Posts filed under 'Religion'
Obama has pledged to sign this misbegotten, anti-human legislation (out of a desire to bring us together for some hopeful change, of course):
Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph in Missouri, writing in his diocesan newspaper, has discussed the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which he said would overturn all existing federal regulations on abortion. Claiming the passage of the act would lead to an increase in abortions, he also questioned whether pro-life supporters of pro-choice politicians have their priorities “backwards.”
Writing in his latest column for The Catholic Key, Bishop Finn said “It is clear that FOCA would immediately make null and void every current restriction on abortion in all jurisdictions.”
Though Bishop Finn did not mention any presidential candidates by name, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has pledged to pass FOCA as his first act as president.
The legislation, which was first proposed in 1989, was reproduced in its current form by Bishop Finn in his October 1 column:
“A government may not (1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose – (A) to bear a child; (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”
According to Bishop Finn, the bill would overturn many state laws, such as abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states. It would additionally overturn states’ laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on later-term abortions, conscience protection laws for individual health care providers, bans on partial-birth abortions, conscience protection laws for institutions, requirements for counseling before an abortion, and laws providing ultrasounds to distressed women before an abortion.
We can also expect that a law which prohibits government from denying the alleged “right” to an abortion will be turned around in an Obama Supreme Court to mean that the government must fund abortions - the whole law is designed to make the United States of America the leader in the world-wide Culture of Death…someone may correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think any nation in the world has abortion laws as permissive as the legislation proposed here. This would be the left’s Final Solution to the abortion question.
We daren’t let it happen - not for any reason whatsoever.
Tags: abortion, culture of death, Culture of Life, Freedom of Choice Act, Obama Deceptions
October 7th, 2008
And we hope that Joe Biden (who talks as if Scranton were the center of his universe) will pay attention, especially as he claims adherence to the Catholic faith…it would also be good for Senator Obama to lend an ear:
…The American Catholic bishops initiated Respect Life Sunday in 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the United States. Since that time, Catholics across the country observe the month of October with devotions and pro-life activities in order to advance the culture of life. This October, our efforts have more significance than ever. Never have we seen such abusive criticism directed toward those who believe that life begins at conception and ends at natural death.As Catholics, we should not be surprised by these developments. Forty years ago, Pope Paul VI predicted that widespread use of artificial contraceptives would lead to increased marital infidelity, lessened regard for women, and a general lowering of moral standards especially among the young. Forty years later, social scientists, not necessarily Catholics, attest to the accuracy of his predictions. As if following some bizarre script, the sexual revolution has produced widespread marital breakdown, weakened family ties, legalized abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, same-sex unions, euthanasia, destruction of human embryos for research purposes and a host of other ills.
It is impossible for me to answer all of the objections to the Church’s teaching on life that we hear every day in the media. Nevertheless, let me address a few. To begin, laws that protect abortion constitute injustice of the worst kind. They rest on several false claims including that there is no certainty regarding when life begins, that there is no certainty about when a fetus becomes a person, and that some human beings may be killed to advance the interests or convenience of others. With regard to the first, reason and science have answered the question. The life of a human being begins at conception. The Church has long taught this simple truth, and science confirms it. Biologists can now show you the delicate and beautiful development of the human embryo in its first days of existence. This is simply a fact that reasonable people accept. Regarding the second, the embryo and the fetus have the potential to do all that an adult person does. Finally, the claim that the human fetus may be sacrificed to the interests or convenience of his mother or someone else is grievously wrong. All three claims have the same result: the weakest and most vulnerable are denied, because of their age, the most basic protection that we demand for ourselves. This is discrimination at its worst, and no person of conscience should support it.
Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don’t think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: the finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of “social justice.”…
…My dear friends, I beg you not to be misled by confusion and lies. Our Lord, Jesus Christ, does not ask us to follow him to Calvary only for us to be afraid of contradicting a few bystanders along the way. He does not ask us to take up his Cross only to have us leave it at the voting booth door. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI said that “God is so humble that he uses us to spread his Word.” The gospel of life, which we have the privilege of proclaiming, resonates in the heart of every person – believer and non-believer – because it fulfills the heart’s most profound desire. Let us with one voice continue to speak the language of love and affirm the right of every human being to have the value of his or her life, from conception to natural death, respected to the highest degree…
We can’t do anything for the dead - this is rather common sense, but it escapes the notice of liberals, especially liberals who are running for President and are desperate to pry away some Catholic votes from the Republican candidate. It does astound, at times, to think that there are people who think that abortion can be a morally good choice - one wonders how a person comes to the conclusion that a permanent solution is needed for a temporary condition…that immediate death can be the proper response to new life.
