Fatherhood: Obstacle To Social Welfare State

---

SOCIETY / LIBERALS VIEW FATHERHOOD AS AN ANACHRONISM AND A STUBBORN OBSTACLE TO THEIR UTOPIAN VISION OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE STATE

---

Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once admitted, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Men are often the staunchest defenders of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to marginalize males by any means possible.

There is a small yet influential group in our society that views fatherhood as an anachronism and a stubborn obstacle to their utopian vision of the social welfare state. And they see divorce and award of child custody to mothers as a highly-effective ploy to achieve their goal.

Fathers No Longer Cost-Effective?

~ By Carey Roberts

I’m not one who is prone to get misty-eyed, but Tim Russert’s latest book did it.

Two years ago Russert penned a moving tribute to his own father, Big Russ and Me, which quickly became a New York Times best-seller. Russert was inundated with so many poignant letters that he decided to compile them into a sequel, Wisdom of Our Fathers. Now that book has become a run-away top-seller, as well.

There’s a message here: persons have an enormous sense of gratitude for the many things -- big and small -- that dad did for them. I know, that’s exactly how I feel about my father.

But there is a small yet influential group in our society that views fatherhood as an anachronism and a stubborn obstacle to their utopian vision of the social welfare state. And they see divorce and award of child custody to mothers as a highly-effective ploy to achieve their goal.

When one million children experience divorce each year, and when custody is awarded to mothers in 85% of cases, you can see the scope of the problem. If you want to scale down male influence in a society, what better way than to bar fathers from seeing their own sons and daughters?

So this past spring, Mitch Sanderson of Grand Forks, North Dakota set out to make things better for kids. He canvassed voters throughout the state, collecting signatures for a measure on the November ballot to promote shared parenting. The petition stated that in the event of divorce, “each parent would be entitled to joint legal and physical custody unless first declared unfit.”

One of Sanderson’s most vocal supporters was grandmother Myrna Meidinger, who explained, “If you don’t have shared parenting like I went through, it’s hard to see your grandkids.” Before long over 17,000 signatures were gathered, proving that the shared parenting idea enjoyed support throughout the state.

But what happened next is comprehensible only if you remember the old saying, “Follow the money.” Under federal regulations, states stand to gain millions in federal incentives and reimbursements by increasing their child support rolls. If kids spend equal time with dad and mom, child support payments are reduced accordingly.

So in July, Thomas Sullivan of the federal Administration for Children and Families (the gargantuan federal agency that runs our child support apparatus) sent a letter to state senator Tom Fisher. Since the measure would reduce federal largesse by $70 million, citizens should vote against the pro-child ballot initiative, Sullivan argued.

Since when are green-visor bureaucrats allowed to lobby state legislators?

As columnist Stephen Baskerville lamented, “federal bureaucrats are now using taxpayers’ money to strong-arm citizens from democratic decisions that, by relieving a serious social problem, threaten to render the bureaucrats redundant.” [www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16538]

Then North Dakota Human Services director Carol Olson weighed in with the same Chicken-Little message, raising the specter of federal cutbacks. How could anyone so brazenly ignore the well-being of children?

This catapulted Mitch Sanderson’s sleeper initiative into the most-debated topic throughout the state. Soon former governor Ed Schaeffer announced his support for the shared parenting measure.

Schaeffer also chastised the lawyer-dominated state legislature for dragging its feet on the issue. Remember, when divorcing couples litigate high-priced child custody disputes, it’s the lawyers who make out like bandits.

Proving Mr. Schaeffer’s point to be true, the North Dakota bar association soon jumped into the fray. The attorneys hastily assembled a front organization known as the North Dakota Concerned Citizens for Children’s Rights. Soon the group was resorting to scare tactics such as the claim that shared parenting would “dismantle the current child support system.”

Huh?

Two years ago a similar ballot measure was presented to the voters of Massachusetts, where 85% of the electorate approved the idea.

