You are Charlie Brown!
Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Friday, March 12, 2004
Number Three on the All Time List
It may only be a footnote in reference books and the Vatican has not planned any celebration or festivity, but Pope John Paul II will reach another milestone in his papacy Sunday.
John Paul, who marked the 25th anniversary of his election as pope on Oct. 16, will surpass Pope Leo XIII to become the third-longest-serving pontiff in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
"It's a beautiful thing, because it's a gift of our Lord," said Cardinal Paul Poupard, a Frenchman who has worked alongside the 83-year-old pope at the Vatican for several decades.
But even in an institution where life at the top often begins when prelates reach their 60s, some are asking whether term limits should be imposed for future popes.
One of the Vatican's most powerful officials, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, gave an indication of the thinking in an interview last month with an Italian religious affairs magazine.
Asked whether future popes may be elected to a fixed term, he said:
"The pope is selected for life because he is a father and his paternity comes before his role. Perhaps in the future, with life being prolonged, one also would consider new norms, but it doesn't seem to me to be a current issue."
It may only be a footnote in reference books and the Vatican has not planned any celebration or festivity, but Pope John Paul II will reach another milestone in his papacy Sunday.
John Paul, who marked the 25th anniversary of his election as pope on Oct. 16, will surpass Pope Leo XIII to become the third-longest-serving pontiff in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
"It's a beautiful thing, because it's a gift of our Lord," said Cardinal Paul Poupard, a Frenchman who has worked alongside the 83-year-old pope at the Vatican for several decades.
But even in an institution where life at the top often begins when prelates reach their 60s, some are asking whether term limits should be imposed for future popes.
One of the Vatican's most powerful officials, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, gave an indication of the thinking in an interview last month with an Italian religious affairs magazine.
Asked whether future popes may be elected to a fixed term, he said:
"The pope is selected for life because he is a father and his paternity comes before his role. Perhaps in the future, with life being prolonged, one also would consider new norms, but it doesn't seem to me to be a current issue."
Thursday, March 11, 2004
At Least They Got This Right
Fresh off of its supremely stupid decision in the Catholic Charities case, the California Supremes order a halt to Emperor Newsom's unlawful decree to have gay "marriages" recognized by the City of San Francisco. The 3800 unholy unions that have thus far been sanctified are now in limbo.
Fresh off of its supremely stupid decision in the Catholic Charities case, the California Supremes order a halt to Emperor Newsom's unlawful decree to have gay "marriages" recognized by the City of San Francisco. The 3800 unholy unions that have thus far been sanctified are now in limbo.
I Don't Know What to Make of This
It isn't unusual that a Christian-based organization would vehemently protest the perpetuation of a long established p*rn/strip club. What is unusual is that such an organization is only now protesting the club after moving next door to it a few years ago.
It isn't unusual that a Christian-based organization would vehemently protest the perpetuation of a long established p*rn/strip club. What is unusual is that such an organization is only now protesting the club after moving next door to it a few years ago.
Is Gonzaga Catholic?
The Jesuit college's law school student government won't recognize a local chapter of the Christian Legal Society because it believes CLS' requirement that club officers be Christian is improperly discriminatory. Religious liberty means nothing to these yayhoos.
"Gonzaga owes its very existence to the constitutionally guaranteed right to organize around its religious identity, but it is allowing the SBA to deny these same fundamental rights to its students," said Greg Lukianoff, FIRE's director of legal and public advocacy.
Christian Legal Society leaders said the university's vice president for student affairs, Sue Weitz, assured the group in an e-mail message it had "university recognition." But the group argues this is not the same as SBA recognition, which would have conferred a set of important benefits, including university funding.
Even the one benefit conferred by "university recognition" was lost in February, according to CLS leaders, when the group's SBA account was closed.
The Jesuit college's law school student government won't recognize a local chapter of the Christian Legal Society because it believes CLS' requirement that club officers be Christian is improperly discriminatory. Religious liberty means nothing to these yayhoos.
"Gonzaga owes its very existence to the constitutionally guaranteed right to organize around its religious identity, but it is allowing the SBA to deny these same fundamental rights to its students," said Greg Lukianoff, FIRE's director of legal and public advocacy.
Christian Legal Society leaders said the university's vice president for student affairs, Sue Weitz, assured the group in an e-mail message it had "university recognition." But the group argues this is not the same as SBA recognition, which would have conferred a set of important benefits, including university funding.
Even the one benefit conferred by "university recognition" was lost in February, according to CLS leaders, when the group's SBA account was closed.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
If Asked, He Would Consider being the Goose to Kerry's Maverick
Rather than denying he would accept an invitation to be John F'n Kerry's running mate, Sen. John McCain merely doubts any possibility that he would even be asked.
"John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it."
Within hours, the Arizona senator's chief of staff, Mark Salter, closed the door on that idea. "Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004," Salter told The Associated Press, saying he spoke for the senator.
McCain had emphasized how unlikely the whole idea was.
"It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk," the senator told ABC's "Good Morning America" during an interview about illegal steroid use. "They'd have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen."
Note: Or Botox.
Rather than denying he would accept an invitation to be John F'n Kerry's running mate, Sen. John McCain merely doubts any possibility that he would even be asked.
"John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it."
Within hours, the Arizona senator's chief of staff, Mark Salter, closed the door on that idea. "Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004," Salter told The Associated Press, saying he spoke for the senator.
McCain had emphasized how unlikely the whole idea was.
"It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk," the senator told ABC's "Good Morning America" during an interview about illegal steroid use. "They'd have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen."
Note: Or Botox.
Misplaced Passion
Given the lack of calls for pogroms against Jews by Christians, and the growing popularity of the film, why exactly did organizations like the ADL make such a fuss over Mel Gibson's TPOTC?
Sadly, the answer is as simple as it is straightforward: What is good for the ADL is not necessarily good for the Jewish people.
Because while The Passion was getting all that free publicity, so too was the ADL, sharing the limelight with Mel Gibson and co-starring along with him at your local neighborhood news outlet.
ADL leaders were giving interviews, being quoted by national news organizations, and raising the profile of their organization. And that, apparently, is far more important than the larger interests of the Jewish community.
But the story does not end there. It actually gets worse.
FIGHTING anti-Semitism, after all, is good business. According to its 2001 annual report, the ADL's total operating expenses were $51,535,000. And that is just for one year alone.
Then there is the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which is currently running a "Centennial Campaign" that seeks to raise $100 million by 2006. According to the campaign's promotional literature: "Since 1989, AJC's net assets have grown steadily to more than $65 million."
And there are other American Jewish groups as well, such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the American Jewish Congress, all of whom claim to be in the forefront of the battle against anti-Semitism, and all of whom are vying for their part of the shrinking pie of Jewish philanthropy.
Pouncing on an issue such as a Mel Gibson flick, getting your name in the paper nearly every day, is one sure-fire way to attract more donors and outdo competing organizations. It may not actually help the Jewish people, but it sure does help the bottom line.
Given the lack of calls for pogroms against Jews by Christians, and the growing popularity of the film, why exactly did organizations like the ADL make such a fuss over Mel Gibson's TPOTC?
Sadly, the answer is as simple as it is straightforward: What is good for the ADL is not necessarily good for the Jewish people.
Because while The Passion was getting all that free publicity, so too was the ADL, sharing the limelight with Mel Gibson and co-starring along with him at your local neighborhood news outlet.
ADL leaders were giving interviews, being quoted by national news organizations, and raising the profile of their organization. And that, apparently, is far more important than the larger interests of the Jewish community.
But the story does not end there. It actually gets worse.
FIGHTING anti-Semitism, after all, is good business. According to its 2001 annual report, the ADL's total operating expenses were $51,535,000. And that is just for one year alone.
Then there is the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which is currently running a "Centennial Campaign" that seeks to raise $100 million by 2006. According to the campaign's promotional literature: "Since 1989, AJC's net assets have grown steadily to more than $65 million."
And there are other American Jewish groups as well, such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the American Jewish Congress, all of whom claim to be in the forefront of the battle against anti-Semitism, and all of whom are vying for their part of the shrinking pie of Jewish philanthropy.
Pouncing on an issue such as a Mel Gibson flick, getting your name in the paper nearly every day, is one sure-fire way to attract more donors and outdo competing organizations. It may not actually help the Jewish people, but it sure does help the bottom line.
Why Not?
PS Bradley posts a circulating e-mail on the logical next step of recognizing gay "marriages" in cities like San Francisco. Marrying myself. Hmmmm...
PS Bradley posts a circulating e-mail on the logical next step of recognizing gay "marriages" in cities like San Francisco. Marrying myself. Hmmmm...
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
America: Holocaust Central
I have no way to directly prove it, but this has got to be the reason why pro-aborts have been hell-bent on keeping Bill Pryor off of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. (newslink via The Mighty Barrister)
An appeals court ruled earlier this year an expectant mother can be aborted by force if the physician argues it is necessary to "protect the health of the mother."
But pro-life attorney Chris Sapp is prepared to challenge the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Jan. 23 in Roe II v. Aware Women Center for Choice, Inc., says the Virginia-based Population Research Institute. PRI is "dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in the name of 'family planning,' and to ending counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of 'overpopulation.'"
Sapp is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiori acknowledging a woman's right to say "no" to an abortion at any point in time.
I have no way to directly prove it, but this has got to be the reason why pro-aborts have been hell-bent on keeping Bill Pryor off of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. (newslink via The Mighty Barrister)
An appeals court ruled earlier this year an expectant mother can be aborted by force if the physician argues it is necessary to "protect the health of the mother."