I included that last bit of the Bishop’s letter because I think it important - even if you’re not Christian or, indeed, even a believer. It is wisdom of the highest kind to instruct a person to adhere to truth no matter what people demand. It is also such wisdom to insist on taking all of one’s self into the voting booth. And we also must keep in mind the humility needed for the ultimate triumph of the Culture of Life - in a sense, we who can barely be trusted to do the right thing from minute to minute are the people who must convince a fallen and depraved modern world that life is a beautiful thing and it is to be held precious from the first to the last moment.
As the poison in American politics in the 1850’s could be traced to slavery, so the poison in American politics in the first decade of the 21st century can be traced to abortion. Not, of course, that abortion is the source of all ills, but because the defense of abortion - the defense, that is, of something even more abominable than slavery - leads people, step by step, into lies and hatred. Slaveholders in the South started talking themselves into believing their slaves were happy to be slaves; abortion proponents have talked themselves into believing that death is the best thing for the unborn child and, indeed, that child would thank us - if he could - for killing him and thus sparing him the burden of life. We can do much, short of an abortion ban, to lessen the evils in our political life and heal the wounds inflicted on us by the Culture of Death but, in the end, we won’t exorcise this demon until abortion is gone and viewed, as slavery is today, as some primitive aberration no decent person would contemplate.
As it relates to 2008, the good Bishop can’t say it - and even if there wasn’t a federal issue involved with men of the cloth entering deeply into politics, the Bishop would still refrain from saying, “vote for So and So”. But it is clear from his teaching - and the teaching of so many other Bishops, priests and pastors - that anyone who takes the name of “Christian” cannot, if properly informed of Christian teaching, vote for Obama. Heck, if Obama fully understood his own Christian faith, he’d vote against himself - and so would Biden. This is not to condemn those who are Christian and yet manage to find justification for supporting a pro-abortion candidate or party - but it is to point out that only ignorance or willful blindness can explain a Christian being in favor of continued legal elective abortion.
Those of us who place life at the forefront of our concerns know that in the choice of 2008, there is no choice - Only Senator McCain and Governor Palin understand that the belief in the sanctity of human life brings with it the requirement to support some actions, and oppose others. For the Culture of Life, McCain and Palin represent victory - Obama and Biden represent defeat.
Tags: abortion, Christianity, conservative truth, culture of death, Culture of Life, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin
October 5th, 2008
We certainly pray it is so:
A new survey from Rasmussen Reports shows that Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is leading Democratic Sen. Barack Obama among Catholic voters in the key swing state of Ohio 51 percent to 43 percent.
McCain leads Obama among all Ohio voters by 48 to 47 percent, a statistical tie within the September 28 poll’s margin of error.
According to Rasmussen, 57 percent of Catholic voters named economic issues the most important, while 15 percent named national security issues the most important.
Catholic voters are positioned to be an important swing demographic in Ohio.
According to the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio has more than 2 million Catholics. The Catholic vote is particularly strong in western Ohio in the Dayton area and the 13 rural counties north and east of the city. There are more than 500,000 Catholics in that area, more than in any part of the state except Cleveland.
While about one in four Ohio voters is Catholic, they tend to have a higher turnout rate.
Rev. John Putka, a Marianist priest and political science professor at the University of Dayton, told the Columbus Dispatch that the Catholic vote is “going to decide the election.”
He broke the Catholic vote into three blocs: observants, modernists, and secularists.
According to Father Putka, “observants” are conservative, attend church regularly, and typically vote Republican based on abortion and other social issues. They supported George W. Bush over John Kerry in 2004 by 65 to 35 percent.
“McCain’s selection of Palin totally galvanized this pro-life group,” Fr. Putka observed. “They were lukewarm before but not now.”