But this time, the lawyers, social workers, and others who profit from family break-up succeeded in sowing enough confusion to tip the balance. This past Tuesday, the shared parenting measure was defeated by a 56% to 44% margin, thus dashing the hopes of Mitch Sanderson, Myrna Meidinger, and the many kids who, like the persons who wrote loving tributes in Tim Russert’s book, long to see their daddies.

Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once admitted, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Men are often the staunchest defenders of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to marginalize males by any means possible.

Usually the Lefties work their mischief behind closed doors. But this time around, the rats came scurrying out of the woodwork.

© 2006 Carey Roberts - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts’ work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Besides serving as a regular contributor to NewsWithViews.com, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, RenewAmerica.us, ifeminists.net, Men’s News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan.

Roberts now works as an independent lecturer, writer, researcher and consultant.

E-Mail: CareyRoberts@comcast.net

Carey Roberts is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.

The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

How The Left Was Won

---

LIFE / HOW THE LEFT WAS WON

---

Everything liberal politicians do is based on this simple principle. Tell the people that are given to hating the most, that they are the ones who are hated. Tell the people who expect the most, that they deserve more. Tell blacks to hate whites. Tell women to hate men. Tell the lazy to hate the motivated. Tell the poor that only conservatives are rich, and then be sure to tell them to hate them for it.

And what do these kinds of people view as the solution to this imaginary injustice? Why special rights, privileges and opportunities for themselves, of course. Level the playing field. Get something for nothing. Take from the rich, the white, the male dominated, homophobic society that has already given them everything. Take what they have, what they built, what they earned -- whether it be money, property, liberty or opportunity -- and find some way, some justification, some cause or some guise to redistribute it to the people who have done nothing to earn it. To people who refuse to compete on merit. To people who insist on taking more out of society than what they put in to it. To people who don’t give a damn that their inclusion comes only at the expense of someone else’s exclusion. The strategy is simple, really -- promote divisiveness and then exploit it for your own benefit.

How The Left Was Won

An In-Depth Analysis of the Tools and Methodologies Used by Liberals to Undermine Society and Disrupt the Social Order

Overview

Combining a series of unique insights with an entirely new set of analytical techniques, How the Left Was Won systematically dismantles each and every element of modern-day liberalism ranging from the justifications behind all of its flawed social and political policies to the most basic assumptions regarding the ideology itself.

In order to achieve this goal, the author first introduces a new framework which segments and isolates all liberal behaviors and beliefs into the most objective and discrete elements possible. He then goes on to provide numerous examples of how liberals relentlessly employ this simple set of tools and methodologies over and over again and then discusses the resulting effects they have on our society. Some of these strategies include:

● Promote and Exploit Divisiveness: Learn why liberals should thank God every day for differences between people and how without them, liberalism would be dead in the water.

● Bad Competition: Learn why practically all liberal policies create success only through the impairment of others and exactly where this dynamic must necessarily lead.

● Relevancy and Proportion: See why the vast majority of what liberals say has absolutely no meaning whatsoever and learn a simple way to prove it every time.

● Implicit Assumptions: Explore the assumptions liberals use to shape public policy and see why the arguments supporting them are ultimately nothing more than a house of cards.

● Groupdividual: Find out how liberalism has distorted the differences between groups and individuals and why this continued distortion is the basis for all flawed social policies within the United States.

● The Perpetual Motion Machine: Learn how the vast majority of liberal programs are based on the scientific impossibility of getting something for nothing.

● A Swarm of Ants: Find out the real reason liberalism continues to permeate more and more elements of our society and why there just may be no way of stopping it.

Excerpt

The following is an excerpt from the opening pages of Chapter One of How The Left Was Won: An In-Depth Analysis of the Tools and Methodologies Used by Liberals to Undermine Society and Disrupt the Social Order.

Let’s face it, when you get right down to it, all of liberalism is fueled by a singular strategy -- a strategy which has been continually perfected and relentlessly executed over the past forty years. That strategy is to promote and exploit divisiveness.

