Thursday, October 30, 2008

Why Catholic and Other Christian Pro-Lifers Vote For Obama

My friend, Dave Armstrong, who was blogging on Catholic issues before "blog" was a word, and from the first days of the Internet Al Gore invented (that was a joke), has written a very insightful blog entry that answers the title of this blog. To see his astute answers click on the title of this blog, or any of the links below...they all go to the same place.

The picture of Dave (at right) is one of those strange things that I've never gotten used to. It's suppose to be funny...he says. Yeah, he looks like that, but he only pretends to be what he looks like here.

Ten Reasons Submitted For This Incredible "Disconnect"

1) Failure to integrate faith into a consistent view of all of life, and compartmentalization of religion and other aspects of life. (

2) Antipathy to one individual incumbent or candidate causes them to vote for the other guy, no matter what he believes, or how it violates Christian / Catholic principles. (Answer)

3) The counsel of despair. (

4) Denial of the reality of pro-life gains. (

5) Buying the pro-abortion lie of "imposing my values . . ." (Answer)

6) Religion has nothing to do with society. (

7) The one-issue voter canard. (

8) Acceptance of the pessimistic view that a Christian cannot positively affect government and society. (

9) The two parties are exactly the same anyway. (

10) It's time to make a statement and have a black President. (

Bishop Boyea of Lansing Michigan Publicly Corrects Governor Granholm

(Click title to see original post.)

Michigan Governor Granholm used her public position to tell other Catholics that it's "pro-life" to vote "yes" on embryonic stem cell research (Proposal 2 on the Michigan ballot) when voting "no" is actually consistent with Catholic teaching.

Bishop Earl Boyea, recently installed in the Diocese of Lansing, Michigan, had this to say:

In a Sunday address in Grand Rapids, Governor Jennifer Granholm incredibly said of Proposal 2 "As a Catholic, I can say to be pro-cure is to be pro-life." Of course, Catholics and all other responsible citizens will continue to seek cures for disease and injury. But to imply that Proposal 2 is a valid expression of Catholic principles is shocking. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Ask for the Intercession of 50 Million Aborted Babies

Someone just wrote me this great idea:
Drew Mariani on Catholic radio recommended that we call upon the intercession the 50 million aborted babies in Heaven to storm the throne of God on our behalf to plead for help with the election. I think this is a great idea. In the remaining days, surely they will help us to defend life in this vital election!
(I thought of using one of the horrid images of an aborted babies, but then realized that they are undoubtedly whole in heaven. So the image at in this post is a compromise...a 24 week old unaborted fetus. Amazing miracle.)

I will continue to fast through the election, mostly for the people who need to realize that their hatred of George Bush is nothing compared to God's hatred of abortion and the consequences God will increasing bring upon this country for a sin greater than Hitler could ever dream.

The Rigidity of Truth

Last Thursday I was in Boston to tape a couple of interviews for CatholicTV. In one I was asked about our television series and particularly the Common Ground phenomena; a segment for unity week next Spring. In the other we discussed my book, The Moral Premise for communication week.

My enjoyment of Catholicism emanates from a scientific notion (I have a bachelor's in Physics) that truth does not change; that the answers that mathematic problems produce are not up for a vote; that there is a constant value to the gravitational constant, and just as there is a sense of univesal wrongness about lying, so there is a rigidity to moral truth. That gives me security. I don't have to chase what is true. From day-to-day I know that gravity will pull my feet to the ground with the same force; and that my moral obedience to the rules which God has laid down are constant, trusthworthy, and to the extent I follow all of that, I will be safe and happy.

But not so when it comes to politics or the moral RELATIVISM of America today. The political divide we experience in America today is about truth, nothing less. Christian (true Chrsitians not pretend ones) will hate falsehood and those that perpetuate it, and the pagans will hate Christians trying to tell them what is false, as if calling evil right makes it good. There will be no unity as long as one person bears false witness to the other. There will be no peace as long as political ads blantantly lie about the other candidate or issues — like the lying Proposal 2 radio and TV ads in Michigan where it claims McCain is against all stem cell research. The ad NEVER mentions that the proposal is about embryonic stem cells. The ad says McCain can't be trusted because he voted FOR stem cell research and then AGAINST it. (I'm Barack Obama and I approved this ad.)