But pro-life attorney Chris Sapp is prepared to challenge the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Jan. 23 in Roe II v. Aware Women Center for Choice, Inc., says the Virginia-based Population Research Institute. PRI is "dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in the name of 'family planning,' and to ending counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of 'overpopulation.'"
Sapp is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiori acknowledging a woman's right to say "no" to an abortion at any point in time.
The Hypostatic Union Between Jesus and Swine
PETA aims to offend and distort Scripture once again with their new ad campaign.
PETA aims to offend and distort Scripture once again with their new ad campaign.
Monday, March 08, 2004
The Left Drew First Blood
PJB on the real instigators of the culture war in America.
Who is in your face here? Who started this? Who is on the offensive? Who is pushing the envelope? The answer is obvious. A radical Left aided by a cultural elite that detests Christianity and finds Christian moral tenets reactionary and repressive is hell-bent on pushing its amoral values and imposing its ideology on our nation.
The unwisdom of what the Hollywood and the Left are about should be transparent to all. But if this assault on the sensibilities of the majority continues, the candidate of Hollywood and the Left, John Kerry, will pay a price in November.
PJB on the real instigators of the culture war in America.
Who is in your face here? Who started this? Who is on the offensive? Who is pushing the envelope? The answer is obvious. A radical Left aided by a cultural elite that detests Christianity and finds Christian moral tenets reactionary and repressive is hell-bent on pushing its amoral values and imposing its ideology on our nation.
The unwisdom of what the Hollywood and the Left are about should be transparent to all. But if this assault on the sensibilities of the majority continues, the candidate of Hollywood and the Left, John Kerry, will pay a price in November.
John F'n Kerry Really Loves the F-Word
Go to his official campaign website, type "f--k" and "s--t" in the search engine, and see all the articles where he regails America with those lovely words.
Go to his official campaign website, type "f--k" and "s--t" in the search engine, and see all the articles where he regails America with those lovely words.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
I Just Knew It!
Right Wing News reports that almost all of the family members of 9/11 victims who publicly criticized President Bush in the media for making an unspoken reference to 9/11 in a television campaign ad have political axes to grind.
Right Wing News reports that almost all of the family members of 9/11 victims who publicly criticized President Bush in the media for making an unspoken reference to 9/11 in a television campaign ad have political axes to grind.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Not Exculpating Jews From Christ's Crucifixion and Death is Anti-Semitic...
...but it's still A-OK to directly slam Catholics in the name of "art".
A federal judge in Kansas ruled a university's prominent display of a sculpture that mocks the Catholic faith did not violate the Constitution.
Washburn University's sculpture, entitled "Holier than Thou," depicts a Roman Catholic bishop with a grotesque facial expression wearing a miter that resembles a phallus. The Topeka school's Campus Beautification Committee selected the display to help fulfill its goal of having "one of the most beautiful campuses in Kansas."
...but it's still A-OK to directly slam Catholics in the name of "art".
A federal judge in Kansas ruled a university's prominent display of a sculpture that mocks the Catholic faith did not violate the Constitution.
Washburn University's sculpture, entitled "Holier than Thou," depicts a Roman Catholic bishop with a grotesque facial expression wearing a miter that resembles a phallus. The Topeka school's Campus Beautification Committee selected the display to help fulfill its goal of having "one of the most beautiful campuses in Kansas."
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Roe Almost Overturned in Casey Decision
According to the unsealed records of the late Justice Harry Blackmun, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is Catholic by the way, literally changed his mind at the last minute.
The case was argued in April and Rehnquist was at work on his majority ruling, when Kennedy sent a note to Blackmun, NPR reported.
"I need to see you as soon as you have a few moments," the note read. "I want to tell you about a new development in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It should come as welcome news."
Blackmun picked up a pink memo pad and scribbled, "Roe Sound," The New York Times reported Thursday.
According to the unsealed records of the late Justice Harry Blackmun, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is Catholic by the way, literally changed his mind at the last minute.
The case was argued in April and Rehnquist was at work on his majority ruling, when Kennedy sent a note to Blackmun, NPR reported.
"I need to see you as soon as you have a few moments," the note read. "I want to tell you about a new development in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It should come as welcome news."
Blackmun picked up a pink memo pad and scribbled, "Roe Sound," The New York Times reported Thursday.
It's Criminal Fraud, Stupid!
Candidate for a PA Attorney General says he would arrest anyone associated with same-sex weddings. ACLU feigns concern over the "meanspiritedness" of his position.
"Should you, as clerk of the Orphan's Court, permit to be issued a marriage license to a gay or lesbian couple, you and your office would potentially face criminal liability," Castor wrote.
He also stated homosexual couples "holding themselves out to be married ... are possibly committing frauds actionable by criminal prosecution," the paper reported.
Castor noted those issuing or seeking same-sex marriage certificates could face a misdemeanor charge of obstructing administration of law or other governmental function.
The director of legal affairs for the American Civil Liberties Union says he's disturbed the issue of same-sex marriages is moving into the criminal arena.
"The real question is why he needs to throw out a threat of criminal prosecution," Larry Frankel told the Inquirer. "Let's have a civil debate about whether we should have gay marriages, rather than involving the heavy hand of the criminal-justice system."
Larry Frankel, of course, is probably just as concerned with the heavy handed legal tactics that are used against public school students who desire to share and express their religious beliefs, Ten Commandments displays and Judge Roy Moore. (Crickets chirping).
Candidate for a PA Attorney General says he would arrest anyone associated with same-sex weddings. ACLU feigns concern over the "meanspiritedness" of his position.
"Should you, as clerk of the Orphan's Court, permit to be issued a marriage license to a gay or lesbian couple, you and your office would potentially face criminal liability," Castor wrote.
He also stated homosexual couples "holding themselves out to be married ... are possibly committing frauds actionable by criminal prosecution," the paper reported.
Castor noted those issuing or seeking same-sex marriage certificates could face a misdemeanor charge of obstructing administration of law or other governmental function.
The director of legal affairs for the American Civil Liberties Union says he's disturbed the issue of same-sex marriages is moving into the criminal arena.
"The real question is why he needs to throw out a threat of criminal prosecution," Larry Frankel told the Inquirer. "Let's have a civil debate about whether we should have gay marriages, rather than involving the heavy hand of the criminal-justice system."
Larry Frankel, of course, is probably just as concerned with the heavy handed legal tactics that are used against public school students who desire to share and express their religious beliefs, Ten Commandments displays and Judge Roy Moore. (Crickets chirping).
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
The Fresnan Wins
Although, technically, I suppose California Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Bill Jones is a Coalingan. PS Bradley must be proud.
(BTW, is it me or does Jones physically look like Al Gore?)
Although, technically, I suppose California Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Bill Jones is a Coalingan. PS Bradley must be proud.
(BTW, is it me or does Jones physically look like Al Gore?)
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Compare and Contrast
I haven't had the patience to do this yet, but if anyone is up to it, read Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court and Silo v. Catholic Health West (registration required), and try to reconcile how the California Supreme Court can say that Catholic Health West is an exempt religious institution but Catholic Charities isn't.
I haven't had the patience to do this yet, but if anyone is up to it, read Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court and Silo v. Catholic Health West (registration required), and try to reconcile how the California Supreme Court can say that Catholic Health West is an exempt religious institution but Catholic Charities isn't.
Many Blacks Not on the "Gay Marriage" Bus
Including, it seems, Mr. Shakedown himself, Jesse Jackson.
"We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent," Bishop Andrew Merritt of Straight Gate Ministries and several other Detroit pastors said recently in a statement supporting traditional marriage. "Being black is not a lifestyle choice."
Including, it seems, Mr. Shakedown himself, Jesse Jackson.
"We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent," Bishop Andrew Merritt of Straight Gate Ministries and several other Detroit pastors said recently in a statement supporting traditional marriage. "Being black is not a lifestyle choice."
Ahnold Not Against Gurly-Mon "Marriages"
I say we recall him and replace him with Mel.
Throughout his public life, Schwarzenegger's views on gays and lesbians usually have been more libertarian than conservative. He once told an interviewer, "When it comes to sex, I don't care what your (thing) is" and compared discrimination against gays to discrimination against bodybuilders.
I say we recall him and replace him with Mel.
Throughout his public life, Schwarzenegger's views on gays and lesbians usually have been more libertarian than conservative. He once told an interviewer, "When it comes to sex, I don't care what your (thing) is" and compared discrimination against gays to discrimination against bodybuilders.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Pot Calling Kettle Black
Chappaquiddick Boy expresses his belief that Bush may have acted unconstitutionally in his recess appointment of Bill Pryor. This coming from a guy who has conspired to unconstitutionally require 60 votes to confirm a judicial appointment.
At issue is whether the 10-day period when Congress was away constituted a “recess” in which such appointments are provided for in the Constitution.
Some constitutional scholars believe that the Founding Fathers may have been referring to the far lengthier recess periods that occur between sessions and Congresses. Recesses lasting many months were common in the early days of the Republic, before the advent of mid-session breaks.
Chappaquiddick Boy expresses his belief that Bush may have acted unconstitutionally in his recess appointment of Bill Pryor. This coming from a guy who has conspired to unconstitutionally require 60 votes to confirm a judicial appointment.
At issue is whether the 10-day period when Congress was away constituted a “recess” in which such appointments are provided for in the Constitution.
Some constitutional scholars believe that the Founding Fathers may have been referring to the far lengthier recess periods that occur between sessions and Congresses. Recesses lasting many months were common in the early days of the Republic, before the advent of mid-session breaks.
