“For the Children"—Not

Liberals love to say that what whatever they want to do—whether it’s universal preschool, hot lunches, or state-sponsored gambling—is “for the children.” These three little words are designed to shut down all debate. After all, who could possibly oppose something that’s “for the children”?

But in the matter of so-called “gay adoption,” Massachusetts liberals have dispensed with this pretense, showing that their ultimate loyalty is not to “the children” but to a radical homosexual agenda that demands that all other groups bow before it. On March 10, Catholic Charities of Boston announced that it would pull out of the adoption business altogether rather than be forced to place children with homosexual couples.

Mind you, Catholic Charities was not trying to shut down the practice of homosexual adoptions, which church teaching regards as “gravely immoral.” It was merely seeking a conscience-based exemption from state anti-discrimination regulations so that it could continue helping kids.

Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey would stomach none of that, saying, “I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of this state, and our anti-discrimination laws are some of the most important.”

In effect, according to Healey, the right of gays to adopt trumps the rights of religious groups to conduct their work in accord with their most deeply held religious principles. It also apparently trumps the right of “the children” to grow up in a home with a mother and father.

And make no mistake: No matter how hard we try to cover it up, all “families” are not created equal. Yes, many homosexuals are wonderful people (and all are valuable because they are created in God’s image). And, yes, some homosexuals make good parents, certainly better than the dysfunctional heterosexual situations that many would-be adoptees come from.

But most of the recent research purporting to show that children raised by homosexual couples are no worse off than children raised by two-parent, heterosexual parents is fatally flawed, according to an analysis by the Family Research Council.

“[M]uch of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth,” says the FRC’s Timothy Dailey. “In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias.”

Meanwhile, on the Left Coast, according to the Family Research Council, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on March 21 for a nonbinding resolution condemning Cardinal-designate William J. Levada, who says Catholic Charities should not place children with gay couples. “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in [homosexual] unions would actually mean doing violence to these children,” Levada said, “in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full development.”

Even the most biased among us can acknowledge that children should have a loving father and mother whenever possible, and that there is a difference between having a mom and a dad versus two moms or two dads. According to research cited by the National Fatherhood Initiative, children need moms and dads:

“Having a loving and nurturing father was as important for a child’s happiness, well-being, and social and academic success as having a loving and nurturing mother,” the NFI notes. “Withdrawal of love by either the father or the mother was equally influential in predicting a child's emotional instability, lack of self-esteem, depression, social withdrawal, and level of aggression.”

Judeo-Christian religion, of course, has been unambiguous about this matter for thousands of years. Marriage is the exclusive, “one-flesh” relationship between a man and a woman, a prime purpose of which is producing godly children—something no homosexual couple can do. Christians further believe that the man-woman relationship of marriage is designed to provide a beautiful picture of Christ and the church. Such a picture is indelibly marred when two men or two women attempt to “marry.”

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has announced plans to craft an exemption for Catholic Charities. “They have within their religion the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that children should not be sent into homes without a mother and a father,” he said. “We’d like them to be able to be true to their religion.”

Should Romney fail to deliver, what then? Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby worries about what might be ahead.

“Is this a sign of things to come?” Jacoby writes. “In the name of nondiscrimination, will more states force religious organizations to swallow their principles or go out of business?”

One thing is certain if they do. The biggest losers will not be the religious organizations, but “the children.”

The New Rushdie

There’s been so much gas released about courage in recent weeks that global warming is sure to get worse. Hollywood’s self-congratulators have sprained their shoulders attempting to pat themselves on the back for “courageous” films about homosexuality and rightwing conspiracies in the Middle East. Unfortunately, these same movie moguls have said next to nothing about a true profile in courage who lives in their own backyard: Wafa Sultan, a Los Angeles-area psychiatrist.

Sultan, 47, is making international waves for an interview she gave to Al Jazeera television—also known as al Qaeda’s mouthpiece—on February 21. Sultan, a native of Syria who came to the United States with her family in 1989, told the broadcaster that the Muslim world has plunged into self-pity and violence.

“The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations,” Sultan said. “It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.”

Sultan also compared the plights of Jews and Muslims, saying the latter could learn from the former’s response to the Holocaust (which many Muslims deny):

“The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling.

“We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.

“Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”

After Sultan said she no longer followed Islam—“I am a secular human being,” she stated—The New York Times reported what happened next:

“The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, ‘Are you a heretic?’ He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the [Qur’an].

“Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.”

Sultan, who is now an American, has every right to take such threats seriously. Western citizenship is no protection from the fanatics.

