left and right have come up with.
This is why I am increasingly unwilling to position myself anywhere on the Left-Right political spectrum. I am a Catholic Christian. I am not at home in either political party, or in any political movement.
Main Stream Media, go ahead and try to pin the “Alt-Right” label on me. Alt-Right volk, go ahead and attack me for being not part of your tribe. I couldn’t care less. I and my fellow Christians, are truly “not of this world.” “Follower of Jesus” is the only label I want. May I be worthy of it.
Posted on: Thursday, September 21, 2017
This article was first published September 10, 2017, at National Catholic Register.
Conservative groups, including those who support a traditional view of marriage and family life, have been increasingly complaining about attempts by major corporations to silence their viewpoints in the public square. Another such recent report comes from The Ruth Institute (www.ruthinstitute.org), “dedicated to finding Christ-like solutions to the problems of family breakdown.” The organization was founded by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, a Catholic author, speaker and academic. She regularly speaks at religious and pro-life conferences on the Christian view of marriage and sexuality and the ill effects of the Sexual Revolution.
Her institute, she said, “has accumulated decades of research to support individuals and families harmed by divorce, the hook-up culture, and other forms of family breakdown.” In an August 31 statement, The Ruth Institute reported that Vanco, their online donation processor, has ended their service to the Institute for promoting “hate, violence, harassment or abuse.”
In a letter to the Institute, Vanco explained: “Vanco has elected to discontinue our processing relationship with The Ruth Institute. The organization has been flagged by Card Brands as being affiliated with a product/service that promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse. Merchants that display such attributes are against Vanco and Wells Fargo processing policies.”
Dr. Morse offered the following comments in response:
Posted on: Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Morse: It's convenient for the SPLC to 'stand me up next to a guy with a swastika and a white hood'
by Joe Schoffstall
This article was first published
Morris Dees, founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center / Getty Images
An institute that works to "end family breakdown" lost its payment processing company after the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an Alabama-based liberal 501 (c)(3) nonprofit, had labeled the organization as a "hate group."
The SPLC fought the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s but is now best known for its "hate map," which features mainstream conservative groups alongside hate groups like the KKK. The group has turned into a fundraising powerhouse in recent years, hoarding more than $300 million in assets, with millions of that being pushed to offshore entities.
The Ruth Institute, which describes itself as an organization dedicated to "creating a mass social movement to end family breakdown," recently lost its payment processing company for donations after being labeled as a "hate group" by the SPLC.
The institute received a message from Vanco, the group's payment processing provider, in late August saying they were "flagged" as promoting "hate, violence, harassment, and or/or abuse."
"Vanco has elected to discontinue our processing relationship with The Ruth Institute," the message from Vanco to the institute reads. "The organization has been flagged by Card Brands as being affiliated with a product/service that promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse. Merchants that display such attributes are against Vanco and Wells Fargo processing policies."
Dr. Jennifer Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute, told the Washington Free Beacon in a phone interview that after she had received the message from Vanco, she immediately checked her website and found that the donations feature was already disabled.
"We received an email from them at two-o-clock in the afternoon on Thursday, the 31st of August. We went and checked our website and it was already shut down—our donation feature was already shut down. So they obviously shut it down then sent us a notice," said Morse. "It's just rude, you don't treat people like that."
"It's interesting that Vanco will not come out and say Wells Fargo kicked us in the shins and told us to do this, they won't say that, but that's kind of the inference you're led to draw based on our the first communication we got with them and the complete shut down after that," Morse continued.
Morse says the corporate left will continue its practices, but one positive that came from the ordeal is she can talk about the mission of her institute.
"The corporate left is out there doing what they do and I can't stop them—they're going to do what they do with their power," she said. "I'm grateful that this incident has given me an opportunity to talk about the mission of the Ruth Institute because nobody else is doing what we're doing. We believe that family breakdown is harmful to children. We believe it's unjust to children, and that children have a right to have a relationship with both of their parents and to know their identity."