Cali Supremes Slam Catholic Charities
The state high court rules that religious affiliated non-profit groups must include contraception with employee health benefits.
The 6-1 decision by the California Supreme Court, the highest such ruling to date nationwide, could reach far beyond the 183 full-time charity employees. It also could affect thousands of workers at Catholic hospitals and other church-backed institutes throughout the state.
The high court said Catholic Charities is no different than other businesses in California, which is one of 20 states that require company-provided health plans to include contraception coverage. In California, "religious employers" such as churches are exempt from the requirement.
As I see it, there are good and bad things to this decision. The good part is that in order to fall under the religious exemption, it might force Church affiliated organizations to be more observant of Catholic teachings. (It's my understanding, for instance, that there are many Catholic Charities in the state that make contraception available to the general public and are resistent to criticizing sexually immoral behavior). The bad part, of course, is that religious affiliated charities must not only compromise their stated beliefs in order to do business in the state, the effect pf the Court's decision will probably deter new charitable organizations from even forming.
The state high court rules that religious affiliated non-profit groups must include contraception with employee health benefits.
The 6-1 decision by the California Supreme Court, the highest such ruling to date nationwide, could reach far beyond the 183 full-time charity employees. It also could affect thousands of workers at Catholic hospitals and other church-backed institutes throughout the state.
The high court said Catholic Charities is no different than other businesses in California, which is one of 20 states that require company-provided health plans to include contraception coverage. In California, "religious employers" such as churches are exempt from the requirement.
As I see it, there are good and bad things to this decision. The good part is that in order to fall under the religious exemption, it might force Church affiliated organizations to be more observant of Catholic teachings. (It's my understanding, for instance, that there are many Catholic Charities in the state that make contraception available to the general public and are resistent to criticizing sexually immoral behavior). The bad part, of course, is that religious affiliated charities must not only compromise their stated beliefs in order to do business in the state, the effect pf the Court's decision will probably deter new charitable organizations from even forming.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Christ Crucified: A Stumbling Block for Jews and an Absurdity to Gentiles
Such appears to be the common reasons for most of the negative media reviews on The Passion.
How one sees the movie the Passion, depends on whether one has the light of faith or not. Someone of one mind and heart would see something as white, and someone of another mind and heart would see the same thing as black. Take the Catholic Church as example. Many people see it as the most despicable thing on earth. For the heart in the state of God's favor, on the other hand, the Catholic Church is the most beautiful thing on earth.
Such appears to be the common reasons for most of the negative media reviews on The Passion.
How one sees the movie the Passion, depends on whether one has the light of faith or not. Someone of one mind and heart would see something as white, and someone of another mind and heart would see the same thing as black. Take the Catholic Church as example. Many people see it as the most despicable thing on earth. For the heart in the state of God's favor, on the other hand, the Catholic Church is the most beautiful thing on earth.
Pope Can't Say Christianity is a Superior Religion
So says an Italian Muslim activist who has filed a civil lawsuit against the Holy Father.
In his latest legal bid, Smith said comments by Pope John Paul II and other church officials over the years have violated the Italian constitution, which proclaims all religions are equal under the law. Italy is officially secular, but largely Roman Catholic.
In the lawsuit, Smith cited a passage of John Paul's 1994 book Crossing the Threshold of Hope in which the pope writes that the "richness of God's self-revelation" in the Bible's Old and New Testament's has been "set aside" in Islam.
The suit also cites comments by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, who in a 2000 document said the faithful of other religions were in a "gravely deficient situation" concerning their salvation, compared to Catholics.
And he cited comments by the retired archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, who in 2000 urged Italy to favour Catholic immigrants over Muslims to "save the nation's identity" against "Islam's ideological attack."
"All of this constitutes offence, injury and insult for all those who peacefully practice the Islamic religion, in addition to defamation and incitation to racial and religious hatred," according to a copy of the lawsuit Smith sent to news organisations.
Hey, if our courts can seriously consider some crank's objection to including the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the odds that the Italian courts will entertain this goofball's lawsuit have to be pretty good.
So says an Italian Muslim activist who has filed a civil lawsuit against the Holy Father.
In his latest legal bid, Smith said comments by Pope John Paul II and other church officials over the years have violated the Italian constitution, which proclaims all religions are equal under the law. Italy is officially secular, but largely Roman Catholic.
In the lawsuit, Smith cited a passage of John Paul's 1994 book Crossing the Threshold of Hope in which the pope writes that the "richness of God's self-revelation" in the Bible's Old and New Testament's has been "set aside" in Islam.
The suit also cites comments by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, who in a 2000 document said the faithful of other religions were in a "gravely deficient situation" concerning their salvation, compared to Catholics.
And he cited comments by the retired archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, who in 2000 urged Italy to favour Catholic immigrants over Muslims to "save the nation's identity" against "Islam's ideological attack."
"All of this constitutes offence, injury and insult for all those who peacefully practice the Islamic religion, in addition to defamation and incitation to racial and religious hatred," according to a copy of the lawsuit Smith sent to news organisations.
Hey, if our courts can seriously consider some crank's objection to including the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the odds that the Italian courts will entertain this goofball's lawsuit have to be pretty good.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Almost Like Trying to Find a Needle in a Haystack
If you thought it was difficult to accurately quantify how many Catholic priests had committed acts of child sexual abuse, it's probably near impossible to find out how many Protestant clergy have committed such crimes.
Protestant numbers are tougher to get because cases are scattered among hundreds of denominations. Moreover, many Protestant cases aren't reported to headquarters and many local congregations are self-governing, accountable to no outside supervisors.
Besides that, abuse cases get media notice only if lawsuits are filed and James F. Cobble Jr., whose Christian Ministry Resources advises churches on legal and tax issues, says many Protestant cases never reach court.
Among the reasons: Catholic dioceses with group insurance coverage and deep pockets make inviting targets, while the typical Protestant congregation has 150 members or less, limited money and no insurance coverage for misconduct. Also, Protestants predominate in rural and small towns, where victims and lawyers prefer to settle quietly out of court.
All this "lowers the known number of Protestants dramatically" and obscures the extent of the problem, Cobble says.
If you thought it was difficult to accurately quantify how many Catholic priests had committed acts of child sexual abuse, it's probably near impossible to find out how many Protestant clergy have committed such crimes.
Protestant numbers are tougher to get because cases are scattered among hundreds of denominations. Moreover, many Protestant cases aren't reported to headquarters and many local congregations are self-governing, accountable to no outside supervisors.
Besides that, abuse cases get media notice only if lawsuits are filed and James F. Cobble Jr., whose Christian Ministry Resources advises churches on legal and tax issues, says many Protestant cases never reach court.
Among the reasons: Catholic dioceses with group insurance coverage and deep pockets make inviting targets, while the typical Protestant congregation has 150 members or less, limited money and no insurance coverage for misconduct. Also, Protestants predominate in rural and small towns, where victims and lawyers prefer to settle quietly out of court.
All this "lowers the known number of Protestants dramatically" and obscures the extent of the problem, Cobble says.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
John F'n Kerry Possesses the Logic of a Tree Stump
In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.
In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.
Because I'm Cheap and I Hate Crowds
Such are the reasons why I won't be seeing The Passion for at least another week and during the day when matinee prices are in effect. As a matter of curiosity, however, I have been looking at what some of our more conservative Evangelical/Fundamentalist brethren have been saying about the film. Although most seem to have liked it, many of the comments are peppered with maddeningly ignorant and untrue remarks. Loads of it can be found in this screed that provides five "reasons" for Evangelicals and Fundamentlaists to avoid seeing The Passion (e.g., Ash Wednesday is a Catholic holy day, Mel Gibson is a devout Roman Catholic who relied on Catholic scholars for the movie, the film was endorsed by JPII, etc.). Very sad stuff, but what's even sadder is that U.S. bishops are seemingly indifferent to the opportunity that this film presents in terms of mass religious instruction and evangelization. Then again, with people like Bishop McGrath and Cardinal Mahony, maybe this isn't such a bad thing.
Such are the reasons why I won't be seeing The Passion for at least another week and during the day when matinee prices are in effect. As a matter of curiosity, however, I have been looking at what some of our more conservative Evangelical/Fundamentalist brethren have been saying about the film. Although most seem to have liked it, many of the comments are peppered with maddeningly ignorant and untrue remarks. Loads of it can be found in this screed that provides five "reasons" for Evangelicals and Fundamentlaists to avoid seeing The Passion (e.g., Ash Wednesday is a Catholic holy day, Mel Gibson is a devout Roman Catholic who relied on Catholic scholars for the movie, the film was endorsed by JPII, etc.). Very sad stuff, but what's even sadder is that U.S. bishops are seemingly indifferent to the opportunity that this film presents in terms of mass religious instruction and evangelization. Then again, with people like Bishop McGrath and Cardinal Mahony, maybe this isn't such a bad thing.
Tolerance Does Not Apply to Christianity
Despite allowing displays by the Chess Club, Hispanic Club, and Sexual Deviancy Club, a high school in Portland denies the display of a Bible by the Bible Club.
On a related note, I heard liberal pundit Lawrence O'Donnell comment on MSNBC yesterday that he has never seen any evidence of anti-Christian bias in our culture or the media, and that he has no idea why groups like the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights continuously make such claims.
Talk about someone with his head up his a**.
Despite allowing displays by the Chess Club, Hispanic Club, and Sexual Deviancy Club, a high school in Portland denies the display of a Bible by the Bible Club.
On a related note, I heard liberal pundit Lawrence O'Donnell comment on MSNBC yesterday that he has never seen any evidence of anti-Christian bias in our culture or the media, and that he has no idea why groups like the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights continuously make such claims.