Either Obama is an idiot when it comes to defining the difference between the successful therapies of adult stem cell research and the failed research surrounding the embryonic kind, which is ethical and moral -- or he's lying. Take your pick. It has to be one or the other.

The divide should exist as long as there's a difference between truth and falsehood, life and death. All of this talk about healing our differeences is hideous if it means "get along at any cost." Or if it means "tolerate evil." I, for one, think it is sucicide— physically and psycholigcally— to embrace a so called moral truth that changes. It is stupid to think that we can all make up our own moral right and wrong and get along. It is illogical, idiotic, and someting only liberal professors could believe.

After my taping at CatholicTV in Boston, my religious formation director, Fr. Dennis Brown OMV, took me on a short walking tour of downtown. We visited some old churches and the library among other things. I picked up a flyer at Old South Church in Boston that told of the church's history. In one paragraph it discussed Old South's denominational history mentioned The United Church of Christ (which Old South is today), the Evangelical Church, the Reformed Chuch, and the Congregational Christian Churches. Then there is this sentence:
The Christian Churches sprang up in the late 1700s and early 1800s in reaction to the theological and organizational rigidity of the Methodsit, Presbyterian and Baptist churches of the time.
Please contemplate, for a moment, the silliness of that sentence. Conceptually, of course it is wrong because the (original) Christian Church sprung up in the first century when the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost and the Apostles spread out and founded the first Christian Churches. (See the good comment from Greg Brekke below.) But the sentence implies, that the United Church of Christ (et al) began because the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists were just too rigid and inflexible for the culture. As if religious truth was a fad that changed with the times. As if gravity should be flexible and not so rigid. As if the Methodists are not the result of the Church of England being too "rigid" or the Baptists (which one of 2,000 I wonder) saw the Presbyterians too rigid, or all three of them found Catholicism to rigid. As if the United Church of Christ is NOT rigid and is "right" because it holds few views about what is "right." Right! Listen to yourself, people.

Rigidity is good when we're dealing with truth. This is Obama's problem. You can't say abortion is wrong, as he has suggested by claiming to be for reducing abortions, and then turn around and claim his first action has president is to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that will increase the killing of black babies, which now is 5X greater than whites. That's racism and fulfills the plan of Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger and others who wanted to eliminate Blacks from society. They are succeeding with Obama (who really isn't white, they say) taking leadership. He must not be black, but just pretending to be black so he can get the black vote.

King David sang that he loved the Law of God. Why? Because it never changed and thus God could be trusted. Obama can't, because he ignores the rigid laws of reality.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Human Perfection and Imperfection

Click the title for the full article by Amy Becker about her reflections on her Down syndrome child Penny, pictured at the right with her husband Peter. The title link will take you to FIRST THINGS' website. (More links to her stuff below.)

The article begins below, but I encourage you to read it to the end and try to fully understand Amy's take on what it means to be perfect and imperfect, especially as we automatically apply the concepts to babies, but also to ourselves.
"What shall it gain a man if he should gain the whole world but loose his soul?" (Jesus' words from somewhere in the Gospels.)
At first glance this article looks like it might be an argument against abortion when the child has Down syndrome, and indeed it is that. (cf. Sarah Palin and the fear people have of her because she sees perfection in babies at a different level than most. Her insight into this is supernatural and transcendent...a valuable asset for a world leader.)

But the article is more significant than just an argument against abortion. As Becker explains there is an extra chromosome that gave Penny the disease (something extra that apparently "distorts" physical perfection). Becker inmplies, but never says it, that there is a more serious affect of adding extra "chromosones" -- to our lives and culture. Such "extras" have a more serious impact on our spiritual perfection before God. Penny's chromosome "problem" is small compared to what we do otherwise to our "spiritual" chromosomes.

But her point is actually better than that.

She writes, "humanity includes limitations and dependence on one another." But what she is really saying is that humanity is not defined by culture's view of physical "perfection" but by God's view which NECESARILY includes limitations and dependence. That is "humanity is DEFINED as something that includes 'limitations' and 'dependence.'" To be truly human is to be dependent on others and God. If we believe we are independent we buy into Satan's lie that we can be like God. Humanity IN ITS PERFECTION requires, demands, begs, screams for limitations and dependence. IN THOSE THINGS we are made PERFECT (James 1).

