Author archives: Cathy Ruse

Dawkins: Protect Children from their Religious Parents

by Cathy Ruse

March 10, 2015

Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins made news recently for telling an Irish Times reporter that children need “to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.”

Poor Richard Dawkins. In his book, The God Delusion, he describes the God of the Old Testament as “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

As my colleague Gil Mertz aptly notes, such a passionate description should raise the question in reasonable minds whether this sounds like the unbiased hypothesis of a neutral scientist or a very angry man who hasn’t forgiven God. Dawkins could easily dismiss the existence of unicorns or leprechauns with no emotion, but it is revealing how the question of God’s existence strikes such a nerve.

For more on his interview with the Irish Times

Sick of Porn? Here’s Some Good News for a Change

by Cathy Ruse

March 2, 2015

Thank you, Safeway!

As a mom of two young girls, the last thing I want them to do is stand in the checkout line and stare at the nearly pornographic Sports Illustrated 2015 Swimsuit Edition. At Safeway, now I won’t have to.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (formerly Morality in Media) is encouraging moms like me to ask retailers to wrap the cover and move it from public display, especially checkout lines.

At first Walgreens, Barnes & Noble, and Safeway told us to jump in the lake. But after receiving 30,000 emails Safeway has changed its mind: they have announced they will place the magazines away from checkout stands and cover two-thirds of the front of the magazine.

Read more about the grocery giant’s turn-around, and how to thank them.

Thank you, Google!

It seems that Google is slowly getting out of the porn business.

Family Research Council joined the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCSE), Enough is Enough, and other groups to ask Google to take a stand against sexually exploitative images and videos. Google has been on NCSE’s annual “Dirty Dozen List” for a number of years.

But last year Google decided to remove all pornographic apps from Google Play, and AdWords stopped all pornographic ads and ads that link to sexually explicit websites.

This week Google announced that“sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video” will not be allowed on Blogger, a popular blog platform. It told Blogger users it will beeliminating all “adult” blogs from public access and remove from all forms of public search by March 23, 2015, unless they remove all inappropriate content.

To learn more and send Google a “Thank you!”:

This Man Won’t Be Bullied: Bravo Archbishop Cordileone!

by Cathy Ruse

February 25, 2015

It’s not easy swimming against the tide. I am sorry to admit that “pro-life activist” is not always my first response to the cocktail party question.

And standing by your belief in man-woman marriage sometimes feels like holding up a “punch me” sign.

But San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has shown again and again that he is made of the strongest stuff.

Here’s the tick-tock on his latest battle to protect Catholic teaching in Catholic schools:

February 3: The Archdiocese of San Francisco announces proposed changes in teacher contracts telling applicants that if they’d like a job teaching children at one of their schools, they will be expected to uphold and not publicly contradict Catholic moral teaching. In the view of the Archdiocese, this simply codifies the long-established expectation for school employees.

February 17: A group of legislators, all Democrats, writes a letter to Cordileone urging him to stand down, arguing that his plan would discriminate against the teachers and violate their civil rights to “choose who to love and marry, how to plan a family, and what causes or beliefs to support.”

February 19: The archbishop replies. Here is the meat of his letter:

First of all, I always believe that it is important, before making a judgment on a situation or anyone’s action, that one first obtain as complete and accurate information as possible. To this end, a number of documents and videos giving accurate and more complete information about this contentious issue are available on the website of our Archdiocese. I would encourage you to avail yourselves of these resources, as they will help to clear up a lot of misinformation being circulated about it (such as, for example, the falsehood that the morality clauses apply to the teachers’ private life).

The next thing I would like to mention is actually a question: would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general? On the other hand, if you knew a brilliant campaign manager who, although a Republican, was willing to work for you and not speak or act in public contrary to you or your party — would you hire such a person? If your answer to the first question is “no,” and to the second question is “yes,” then we are actually in agreement on the principal point in debate here.