Talk about someone with his head up his a**.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Too Violent
That's what movie critics from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York Times are basically saying about The Passion of the Christ. I wonder if they'd be saying this if the movie had been directed and produced by Steven Spielberg, who of course gave us the Oscar(tm) winning and critically acclaimed Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan (both of which have been shown on commercial television without editing).
That's what movie critics from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York Times are basically saying about The Passion of the Christ. I wonder if they'd be saying this if the movie had been directed and produced by Steven Spielberg, who of course gave us the Oscar(tm) winning and critically acclaimed Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan (both of which have been shown on commercial television without editing).
State Money and Religious Studies
The SCOTUS rules that states can withhold scholarships from students who choose to study theology.
"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit."
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
AP reports the Bush administration had argued the state was wrong to yank the scholarship from former student Joshua Davey. Davey initially won a state Promise Scholarship, but the award was rescinded when the state found out he would be studying theology.
Update: The majority and dissenting opinions can be read here.
The SCOTUS rules that states can withhold scholarships from students who choose to study theology.
"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit."
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
AP reports the Bush administration had argued the state was wrong to yank the scholarship from former student Joshua Davey. Davey initially won a state Promise Scholarship, but the award was rescinded when the state found out he would be studying theology.
Update: The majority and dissenting opinions can be read here.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Sounds About Right
YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!
You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a stickler for details and particularity, you have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a plaintiff provide a short and plain statement of a claim on which a court can grant relief. While there is much to be lauded in your approach, your good nature sometimes gets you in trouble, and you often have to rely on your good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!
You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a stickler for details and particularity, you have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a plaintiff provide a short and plain statement of a claim on which a court can grant relief. While there is much to be lauded in your approach, your good nature sometimes gets you in trouble, and you often have to rely on your good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Monday, February 23, 2004
Spreading Like a Hostile Viral Disease
A "gay" couple in Florida is set to challenge that state's non-recognition of same-sex "marriages" and civil unions.
A "gay" couple in Florida is set to challenge that state's non-recognition of same-sex "marriages" and civil unions.
Religious Groups Fear Potential Loss of Tax Exempt Status
A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS could constitutionally strip Bob Jones University of its tax exempt status because of the fundamentalist Christian school's practice of racial discrimination. Some religious groups think the same thing might eventually happen to them if government non-recognition of same sex "marriages" is constitutionally struck down.
"The issue of legalizing same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California raises the question: Does this mean there will be cases brought against the Catholic Church for discrimination? I think it is the next step," said Flynn, who heads Your Catholic Voice, an activist group. "I don't think people will stop until the whole sacred institution of marriage crumbles."
Any threat to religious marriage between a man and a woman remains hypothetical today. But even homosexuals have acknowledged that the developments in Massachusetts and San Francisco arose quicker than they anticipated.
(...)
While supporters of traditional marriage fear erosion at the religious level, Eugene Volokh, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor, said those fears might be exaggerated.
He said churches could raise a "significant constitutional defense" to keeping their tax-exempt status. He noted, for instance, the Catholic Church has faced criticism for years because it doesn't ordain women as priests.
"Churches, quite clearly, have the right to marry or not marry whoever they please," Volokh said. "Maybe somebody could sue them for discrimination in marriage, but the churches will certainly win."
A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS could constitutionally strip Bob Jones University of its tax exempt status because of the fundamentalist Christian school's practice of racial discrimination. Some religious groups think the same thing might eventually happen to them if government non-recognition of same sex "marriages" is constitutionally struck down.
"The issue of legalizing same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California raises the question: Does this mean there will be cases brought against the Catholic Church for discrimination? I think it is the next step," said Flynn, who heads Your Catholic Voice, an activist group. "I don't think people will stop until the whole sacred institution of marriage crumbles."
Any threat to religious marriage between a man and a woman remains hypothetical today. But even homosexuals have acknowledged that the developments in Massachusetts and San Francisco arose quicker than they anticipated.
(...)
While supporters of traditional marriage fear erosion at the religious level, Eugene Volokh, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor, said those fears might be exaggerated.
He said churches could raise a "significant constitutional defense" to keeping their tax-exempt status. He noted, for instance, the Catholic Church has faced criticism for years because it doesn't ordain women as priests.
"Churches, quite clearly, have the right to marry or not marry whoever they please," Volokh said. "Maybe somebody could sue them for discrimination in marriage, but the churches will certainly win."
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Why is This Man a Bishop?
Bishop McGrath of San Jose, CA on The Passion movie (link via Amy Welborn):
While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief.
They are not historical accounts of the historical events? Huh? Isn't that kind of like saying water isn't wet?
As we enter the season of Lent next Wednesday, Catholics and Christians are called to repentance. I call upon Catholics and all Christians in this Valley to renew the ties that bind us to our Jewish brothers and sisters, the first of God's Chosen People.
Catholics and Christians? Try inserting the word "other" after "and" Bishop. We are Christian too, you know.
If you bother to read the rest of the commentary, you'll discover it's just one big sappy preemptory apology on behalf of any Catholic (or other Christian) who is actually stupid enough to misuse the movie as a vehicle for attacking Jews. Makes you almost wonder if Bishop McGrath is sorry he's Catholic.
Bishop McGrath of San Jose, CA on The Passion movie (link via Amy Welborn):
While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief.
They are not historical accounts of the historical events? Huh? Isn't that kind of like saying water isn't wet?
As we enter the season of Lent next Wednesday, Catholics and Christians are called to repentance. I call upon Catholics and all Christians in this Valley to renew the ties that bind us to our Jewish brothers and sisters, the first of God's Chosen People.
Catholics and Christians? Try inserting the word "other" after "and" Bishop. We are Christian too, you know.
If you bother to read the rest of the commentary, you'll discover it's just one big sappy preemptory apology on behalf of any Catholic (or other Christian) who is actually stupid enough to misuse the movie as a vehicle for attacking Jews. Makes you almost wonder if Bishop McGrath is sorry he's Catholic.
Another Friedman Hit Piece
I'm starting to get the idea that Roger Friedman just doesn't like Mel very much. As you read the article, bear in mind that Friedman previously told an untruth about where Gibson wanted The Passion to be shown.
I'm starting to get the idea that Roger Friedman just doesn't like Mel very much. As you read the article, bear in mind that Friedman previously told an untruth about where Gibson wanted The Passion to be shown.
Will Mel's Passion be "Too Catholic" for Protestants?
A few weejs ago, Terry Mattingly at GetReligion quipped:
I have been fascinated by the lack of critical voices among conservative Protestants. At some point, the overwhelming Catholic symbolism is going to tick off a really conservative Reformed Protestant and the fur will fly somewhere online. I would keep an eye on the letters pages of World magazine and its blog.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'll be watching.
A few weejs ago, Terry Mattingly at GetReligion quipped:
I have been fascinated by the lack of critical voices among conservative Protestants. At some point, the overwhelming Catholic symbolism is going to tick off a really conservative Reformed Protestant and the fur will fly somewhere online. I would keep an eye on the letters pages of World magazine and its blog.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'll be watching.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Good Move
Bush makes a recess appointment of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The only bad news about the appointment is that only lasts for two years. Such is the importance of maintaining a Republican majority in Congress.
Bush makes a recess appointment of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The only bad news about the appointment is that only lasts for two years. Such is the importance of maintaining a Republican majority in Congress.
Hope for a Legitimate Alternative to the Hopelessly Liberal SF Chronicle
Philip Anschutz, whom the Chronicle somewhat pejoratively describes as a conservative Christian, purchases the historic, but fading, San Francisco Examiner newspaper.
"Today we are announcing a seismic shift in Bay Area journalism," Bob Starzel, 63, a longtime Anschutz lieutenant who will be chairman of the newspapers, said Thursday at a news conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in San Francisco. "Philip Anschutz is committed to strengthening and building the Examiner newspaper."
The reclusive Anschutz amassed fortunes in oil, real estate, railroads and telecommunications in Colorado before buying sports teams and movie theaters across the nation. He had a net worth of $4.9 billion in 2003, according to Forbes.com.
Anschutz is best known in California for developing the Staples Center sports arena in downtown Los Angeles. He owns the Los Angeles Kings hockey team, a 30 percent stake in the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and half of Major League Soccer, including the San Jose Earthquakes.
He also is the majority owner of the United Artists and Regal movie theater chains, which he acquired after buying the debt of those companies and other chains in 2001.
Philip Anschutz, whom the Chronicle somewhat pejoratively describes as a conservative Christian, purchases the historic, but fading, San Francisco Examiner newspaper.
"Today we are announcing a seismic shift in Bay Area journalism," Bob Starzel, 63, a longtime Anschutz lieutenant who will be chairman of the newspapers, said Thursday at a news conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in San Francisco. "Philip Anschutz is committed to strengthening and building the Examiner newspaper."
The reclusive Anschutz amassed fortunes in oil, real estate, railroads and telecommunications in Colorado before buying sports teams and movie theaters across the nation. He had a net worth of $4.9 billion in 2003, according to Forbes.com.
Anschutz is best known in California for developing the Staples Center sports arena in downtown Los Angeles. He owns the Los Angeles Kings hockey team, a 30 percent stake in the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and half of Major League Soccer, including the San Jose Earthquakes.
He also is the majority owner of the United Artists and Regal movie theater chains, which he acquired after buying the debt of those companies and other chains in 2001.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Abe Foxman and the ADL are Asses
For publicly trying to drive a wedge between Mel Gibson and his misguided father, and for trying to impute the unfortunate beliefs of the latter upon the former without any sustaining proof. (Foxman apparantly doesn't think that it is possible for someone to believe something that just isn't true; like the Gospels being anti-Semitic).