She writes, "when we conceive of healing simply as miraculous cures for abnormal states of being—blindness, deafness, cognitive delays—we miss the point." Indeed! Some years back I began to look at all the aged and mentally dependent senior citiziens I was meeting in several churches that ministed to such folk. It occured to me that one of their purposes in life was to teach us abled body, and mentally "capable" people to CARE for them. By their "disabilities" they were teaching us to love, to be charitable, to give of our time and resoruces, to be like Christ. Just as we can never pay back Christ for all he's done for us, so these aged and mentally dependent people I was meeting could never pay back their caregivers. But that was the point. When society sees them as "disabled" or "not living fully" or as "unnecessary" we should be seehing them as just the opposite, if we have any interest in seeing heaven and God. Humanity was designed as a DEPENDENT DISABLED specese for a reason... so we could accept God's love, and share it with others.

Indeed, Penny, in the ways that matter most (eternal values) is more perfect with her Downs than many others. Pray for us Penny. (More pictures of Penny at link below.)
by Amy Julia Becker

Copyright (c) 2008 First Things (November 2008).

Our daughter was born at 5:22 p.m. on December 30, 2005. Two hours later, a nurse called my husband out of the room. When he returned, he took my hand and said, “They think Penny has Down syndrome.” As this news began to make its way into my consciousness, we heard shouts from the room next door. Another child had been born. “She’s perfect!” someone exclaimed about that other baby. “She’s perfect!”
Amy's website, and links to her other writing is HERE. She's working on a Masters in Divinity at Princeton, and has a book coming out. Her blog is THIN PLACES. Thanks to my bogging-pal Bill Murphy for sending this. I'll post it on his blog as well, VIEW FROM THE TOWER where Bill writes about the intersection of Western Culture and Catholicism from his outpost in the U.K. as well as from his world travels.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Abortion & Abortion Rights - Intrinsict Evil

"To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or 'abortion rights' when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible."

Joint Statement
Bishop Kevin Farrell
Bishop Kevin Vann
to the Faithful of the Dioceses of Dallas and Fort Worth
(title has link)

October 8, 2008

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

The month of October is Respect Life Month in our churches. It is a time in which we as Catholics are called to reflect upon the gift of life that has been entrusted to us by our Creator and to focus our attention on the many attacks against human life that exist in our culture today. This year, Respect Life Month takes on a more profound meaning as we face an election in our country where the protection of human life itself, particularly that of the unborn, is very much at stake. Therefore, as your Bishops, we wish to take this opportunity to provide clear guidance on the proper formation of conscience concerning voting as faithful Catholics and to articulate the Church's clear and unambiguous teaching on life issues as they relate to other issues of concern.

The Church teaches that all Catholics should participate as "faithful citizens" in the public square, especially through our voice in the voting booth, and that we have the responsibility to treat the decision for whom we will vote for with profound moral seriousness. We must approach the right and duty to vote with a properly formed and informed conscience in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Last November, the Bishops of the United States issued a document entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in which we and our brother Bishops issued clear moral guidelines to aid the faithful in proper formation of conscience with regard to the many issues we face in our nation today. Through this joint statement to the faithful of Dallas and Fort Worth, we seek to briefly summarize the key points and dispel any confusion or misunderstanding that may be present among you concerning the teaching contained in the document, especially that which may have arisen from recent public misinterpretation concerning this teaching.

1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship clearly teaches that not all issues have the same moral equivalence. Some issues involve "intrinsic evils"; that is, they can never under any circumstance or condition be morally justified. Preeminent among these intrinsic evils are legalized abortion, the promotion of same sex unions and "marriages", repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research.

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship clearly states:

"There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called 'intrinsically evil' actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, 'abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others' (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed." (22)

2. The destruction of the most innocent of human life through abortion and embryonic stem cell research not only undercuts the basic human right to life, but it also subverts and distorts the common good. As Pope John Paul II clearly states:

"Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good... It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop..." (The Gospel of Life, 72; 101)

3. Therefore, we cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion – while not the "only issue" – it is the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 48 million innocent lives have been lost. Each year in our nation more than one million lives are lost through legalized abortion. Countless other lives are also lost through embryonic stem cell research. In the coming months our nation will once again elect our political leaders. This electoral cycle affords us an opportunity to promote the culture of life in our nation. As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray, to act, and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America, limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished.