That last bit is very important as it provides a solid base among Catholic voters for McCain, while allowing McCain, himself, to go after the less observant - yet still non-liberal - Catholics who are genuine swing voters. And this could decide it - and, of course, this is why it appears that Obama and his Democrats are pulling out all the stops in their voter fraud efforts in Ohio. While Obama can win the White House without Ohio, it is a very difficult prospect…and even more difficult given the prospect of Obama losing Michigan and having to fight desperately for Pennsylvania’s Democrat yet pro-life voters.
As we go into the home stretch, look to the way the Catholic vote is breaking - if McCain maintains and/or expands his lead amongst Catholics, then November 4th will be a long, long night for Obama and his Democrats.
Tags: 2008 Campaign, Ohio
October 2nd, 2008
From her interview with Hugh Hewitt, via NRO’s The Corner:
HEWITT: Do you think the mainstream media and the left understands your religious faith, Governor Palin?
PALIN: I think that there’s a lot of mocking of my personal faith, and my personal faith is very, very simple. I don’t belong to any church. I do have a strong belief in God, and I believe that I’m a heck of a lot better off putting my life in God’s hands, and saying hey, you know, guide me. What else do we have but guidance that we would seek from a Creator? That’s about as simple as it gets with my faith, and I think that there is a lot of mocking of that. And you know, so be it, though I do have respect for those who have differing views than I do on faith, on religion. I’m not going to mock them, and I would hope that they would kind of I guess give me the same courtesy through this of not mocking a person’s faith, but maybe perhaps even trying to understand a little bit of it.
So, what do you know? She’s non-denominational. Now, naturally, I pray she’ll eventually return to her baptismal faith, but in the end her faith is an issue between her and God, and none of us have the right to interfere. What has been really disgusting is the way the so-called tolerant left has attempted to demonize Governor Palin because, once upon a time in her faith journey, she attended an Assembly of God church. Whatever one may say about that denomination, its not like the people in charge were race-baiting con-artists who have in their pews people who sit there for 20 years and still claim they don’t get it…
Sarah Palin is my sister in Christ - and like all Christians, she is sustained in her daily tasks by her faith in the love and mercy of God. It is what keeps us on track no matter what life throws at us. It is what keeps us looking for the good in all situations…and thus leads Sarah Palin to rejoice in the gift of her Down’s Syndrome baby and leads me to rejoice that I am able to serve my aged father who’s health declines steadily. The extraordinarily nasty attacks launched on Palin do hurt - but they mostly hurt in the way they reveal how sad and locked into despair so many people are today. If Palin is any sort of a Christian - and I believe she’s one of the better examples - they she pities those who attack her, and prays they will see the light. I don’t know what Sarah does to turn anger into forgiveness, but each Christian has their way of doing it (for me its asking for the intervention of the Blessed Virgin), but turn it she does, and it shows in the fact that after weeks of cruel slander, she’s just the same sweet yet tough as nails “mom/wife/Governor” we GOPers fell for at the start.
Tags: Christianity, conservative truth, Sarah Palin
October 1st, 2008
We’re not supposed to leave God in the pew:
Catholics need to wake up when it comes to politics, and stop leaving “God in the pew,” says a Vatican aide.
Bishop Giampaolo Crepaldi, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said this today when he addressed a conference organized by Retinopera, a network of Italian organizations that promote the Church’s social teachings.
The meeting, under way in Assisi, is reflecting on the idea of the common good and, according to its organizers, seeks “to consider development understood as a moral question.”
Bishop Crepaldi said Benedict XVI’s call in Cagliari, Sardinia, earlier this month for “the birth of a new generation of Christians involved in society and politics” was addressed to the Christian communities “who, as far as the formation new generations involved in society and politics is concerned, seem to be falling asleep.”
The bishop explained the need for Catholic laity involved in politics in the context of the “the idea, perhaps unexpressed, that secularization is an unstoppable process, a kind of ‘destiny’ of the West if not the entire planet.”
“Secularization, as God’s ejection from the world to the point that he ceases to speak to it, is not the destiny of modernity,” the bishop remarked.
The prelate noted this is precisely “the principal challenge” that Pope John Paul II faced, and that Benedict XVI is currently confronting. “We must confidently join them as real protagonists, and not see ourselves as tired bit players in a script recited by others.”