It's been said several times by many people and in different quarters, but the ADL's problem truly isn't with Mel Gibson or his movie; it's with the New Testament.
For publicly trying to drive a wedge between Mel Gibson and his misguided father, and for trying to impute the unfortunate beliefs of the latter upon the former without any sustaining proof. (Foxman apparantly doesn't think that it is possible for someone to believe something that just isn't true; like the Gospels being anti-Semitic).
It's been said several times by many people and in different quarters, but the ADL's problem truly isn't with Mel Gibson or his movie; it's with the New Testament.
Press Release From the SF Archdiocese
Unsurprisingly, this appears to have evaded most of the local media.
One quibble I have with this release is its failure to attack the presumtption that personhood may be defined upon sexual preference. It also fails to address the Church's teaching that homosexual conduct is objectively disordered. Ah well.
Statements and releases
February 12, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Maurice Healy 415-614-5632
STATEMENT BY SAN FRANCISCO ARCHBISHOP WILLIAM J. LEVADA
The action taken by Mayor Gavin Newsom regarding same-sex marriages in San Francisco is counter to long-established California law, which was reaffirmed overwhelmingly by California voters just four years ago. In addition, his action is counter to the will of the majority of citizens at the state and national levels as evidenced by the fact that 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of same-sex marriages.
In the current national discussion of same-sex marriage, some voices define marriage only in terms of "personal choice," as if marriage were merely a design of two persons – with nothing to do with family or society. Marriage is a relationship defined by nature, a reality which takes its origin in creation itself. Society does not create marriages, even though it sets parameters protecting it – such as the ban on polygamy and an age requirement to protect a mature decision to enter marriage.
Society grants benefits to marriage for the purpose of fostering families, which in turn nurtures the future. Benefits are not primarily given to individuals who are married, but rather they are provided to establish a nurturing environment for children. Any discussion about same-sex marriage that misses this point becomes mired in confusion, for it is impossible to justify special benefits to married couples if these benefits are seen first as benefits to the spouses themselves. Heterosexual marriage, procreation, and the nurturing of children form the bedrock of the family, and the family unit lies at the heart of every society. To extend the meaning of marriage beyond a union of a man and a woman, their procreative capacity, and their establishment of family represents a misguided understanding of marriage itself.
It is not discriminatory to limit "marriage" to heterosexual couples, as same-sex couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. Other remedies can be found to protect the valid rights of persons in non-marital unions, for example civil rights given to individuals such as bereavement leave and inheritance rights, as well as benefits and protection for any children involved. Changing the definition of marriage to achieve benefit goals is ill-advised and harmful to society.
Some may call this age-old stance "discrimination against gay and lesbian persons. Such an interpretation is false, and offensive to people whose goodwill is clear. The Catholic Church has often spoken of the respect, compassion and sensitivity demanded in our interactions with and attitudes toward homosexual people. Withholding support for same-sex marriage should never be equated with hostility toward homosexual people.
While the Catholic Church affirms that God created marriage as a union of a man and a woman, giving them a co-responsibility to establish a family by bringing children into the world, this tenet is not solely a Catholic one. Rather, it is the result of natural reason mirrored in every culture throughout humankind’s history.
We need God’s wisdom as part of the current conversation on this subject. We need local, state and national debate conducted with respect, knowledge and understanding. Rushing to grant same-sex partners the right to "marriage" for the sake of status or benefits could not help but undermine human society’s foundational institutions of marriage and family.
Here in San Francisco, the recent election of Mayor Newsom brought with it an expectation that he would invite the participation of the entire community in seeking solutions to issues such as the homeless crisis, affordable housing, budget difficulties and other important matters.
For many of us, Mayor Newsom’s abrupt action on the issue of same-sex marriage – about which our society is so divided -- raises concern and causes disappointment. We hope the mayor’s action on behalf of one segment of the community does not signal an abandonment of his commitment to respect the views of all groups in the community – and to use his leadership to draw our city together to address the pressing issues identified in the mayoral campaign .
Unsurprisingly, this appears to have evaded most of the local media.
One quibble I have with this release is its failure to attack the presumtption that personhood may be defined upon sexual preference. It also fails to address the Church's teaching that homosexual conduct is objectively disordered. Ah well.
Statements and releases
February 12, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Maurice Healy 415-614-5632
STATEMENT BY SAN FRANCISCO ARCHBISHOP WILLIAM J. LEVADA
The action taken by Mayor Gavin Newsom regarding same-sex marriages in San Francisco is counter to long-established California law, which was reaffirmed overwhelmingly by California voters just four years ago. In addition, his action is counter to the will of the majority of citizens at the state and national levels as evidenced by the fact that 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of same-sex marriages.
In the current national discussion of same-sex marriage, some voices define marriage only in terms of "personal choice," as if marriage were merely a design of two persons – with nothing to do with family or society. Marriage is a relationship defined by nature, a reality which takes its origin in creation itself. Society does not create marriages, even though it sets parameters protecting it – such as the ban on polygamy and an age requirement to protect a mature decision to enter marriage.
Society grants benefits to marriage for the purpose of fostering families, which in turn nurtures the future. Benefits are not primarily given to individuals who are married, but rather they are provided to establish a nurturing environment for children. Any discussion about same-sex marriage that misses this point becomes mired in confusion, for it is impossible to justify special benefits to married couples if these benefits are seen first as benefits to the spouses themselves. Heterosexual marriage, procreation, and the nurturing of children form the bedrock of the family, and the family unit lies at the heart of every society. To extend the meaning of marriage beyond a union of a man and a woman, their procreative capacity, and their establishment of family represents a misguided understanding of marriage itself.
It is not discriminatory to limit "marriage" to heterosexual couples, as same-sex couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. Other remedies can be found to protect the valid rights of persons in non-marital unions, for example civil rights given to individuals such as bereavement leave and inheritance rights, as well as benefits and protection for any children involved. Changing the definition of marriage to achieve benefit goals is ill-advised and harmful to society.
Some may call this age-old stance "discrimination against gay and lesbian persons. Such an interpretation is false, and offensive to people whose goodwill is clear. The Catholic Church has often spoken of the respect, compassion and sensitivity demanded in our interactions with and attitudes toward homosexual people. Withholding support for same-sex marriage should never be equated with hostility toward homosexual people.
While the Catholic Church affirms that God created marriage as a union of a man and a woman, giving them a co-responsibility to establish a family by bringing children into the world, this tenet is not solely a Catholic one. Rather, it is the result of natural reason mirrored in every culture throughout humankind’s history.
We need God’s wisdom as part of the current conversation on this subject. We need local, state and national debate conducted with respect, knowledge and understanding. Rushing to grant same-sex partners the right to "marriage" for the sake of status or benefits could not help but undermine human society’s foundational institutions of marriage and family.
Here in San Francisco, the recent election of Mayor Newsom brought with it an expectation that he would invite the participation of the entire community in seeking solutions to issues such as the homeless crisis, affordable housing, budget difficulties and other important matters.
For many of us, Mayor Newsom’s abrupt action on the issue of same-sex marriage – about which our society is so divided -- raises concern and causes disappointment. We hope the mayor’s action on behalf of one segment of the community does not signal an abandonment of his commitment to respect the views of all groups in the community – and to use his leadership to draw our city together to address the pressing issues identified in the mayoral campaign .
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Predestined in Love to be Children of God
From today's General Audience:
Having glanced at the whole of the hymn that opens the Letter to the Ephesians, we now listen to St. John Chrysostom, extraordinary teacher and orator, fine interpreter of sacred Scripture, who lived in the fourth century and became bishop of Constantinople in the midst of difficulties of every nature, and was even subjected to the experience of being exiled twice.
In his first homily on the Letter to the Ephesians, commenting on this canticle, he reflected with gratitude on the "blessing" with which we have been blessed "in Christ": "What are you lacking, in fact? You have become immortal, free, a son, righteous, a brother, co-heir, with him you reign, with him you are glorified. Everything has been given to you and -- as it is written -- 'will he not also give us everything else along with him?' (Romans 8:32). Your first fruits (see 1 Corinthians 15:20,23) are adored by the Angels, the Cherubim, the Seraphim: what are you lacking, now?" (PG 62, 11).
God has done all this for us, Chrysostom continues, "according to the favor of his will." What does this mean? It means that God passionately desires and ardently yearns for our salvation. And why does he love us so? For what reason does he desire so much good for us? Solely because of his goodness: 'grace,' in fact, is proper to goodness" (ibid., 13).
From today's General Audience:
Having glanced at the whole of the hymn that opens the Letter to the Ephesians, we now listen to St. John Chrysostom, extraordinary teacher and orator, fine interpreter of sacred Scripture, who lived in the fourth century and became bishop of Constantinople in the midst of difficulties of every nature, and was even subjected to the experience of being exiled twice.
In his first homily on the Letter to the Ephesians, commenting on this canticle, he reflected with gratitude on the "blessing" with which we have been blessed "in Christ": "What are you lacking, in fact? You have become immortal, free, a son, righteous, a brother, co-heir, with him you reign, with him you are glorified. Everything has been given to you and -- as it is written -- 'will he not also give us everything else along with him?' (Romans 8:32). Your first fruits (see 1 Corinthians 15:20,23) are adored by the Angels, the Cherubim, the Seraphim: what are you lacking, now?" (PG 62, 11).