Everything liberal politicians do is based on this simple principle. Tell the people that are given to hating the most, that they are the ones who are hated. Tell the people who expect the most, that they deserve more. Tell blacks to hate whites. Tell women to hate men. Tell the lazy to hate the motivated. Tell the poor that only conservatives are rich, and then be sure to tell them to hate them for it.

Class warfare, race baiting, name calling and man-hating -- all with a singular goal: to get themselves in power by promoting and exploiting divisiveness. Of course, once this divisiveness turns into frenzy, these same people suddenly act as if they actually want to solve a problem that didn’t even exist before they did everything they possibly could to create it.

To liberals, every issue, every situation is an opportunity to divide. History, religion, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the death of a soldier, a political debate, the hurricane which devastated New Orleans. Every tragedy exploited to divide. Every victory belittled to divide. Every incident, every word, every distorted statistic, every holiday -- you name it, they will find some way to divide it.

Unfortunately, it’s not just the politicians who promote and exploit divisiveness; it is the people as well. Malcontents, jealous of anyone with any sort of success, come up with any way they can to attack those who are more successful then they are. Someone is rich only because they stole something from them. Certain groups are more successful only because they took advantage of them. Work has nothing to do with it. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Planning ahead has nothing to do with it. Even luck has nothing to do with it.

And what do these kinds of people view as the solution to this imaginary injustice? Why special rights, privileges and opportunities for themselves, of course. Level the playing field. Get something for nothing. Take from the rich, the white, the male dominated, homophobic society that has already given them everything. Take what they have, what they built, what they earned -- whether it be money, property, liberty or opportunity -- and find some way, some justification, some cause or some guise to redistribute it to the people who have done nothing to earn it. To people who refuse to compete on merit. To people who insist on taking more out of society than what they put in to it. To people who don’t give a damn that their inclusion comes only at the expense of someone else’s exclusion. The strategy is simple, really -- promote divisiveness and then exploit it for your own benefit.

Liberals should thank God every day for differences between people because without them, liberalism would be dead in the water. Without them, the country might have some stability. Without them, it might have a chance to survive. Without them, the problems between those who want and those who have might actually be manageable in some meaningful or productive way. But differences have given liberals the perfect opportunity to stop any rational discussion dead in its tracks. Differences have led to polarization. Differences have led to countries within a country. Differences have led to the dreaded xist-ism-monger-phobia. Differences have allowed liberals to add any of these four sounds to the end of any word they choose, virtually guaranteeing that they can get away with anything they want.

Worse yet, liberals actually have the nerve to turn around and endlessly accuse conservatives of divisiveness. To them, conservatives -- who believe everyone should be held to the same standards -- are somehow divisive. To them, conservatives -- who believe everyone should have the same rights regardless of the guises used to justify different ones for different people -- are somehow divisive. To them, conservatives -- who sacrifice their time, money, careers and often their lives to defend the true meaning of freedom and liberty -- are somehow divisive.

But the reality is that divisiveness does not come from those who are trying to make some contribution to our society. The reality is that divisiveness does not come from those who expect others to at least try to do the same. The reality is that divisiveness comes from those who are always trying to get something out of a society far beyond what they are willing to put back in. The reality is that divisiveness comes from those who are always trying to get something for nothing …

About The Author

Richard Mgrdechian is a Prometheus Award nominated social and political author and commentator. He holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from the prestigious California Institute of Technology (Caltech), along with an MBA from Columbia University in New York. His prior careers have included positions as a NASA engineer, investment banker and high-tech CEO.

In addition to his books, Richard’s writings have appeared in several publications including Townhall.com, The Post Chronicle, The Prometheus Newsletter and others.

Richard has appeared on numerous talk-shows (including the nationally-syndicated Michael Reagan Show, Heads Up America, Ringside Politics, The Voice and others) to discuss the insightful and often controversial issues addressed in his books and was recently featured in David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine. To read that highly acclaimed interview, please click HERE.