Now let’s say that this campaign manager you hired, despite promises to the contrary, starts speaking critically of your party and favorably of your running opponent, and so you decide to fire the person. Would you have done this because you hate all Republicans outright, or because this individual, who happens to be a Republican, violated the trust given to you and acted contrary to your mission? If the latter, then we are again in agreement on this principle.

My point is: I respect your right to employ or not employ whomever you wish to advance your mission. I simply ask the same respect from you.

This is how you do it. Bravo Archbishop Cordileone!

As the Archdiocesan announcement said: “Catholic schools exist to affirm and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Amen. Let them take their best shot at that goal, and complaining legislators stand aside.

HT: LifeSiteNews

Two Men, Three Men, A Man and His Daughter: Marriage on the Slope

by Cathy Ruse

February 19, 2015

Those of us who believe in man-woman marriage sometimes talk about the “slippery slope”: If we undo the age-old definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, this will lead to consequences that go well beyond the terms of the current debate.

Like three men marrying, or a father marrying his daughter.

Advocates for same-sex marriage say “pshaw” and call us crazy. Or worse. To which we often reply: Just you wait.

Well, that didn’t take long.

Yesterday, published a piece calling parent-child incest normal.

There’s even a new politically-correct moniker for it. Don’t say “incest,” say “genetic sexual attraction.”

And because we live in Alphabet Soup Land, it’s best to call it “GSA.”

Salon was not first. New York Magazine ran a story last month about the “happy” incestuous relationship between a young woman and her father who say they are engaged to be married.

The website Jezebel has run a similar story, though with an unhappy ending.

The Jezebel story begins, “My biological father wanted to have sex with me from the first moment he laid eyes on me.” Natasha Rose Chenier writes, “I imagine that, unless you have experienced genetic sexual attraction yourself, this is going to sound entirely unbelievable. But trust me: it is as real and intense as anything.”

She claims that 50% of relatives who meet as adults have GSA.

Natasha Rose’s mom is a lesbian and her father, whom she later slept with, left when her mom got pregnant. She calls her mother’s “lover” a “patriarchal butch lesbian” and so, she says, she always had a “father figure.”

To most of us, this heartbreaking mess explains everything about how such a monstrous thing could occur.

And now for the unhappy ending.

Her feelings changed. “It was literally night and day. At night, the first night, I felt thrilled. I thought, ‘There’s nothing wrong with this, just cultural norms that are meaningless.’ The sexual intensity was nothing like I’d ever felt before. It was like being loved by a parent you never had, and the partner you always wanted, at once.”

And then in the morning, we had [a sex act] again, and that’s when I wanted to puke and felt like a criminal. At night I was really into it, but by morning I wanted to die. That’s not hyperbole; I really wanted to die.”

There is always hope. If the still small voice can reach Natasha Rose, there is always hope.

50 Shades Makes 80 Million This Weekend

by Cathy Ruse

February 17, 2015

Truly bad news for the good, the true and the beautiful: with $81 million in box office receipts, 50 Shades of Grey came in second only to The Passion of the Christ for the best February weekend opening ever.

The movie opened in 58 markets around the world, bringing in $158 million globally and setting weekend records in 11 countries including in the largely Catholic countries of Italy, Argentina, and Poland.

According to the website Box Office Mojo, the movie also set records for “Universal Pictures in the U.K.($21.1 million), France ($12 million), Russia ($10.5 million), and Brazil ($8.9 million).” It brought in $15.2 million in Germany, $$8.6 million in Australia, $8.1 million in Mexico, and $7.9 million in Spain.

Box Office Mojo reports that among all R-rated movies, 50 Shades “ranks fifth behind The Matrix Reloaded, American Sniper, The Hangover II, and The Passion of the Christ.”

Such a big opening is not surprising given that the book has sold 100 million copies worldwide. Box Office Mojo predicts it will coast easily to the $300 million mark globally, placing it within reach of the biggest R-rated movies in history; The Matrix Reloaded ($461 million), Troy ($364 million), The Hangover II ($332 million) and Ted ($331 million).