4. As Catholics we are faced with a number of issues that are of concern and should be addressed, such as immigration reform, healthcare, the economy and its solvency, care and concern for the poor, and the war on terror. As Catholics we must be concerned about these issues and work to see that just solutions are brought about. There are many possible solutions to these issues and there can be reasonable debate among Catholics on how to best approach and solve them. These are matters of "prudential judgment." But let us be clear: issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to issues involving intrinsic evils. No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate's unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection of "abortion rights."

As Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship states:

"The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed." (28)

5. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate's position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or "abortion rights," a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no "truly grave moral" or "proportionate" reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible.

6. In conclusion, as stated in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the decisions we make on these political and moral issues affect not only the general peace and prosperity of society at large, but also may affect each individual's salvation. As Catholics, we must treat our political choices with appropriate moral gravity and in doing so, realize our continuing and unavoidable obligation to be a voice for the voiceless unborn, whose destruction by legal abortion is the preeminent intrinsic evil of our day. With knowledge of the Church's teaching on these grave matters, it is incumbent upon each of us as Catholics to educate ourselves on where the candidates running for office stand on these issues, particularly those involving intrinsic evils. May God bless you.

Faithfully in Christ,

Most Reverend Kevin J. Farrell
Bishop of Dallas

Most Reverend Kevin W. Vann
Bishop of Fort Worth

Sunday, October 12, 2008

A Message from the Queen of England to the USA

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary' ).
2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'
3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist,then you're not ready to shoot grouse.
5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable, as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
11. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).
12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.
16. Effective immediately, you will pronounce “nuclear” as “new-clee-ar”, not “noo-cue-larr” like how your current president pronounces (who, incidentally, is about to lose his commission). I will decide who will run my re-possessed colonies.
God Save the Queen (i.e., me)!

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

What Happened?

Glen Beck's bipartisan explanation of the deep financial crisis we're in. Very thorough, and fairly easy to understand. My suggestion is to fire EVERYONE in D.C., and start all over again. Read it by clicking on the title above.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Another Opinion

After sending out an anti-abortion ad to my entire list, which included non-Christians and some very politically and religiously liberal Christians, I have received back some amazing flack, and more "unsubscribes" than usual, even from good friends who don't want me to send them a political opinion but have no hesitation from sharing theirs with me.

One person did engage in a very healthy dialogue with me, and while we didn't agree we were able to agree on the problems of communicating such issues.

In times like these, I discover who my true compatriots are in our fight for moral values, and who claim to be reading entirely different history books, written perhaps by Keith Olbermann. Here's one I received today. The writer is referring not only to my anti-abortion ad, which I asked people to pass around, but to my claim that the Democrats where principally responsible for the financial crisis for their refusal to back Bush and McCain regulations requested in 2001 and 2004. I'm unsure why the McCain camp is not capitalizing on this well documented history; perhaps there's a dark lining for McCain. But that McCain, Bush and numerous Republicans led the effort for new and tougher regulations at Fannie Mae, and that the Democrats beat them back, seems to be well-documented thanks to CSpan and YouTube. The greed factor is another huge issue... that frankly, the regulations may have helped contain. Anyhow, here's a recent rant on me, with some comment.
Dear Stan,

I am so very sorry that you feel this way, as I am very much a kindred spirit of the late, great Tim Russert, who said that "I was born a Democrat; I was only baptized Catholic".
And therein lies a horrifying moral problem, on two levels. (1) Democrats have dramatically changed their moral values over the decades, from a party that supports the poor to a party that endorses killing the unborn. There's also a more subtle difference, whether intended or not. But Democrats are more socialistic and willing to give out unrestricted welfare, whereas Republicans tend to be more captialisitic and ask people to work for the money. Both positions are valid, as long as we avoid extremes. As the saying goes, "Keep them poor so they will vote for us next time. If they get rich, they'll vote Republican."