Richard can be reached at: author@howtheleftwaswon.com

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Liberal Influence Distorts Media Journalism

---

MEDIA / UNDER THE INFLUENCE: LIBERALISM DISTORTS MEDIA JOURNALISM, REPORTING

---

A GOP gaffe will be replayed ad nauseam on news broadcasts, news magazine programs, and comedy shows. Then, it may get a second round of play on liberal talk radio and ripped-from-the-headlines TV dramas.

But when a liberal makes a rhetorical blunder, he or she is excused because, after all, he or she really didn’t mean to say it. The guilty party is too erudite or too compassionate for the remark to be taken at face-value.

Under the Influence of Liberalism

~ Nathan Tabor
Friday 3 November 2006

I find it interesting that, in today’s maniacal media world, conservatives are taken to task for every syllable they utter, but liberals are given a pass.

A GOP gaffe will be replayed ad nauseam on news broadcasts, news magazine programs, and comedy shows. Then, it may get a second round of play on liberal talk radio and ripped-from-the-headlines TV dramas.

But when a liberal makes a rhetorical blunder, he or she is excused because, after all, he or she really didn’t mean to say it. The guilty party is too erudite or too compassionate for the remark to be taken at face-value.

Sen. John Kerry is the latest case in point. Kerry indicated this week that if you’re a student who does not study hard and do your homework, you will end up “stuck in Iraq.” It should be evident to every American that this is an insult to the fine men and women who have put their lives on the line to try to rebuild Iraq and keep us safe from Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.

But a number of journalistas are telling us that no, the Democrat from Massachusetts couldn’t possibly have meant what he said, given the fact that he himself is a veteran of war. No, we’re told, he just botched a joke. After all, Kerry is no David Letterman.

It seems to me that a more likely excuse is that he was speaking under the influence of liberalism.

I wonder where these apologists were when actor Mel Gibson, while drunk, blamed the Jewish people for the wars in the world. When the report of Gibson’s inebriated gaffe first emerged, television viewers were told that alcohol had enabled Gibson to reveal his true, disturbing feelings about people of Jewish descent. In other words, being drunk was no excuse. Gibson also apologized, but certain members of the media still wouldn’t let the matter rest. They suggested that his apology wasn’t good enough -- that he had to back up his words with concrete action.

What about Kerry? Is it enough for him to say he’s sorry? Or should he be made to take an active role in supporting the Iraq war effort -- something that I seriously doubt he would do. If Kerry isn’t required to make amends, doesn’t that mean that the media are engaging in a double-standard, lambasting conservatives for ill-chosen words, but quickly forgiving verbal mistakes from the liberal side of the political spectrum?

Yet another example from recent headlines is the Michael J. Fox-Rush Limbaugh fiasco. Rush said that Fox’s movements in a political ad indicated that he was either acting or off his meds for Parkinson’s disease. Fox said he was actually over-medicated; Rush admitted he was wrong. Yet, we see Rush’s imitation of Fox’s TV performance replayed on the tube over and over again. But Fox, whose liberal, pro-embryonic stem cell research stance is beloved by many major media, is not taken to task for the fact that he hasn’t even read the Missouri ballot issue he favors.

In the same vein, we see so many sympathetic media profiles of the Dixie Chicks in the aftermath of an unfortunate comment criticizing President George W. Bush. Those who refused to buy the group’s CDs in light of the incident are portrayed as backward and unforgiving, rather than as patriotic and proud of the Commander-in-Chief.

Free speech is, indeed, priceless. But when it is misused, the costs can be high for our democracy and our security. It’s one thing for a radio talk show host to spout off -- it’s quite another for a Senator to criticize our troops in wartime.

The media should at least hold Senator Kerry to as high a standard as they reserve for Gibson and Rush.