We can surrender the field to the secularists, or we can get out there and do battle for what we know is right. The crisis we face today isn’t really economic, but moral…only in a demoralized society which is sunk in despair could we get a situation where politicians connive with corporate bosses to defraud the American people…and then these same people blame those who fought against them, and demand that the people defrauded pony up to fix the problem. It is we, the believers, who have allowed this to happen - because we’ve been asleep at the switch, and afraid to tell the truth to those who are destroying our civilization.
The great battle here in the United States is, of course, the upcoming election - and its not really about Barack Obama. He’s a nobody - the problem is that he’s such a weak, ill-informed and morally confused man that those who seek to destroy Judeo-Christian civilization will find him easy to manipulate for their own ends. If we Christians refuse the battle - or temporize in our judgments - then we’ll get an Obama who will agree to appoint the most kook left judges imaginable…not because Obama wants kook left judges, but because he doesn’t know any better, and corrupt advisors will prevail upon him to make the appointments. You think Roe is horrific? Wait until an Obama-appointee decides that people have a right to euthanize their aged parents, or that taxpayers must pay for abortions…its coming, if we just sit back and allow it to happen.
Get out there and fight - as Obama put it to his troops, get in their faces and let them know how you feel…call them on their lies, each and every time they say them; tell them they are doing evil, even if they don’t recognize it. With mercy and love mixed with firmness and determination, lets carry the battle to them, and defeat them for the benefit of our civilization.
Tags: Christianity, Freedom of Religion
September 30th, 2008
Which isn’t, strictly speaking, news but it is interesting:
The Democratic Party has been hijacked by elites hostile to religion, said Mark Stricherz, author of the book “Why Democrats are Blue” and a Democrat himself, during the Casey Lecture delivered on Tuesday at the Archdiocese of Denver.
The Casey Series of Lectures was started by the Archdiocese of Denver in 2006 to promote Catholic thinking in political life, inspired by the life and political activism of the late Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, a devout Catholic and a Democrat.
Stricherz, who has focused his investigation on the historical transition that turned the Democrats from a Catholic-friendly organization to the pro-abortion rights party it is today, explained the decisive role played in American politics by staunch Catholic Democrats like Gov. Casey, Robert Kennedy and David Lawrence.
“These politicians provided a political leadership and a push for human rights based on religious convictions and personal prayer life, thus becoming promoters of Christian Humanist values,” he said.
Explaining an argument he makes in his book, Stricherz said that the Democratic Party created internal rules that favor Secular elites and limit the participation of common people. He mentioned caucuses in Iowa as an example: they are established to run from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., “preventing the participation of common people like third-shifters, military men and women or young mothers.” As a consequence, “56% of those attending the caucuses are pro- choice folks,” he said.
Thus, Secularism and hostility to religion have become the dividing line between the Democratic Party of the past and today’s Democratic leaders.
Asked about how to change the Democratic Party back to its original connection with average Americans, Stricherz said that is was critical to democratize the internal process, but added that, “I just don’t see the constituency, the drive to bring that change… those with college degrees, who tend to be more secular are in control of the party, whereas more religious, working folks are kept out of the loop.”
Almost hate to say it as, if its done, it will cause my conservatism no end of trouble - what some smart Democrat has to figure out is that if the Democrats would ditch the kook left and allow them to become the Social Democrats (ie, communists) they really are, then the residue of the Democratic party can become the Christian Democrats and make a bid for a socially conservative yet economically liberal political party - and such a party would have a lot of appeal, as a lot of conservative Protestants, and even more conservative Catholics, are ill at ease in the Republican party. Hillary could do this - all she has to do is dump the pro-abortion fanaticism, come out against gay marriage and have at it.
Will anyone do this or will the Democrats continue to slide down into socialism until they are completely rejected? Only time will tell.
Tags: 2008 Campaign, Christianity, liberal lies
September 27th, 2008
Never mind that Ahmadinejad seeks to annihilate a race of people. Never mind that this whackjob’s ability to perpetrate a nuclear holocaust is but a | stone’s throw in time away. Instead of admonishing and condemning his policies, what do liberal ‘religious’ groups do?
Why, they throw him a party, of course.
The Christian groups behind the event to honor Ahmadinejad are the American Friends Service Committee, Mennonite Central Committee, Quaker United Nations Office, Religions for Peace and the World Council of Churches, UPI reported.