(2) It is morally irresponsible and morally relativistic, and thus eternally dangerous to attach your identity to a moving target (any political entity) and not with something infallible which is irrevocably tied to God's history of salvation—Catholicism.
You are an overly simplistic idiot to think that these "neo-fascist, reactionary, running dog lackeys of U. S. imperialism, and their war-mongering hordes", aka the Republican Party, care one damn hoot about anything other that the aggrandizement of their own personal wealth, to the exclusion of all other concerns. Period.
There you go again. Did the schools you attended teach you that name calling was a valid way to convince others of your position? You should look up several of those words in the dictionary. "U.S. imperialism?" Unless you're going to change the definition, about the only imperialism we've committed was during he Civil War when we insisted that the South do away with slaves and we forced them to stick around. "War-mongering hordes?" I know many think Bush is a war-monger but the other prevailing opinion is that he's fulfilling his constitutional obligation to defend us against aggressors, that have attacked us numerous times. I'm of that camp. Although you may be one of those that think 9/11 was an "inside" job. You never served in the military, did you? It would help your argument if you could cite evidence rather than just name calling. The name calling is easy, and thus makes you look overly simplistic, and that other stuff you said.

While I am technically an independent, I have voted Republican recently because they agree closest to my moral values. That is, I care about others and I see the economic principles upon which the R.P. is based as helping the poor the most, by creating jobs and getting them off welfare. The staunch Republicans I know are sacrificing a great deal for others. Bush's record is one that has sacrificed much, especially politically for the poor in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a nation we have sacrificed a lot of money hoping to turn their lives around and give them hope, at much cost to us. None of that is related to your claim of engrandizement or personal wealth. To pull back from these battles is being selfish. Cindy Sheehan was one of the most selfish women ever to hit the media. She didn't care what her son thought or why he went to war, all she could think about was how she felt. She never realized that the death of our soldiers guaranteed her right to act like a selfish twit.

We fight for others as well as for ourselves. It is honorable, and I am glad to be associated with that effort. War is horrible. But when you fight evil, and people who think nothing of lying to kill you, what's the point of negotiation? The devil doesn't negotiate, unless you're stupid enough to do it, and then he loves it. One of the big examples of such "negotiation" with the devil was Neville Chamberlain, whose "legacy is marked by his appeasement policy regarding his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding part of Czechoslovakia to German dictator Adolf Hitler." (Wikipedia)
They couldn't care less about starving kids, impoverished families, the undermining of the American economy, true National security, or anything other than their own wealth. Not one Christian virtue or goal is any concern of these hypocrites. Just look at their true track record. They've been railing against abortion for nearly 40 years now, but only every fourth one of those years, and only near election times. Yes, that's right, and accurate. Hypocrites, I say.
There you go again, opining but with no evidence. You listen to MSNBC's sound bytes too much -- just because it sounds cool, gains a laugh, or a nod, doesn't mean it is true. If you act this way around your employees, I wonder how many agree with you simply to keep their job. Over generalization doesn't help either.

Wealthy Republicans make good philanthropists, (but I will quickly leave out the greedy rich Republicans (and all others), who are part of the problem). A lot of Republicans give generously to institutions that give back a hundred fold. The rich Republicans I know (and granted I know only a few) are sacrificial, compassionate Christians who overflow with virtue and kindness.