If you want a leader to lead following a moral code of ethics, that leader must have a sound foundation upon which he bases his personal morality. If they do not have a moral foundation, such as the bible, we should not be surprised at ANY immoral or unethical action they make. It is OUR responsibility to make sure our leaders, those who represent us, have a sound moral foundation. - Alain

I would rather live my life as if there is a God,
and die to find out there isn't,
than live my life as if there isn't,
and die to find out there is.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Supreme Court Rejects Scouts Constitutional Rights

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & RIGHTS / U.S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS BOY SCOUTS / SEA SCOUTS FIRST AMENDEMENT RIGHTS TO EXPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION

---

Another In The Bush, Republican Party, Liberal Supreme Court Appointee, Christian / Conservative Betrayals ... A Liberal, Democrat-Controlled House And Senate In 2007 Will Guarantee A Deluge Of The Same ...

The United States Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, recognized that the Scout’s policy was an exercise of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. In the aftermath of Dale, the City of Berkeley demanded that the Sea Scouts repudiate its association with BSA’s policy and, when the Sea Scouts’ failed Berkeley’s litmus test, the City stripped the Sea Scouts of the free berth extended to public service organizations. The California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scout’s claim that Berkeley’s decision to strip them of free berths violated their First Amendment right to expressive association.

“It is disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to reverse an outrageous example of how homosexuals use the powers of government to discriminate against an outstanding youth group in order to force compliance with their worldview on sex, marriage and religion.”

Thomas More Law Center Decries Supreme Court Refusal To Review Decision Penalizing Sea Scouts For Policy Excluding Gays And Atheists

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, expressed its disappointment that last week the United States Supreme Court declined to review a California Supreme Court decision allowing the City of Berkeley, CA to deprive the Sea Scouts of free berthing privileges given to other nonprofit organizations because the Sea Scouts refused to repudiate their association with the Boy Scouts of America and its policy requiring exclusion of gays and atheists.

The Sea Scouts are a public service organization that serves local youth by teaching them to sail and learn other skills such as carpentry and plumbing. It is associated with the Boy Scouts of America and must abide by BSA’s policy excluding gays and atheists.

The Law Center had filed a friend of the court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of Evan v. City of Berkeley. The Law Center’s brief argues that Berkeley’s decision to strip the Sea Scouts of a benefit extended to other public service organizations because the City disagrees with BSA’s policy places an unconstitutional condition on receipt of public benefits that violates the First Amendment.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who authored the brief, observed that Berkeley’s policy is a blatant effort to penalize the Sea Scouts for an exercise of their First Amendment rights. “The Supreme Court’s decision lets a truly tragic injustice stand. In this case militant homosexual activists have victimized the underprivileged in a vindictive effort to punish anyone associated with the Boy Scouts of America.”

The United States Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, recognized that the Scout’s policy was an exercise of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. In the aftermath of Dale, the City of Berkeley demanded that the Sea Scouts repudiate its association with BSA’s policy and, when the Sea Scouts’ failed Berkeley’s litmus test, the City stripped the Sea Scouts of the free berth extended to public service organizations. The California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scout’s claim that Berkeley’s decision to strip them of free berths violated their First Amendment right to expressive association.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “It is disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to reverse an outrageous example of how homosexuals use the powers of government to discriminate against an outstanding youth group in order to force compliance with their worldview on sex, marriage and religion.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 © 2006 Thomas More Law Center about us | resources | newsroom | donate |

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

New York Times Bashes Religious Tax Exemptions

---

MEDIA / NEW YORK TIMES BASHES RELIGIOUS TAX EXEMPTIONS

---

Most people don't believe that another person's tax break worsens their situation. "Otherwise we would have no deductions, no exclusions.” For example, childless people would protest the child tax credit, arguing that it was “shifting the tax burden” onto them. People gladly take deductions for mortgage interest, while understanding that credit card interest isn’t deductible -- some financial decisions are favored by the tax structure.

While states exempt religious organizations from property taxes, they do it “typically through statutes that also cover charities, libraries, museums, private schools and other secular nonprofit groups. Indeed, when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of this tax break in 1970 it noted approvingly that the benefits did not fall exclusively on churches.” That key fact was buried in the story series, but the writer did not allow it any relevance.