After Salman Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses in 1988, militant indignation grew into a crescendo, capped by the late Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa sentencing the author to death. Rushdie, a British citizen, fortunately is still alive, thanks largely to government-provided guards who accompany him everywhere. However, Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who dared to criticize Islam in his work, was butchered on the street by an Islamist shouting, “Allah is great!”

In the face of such mindless fury, the Western media, with their Hollywood pals, have been strangely silent. Remember all the major press organizations—in response to Islamic violence and intimidation—that published the Muhammad cartoons in a principled stand for freedom of the press? Neither do I.

If she lives long enough, Wafa Sultan plans to write her own book, tentatively called The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster. Despite the dangers, Sultan has the courage of her convictions.

Do we?

The Definition of Success

When I was a kid, on weeknights after dinner my father would stretch out on the couch in front of the TV, tell us what we were going to watch that night … and promptly fall asleep, snoring as often as not. Then my brother and sister and I would change the channel, giggling at poor ol’ Dad. A couple hours later, he would wake up, say good night, and go to bed.

Now that I have my own family and career, I seem to be the one who can hardly keep his eyes open after supper. Sometimes I’m too tuckered out to tuck in the kids, and I’m asleep before they are. Hard work will do that to you.

An early riser (and snorer) like my dad, I’ve come to appreciate the long days, the business trips, and the heavy responsibility he shouldered for us–as well as the Sunday morning family softball games (Dad usually pitched) followed by orange juice and crushed ice, the regular trips to the beach cottage we shared at Cape May Point, and other expressions of his commitment to our family. At the time, though, probably like most kids, I thought that was just what dads do.

No, Dad wasn’t perfect (who is?), but he and Mom were there for us. He worked hard at the office and moved up the corporate ladder, but he mostly kept his life in balance, with my parents producing three responsible kids and eight loving grandchildren. Financial matters aside, I’d call that a successful life, wouldn’t you?

The other evening, however, I was sick in bed and turned on talk radio to relieve the tedium. Conservative host Sean Hannity, who I mostly agree with on the issues, was interviewing another rightwing talker, Neal Boortz, the self-styled “High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth.” Boortz, boasting about his motorcycle, his plane, and his other costly toys, was mocking those who worked “only” 40 hours a week, saying they would never be successful. Hannity, who claims to be a voice for traditional morality, was agreeing with him.

While I have no idea how Hannity and Boortz balance their work and family responsibilities, you have to ask: How moral is it to never see your family while you are chasing the brass ring? How much work is enough? What price are we willing to pay for such “success”? And if we are forever chasing "success" on the job, who will do the needed works in our churches and private organizations that provide the glue that keeps our communities together?

Certainly hard work is a virtue (and can be richly rewarded in our capitalist system), but if spending half of your waking hours at the office during the workweek is a sign of being a slacker, then something is seriously out of whack.

According to a recent Business Week cover story, all our technological innovations and increased productivity have failed to deliver more leisure time:

"More than 31% of college-educated male workers are regularly logging 50 or more hours a week at work, up from 22% in 1980. Forty percent of American adults get less than seven hours of sleep on weekdays, reports the National Sleep Foundation, up from 31% in 2001. About 60% of us are sometimes or often rushed at mealtime, and one-third wolf down lunch at our desks, according to a survey by the American Dietetic Assn. To avoid wasting time, we're talking on our cell phones while rushing to work, answering e-mails during conference calls, waking up at 4 a.m. to call Europe, and generally multitasking our brains out."

As someone who also feels the desire (and the pressure) to achieve, to produce, to provide, and to make a mark, it's hard to admit that I try to keep my work from taking over my life. Friends frequently ask me how many hours I’m putting in at the office, and I feel a subtle pressure to stretch the truth.

Yes, there will be seasons when work is more demanding and time-consuming, and if you love what you do and are good at it, the work will find you. But that doesn’t mean it has to take over. My dad once gave up a transfer (and a bigger house) when he and Mom sensed it would not be a good move for the family.

In Rod Dreher’s provocative new book, Crunchy Cons, he tells the story of Robert Hutchins, a Christian who was climbing the career ladder fast while working for a defense contractor.

“I had it in my mind that I could get to a level and to a position where I could conquer the job in a comfortable amount of hours, and have adequate time for my family,” Hutchins said. “But that was a pipe dream, because in today’s environment, once you get to that level where you’re making a six-figure salary, the job owns you.”

Not willing to be owned, even by his success, Hutchins quit and started an organic family farm. He’s less “successful” by the standards of Hannity and Boortz, but he doesn’t seem to mind.