From the World Council of Churches website:
The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in common life in Christ. It seeks to advance towards this unity, as Jesus prayed for his followers, "so that the world may believe." (John 17:21)
SO in their zeal to be O so Christian, they think it a great idea to dress up as Neville Chamberlain, sing a couple of rounds of Kumbaya and For He’s A Jolly Good Fellow! and the mere karma of their good intentions will be enough to avert the extermination of the Jewish state? Or is it that since the party-goers were all Christian, Jews need not have applied anyway?
Not that Ahmawhackjob has any love for Christianity, mind you. From the WCC’s own site:
After the Islamic revolution in 1978, most newly established church properties were confiscated and educational institutions were limited to Christian education among Christians. During the 1980s the Bible society was banned and the government shut down many newly formed Protestant and Evangelical churches. In recent years the conditions for religious minorities have become more and more difficult.
Yet these pseudo-religious lame-brains saw it fit to throw this whacko a party, and actually honor him?
Just what is it with leftists and their total love affair with brutal dictators? Inquiring minds want to know.
Tags: Christianity, Iran, Islam, Israel/Judaism, Kook Left
September 24th, 2008
Roger L. Simon thinks they should:
From the days of FDR, the vast majority of American Jews have identified with the Democratic Party almost if it were their religion. This included most especially secular Jews like me whose blasé attitude toward their faith and toward religious observance in general made such a replacement all the more important emotionally. This same Jewish majority also identified with the cause of social justice and, as Barack Obama among many others has noted, were some of the most active participants in the civil rights movement of the Fifties and Sixties. That was all how it should have been and was a perfectly logical and praiseworthy epoch in the development of our country.
Hello – those days are over! The events leading up to Monday’s anti-Ahmadinejad demonstration by Jewish organizations at the UN put the final nail in an already long-moldering coffin. Jews should no longer align themselves with the Democratic Party any more than they should align with the Republicans. They should act and think for themselves, devoid of ideological or partisan bias. They should first be Americans, not Democratic Party Americans…
…The virtual night of the long knives played out between the Democratic Party and various Jewish organizations surrounding the Iran demonstration, including allegations that party operatives were threatening the loss of tax exempt status over Sarah Palin’s appearance, with more unpleasant revelations undoubtedly to come, is obviously causing people to reconsider this allegiance to the Democratic Party that approaches fealty.
I urge my fellow Jews to keep thinking about this and not to retreat into the cocoon-like safety of an outmoded tradition. Change is difficult. But remember that Hillary Clinton – that paragon of the Democratic Party, a woman who calls herself a “progressive” (oh, desecration of the English language!) – was willing to forego the protest of the man who is arguably the most significant enemy of the Jews since Hitler for partisan and (most likely) personal pique reasons. How morally repellent is that!
Strong stuff, but it needed to be said. Remember, once upon a time to be Catholic in America meant to be a Democrat. As far as I can determine, I may very well have been the first descendent of Thomas Francis Noonan to actually register as a Republican, and that ancestor arrived on these shores in the 1850’s. Catholics had to turn aside from the Democratic party as it became increasingly hostile to what Catholicism teaches - Jews will have to do the same. That is, all Jews who hold to an actually Jewish identity will have to do so - plenty of fallen away Catholics adhere to the Democratic party, but the more rock solid the Catholic, the more likely he is to be non-Democrat (even if he’s also non-Republican). Jews who are concerned with the morality of Judaism and the unique role Jews have played in western civilizaiton - and, of course, the defense of the one absolute refuge for the Jews of the world, Israel - should be (and I believe, are) recoiling from a Democrat party being consumed by a leftwing growing more anti-Semitic as it grows more anti-western in outlook.
When it comes to the really crucial issues - faith, family, morality, patriotism - the Republicans far outpace the Democrats. In the end, there is really no contest - and while there is an understandable wariness on the part of some Jews for Christians, and especially devout Christians, the plain fact of the matter is that when push comes to shove, it will be the Christian who will fight for the Jews while the secularist finds a host of reasons for throwing Jews under the bus. This doesn’t mean that all Jews should register Republican (though, its an idea, ya know?), but it does mean that American Jews should consider things beyond the “D” after the candidate’s name when making a voting decision.