God has done all this for us, Chrysostom continues, "according to the favor of his will." What does this mean? It means that God passionately desires and ardently yearns for our salvation. And why does he love us so? For what reason does he desire so much good for us? Solely because of his goodness: 'grace,' in fact, is proper to goodness" (ibid., 13).
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
SF Judge Issues Non-Binding Cease and Desist
Despite the judge's hangup over the placement of a semicolon (it happens) pro-family forces have temporarily won the battle to stop same-sex marriages in San Fran. Mayor "The Law Is Whatever I Say It Is" Newsom expresses an intent not to comply. And, oh yeah, Ahnold finally said something.
Despite the judge's hangup over the placement of a semicolon (it happens) pro-family forces have temporarily won the battle to stop same-sex marriages in San Fran. Mayor "The Law Is Whatever I Say It Is" Newsom expresses an intent not to comply. And, oh yeah, Ahnold finally said something.
Two Injunctions Sought in San Fran. Same Sex Marriage Battle
The first case, which I think involves obtaining a writ of mandate, won't be decided until Friday, while the second case is going on as I post this.
Although it isn't necessarily an issue in either of these cases, what is going to have to be decided at one point is whether sexual preference is a basis upon which civil rights protections must be applied. I logically don't see how it can, but then again, who would have ever thought consensual sodomy would be deemed a constitutional right.
The first case, which I think involves obtaining a writ of mandate, won't be decided until Friday, while the second case is going on as I post this.
Although it isn't necessarily an issue in either of these cases, what is going to have to be decided at one point is whether sexual preference is a basis upon which civil rights protections must be applied. I logically don't see how it can, but then again, who would have ever thought consensual sodomy would be deemed a constitutional right.
Wanted: Gavin Newsom
The American Family Association wants Ahnold to arrest the San Fran. Mayor for violating California's Defense of Marriage Act. So do I.
The AFA's law center wrote Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer Friday insisting the mayor not only violated civil law, but criminal law as well.
Schwarzenegger and other state officials have remained silent on the issue.
The letter cites California's penal code Section 115, which "prohibits the knowing procurement of any false or forged instrument to be filed or recorded in any public office."
The penalty for the felony, the letter notes, is up to three years in prison. The AFA says this means three years for each false certificate issued.
The American Family Association wants Ahnold to arrest the San Fran. Mayor for violating California's Defense of Marriage Act. So do I.
The AFA's law center wrote Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer Friday insisting the mayor not only violated civil law, but criminal law as well.
Schwarzenegger and other state officials have remained silent on the issue.
The letter cites California's penal code Section 115, which "prohibits the knowing procurement of any false or forged instrument to be filed or recorded in any public office."
The penalty for the felony, the letter notes, is up to three years in prison. The AFA says this means three years for each false certificate issued.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Hell in a Handbasket
Neither rain, sleet, nor snow shall deter people engaging in objectively disordered sexual conduct from mocking and degrading the institution of marriage.
Neither rain, sleet, nor snow shall deter people engaging in objectively disordered sexual conduct from mocking and degrading the institution of marriage.
Maybe It She Just "Malfunctioned"
I'm thinking this "lady" (and I use the term loosely) uses tongue when she kisses her mother.
A key Assembly committee is investigating complaints by at least five legislative staffers to Assembly member Rebecca Cohn, including two sparked by a photo shoot for San Jose Magazine in which Cohn allegedly asked aides to handle her bras and underwear.
Aides to Cohn, D-Campbell, have told investigators that she created an uncomfortable, sexually charged working environment by soliciting comments about her provocative attire and discussing her personal life in explicit terms, according to two Assembly Rules Committee interview summaries obtained by the Mercury News.
I'm thinking this "lady" (and I use the term loosely) uses tongue when she kisses her mother.
A key Assembly committee is investigating complaints by at least five legislative staffers to Assembly member Rebecca Cohn, including two sparked by a photo shoot for San Jose Magazine in which Cohn allegedly asked aides to handle her bras and underwear.
Aides to Cohn, D-Campbell, have told investigators that she created an uncomfortable, sexually charged working environment by soliciting comments about her provocative attire and discussing her personal life in explicit terms, according to two Assembly Rules Committee interview summaries obtained by the Mercury News.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Effort to Reexamine "Roe" Moves Forward
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in support of a motion to reopen Roe v. Wade.
"There are several issues before the court," Parker said, "whether Roe versus Wade should be overturned; whether to grant the motion based on the evidence that was submitted with the motion; or send the case back to a trial court for a trial; and whether a single judge or a three-judge panel should have heard the case at the trial court level."
Last June, Parker contended Judge Godbey misunderstood the motion, arguing the case is about changes in the relevant factual conditions, not a submission of new evidence.
One of the most relevant changes in law, he says, is the 1999 "Baby Moses" statute which allows a mother to hand over her child to the care of the state, meaning she no longer is forced to dispose of "unwanted" children by ending a human life.
Texas is among 40 states with such legislation, which didn't exist in 1973, Parker notes.
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in support of a motion to reopen Roe v. Wade.
"There are several issues before the court," Parker said, "whether Roe versus Wade should be overturned; whether to grant the motion based on the evidence that was submitted with the motion; or send the case back to a trial court for a trial; and whether a single judge or a three-judge panel should have heard the case at the trial court level."
Last June, Parker contended Judge Godbey misunderstood the motion, arguing the case is about changes in the relevant factual conditions, not a submission of new evidence.
One of the most relevant changes in law, he says, is the 1999 "Baby Moses" statute which allows a mother to hand over her child to the care of the state, meaning she no longer is forced to dispose of "unwanted" children by ending a human life.
Texas is among 40 states with such legislation, which didn't exist in 1973, Parker notes.
Playing Defense and Clarifying
Archbishop Levada on the Catholic understanding of The Passion.
Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the Catholic faith. However, even in America, we have seen Catholics embrace anti-Semitic positions, seeking to justify them as compatible with or resulting from Christian belief. The infamous "radio priest" Father Coughlin of the 1930s had a large and willing audience for his anti-Semitic rants, until he was silenced by the Archbishop of Detroit.
The Anti-Defamation League has said the film "has the potential to promote anti-Semitism through its painful portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus." On the other hand, Cardinal Castrillon of the Vatican Congregation for Clergy and Archbishop John Foley, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, call the film a deeply spiritual experience.
This contrast reminds me of a comment by columnist and radio host Dennis Prager -- who is Jewish -- after seeing an early cut of the film: "When watching 'The Passion,' Jews and Christians are watching two entirely different films. For two hours, Christians watch their Savior tortured and killed. For the same two hours, Jews watch Jews arrange the killing and torture of the Christians' Savior."
Archbishop Levada on the Catholic understanding of The Passion.
Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the Catholic faith. However, even in America, we have seen Catholics embrace anti-Semitic positions, seeking to justify them as compatible with or resulting from Christian belief. The infamous "radio priest" Father Coughlin of the 1930s had a large and willing audience for his anti-Semitic rants, until he was silenced by the Archbishop of Detroit.
The Anti-Defamation League has said the film "has the potential to promote anti-Semitism through its painful portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus." On the other hand, Cardinal Castrillon of the Vatican Congregation for Clergy and Archbishop John Foley, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, call the film a deeply spiritual experience.
This contrast reminds me of a comment by columnist and radio host Dennis Prager -- who is Jewish -- after seeing an early cut of the film: "When watching 'The Passion,' Jews and Christians are watching two entirely different films. For two hours, Christians watch their Savior tortured and killed. For the same two hours, Jews watch Jews arrange the killing and torture of the Christians' Savior."
Saturday, February 14, 2004
A-Rod Goes to the Dark Side
God forgive and have mercy on me, but I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate the Yankees!!!
God forgive and have mercy on me, but I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate the Yankees!!!
If Dems Can Spout Off in Black Churches, Why Can't Clergymen Spout Off in Legislatures?
I bethcha Georgia's First Openly Gay Legislator(TM) wouldn't be complaining if the minister had expressed support for same-sex "marriages."
I bethcha Georgia's First Openly Gay Legislator(TM) wouldn't be complaining if the minister had expressed support for same-sex "marriages."
Friday, February 13, 2004
Same Sex "Marriages" are Ontologically Degrading to People
My (hope to be published) letter to the editor at the San Francisco Chronicle:
The Chronicle’s glowing appraisal of Mayor Newsom’s de facto government sanctification of same sex “marriages” is typical of the thoughtless and utilitarian viewpoint that the Left has of personhood. In the ontological sense, a person is not defined by who he or she prefers or chooses to have sexual intercourse with, yet this is precisely what defenders of same-sex “marriages” presume whenever they argue, as the Chronicle does, that “gays” must be accorded the same legal benefits and protections as “straight people.” If what we are is defined by what we prefer, then the government may as well expressly extend civil rights protections on the basis of what baseball team you root for or your favorite ice cream.
Despite what the Left may think, and which has in no small part been promulgated by no-fault divorce laws, marriage is not a mere contract where the parties simply agree to live together, share their property, and not have sexual intercourse with other people. Degrade marriage to this definition by recognizing same-sex unions, and you effectively degrade people by viewing them as nothing more than a bundle of desires.
My (hope to be published) letter to the editor at the San Francisco Chronicle:
The Chronicle’s glowing appraisal of Mayor Newsom’s de facto government sanctification of same sex “marriages” is typical of the thoughtless and utilitarian viewpoint that the Left has of personhood. In the ontological sense, a person is not defined by who he or she prefers or chooses to have sexual intercourse with, yet this is precisely what defenders of same-sex “marriages” presume whenever they argue, as the Chronicle does, that “gays” must be accorded the same legal benefits and protections as “straight people.” If what we are is defined by what we prefer, then the government may as well expressly extend civil rights protections on the basis of what baseball team you root for or your favorite ice cream.