“What do I gain?” Hutchins asked. “The hearts of my children, for one. I gain the ability to be the dominant influence in their life.”

Another Christian who is taking a countercultural approach to “success” is George W. Murray, president of Columbia International University. Murray, a high-energy achiever, is learning to throttle back. And get more sleep.

“I used to think that sleep was something you could do only after all the work was done (a futile assumption),” Murray wrote in Books & Culture. “Then, I discovered that sleep was something I needed to do in order to get the work done (a great improvement). Now, I am discovering that sleep is something you do as an act of faith that God is getting the work done (yes, even without our help).”

I have nothing against good, honest work. When God made Adam and Eve, he gave them a job to do. And in our now-fallen world, God has promised us hard work "all the days of our lives." But he has also provided us a day of rest, creating a pattern of toil and repose that enables us to focus on both our spiritual and earthly needs.

So go ahead, strive for success. Just make sure it is the right kind. After all, no one gets to the end of his life and says, “Gee, I wish I had spent more time at the office.”

Pharmacy Wars

Recently on his radio program, in the name of tolerance, Dr. Dean Edell suggested that if Christian pharmacists had scruples about dispensing contraceptives on the job, they should find other careers. And it’s not just liberal radio talkers who want to ride roughshod over the religious rights of highly trained health care professionals.

Last April, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich ordered pharmacies in the state that sell contraceptives to also make available Plan B, the morning-after-pill, stating imperiously, “No delays. No hassles. No lectures.” Penalties for noncompliance in Illinois range from a fine to revocation of a pharmacy’s right to dispense drugs.

Massachusetts regulators ordered Wal-Mart to stock and sell Plan B at all of its 44 pharmacies in the state. Officials at the retail giant responded to the pressure by saying they will now make the drug, which pro-lifers say may prevent implantation of nascent human life, available at all 3,700 Wal-Marts nationwide.

So much for tolerance.

Last year, I gently took conservative columnist David Limbaugh to task for the alarmist-sounding title of his well-researched 2003 book Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. Here and elsewhere I suggested that the word "persecution" overstates the hardships that Christians face from secular elites intent on imposing their arid orthodoxies on society.

Yet what else can you call it when Christians are forced to choose between their livelihoods and their religious convictions? Such agonizing choices occur with disturbing frequency for Christians in Muslim-dominated lands. They shouldn’t happen here.

“So you may reasonably quibble with the title of the book if you choose,” Limbaugh told me, “but it is important that we call attention to the discrimination and mistreatment that is occurring and alert people out of their slumber.”

Noted. Now what?

Abortion-rights supporters claim that an average of one pharmacist per day has refused to fill a prescription—usually for contraceptives or abortifacients—for reasons of religion or conscience. Currently, the federal Food and Drug Administration has declined to decide whether to make Plan B available without a prescription, so advocates on both sides of the issue are scrambling to influence state legislators.

According to the Chicago Tribune, more than 60 such bills have been filed in state legislatures in 2006, some of them hostile to pharmacists who want to exercise their religious convictions. One bill, just introduced in Colorado, would allow pharmacists to actually prescribe Plan B themselves, without the intervention of a physician.

“But proposed laws in some states,” the Tribune notes, “would make it more difficult for many women to get emergency contraception. Legislation in New Hampshire, for instance, would require parental notification before the drug is dispensed. More than 20 other states will consider bills that give pharmacies the right to not stock the drug, and pharmacists the right to not dispense it, even to women with prescriptions.”

“Conscience clauses” are already fairly routine for physicians. Since 1973, when Roe v. Wade was handed down, 47 states allowed exemptions for doctors who have moral qualms about abortion. The American Medical Association permits physicians, hospitals, and hospital staff to opt out of any act that violates “personally held moral principles.” In fact, in 10 states, health-care professionals may refuse to provide contraceptives. The American Pharmacists Association, as a matter of policy, already permits pharmacists to decline to fill prescriptions if they provide some other avenue for patients to get their prescriptions.

In the Senate, strange bedfellows Ted Kennedy and Rick Santorum have introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. This bipartisan bill, supported by 45 religious and civil-rights groups, would allow the nation’s 217,000 pharmacists to refuse to dispense certain drugs as long as another pharmacist who would is available. The bill is currently in committee.

If we want to continue attracting the best and brightest to careers in pharmacy, we cannot discriminate against those with strong religious convictions. People may or may not have a right to contraceptives or Plan B. But they don’t have the right to force pharmacists to give it to them.