Tags: Israel/Judaism
September 23rd, 2008
And it doesn’t matter if McCain or Obama is in the White House, we’ll still go at this hammer and tongs:
n the Holy See Press Office this morning, the presentation took place of an upcoming international conference entitled: “Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A Critical Appraisal 150 years after ‘The Origin of Species’”. The conference is due to be held in Rome from 3 to 7 March 2009.
The congress has been jointly organised by the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, U.S.A., under the patronage of the Pontifical Council for Culture and as part of the STOQ Project (Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest).
That will be a lot of fun.
Tags: Evolution/Intelligent Design
September 17th, 2008
Then go here.
You liberals can, too, as it will annoy you greatly, and that is what we’re here for.
Tags: 2008 Campaign
September 16th, 2008
Interesting, from Gay Patriot:
I found Sarah Palin’s answer to Charles Gibson’s question on homosexuality satisfactory (though not ideal) in large part because of my basic political philosophy. I don’t think someone’s sexuality should be a matter of government concern.
I don’t need the government to affirm my sexuality. I just expect the government to leave me alone so I can affirm it in my own way.
And how did Governor Palin answer the question? Thusly:
GIBSON: Homosexuality, genetic or learned?
PALIN: Oh, I don’t — I don’t know, but I’m not one to judge and, you know, I’m from a family and from a community with many, many members of many diverse backgrounds and I’m not going to judge someone on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic. I’m not going to judge them.
This was yet another question from Gibson where Palin could reasonably have asked, “in what sense, Charlie?”. It is an open question as to whether or not homosexuality is genetic (with the Catholic position being neutral on that assertion, but noting that some people do have a “deep seated” attraction for members of the same sex), but there is no question that in order to do something homosexual, it must be learned, as all voluntary human acts must be learned. Just because a young man might find his heart racing at the sight of another young man doesn’t mean he’ll immediately leap to the homosexual act - no more than a heterosexual young man instantly knows what to do about his first strong sexual attraction to a young woman.
As for me, I also do not judge on this matter - people who are gay assert strongly that they have “always” felt that way; I can’t gainsay them, as I can’t peer into their souls and discover the rock-solid truth of the matter. On the other hand, there are cases out there of men and women living entirely gay for a while, and then switching over to living heterosexual - such things don’t, of course, demonstrate that genetic is invalid nor that choice is valid…all they show is that a person can do what he wishes, including ignore a strong sexual urge in favor of some other act or way of living (you know, like a good monk or nun who eschews sexual activity of any type).
The crucial thing here is to not judge - and that cuts both ways; the non-homosexual must not judge the homosexual as bad, the homosexual must not judge the person who asserts Christian teaching on homosexuality as a bigot. God will figure this one out for us. Supposing a gay friend didn’t know my views on homosexual sex and then asked me, I’d tell him - but I’d also add that there are bigger fish to fry and, furthermore, in the grand scheme of things carnal sins are generally less dangerous for the immortal soul than sins against the Spirit. Naturally, a homosexual person who puts his sexual appetites above all other things is at risk of damnation - but so, too, is the man who puts his money, his possessions or his power above all things. Sarah Palin, a true Christian who has promised us she’ll keep a servant’s heart understands this very well - and even if she prays ten times a day for homosexuals to cease homosexuality, it doesn’t change the fact that our gay brothers and sisters are, indeed, our brothers and sisters and they are to be loved and respected at all times.
And as Palin attempts to show this love, so she has managed - at least with Gay Patriot - to secure a measure of respect one would think no gay person would even bestow upon an Evangelical Christian. One down, many millions to go…but each journey does start with the first step.
Tags: gay rights, homosexuality, Sarah Palin
September 15th, 2008
Father Neuhaus explains:
Any time is a good time, but this election is a particularly good time, to review some basics about the free exercise of religion in this American constitutional order
More than he wanted to be remembered for having been president, Mr. Jefferson wanted to be remembered as the author of the Virginia “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.” In the text of the bill he underlined this sentence: “The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.” In a republic of free citizens, every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration, every moral argument has access to the public square in which we deliberate the ordering of our life together.
