Consider me in complete agreement with Michael J. Iafrate at Vox Nova in the recent dust up over the controversy of Father Pfleger.

the idea that Christians, and in particular priests, should “transcend” politics delights the powers. The flip-side of the invention of the modern nation-state is the invention of religion as a realm of private spiritual preferences having no impact on the “real world.” The powers are delighted to hear Catholics demand that their priests “transcend” politics and “stay neutral” because this inevitably results in the reinforcement of private religion and the disintegration of the Body of Christ as “a public in its own right,” in the words of Catholic theologian Reinhard Hütter. The state demands that the Church’s authority be relegated to some private realm: the Church can have the Christian’s soul while the state retains control of the Christian’s body.

Amen, brother. Well said. It’s time Christian stand up for their right to speak out.

That said, I think Fr. Pfleger lacked decency and decorum in his remarks. And if Cardinal George is convinced that Father cannot maintain that decorum, he’s justified in sanctioning him. But, in general, I would say: We need priests to speak out on important issues in America today!

Apparently pastors and ministers think they should have the right to free speech in the churches without the threats of the tax man breathing down their neck.

These ministers want to end Lyndon Johnson’s Pulpit Gag Order…. Free speech in America? What will they think of next?

Child pornogrpahy is already against the law. But the case before the Court was whether the promotion of child pornography without actual possession was protected free speech.

Thankfully, seven justices on the Court threw this argument to the curb. (Pathetic that two justices think you have a right to advertise child porn so long as you don’t actually have it. Hello?)

But you won’t find me doing cartwheels over this decision. The High Court did what it’s supposed to do. To get ecstatic over this ruling is like congratulating a father for not leaving his wife and kids. Buddy, that’s your job!

Oh? What’s that, you say? The Supreme Court has decided not to throw out a law that bans advertising child porn because, you know, you really shouldn’t advertise or promote a product which is illegal? Hurray! What beknighted wisdom our Nine Overlords have! Long live the Kings!

As the Washington Times reports today, still brewing in the national pro-life community is the recent controversy involving a Student Government member at the University of Wisconsin Stevens-Point who openly destroyed a display of crosses commemorating the loss of unborn children through abortion.

The group “Pointers for Life” received permission to display the crosses from the University. In the video, Student Government member Roderick King is caught destroying the display and shouts – “In 1973, there was made a constitutional right for a woman to be able to have an abortion. Its not your responsibility! Since it’s a right, you do not have a right to challenge it!”

Wow. Mr. King incidentally is African American. Which makes you wonder if he would have applied the same logic to the 1857 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott, which until the 13th Amendment passed, held that blacks were not citizens, and were therefore the property of slave owners.

On Friday, a student sent an e-mail to the Student Government list asking that Mr. King be disciplined for his actions. Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek reports that a “Senator Claire” replied that the Student Government meeting was held and that no action would be taken against Mr. King. But Ms. Claire went further writing, “I find it extremely offensive that you can’t remain unbiased yourself….[and] …you need to re-evaluate your own belief system.”

Try tearing down the banners, sashes, and other pro-homosexual displays at the next gay-day at your nearest public university, and I suspect you won’t be treated similarly. Readers are urged to contact the University directly and demand that action be taken against Mr. King.

ACTION ITEM: Contact Linda Bunnell, Chancellor of Student Affairs, at lbunnell@uwsp.edu and tell her that the free speech of pro-life students must be protected along with everyone else. Mr. King’s actions cannot go unpunished.

A debate has kicked up in National Review’s blog, The Corner, over whether military bases should sell Playboy and Penthouse magazines. Penthouse, it seems, used to be banned, but under its new management and editorial direction, it has been allowed back.

The legislator pushing for the removal of the magazine, Rep. Broun, has made some poor arguments, saying that soldier pay is tax-payer dollars. (Ah, no! When the check leaves the Treasury, it becomes the soldier’s property!)

The poor argument gave libertarian Andrew Stuttaford the green light to roll his eyes and call this another example of the GOP “embrace of the nanny state.” Stuttaford always gets bent out of shape the most when he discusses cultural conservatism. He can’t possibly conceive why anyone would object to the sale of photographs of naked women. Even though we now have a co-ed military and many husbands are thousands of miles away from their wives. (Mind you, this isn’t a discussion of whether the soldiers should be allowed to have porn, just whether the bases should sell it.)

Another commentator, Lisa Schiffren, said: ”[A] discussion of porn in society is good thing. Except in my lifetime society has discussed it endlessly, mostly at the behest of the feminists — with whom I agree on this, and it has only gotten much much worse.”

While feminists made the loudest stink about pornography back in the 1960s and 1970s, they have largely abandoned this fight and left only Christian conservatives arguing against further cultural acceptance of pornography. Today, only radical feminists remain opposed to pornography. Today, “mainline” feminists either no longer object to pornography or they consider it a woman’s freedom of expression.

Liz Hoskings wrote an article for Feminists for Life, explaining that there might just be a reason why feminists changed their mind: “Feminists have … capitulated to the values of the libertarian playboy, which view women as sexual objects to be used and discarded. It is no coincidence that the Playboy Foundation has been one of the biggest financers of the ‘pro-choice’ movement.”

On the Huffington Post, I found an article from Good Magazine that profiled Playboy’s CEO, Christine Hefner (Hugh’s daughter). The article notes that Christine calls herself a feminist, naturally, and that she was a co-founder of Emily’s List, a PAC dedicated to only one purpose – raising money for women who support abortion 100%.

Sounds like George Orwell: Pictures of naked women are everywhere. We are free! We are empowered!

In the name of opposing authoritarianism, we must prevent Republicans from speaking!Or, so apparently, goes the logic of the Students for a Democratic Society and other anarchist groups. They’ve embarked on a campaign to disrupt and “shut down” the Republican National Convention to be held in Saint Paul, Minnesota, this September.

The City of Saint Paul, to their credit, takes the First Amendment and threats against it seriously: The Police Department has already purchased 234 tasers.