Despite what the Left may think, and which has in no small part been promulgated by no-fault divorce laws, marriage is not a mere contract where the parties simply agree to live together, share their property, and not have sexual intercourse with other people. Degrade marriage to this definition by recognizing same-sex unions, and you effectively degrade people by viewing them as nothing more than a bundle of desires.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Kerry to Fonda: "You're Making it Worse!"
While basically admitting she's an anti-American commie, Hanoi Jane tries to defend John F'n Kerry by disavowing any past direct connection with him.
"Any attempt to link Kerry to me and make him look bad with that connection is completely false," the radical actress insisted.
Although Fonda admitted that she and Kerry addressed the crowd that day from the same platform, she maintained that their contact was minimal. "I don't even think we shook hands."
Her account stands in stark contrast, however, to that of presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, who reported in his Kerry biography "Tour of Duty" that after Fonda and the top Democrat appeared at the same Valley Forge demonstration, she "adopted" Kerry's group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, as "her leading cause."
While basically admitting she's an anti-American commie, Hanoi Jane tries to defend John F'n Kerry by disavowing any past direct connection with him.
"Any attempt to link Kerry to me and make him look bad with that connection is completely false," the radical actress insisted.
Although Fonda admitted that she and Kerry addressed the crowd that day from the same platform, she maintained that their contact was minimal. "I don't even think we shook hands."
Her account stands in stark contrast, however, to that of presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, who reported in his Kerry biography "Tour of Duty" that after Fonda and the top Democrat appeared at the same Valley Forge demonstration, she "adopted" Kerry's group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, as "her leading cause."
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
"Salvific" Suffering
From today's General Audience:
The World Day of the Sick is a strong call to rediscover the important presence of those who suffer in the Christian community, and to increasingly value their precious contribution. From a simply human point of view, pain and illness might appear as an absurd reality: However, when we allow ourselves to be enlightened by the light of the Gospel, we succeed in appreciating its profound salvific meaning.
"From the paradox of the Cross," I underlined in the message for today's World Day of the Sick, "springs the answer to our most worrying questions. Christ suffers for us. He takes upon himself the sufferings of everyone and redeems them. Christ suffers with us, enabling us to share our pain with him. United to the suffering of Christ, human suffering becomes a means of salvation" (No. 4).
From today's General Audience:
The World Day of the Sick is a strong call to rediscover the important presence of those who suffer in the Christian community, and to increasingly value their precious contribution. From a simply human point of view, pain and illness might appear as an absurd reality: However, when we allow ourselves to be enlightened by the light of the Gospel, we succeed in appreciating its profound salvific meaning.
"From the paradox of the Cross," I underlined in the message for today's World Day of the Sick, "springs the answer to our most worrying questions. Christ suffers for us. He takes upon himself the sufferings of everyone and redeems them. Christ suffers with us, enabling us to share our pain with him. United to the suffering of Christ, human suffering becomes a means of salvation" (No. 4).
The Paradox of "Racial Diversity"
Alleged bigotry toward white caucasions by "multicultural" student club at allegedly Catholic Santa Clara University.
In their quest to get more space to accommodate an expanding number of cultural clubs, students of the campus's Multicultural Center (MCC) sought support from the student body last month when they felt their efforts with the administration had stalled.
But what they got instead was a barrage of anonymous chat-room postings criticizing the center for being exclusionary and for producing center T-shirts with a collage of smiley faces some thought are racist against whites.
"Personally, as a white student, I don't feel welcome in the MCC,'' one student wrote in response to the chat-room question, Should SCU make more space for the MCC? "Those 'See Me' shirts were so racist, with the white faces singled out and made to look expressionless next to the smiling faces of color. Any center that promotes that sort of bigotry should not be a part of this campus.''
I often wonder if any of these lefty multicuturalists have ever stopped to think for a moment that they are engaging in the very type of racial stereotyping they say they abhor when they presume that race and/or ethnicity dictates the manner by which a person acts or thinks. If you don't believe they do this, ask them their opinion of people like Condeleeza Rice and Justice Clarence Thomas. I guarantee you that they will toss around the words "Uncle Tom" at least once.
Alleged bigotry toward white caucasions by "multicultural" student club at allegedly Catholic Santa Clara University.
In their quest to get more space to accommodate an expanding number of cultural clubs, students of the campus's Multicultural Center (MCC) sought support from the student body last month when they felt their efforts with the administration had stalled.
But what they got instead was a barrage of anonymous chat-room postings criticizing the center for being exclusionary and for producing center T-shirts with a collage of smiley faces some thought are racist against whites.
"Personally, as a white student, I don't feel welcome in the MCC,'' one student wrote in response to the chat-room question, Should SCU make more space for the MCC? "Those 'See Me' shirts were so racist, with the white faces singled out and made to look expressionless next to the smiling faces of color. Any center that promotes that sort of bigotry should not be a part of this campus.''
I often wonder if any of these lefty multicuturalists have ever stopped to think for a moment that they are engaging in the very type of racial stereotyping they say they abhor when they presume that race and/or ethnicity dictates the manner by which a person acts or thinks. If you don't believe they do this, ask them their opinion of people like Condeleeza Rice and Justice Clarence Thomas. I guarantee you that they will toss around the words "Uncle Tom" at least once.
Step 1 to Reconsidering Roe v. Wade Accomplished
The South Dakota House passes a bill outlawing abortion, and making its practice a felony.
In the preamble to HB 1191, the legislature determined that based on the best scientific and medical evidence, life begins at fertilization and that South Dakota’s Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings. The Bill also finds that abortions impose significant risks to the health and life of the pregnant mother, including significant risk of suicide, depression and other post traumatic disorders.
Approval by the House now sends the bill to the Senate where support continues to be strong. Should South Dakota’s pro-life governor sign the bill, the new law would directly confront Roe v. Wade.
The South Dakota House passes a bill outlawing abortion, and making its practice a felony.
In the preamble to HB 1191, the legislature determined that based on the best scientific and medical evidence, life begins at fertilization and that South Dakota’s Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings. The Bill also finds that abortions impose significant risks to the health and life of the pregnant mother, including significant risk of suicide, depression and other post traumatic disorders.
Approval by the House now sends the bill to the Senate where support continues to be strong. Should South Dakota’s pro-life governor sign the bill, the new law would directly confront Roe v. Wade.
Proof That Harvard Accepts and is Largely Run by Stupid People
A university committee at the Ivy League school officially approves a porn magazine featuring nude pictures of undergraduates.
Hrdy said that “initially there was some concern about the nudity aspect,” but that CCL members eventually “got past the fear of porn.”
Baldegg added that she does not object to H Bomb being called porn.
“It’s a sex magazine that will hopefully be run by students of all sexual orientations and backgrounds,” Baldegg said. Baldegg said she expected the magazine, which will also include art and fiction articles, to garner a lot of attention.
“I guess student porn is sort of an underground thing,” she said.
No, it's more like a liberal moral relativist thing.
A university committee at the Ivy League school officially approves a porn magazine featuring nude pictures of undergraduates.
Hrdy said that “initially there was some concern about the nudity aspect,” but that CCL members eventually “got past the fear of porn.”
Baldegg added that she does not object to H Bomb being called porn.
“It’s a sex magazine that will hopefully be run by students of all sexual orientations and backgrounds,” Baldegg said. Baldegg said she expected the magazine, which will also include art and fiction articles, to garner a lot of attention.
“I guess student porn is sort of an underground thing,” she said.
No, it's more like a liberal moral relativist thing.
I'm Only Surprised it Took Him This Long to Do It
New San Francisco Mayor asks the city clerk to find a way to give marriage licenses to people who practice, and define their being on the basis of, objectively disordered sexual intercourse.
New San Francisco Mayor asks the city clerk to find a way to give marriage licenses to people who practice, and define their being on the basis of, objectively disordered sexual intercourse.
Placing the Welfare of Soil Above Humans
More wacko environmentalist folly.
Environmental groups asked a federal judge Tuesday to halt construction of a new border fence on the U.S.-Mexican border south of San Diego.
The Sierra Club, San Diego Audubon Society, San Diego Baykeeper and other groups allege the Department of Homeland Security violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to fully consider potential harm to the environment.
The Bush administration contends the fence and a patrol road are needed to improve security on the westernmost 3.5-mile leg of the U.S.-Mexico border. Environmentalists say the project would erode soil just south of a 2,531-acre federally protected estuary that is a refuge for threatened and endangered birds, plants and fish.
More wacko environmentalist folly.
Environmental groups asked a federal judge Tuesday to halt construction of a new border fence on the U.S.-Mexican border south of San Diego.
The Sierra Club, San Diego Audubon Society, San Diego Baykeeper and other groups allege the Department of Homeland Security violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to fully consider potential harm to the environment.
The Bush administration contends the fence and a patrol road are needed to improve security on the westernmost 3.5-mile leg of the U.S.-Mexico border. Environmentalists say the project would erode soil just south of a 2,531-acre federally protected estuary that is a refuge for threatened and endangered birds, plants and fish.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Letter to the Archdiocese Newspaper Editor
In regard to this, I wrote the following:
As it would seem that any institution that identifies itself as being Catholic would be loath to sponsor the speech of any individual who enables social conduct that is at odds with Church teachings, I was greatly disappointed to have learned that the University of San Francisco invited Justice Anthony Kennedy to be the keynote speaker at the opening of the Koret Law Center. In case nobody at the university was aware, Justice Kennedy has not only upheld the nonexistent right to abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), he recently penned the incredibly tortured decision whereby consensual sodomy was deemed to be a constitutionally protected activity (Lawrence v. Texas). Defenders of USF will of course try to rationalize the school’s conduct away by arguing that, as an academic institution, USF must be open to differing points of view. Such an argument, however, is disingenuous because it tries to portray an otherwise nonessential public relations gathering into a formal and fairly represented classroom discussion on public policy.