In Government's Name: New York Times Bashes Religious Tax Exemptions

Four-Day 'In God's Name' Series Argues Churches Cheat Taxpayers And Cities Out Of Money

~ By Julia A. Seymour and Amy Menefee
Business & Media Institute
10/11/2006 3:53:12 PM

The New York Times has put an ironic twist on the 8^th Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” It’s accused churches nationwide of fleecing taxpayers and local governments using the First Amendment.

The Times devoted more than 17,000 words and a four-day series indicting religious groups for what it argued was essentially cheating taxpayers across the country. The pro-government, pro-regulation treatise by business reporter Diana B. Henriques was titled "In God's Name."

Churches “enjoy an abundance of exemptions from regulations and taxes” and the result is “religious organizations of all faiths stand in a position that American businesses -- and the thousands of nonprofit groups without that ‘religious’ label -- can only envy,” wrote Henriques. But she wasn’t suggesting businesses and nonprofits should enjoy fewer regulations or taxes. On the contrary, the story series lobbied for more government control over religious organizations.

Henriques stated that “tax breaks are widely defended both as an acknowledgement of religion’s contributions to society and as a barrier to unjustified government limitations.” Her articles didn’t explore that defense; rather, they blamed religious organizations for burdening local governments and the churches’ neighbors -- taxpayers. She referred to religious groups as a “cost” to government or other citizens 11 times.

In a country where 92 percent say they believe in God or a higher power, according to a recent Baylor University study, Henriques never mentioned that members of all the religious organizations would also be taxpayers -- the same people who support their communities’ public services with their hard-earned dollars. Instead, her portrayal indicated congregations were mooching off the rest of their communities:

• “These organizations and their leaders still rely on public services -- police and fire protection, street lights and storm drains, highway and bridge maintenance, food and drug inspections, national defense. But their tax exemptions shift the cost of providing those benefits onto other citizens. The total cost nationwide is not known, because no one keeps track.”

• “There are no national figures on how much money these tax breaks save religious organizations and on how much extra cost is shifted to other citizens.”

• “Congressional budget records show that just the income tax breaks uniquely available for ministers, rabbis and other clergy members cost taxpayers just under $500 million a year.”

A similar struggle of churches versus local economies also appeared on the front page of the October 9 USA Today, where Emily Bazar reported that “churches are being turned away by cities and towns that hope to enliven a fading downtown or boost their tax base.”

Churches ‘Costing’ Government Money

The idea that any time someone does not pay a dollar in taxes, that is a “cost” of one dollar to the government, is pervasive among journalists. The Business & Media Institute addressed common distortions on tax issues in a 2005 report, “Tax & Spin.”

Henriques used that logic to argue that tax breaks for religious groups cost local governments money -- just as ABC’s “World News Sunday” did on its October 1 broadcast. In that story, reporter Geoff Morrell said the mayor of one Texas town feared churches would “bust the budget” because they weren’t paying taxes.

That’s “the same line opponents of federal tax cuts use,” said Pete Sepp, vice president for communications with the National Taxpayers Union.

And in Henriques’ stories, that zero-sum logic spilled over into a more personal accusation -- that churches were shifting the tax burden onto other individuals in their cities.

Sepp said most people don't believe that another person's tax break worsens their situation. "Otherwise we would have no deductions, no exclusions,” he said. For example, childless people would protest the child tax credit, arguing that it was “shifting the tax burden” onto them. People gladly take deductions for mortgage interest, while understanding that credit card interest isn’t deductible -- some financial decisions are favored by the tax structure.

But Henriques took churches to task for not paying property taxes. She admitted that while states exempt religious organizations from property taxes, they do it “typically through statutes that also cover charities, libraries, museums, private schools and other secular nonprofit groups. Indeed, when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of this tax break in 1970 it noted approvingly that the benefits did not fall exclusively on churches.” That key fact was buried in the story series, but the writer did not allow it any relevance.