“The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.” And yet civil government is ordered by, and derives its legitimacy from, the opinions of the citizenry. Precisely here do we discover the novelty of the American experiment, the unique contribution of what the Founders called this novus ordo seclorum, a new order for the ages. Never before in human history had any government denied itself jurisdiction, whether limited or total, over that on which it entirely depends, the opinion of its people.
That was the point forcefully made by Lincoln in his dispute with Judge Douglas over slavery. Douglas stubbornly held to the Dred Scott decision as the law of the land. Lincoln had the deeper insight into how this republic was designed to work. “In this age, and this country,” Lincoln said, “public sentiment is every thing. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the inforcement of these, else impossible.”
The question of religion’s place in the public square is not, first of all, a question of First Amendment law. It is first of all a question of understanding the theory and practice of democratic governance. Citizens are the bearers of opinion, including opinion shaped by or espousing religious belief, and citizens have equal access to the public square. In this representative democracy, the state is forbidden to determine which convictions and moral judgments may be proposed for public deliberation. Through a constitutionally ordered and representative process, the people will deliberate and the people will decide.
In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being religious than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is, or at least there ought to be, no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified thing that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who appeal to religion in public.
As with individual citizens, so also with the associations that citizens form to advance their opinions. Religious institutions may understand themselves to be brought into being by God, as the Catholic Church certainly does understand herself, but for the purposes of this democratic polity they are free associations of citizens. As such, they are guaranteed the same access to the public square as are the citizens who comprise them. It matters not at all that their purpose is to advance religion, any more than it matters that other associations would advance the interests of business or labor or radical feminism or animal rights or whatever.
For purposes of democratic theory and practice, it matters not at all whether these religious associations are large or small, whether they reflect the views of a majority or minority, whether we think their opinions bizarre or enlightened. What opinions these associations seek to advance in order to influence our common life is entirely and without remainder the business of citizens who freely adhere to such associations. It is none of the business of the state. Religious associations, like other associations, give corporate expression to the opinions of people and, as Mr. Jefferson said, “the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.”
Agreed.
The fundamental flaw in liberal thinking on matters of religion in the public square is that they view the First Amendment as protecting government from religion, when it actually protects religion - and, indeed, all opinion within reasonable limits - from government. Liberals quake with fear at the thought of a pastor giving a prayer at a public school graduation ceremony (or, at least, I presume they do, given how hard they fight against such things), thinking that such a thing means that religion is being established and thus compelled upon the citizenry when all it really amount to is, well, a pastor saying a prayer. That is, a pastor offering up his opinion in the public square at the invitation of those who set up the particular event. No harm, no foul; it would only be an imposition by government if the government insisted upon a positive affirmation in favor of the pastor’s opinion by the gathered citizenry.
When you get down to it, a great deal (and, perhaps, most) of our political difficulties stem from similar liberal misunderstandings of how things work - what truth is, what happened in the past, why people believe certain ways, etc, etc, etc. Liberals make absurd arguments about religion in the public square because they really don’t know anything about religion, government or the rights of people in a democratically governed republic. Hopefully at least one or two liberals, upon reading Fr. Neuhaus’ statement, will start to wise up.
Not that I’m holding my breath, or anything…
Tags: Freedom of Religion
September 14th, 2008
This is, well, nauseating:
U.S. vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s loving and highly-publicized acceptance of her Down’s syndrome child Trig has some Canadian doctors worried that her example may lead to mothers shunning abortion after diagnosis of Down’s syndrome.
According to the Globe and Mail, Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), is worried that Palin’s decision to give birth to Trig, despite knowing about his condition, could influence other women in similar situations, but who lack the financial and emotional support that Palin had access to.
“The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada,” he said.
Citing his concern for women’s “freedom to choose”, Lalonde said that popular examples about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, could have negative effects on women and their families, reported the Globe.
However, Lalonde said that doctors in Canada give balanced information about the consequences of the condition to pregnant women with a Down’s child, and that women are not necessarily encouraged to abort. “We offer the woman the choice. We try to be as unbiased as possible,” Lalonde said. “We’re coming down to a moral decision and we all know moral decisions are personal decisions.”
Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, however, disagreed with Lalonde’s claim that pregnant women are given balanced information about the condition: “Many of the country’s medical professionals only give messages of fear to parents who learn their baby will be born with the genetic condition.”