But 50 Shades is not getting sterling reviews, so it might take a huge plunge in coming weeks.

There is a raging debate on Facebook between people who are against this movie. Are the protests and boycotts a worthwhile endeavor, or are they just calling attention to the movie and even increasing ticket sales? There is certainly a risk that the latter position will prove true. But I come down on the side of the former.

The thing about pornography is that, while it is bad to consume it, the knowledge that it is bad to consume it is very good. If we were to let 50 Shades open without publicly raising our concerns, some viewers could mistakenly believe there is nothing to be concerned about. And that would make something bad even worse.

So I say, keep beating the drums! If it gets the attention of inattentive people, so be it. But as the theatre lights dim, they’ll know they’re watching something that has been called offensive and degrading. And the question before them will be: “Do you agree with the protestors?” It will be an invitation for them to say yes.

Hey Mr. President, Am I Parent 1 or Parent 2?

by Cathy Ruse

May 10, 2013

Yesterday the Obama Education Department eliminated Mothers and Fathers in official government documents. As a mother, I find that deeply offensive.

I carried my children for 9 months in my womb, I endured the pain (and joy) of birth, I nursed them for many months after they were born, and every morning they jump into my bed screaming, “Mommy!”

But the federal government says I’m Mommy no more.

I am Parent 1.

Or maybe Parent 2.

Kind of like Thing One and Thing Two. But Dr. Seuss was being ironic.

Mr. President, I dare you to tell my daughters I’m not their mother.

Eden Foods Statement to Customers on HHS Mandate Suit

by Cathy Ruse

April 17, 2013

As I mentioned in my last post, this afternoon I emailed a letter of support to Michael Potter of Eden Foods encouraging him in his lawsuit against the Obama Administration’s HHS Mandate.

Moments later I received this email in reply. It appears to be the statement sent to any inquiries regarding the suit. 

Again I say:  Rock on, Michael Potter!


Please be discerning consumers. Grotesque mischaracterizations about Eden Foods’ action related to the Health & Human Services (HHS) mandate, Affordable Care Act, are most regrettable.

OnMarch 21st, 2013a press release announced our lawsuit against the unconstitutional government overreach in theHHSmandate. This announcement was made to the media and general public. We apologize for the unintended consternation given rise to by this action.

Eden Foods’ health care provider is required by theHHSto comply with all details of the Affordable Care Act. Parts of the mandate violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. This overreach of the federal government infringes on religious freedoms.

It is discriminatory that not all employers have to comply with theHHSmandate. Millions of people and thousands of companies are exempt. The exemptions under the Act are illogical, inconsistent, and contributing factors to our lawsuit. For instance, McDonald’s Inc. and 166 unions are exempt. Small employers are exempt. Individuals who practice certain faiths are exempt, while individuals who practice other faiths are not. Federal employees are exempt, and this is hypocritical. There is no exemption for the religious freedoms of employers.

Edenemployee benefits include health, dental, vision, life, and a fifty percent 401k match. The benefits have not funded “lifestyle drugs,” an insurance industry drug classification that includes contraceptives, Viagra, smoking cessation, weight-loss, infertility, impotency, etc. This entire plan is managed with a goal of long-term sustainability.

We believe in a woman’s right to decide, and have access to, all aspects of their health care and reproductive management. This lawsuit does not block, or intend to block, anyone’s access to health care or reproductive management. This lawsuit is about protecting religious freedom and stopping the government from forcing citizens to violate their conscience. We object to theHHSmandate and its government overreach.

This is an important matter that deserves attention from us all.

Our actions have been, and will remain, principled and transparent.Eden’s focus is pure food, ethical business practice, and the nurturing of all people and the planet.


Michael Potter, President

I’m Not in Your Bedroom. Obama is in Your Bedroom”

by Cathy Ruse

April 17, 2013

I have a new hero: Eden Foods founder and CEO Michael Potter.