On the abortion front, we not only have been railing against abortion but years, but have made wonderful progress. Where do you live, that you are totally unaware of the progress that Pro Life efforts have made at both the state and national level? Look at the abortion numbers, and the reduction in abortion clinics. Let Obama into office and he'll wipe away all that progress in less than a year with his Freedom of Choice act. He's promised to do away with the Pro Life progress as one of his first acts in office. Do you know anything about the FOC act? Do you think it came from Republicans? Are you drunk sir? Call them what you may, but thanks goodness you have no vote on sainthood. The Republicans I know are the opposite of your claims, and I am one of them, proudly.
They've been calling for their complete control of the Congress to do it first, though. Well, o.k. we gave it to them. Then they said that they needed the Senate also to do the job. O.K. then, we gave that to them. Then in the next election they said that they needed the White House also to get it done. O.K., we gave them that, too. Then they said that they also needed the Supreme Court to get the job done. O.K., we gave them that too. And what did they do with all of this power? End abortion?
My dear sir, what have you done to end abortion? Vote Democrat? If you know anything about our legal system, you must know that the efforts to stop abortion with laws have been very successful in states like Michigan, where I live. You must also know that unlike Democrats, Republicans believe the Supreme Court should rest on the constitution, not on the floor of the legislature. That means the right cases, with the right causes, have to be brought before the court. You act as if you expect a conservative court to act like a liberal court, and make up the laws, based on any case it hears. Sorry, you misunderstand how our country is suppose to work. A much larger majority in congress is needed to overturn a Supreme Court ruling like Roe vs. Wade. A simple majority won't do it, and you need a lot of populous support, which does not exist.
... And what did they do with all of this power? End abortion? HELL NO, they just pursued more and more tax cuts and tax breaks for the super rich and the mega millionaires. Period.
Did it ever occur to you what happens to the money that responsible rich people get? (I'm not talking about the greedy, evil ones, who probably send it to an off-shore bank.) Do you think they hide it in their mattress and take it out of circulation? Not at all. The rich are rich for a very good and logical reason. They are entrepreneurs who try to generate "capital" which is a requirement for productivity and which pays the laborer for "work." You need both, labor and capital (see the Catechism 2432). Although in the extreme the Church condemns both capitalism and socialism, which seek to solve all problems purely through one model. A balance is required (see the Catechism 2426-2436). And the richest folks know that the only way to help the world (and their own pocket) is to invest that money in productive projects that will earn a return. Capitalism, when done benevolently, allows that to happen -- it works wonders for helping the poor and the lives of everyone. The money the rich get they invest, which pays the salaries of their workers, and buys parts and construction, and new plants, all which gets into the paychecks of the part inventors, and the steel workers, and the guy who makes their lunches, and sells amusement ride tickets on the weekends. Rich guys that do nothing with their money are not rich for long. But giving tax breaks to entrepreneurs, whether rich or poor, does stimulate the economy and creates jobs.

I'm doing that now. I get a lot of tax breaks because I'm in business. And by some measures I am financially rich. But I haven't taken a paycheck in nearly 10 years, choosing instead to "pour" my money back into building a couple of businesses, which pays for inventory and salaries, and such. And thus, every dollar this "rich Republican" gets for the past decades has gone into the pockets of others... for their good, and the good of us all. Oh sure, I expect to profit some day. But, even then, the profit will go right back into other investments, while spending a portion of my income to live on. So, all this hooey about the rich getting tax breaks as an evil thing.... well, it better be true, or you'd be out of a job. Even as a fireman and EMT, the money you get comes from the rich families that pay 80% of the taxes in this country. You should be glad.
All they ever do is keep pulling out the old anti-abortion banner like a dirty old handkerchief from their back pocket, wave it around once every 4 years, and count on fools like you to do their dirty work and bidding.
I'm glad to be a fool for God's good will, and the life of the unborn. But I don't do this only every 4 years. I am thinking about it, praying about it, nearly everyday of my life. And you should be too. And it's not a "dirty old handkerchief" but "a bloody sacred handkerchief" with the red sustenance of the innocent soaked through and through.
Wise up and read a little history first, pal, before you go on any further with this drivel.
I wonder what the last history book you read,... perhaps it was a diatribe against the evil doings of the U.S.. Who wrote it? Drivel? Hmmm?
What's going on here is the perennial old battle between capital and labor. It goes back thousands of years, and will continue to go on until the Second Comming, with the same ole groups of victims all along- the poor and powerless.
You really need an education. As I said before, capital and labor are both necessary for progress. If you think otherwise, I'd like an example. Oh, I suppose you'd like to quote Marx - a tyranical socialism. Well, that is one solution. But it's been tried with pretty bad results. Do you want to try Marxism again? We're close to it, and in some ways beyond it. Vote for Obama. He's already got middle school teachers training his storm troopers. (See YouTube.) complete with the Nazi typed posters opening up the video. And his programs will cost more than the bailout.
Fetuses are just the most helpless of all the victims, but certainly not those that suffer the most, though. It's the children and young parents who do, along with the elderly poor of our country. As a neighborhood career fire captain and paramedic in the poorest parts of the city for the majority of my career, I've seen them; tried to confort them; tried to support them, tried to encourage them onward and upward against staggering personal and economic odds; tried to feed them when I could afford to do so; and indeed also tried to comfort the inconsolable young ones at their parent's funerals, when their parents died prematurely from their impoverished state of existance.
Well, hats off to you, seriously. But the poor are poor for a host of reasons, and my bet is many of those reasons lie at the doorsteps of the ideologues who would give the poor money and never teach them to fish. The poor will always be with us, if for no other reason than the poor are made up of people who for whatever unfortunate reason have little initiative, discipline or intelligence. Not all, of course, are poor for that reason, and some do need help. We are commanded by Christ to care for the poor. But "care" has different meanings. Giving out money to the capable, without requiring of them labor, has never been a very good solution. Look at the tragic cases of many unprincipled, greedy lottery winners a year later. Dirt poor and often in debt.