Only in the sick, twisted world of the culture of death could there be a concern that having a Down’s Syndrome baby - as opposed to killing it - might provide a “bad example”.
I really don’t know what to say here - I don’t know, at this moment, how I am to love those in the culture of death who would think such things…it is, some times, very hard to do so, though I must do it. Why on Earth would anyone want to be a person who is worried that a woman might not choose to abort? How do you get like that? On second thought, I don’t even want to know….
Tags: abortion, Canada, culture of death, Culture of Life, Sarah Palin
September 14th, 2008
Ah, the troubles a person can get into when he tries to be both Catholic and liberal:
Bishop of Madison Robert C. Morlino and Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput have responded to Democratic vice-presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Biden’s characterization that the point when life begins is a religious belief, criticizing him for “flawed moral reasoning,” confusing the Catholic faithful and confusing the differences between faith and natural law.
In a Sunday interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sen. Biden had said that he is “prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception” but would not impose that belief on anyone through law. He claimed that to do so would be “inappropriate in a pluralistic society.”
Bishop Morlino made impromptu remarks in his Sunday homily, saying he had thrown away his prepared homily “for other considerations.”
Explaining that his point was not “to speak against Democrats,” but to address people who “claim to be Catholic,” he discussed Sen. Joseph Biden and Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s remarks about abortion.
“They are roughly my age… so that means that Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Biden were educated just about the same time I was,” he noted.
Stating he could not speak to the exact details of Pelosi’s Catholic education, Bishop Morlino said “I have to believe that she was taught that abortion was always wrong.”…
…Turning his remarks to Sen. Biden, Bishop Morlino said he and the senator shared as their hometown Scranton, Pennsylvania.
“I am positive of what Sen. Biden was taught in Scranton. And it’s the same thing that I was taught,” he declared.
…Sen. Biden doesn’t understand the difference between “religious faith and natural law.”
“Any human being — regardless of his faith, his religious practice or having no faith — any human being can reason to the fact that human life from conception unto natural death is sacred,” he argued. “Biology — not faith, not philosophy, not any kind of theology — Biology tells us, science [says], that at the moment of conception there exists a unique individual of the human species.”
“It’s not a matter of what I might believe. What my faith might teach me,” he said.
“Sen. Biden has an obligation to know that. And he doesn’t know it.”…
…Again insisting he wasn’t speaking about Democrats or even pro-life issues, he said his focus was upon the “awareness of faith, the catechesis that every Catholic should have.” He asked his listeners to make sure they themselves really understand what the Catholic faith teaches, through the Pope and the bishops.
“Prominent Catholics should not be violating the separation of church and state” by “teaching the wrong thing.” Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Biden, he said, are “doing precisely that.”
“If Republican candidates were doing precisely that, I would speak out with exactly the same determination,” he countered.
The Bishop’s rebuke to Biden (and Pelosi) is necessary as the program of the Democrats is to muddy the issue of Catholic teaching on life issues in order to be able to make a credible bid for Catholic votes, and most especially the votes of Catholics who regularly attend Mass, and may end up deciding the election this year. Democrats have to muddy the waters because a clear and concise statement of Democratic beliefs - ie, support for federally funded abortion on demand - would immediately be identified by devout Catholics as wrong (and you think that everyone already knows this? No, they don’t - go poll your friends and find out how many of them know that prior to the partial-birth ban an abortion could legally be performed right up to the moment of birth…quite a lot of people believe that an abortion is only legal in the first trimester…the Culture of Death is deft with its propaganda and the MSM is not about to really tell the tale of abortion). So, out go Biden and Pelosi to absurdly claim that there is dispute about what pro-life means for Catholics and that belief in life begins at conception is a theological assertion rather than a biological fact.
The Bishop is also correct that this is a massive violation of the separation of Church and State - with two elected officials high up in the United States government presuming to speak authoritatively on Catholic teaching. It is not for elected officials to proclaim Catholic dogma, but for the Bishops of the Church in union with the Bishop of Rome. Everyone should be just as outraged by this as they would be if the Pope were to, say, try to tell us what level of taxation we should impose in the United States. Of course liberals won’t get this at all because the believe that the issue of separation of Church and State is summed up in a ban on the mention of religion in the public square - but take this as a teaching moment, liberals, and understand what is really going on here.