Morse added that it's "convenient" for the SPLC to add conservative groups alongside the KKK because it allows people to dismiss her and others.
"I think it's convenient strategically and rhetorically for groups like the SPLC to stand me up next to a guy with a swastika and white hood, because then nobody has to listen to what I have to say," she said. "Rather than argue with me—or, you know, try to say ‘gee you're wrong'—rather than have that conversation about why kids need their parents, they just dismiss the whole thing by putting me and Tony Perkins (president of the Family Research Council) in a lineup with guys in white hoods and then they don't have to deal with it."
A gunman walked into the Washington, D.C., office of the conservative Family Research Council and opened fire in 2012 after seeing the group listed as a "hate group" on the SPLC's website.
"Honest journalism needs to stop taking these people seriously," said Morse.
The SPLC, which is often cited by mainstream media outlets, raised millions from the likes of Apple, J.P Morgan Chase, and George Clooney following the tragic events in Charlottesville, Va.
The Washington Free Beacon discovered the SPLC's foreign tax forms from 2014 last week showing the group transfers millions in cash to offshore entities in the Cayman Islands and also has "financial interests" in Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands. The Weekly Standard's Jeryl Bier found this week that the SPLC has $69 million of "non-U.S. equity funds" from the group's 2016 annual report.
The group additionally released a map of every confederate monument in the U.S. that contains middle schools, PJ Media reported.
Vanco did not return a request for comment on its decision to drop the Ruth Institute by press time.
Posted on: Friday, September 15, 2017
Corporate America flexes its muscle to enforce conformity
Interview of Jennifer Roback Morse by Mercatornet.com on September 4, 2017.
A few days ago, Dr Jennifer Roback Morse, a frequent contributor to MercatorNet, learned that credit card donations to her organisation, the Ruth Institute, had been cut off. Vanco Payment Solutions – “unlock the power of generosity” -- sent her a curt note saying that it was a hate group.
The “hate group” label had been pasted on the Ruth Institute by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), probably because it has opposed same-sex marriage. But the job of the Ruth Institute is healing the effects of family breakdown, not denigrating homosexuals. This appears to be another sign of LGBT corporate tyranny: if you don’t agree with us, get lost...
Dr Roback Morse is philosophical about this insult to the integrity of her work. She says on her website, “Vanco, Card Brands, and Wells Fargo are private businesses. The Ruth Institute respects their right to conduct their businesses as they see fit. We just wish wedding photographers, bakers, and florists received the same respect.”
Below she answers a few questions about this incident.
* * * * * * * * * *
MercatorNet: Ruth Institute has been dumped by its online donations processing service. What reason did Vanco give?
Jennifer Roback Morse: We quoted them verbatim in our public statement:
Vanco has elected to discontinue our processing relationship with The Ruth Institute. The organization has been flagged by Card Brands as being affiliated with a product/service that promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse. Merchants that display such attributes are against Vanco and Wells Fargo processing policies.”
This is the sum total of their communication to us.
Did they talk to you first?
Did they say they had reviewed the content of your website?
So what sources were they relying on to reach their decision?
JRM: Dunno. I have no idea. I would only be guessing, if I said otherwise.
How long has the Ruth Institute been going? What is your mission and focus?
JRM: We have been in existence since 2008. We have been independent of the National Organization for Marriage since November 2013.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre put you on the “hate map” in 2013 – was this date significant?
JRM: I do not really know.
What reasons did they give?
They never contacted us prior to putting us on their map, not have they contacted us since. You would have to look at the reasons they cite on their map.
What positions or language do your critics find objectionable? Do you think you have expressed yourselves unfairly or too strongly at all?