I have given people jobs just to see them, after a short time, incapable of just getting up and coming to work. Or they do not like a boss telling them what to do. Or, they don't like taking baths, or showing others respect. I know teens today that I'm sure will be poor tomorrow, in spite of my sacrifice to help and teach them employability skills. Christ said the poor will always be with us. But don't blame the Republicans. It's part of natural law, a law that should teach all of us, as you have learned, to care for those who cannot care for themselves. I do it. You do it, evidently. And the Republicans do it through jobs. But don't claim that the poor are poor because of the men who create the majority of the jobs in this country made them poor. That is backwards reasoning.
Talk about the carnal, secular, whores of mammon... these Republicans are them! I Could go on and on, and try to explain it more pointedly to you, citing historical references and such throughout the last 4,00 years of history, but if you can't figure it out by now in the Old and New Testiments, and especially through the hypocrites of the Gospels, then you likely never will.
Can you cite one historical reference? Without the rich, unemployment would be sky high, for the reasons I just explained to you. And what does the Old and New Testaments have to do with any of this? The Gospels are hypocritical? You must mean something else, perhaps that there are hypocrites spoken of IN the Gospels. But where in the Gospels is owning capital exposed as wrong? The rich young ruler? Ah! His problem was that he LOVED his money and his belongings. It wasn't that he was rich, it was that he loved it more than he loved Christ or others. Just whom do you suppose the vineyard owners were that were paying salaries. Or the rich man who gave money to his servants to invest. Were they sinful? Were they hypocrites? Who pays for salaries, the man who gives his wealth away, or the man who wisely manages his wealth so he can meet payroll? Every laborer needs a rich capitalist to invest in business ventures. (And please don't confuse tyranny with riches. They are not related, anymore than the poor mob boss who beats up on this neighbor for not paying for protection. Greed and Tyranny may go hand in hand, but they can be found among the rich and the poor equally, although the rich will get more press exposure.)
So, I will end this reply with the simple wish that God Bless you, that he keep you even closer to his Mind and Will, and that you have a deeper re-examining of just what kind of Christianity it is that you are trying to sell here. It ain't one that I've ever seen in 8 years of Dominican parochial schooling, 4 years of Marianist High Schooling, 4 years of Jesuit college education, or even 2 more years of Jesuit graduate school education after that. But sell it somewhere else, not here.

Yours Truely,
Well, perhaps you better revisit some of what you were taught. If that truly was your education, you were very badly formed, and know very little about how this great country has been able to help the poor around the world more than any other nation in history. We are rich, and we are generous. Perhaps you should visit India or the Dominican Republic and see true poverty. I have been to India. By comparison the poor in this country have it well off, especially when you show up as an EMT or with your fire trucks. People that help, like you, just don't exist in third world countries. Here we have hospitals that will help the homeless, or should. We have running water. We have many non-profits that give them clothing and churches that give them food. We have an incredible infrastructure, that does not exist most other places in the world. Your EMT inner city experiences and presence, are examples of the greatness of this country and the use of our tax dollars to help those that need it most, along with so many other programs. And the last time I checked, Republicans supported the work you do among the poor.

By the way, it's just a guess, but Republican entrepreneurs probably invented most of the gear you use. It seems to me that Democrat entrepreneur is an oxymoron, although I'm sure I'm wrong in some instances, it might be a true generalization. That would make an interesting study.

Another thing you should realize is that because Republicans like to see their money go further, and they realize that government is one of the most inefficient enterprises around when it comes to spending money, Republicans tend to fund social welfare through non-government sources, like faith and neighborhood groups. I have always given generously to such programs because I know some bureaucrat won't steal or mishandle it.