Eden Foods is an organic company popular among the “crunchy, liberal crowd” which has filed suit against the Obama administration over the HHS mandate. 

Potter is getting slammed over it, thanks in part to a hit piece last week in Salon magazine which publicized the suit and framed Potter as a man with an anti-birth control agenda. 

Don’t waste your time on the original article. Instead, enjoy the refreshing quotes from the no nonsense, plain-speaking Mr. Potter in Salon’s follow-up piece from Monday relating a telephone conversation between Potter and Salon writer Irin Carmen.

I’ve got more interest in good quality long underwear than I have in birth control pills,” Potter told Carmen. Then he elaborated:

I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control. What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story….I’m not trying to get birth control out of Rite Aid or Wal-Mart, but don’t tell me I gotta pay for it.

Rock on, M.P.!

When Carmen pressed Potter using the fallacy that “the mandate doesn’t cover abortion” but “only contraception,” Potter responded this way:

It’s a morass…I’m not an expert in anything. I’m not the pope. I’m in the food business. I’m qualified to have opinions about that and not issues that are purely women’s issues. I am qualified to have an opinion about what health insurance I pay for.

When Carmen said contraceptive coverage is cheaper to pay for than maternity coverage, Potter replied: “One’s got a little more warmth and fuzziness to it than the other, for crying out loud.”

Potter is not backing down:  “I worked my ass off at figuring out what to do on it. I worked hard on it and I made a decision,” he said. “The federal government has no right to do what they’ve done. No constitutional right, no standing.”

Carmen writes that Potter sounded annoyed that he’s receiving emails telling him to stay out of people’s bedrooms. “I’m not in your bedroom,” he said. “Obama’s in your bedroom.”

Michael Potter is doing the right thing, for the right reasons, and he’s getting slammed by left-wing activists who have lots of time on their hands. He needs to hear from the rest of us.

Here’s where to write: and

I just did, and here’s what I said: 

Dear Mr. Potter:

I know you’re getting heat for your lawsuit from people who like the idea of free birth control and abortion drugs, courtesy of a heavy-handed federal government mandate on employers.

But you should know there are many people who agree with you that it is not the federal government’s place to dictate to employers that they must buy these things for their employees in their health plans. And yes, the mandate does include drugs that can cause an early abortion, not just contraception.

As a woman and a lawyer, my message is this: contraceptives and abortion pills are widely available, they’re legally unrestricted, and they’re cheap. Anyone who wants them can get them. There is no reason for the federal government to force every employer in America to provide them “for free.”

Thanks for standing firm. I can’t wait to buy lots of Eden Foods!

Obama DOJ Says Moms Aren’t Important to Kids? Go Ask a Kid

by Cathy Ruse

March 4, 2013

Can you imagine what your life would have been like without your mom? It’s almost impossible. What if someone could turn back the clock and, without asking your permission, take away your mother. How unjust that would be.  How cruel.

Yet the same-sex marriage debate is always framed in terms of the “rights” of the adults, and never of the children. The children have no voice in this debate. They don’t even seem to count.

The Obama Justice Department recently filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, arguing that the U.S. Constitution does not permit Californians to define marriage inCalifornia as a union between one man and one woman.

The lawyers defending theCalifornialaw argue, among other things, that both mothers and fathers are important in the raising of children. The Obama administration disagrees.

The Obama lawyers quote the following, from the politically-charged American Psychological Association:  “Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners.”

Well bully for them! How wonderful that they are satisfied! What about the child? Is a daughter of two married men “satisfied” that she will have to go through life without a mother? Is she “satisfied” that she will have to face cuts, bruises, puberty, her first kiss, and her first heart-ache without a mom? 

As a mom, I find the administration’s indifference to the importance of mothers offensive. And on behalf of my daughters, I call it an injustice.

For more on the Obama administration brief, and the God-given rights of children, see Terrence Jeffries’ recent column for CNS News.