JRM: They have classified us as "Anti-LGBT." Their basic objection is that we uphold traditional Christian morality. They have gathered together a handful of statements, usually ripped out of context, to claim that we are defaming gay people. We have created a page called "Where's the Hate?" where we list, to the best of our ability, the articles and podcasts that people have found objectionable. We invite anyone to study those materials and form their own opinion about whether we belong on the same list as the Ku Klux Klan.
What is the mission of the Ruth Institute?
JRM: We are creating a mass social movement to end family breakdown, by energizing the Survivors of the Sexual Revolution. We especially focus on the impact of family breakdown on children: understanding it, healing it, ending it.
That doesn't seem to have anything to do with racism or hate.
JRM: Why do you think the Southern Poverty Law Center has created a whole category called "Anti-LGBT?" Sexual revolutionaries gain a strategic advantage by labelling people like me. Guilt by association is irrational, but powerful. The fear of being labelled a racist provides a potent disincentive for people to voice the view that children need their own parents. Silencing people relieves the identity politicians and sexual revolutionaries from the effort of having to defend their ideas.
This is convenient for these Identity politicians and sexual revolutionaries, because their ideas are indefensible. Children actually do need their own parents. Sexual orientation is not the equivalent of race. Two mothers do not equal two fathers and two fathers do not equal a mother and a father, and certainly not one’s own mother and father. Placing us next to the guys with white hoods and swastikas avoids engaging any arguments.
There are multiple ironies here. Many, many people in the African American community are devout Christians who deeply resent what they consider the hijacking of the civil rights movement and rhetoric by LGBT activists. Since we oppose aspects of the LGBT movement, we are considered the equivalent of the KKK or Nazis.
Vanco markets itself to religious organisations, which makes their attitude to you puzzling.
JRM: Many groups and individuals are concerned about this sort of targeting. Yes: the fact that Vanco markets itself to churches and religious organizations does make this puzzling. I would suggest that churches consider switching providers.
Will you try to talk to Vanco or Card Brands?
JRM: Probably not. We are looking for another service provider.
Posted on: Tuesday, September 12, 2017
This article was first published September 11, 2017, at Christian.org.uk.
A group helping children suffering from the effects of family breakdown has been axed by its online payments provider after political activists accused it of being a “hate group”.
The Ruth Institute is on a ‘hate map’ alongside 900 other US organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis and holocaust denial groups.
Last week, online donation processing company Vanco cancelled its services to the group without notice, stating it believed the Ruth Institute was affiliated “with a product/service that promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse”.
The hate map, compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Centre, also includes groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom and the Family Research Council.
In response to Vanco’s move, the Ruth Institute said it “categorically condemns white supremacy, racism, Nazism, and all violent totalitarian political movements”.
“The Ruth Institute’s primary focus is family breakdown, and its impact on children… If this makes us a ‘hate group’, so be it”, it said.
“People who cannot defend their positions using reason and evidence resort to name-calling to change the subject away from their anemic arguments”, the pro-family organisation noted.
“The ‘hate group’ label is a club such people invented to bludgeon their political opponents.”
The Ruth Institute assured supporters that their financial details had not been compromised. It said the move was probably due to its traditional stance on LGBT issues.
While the family group noted that it respected the financial company’s right as a private business to make its own decision, it added: “We just wish wedding photographers, bakers, and florists received the same respect.”
The Ruth Institute has been on the hate map since 2013, but recently CNN published the nationwide list on its website, initially under the headline “Here are all the active hate groups where you live”.
“No one outside the SPLC knows how organizations come to be included on the list. No one knows how to get off the list. The SPLC sets itself up as judge, jury and enforcer of the charge of ‘hate’”, the Ruth Institute said.
Vanco declined to comment.
Last week, during a US Senate committee hearing considering a new judicial appointment, Senator Al Franken tore into the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), repeatedly noting its inclusion on the hate list.
ADF’s President responded: “There is a real danger of conflating genuine hate groups, like the Ku Klux Klan, with mainstream religious beliefs that are shared by millions of Americans and people from all walks of life across the world.”