Stan Williams

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Baby Got Book

This sort of stuff may be the key to returning to some hope. For all my ranting and prayer about the culture of death that so many people I know embrace, and my lack of hope for our society... (hey, they all have to disintegrate sometime or other)... I have kept thinking that the only solution is just good-old-fashion Gospel preaching. Here's a good modern day example. It's a hit on YouTube and GodTube.

As a Catholic I love the line in it, "...and if you're Catholic there's even more."

I Feel Like Jeremiah

Jeremiah Chapter 9

1 Would that I had in the desert a travelers' lodge! That I might leave my people and depart from them. They are all adulterers, a faithless band. 2 They ready their tongues like a drawn bow; with lying, and not with truth, they hold forth in the land. They go from evil to evil, but me they know not, says the LORD. 3 1 Be on your guard, everyone against his neighbor; put no trust in any brother. Every brother apes Jacob, the supplanter, every friend is guilty of slander. 4 Each one deceives the other, no one speaks the truth. They have accustomed their tongues to lying, and are perverse, and cannot repent. 5 Violence upon violence, deceit upon deceit: They refuse to recognize me, says the LORD. 6 Therefore, thus says the LORD of hosts: I will smelt them and test them; how else should I deal with their wickedness? 7 A murderous arrow is his tongue, his mouth utters deceit; He speaks cordially with his friends, but in his heart he lays an ambush! 8 For these things, says the LORD, shall I not punish them? On a nation such as this shall I not take vengeance? 9 Over the mountains, break out in cries of lamentation, over the pasture lands, intone a dirge: They are scorched, and no man crosses them, unheard is the bleat of the flock; Birds of the air as well as beasts, all have fled, and are gone. 10 I will turn Jerusalem into a heap of ruins, a haunt of jackals; The cities of Judah I will make into a waste, where no one dwells. 11 Who is so wise that he can understand this? Let him to whom the mouth of the LORD has spoken make it known: Why is the land ravaged, scorched like a wasteland untraversed? 12 The LORD answered: Because they have abandoned my law, which I set before them, and have not followed it or listened to my voice, 13 but followed rather the hardness of their hearts and the Baals, as their fathers had taught them; 14 therefore, thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: See now, I will give them wormwood to eat and poison to drink. 15 I will scatter them among nations whom neither they nor their fathers have known; I will send the sword to pursue them until I have completely destroyed them. 16 Thus says the LORD of hosts: Attention! tell the wailing women to come, summon the best of them; 17 Let them come quickly and intone a dirge for us, That our eyes may be wet with weeping, our cheeks run with tears. 18 The dirge is heard from Zion: Ruined we are, and greatly ashamed; We must leave the land, give up our homes! 19 Hear, you women, the word of the LORD, let your ears receive his message. Teach your daughters this dirge, and each other this lament. 20 Death has come up through our windows, has entered our palaces; It cuts down the children in the street, young people in the squares. 21 The corpses of the slain lie like dung on a field, Like sheaves behind the harvester, with no one to gather them. 22 Thus says the LORD: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, nor the strong man glory in his strength, nor the rich man glory in his riches; 23 But rather, let him who glories, glory in this, that in his prudence he knows me, Knows that I, the LORD, bring about kindness, justice and uprightness on the earth; For with such am I pleased, says the LORD.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Matthew 25 or Numbers 22?

Got word today of Obama's Matthew 25 effort.

Their effort should be called Numbers 22. There they will find the story of Balaam riding his Democratic (I want it both ways) ass. Obama reminds me of Balaam... he can't hear God clearly, and he wants mothers to kill their babies if they want to, just like Balaam wanted to work for God AND Balak. God didn't like the duplicitous thinking.

The line from Matthew 25 that comes to mind, here paraphrased, is "When did you see an abortion about to take place and stop it? Or did you defend the killing of babies against all efforts by others to stop it?"

The line from Obama's mouth that spits in the face of everything in Matthew 25 is his thanks to Planned Parenthood "I thank you for all you do for our neighborhoods...." like helping our black mothers kill their babies. He might have well said, "We outlawed segregationist policies of the South and the lynchings, but there is more than one way to kill off African Americans." (See Roland S. Martin's Shameful Action.)

Obama believes he can perform evil acts but tell you they are righteous. A most dangerous person.