“Historically, the reason for income and property tax exemptions was because of the benefit they provide to their community, because they lift a burden from the government,” said Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of the Liberty Counsel and Dean of the Liberty University School of Law. The Liberty Counsel describes itself as a “nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom.”

He mentioned that the Red Cross and other non-profits also receive tax exemptions for this reason.

The idea that localities have been hurting in property tax collections is laughable, Sepp said. "Most state and local governments have benefited handsomely from the run-up in housing values," he said. In fact, state and local revenue from property taxes has increased by a whopping 50 percent since 2000, according to the Census Bureau.

Attacking Churches for ‘Competing’ with Businesses

As the Business & Media Institute has documented, the mainstream media are not usually the biggest supporters of the free market system. Ironically, the Times series complained that religious organizations were hurting businesses by “competing” with many of their ministries, including bookstores and coffee shops.

Throughout the articles, religious groups were painted as villains: unfairly competing to provide child care in Alabama; seeking to destroy “open spaces” by fighting a zoning restriction in Colorado; discriminating by setting an age of retirement in New York; and being uncharitable by creating a retirement community for affluent seniors in Indiana

Henriques wrote that religious tax exemptions “collide with other values important in this country.” The theme was that religious organizations are favored by government and receive special treatment in the form of tax breaks, exemptions from regulations and hiring and firing requirements, and advantages over businesses in fighting existing laws.

Those who consider such benefits an “affirmative action program for religion,” Staver said, he considers “naïve, uninformed or shortsighted,” because in attacking the benefits provided to religious non-profits, the effect would be to undermine those given to all non-profits.

“Some of the questions raised in the article ignore the historical perspective that churches have always adapted to the needs of the community,” said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which describes itself as a legal alliance that defends religious liberty. “A large part of Western civilization was preserved because long ago churches served as libraries, agricultural centers and schools for the community’s sake. And ironically we have people complaining today because churches are responding to needs as an act of their religious faith.”

Experts Cited Critical of Religion

Henriques didn’t acknowledge the radical nature of several anti-religious sources mentioned in her series. In a section about a tax dispute, she mentioned how the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco had appointed “Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor then on the faculty at the University of Southern California” to assist in the case. However, the Times article left out that Chemerinsky also has strident views against conservative Christianity – saying “The religious right is the enemy of freedom,” in a Web posting.

That post, a Sept. 28, 2005, article on the liberal Huffingtonpost blog, was headlined “Time to Fight the Religious Right.” The piece criticized fundamentalists of all religions who “share remarkably similar views on many issues -- and remarkably similar intolerance.” Chemerinsky’s own comments mention how he “argued a case in the Supreme Court challenging a six-foot tall, three feet wide Ten Commandments monument that sits between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court.”

Further, Henriques ignored the widespread criticism of the Ninth Circuit as being liberal, and ruling that the words “under God” were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion in a case about the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Times acknowledged that another legal scholar was also a religion critic. Marci A. Hamilton, is “a law professor at the Cardozo law school at Yeshiva University in New York and the author of ‘God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law,’ which is critical of many religious exemptions, particularly in the areas of land use and family law.”

However, that only hinted at Hamilton’s position. In a Sept. 24, 2004, column on CNN.com, she called a bill in support of the words “under God” in the pledge as “lunacy.” “The powers that be at the moment have covered over these fundamental beliefs with misleading blather about how this is a ‘Christian’ nation, implying that Christians are the sole keeper of conscience and morals in the country,” she continued.

The Times story also referenced a study about abuse at child care centers and addiction treatment programs. The study was performed by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, “a nonprofit research organization that opposed the faith-based initiatives.” Unsurprisingly, the analysis found higher instances of abuse and neglect at “alternatively accredited facilities” or religious sites.

However, Henriques again underplayed the anti-conservative nature of the organization. The fund is part of the Texas Freedom Network which claims on its own Web site works “to counter the religious right.” The fund “researches the agenda, activities and funding of the religious right.”

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---