Far from being isolated, the inviting of Justice Kennedy is simply the latest of a number of things that calls into question USF’s commitment to being a Catholic institution of higher learning. If the school is unwilling to recommit itself to this purpose, perhaps USF should just do us all a favor and drop its affiliation with the Church rather than causing confusion over its Catholic identity. In the meantime, I personally will be encouraging parents seeking a faithful Catholic education for their college-aged children to look across the street.
In regard to this, I wrote the following:
As it would seem that any institution that identifies itself as being Catholic would be loath to sponsor the speech of any individual who enables social conduct that is at odds with Church teachings, I was greatly disappointed to have learned that the University of San Francisco invited Justice Anthony Kennedy to be the keynote speaker at the opening of the Koret Law Center. In case nobody at the university was aware, Justice Kennedy has not only upheld the nonexistent right to abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), he recently penned the incredibly tortured decision whereby consensual sodomy was deemed to be a constitutionally protected activity (Lawrence v. Texas). Defenders of USF will of course try to rationalize the school’s conduct away by arguing that, as an academic institution, USF must be open to differing points of view. Such an argument, however, is disingenuous because it tries to portray an otherwise nonessential public relations gathering into a formal and fairly represented classroom discussion on public policy.
Far from being isolated, the inviting of Justice Kennedy is simply the latest of a number of things that calls into question USF’s commitment to being a Catholic institution of higher learning. If the school is unwilling to recommit itself to this purpose, perhaps USF should just do us all a favor and drop its affiliation with the Church rather than causing confusion over its Catholic identity. In the meantime, I personally will be encouraging parents seeking a faithful Catholic education for their college-aged children to look across the street.
Legitimate Enough to Try and Refute
Intelligent Design Theory (not your daddy's creationism) makes its way into the Harvard Law Review. Critics dismiss, in sweeping weak generalizations, its scientific value and the legality of teaching it in the classroom.
Intelligent Design Theory (not your daddy's creationism) makes its way into the Harvard Law Review. Critics dismiss, in sweeping weak generalizations, its scientific value and the legality of teaching it in the classroom.
I'm There
If there's a Q&A session, dollars to donuts someone is going to ask about the "rights" of gays in the Church and gay "marriage."
Title: The Theology of the Body of Pope John Paul II
Description: The Campion College Forum: Fr. Brian Mullady, OP presents The Theology of the Body of Pope John Paul II. Fr. Mullady will unpack the Pope's profound insights on men, women and the meaning of sexuality in terms accessible to the "ordinary" Catholic. Thursday, February 12th at 7:30 p.m at St. Monica's Parish Hall (Geary and 23rd Avenue) Parking available.Free will offerings graciously accepted. Light refreshments served.
Location: St. Monica's Parish Hall 23rd & Geary (San Francisco)
Date: Thursday, 12 Feb 2004
Time: 7:30:00 PM - 9:00:00 PM
If there's a Q&A session, dollars to donuts someone is going to ask about the "rights" of gays in the Church and gay "marriage."
Title: The Theology of the Body of Pope John Paul II
Description: The Campion College Forum: Fr. Brian Mullady, OP presents The Theology of the Body of Pope John Paul II. Fr. Mullady will unpack the Pope's profound insights on men, women and the meaning of sexuality in terms accessible to the "ordinary" Catholic. Thursday, February 12th at 7:30 p.m at St. Monica's Parish Hall (Geary and 23rd Avenue) Parking available.Free will offerings graciously accepted. Light refreshments served.
Location: St. Monica's Parish Hall 23rd & Geary (San Francisco)
Date: Thursday, 12 Feb 2004
Time: 7:30:00 PM - 9:00:00 PM
Traitor John?
It is entirely possible that John F'n Kerry could be more of a gift to the Bush administration than Howard Dean.
It is entirely possible that John F'n Kerry could be more of a gift to the Bush administration than Howard Dean.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
And They Say People in California Are Nuts
At least none of our elected crazies have hinted at government imposed childbirth limits...yet.
At least none of our elected crazies have hinted at government imposed childbirth limits...yet.
Friday, February 06, 2004
Further Blurring the Line Between Law and Politics
Conservative groups blast GOP for forcing resignation of top judicial nominations strategist.
"If you had told me this is how this would all end, I would not have believed you," said Kay Daly, president of Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. "This is upside-down, backwards Alice in Wonderland."
Conservatives accused Mr. Frist and Mr. Hatch of abandoning their most effective tactician in the continuing struggle over President Bush's judicial nominations.
"It's disgusting," said Jeff Mazzella, with the Center for Individual Freedom. "Senator Frist and Senator Hatch bowed to the Democrats."
"This is like ringing the dinner bell and throwing chum in the water," said Mrs. Daly. "We've just thrown one of our most valuable people overboard, and Orrin Hatch couldn't have done it fast enough."
Conservative groups blast GOP for forcing resignation of top judicial nominations strategist.
"If you had told me this is how this would all end, I would not have believed you," said Kay Daly, president of Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. "This is upside-down, backwards Alice in Wonderland."
Conservatives accused Mr. Frist and Mr. Hatch of abandoning their most effective tactician in the continuing struggle over President Bush's judicial nominations.
"It's disgusting," said Jeff Mazzella, with the Center for Individual Freedom. "Senator Frist and Senator Hatch bowed to the Democrats."
"This is like ringing the dinner bell and throwing chum in the water," said Mrs. Daly. "We've just thrown one of our most valuable people overboard, and Orrin Hatch couldn't have done it fast enough."
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Preparing for Passion Mania
From the New York Times:
The movie opens on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, and Christian groups are already distributing merchandise to capitalize on the moment. There are lapel pins in Aramaic, the language of much of the film, and "witnessing cards" to give those who ask about the pin; door hangers for the neighbors; one million tracts asking moviegoers to "Take a moment right now and say a prayer like this," and a CD-ROM for teenagers that features a downloadable picture of a nine-inch nail like those that pinned Jesus to the cross.
Although Mr. Gibson is Roman Catholic and the movie is replete with Catholic touches, like the Stations of the Cross and the centrality of Mary, influential Pentecostal and evangelical leaders have embraced it anyway, seeing its value as a tool in evangelism. Evangelical Christians account for 30 percent to 40 percent of the American population, and many of them have recently been hearing their leaders declare that the nation is primed for a return of the ecstatic Great Awakenings that moved Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries to convert to Christianity in droves.
(...)
Although the film has been praised by some Roman Catholics and promoted on some Catholic Web sites, Catholic clergy members and bishops have not latched onto it as a tool for church-building as the evangelicals have.
Comment: While the Church can certainly learn a couple of things from our separated brethren on evangelistic enthusiasm, I can just as easily see how what Evangelicals are doing with this movie could result in a kind of mass trivialization of Christ's passion. For most folks, "WWJD" is just an annoying little Christian catch-phrase.
From the New York Times:
The movie opens on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, and Christian groups are already distributing merchandise to capitalize on the moment. There are lapel pins in Aramaic, the language of much of the film, and "witnessing cards" to give those who ask about the pin; door hangers for the neighbors; one million tracts asking moviegoers to "Take a moment right now and say a prayer like this," and a CD-ROM for teenagers that features a downloadable picture of a nine-inch nail like those that pinned Jesus to the cross.
Although Mr. Gibson is Roman Catholic and the movie is replete with Catholic touches, like the Stations of the Cross and the centrality of Mary, influential Pentecostal and evangelical leaders have embraced it anyway, seeing its value as a tool in evangelism. Evangelical Christians account for 30 percent to 40 percent of the American population, and many of them have recently been hearing their leaders declare that the nation is primed for a return of the ecstatic Great Awakenings that moved Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries to convert to Christianity in droves.
(...)
Although the film has been praised by some Roman Catholics and promoted on some Catholic Web sites, Catholic clergy members and bishops have not latched onto it as a tool for church-building as the evangelicals have.
Comment: While the Church can certainly learn a couple of things from our separated brethren on evangelistic enthusiasm, I can just as easily see how what Evangelicals are doing with this movie could result in a kind of mass trivialization of Christ's passion. For most folks, "WWJD" is just an annoying little Christian catch-phrase.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Signs of Desperation
For some reason, Democrats are making a big deal about Dubya's service in the National Guard some thirty-plus years ago.
Uber-pundit Hugh Hewitt responds:
To every question on this issue, Republicans ought to respond: President Bush was honorably discharged. Did the question of honorable military service ever cause you pause when you were supporting Bill Clinton? And do you agree with John Kerry that the men who fought in Vietnam routinely committed war crimes?
For some reason, Democrats are making a big deal about Dubya's service in the National Guard some thirty-plus years ago.
Uber-pundit Hugh Hewitt responds:
To every question on this issue, Republicans ought to respond: President Bush was honorably discharged. Did the question of honorable military service ever cause you pause when you were supporting Bill Clinton? And do you agree with John Kerry that the men who fought in Vietnam routinely committed war crimes?
Line in the Sand
Special News Alert
FROM: Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund President
Another Twist in the Battle For Marriage…
“[You need] to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely…to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.” – Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile.
This morning, the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court issued another decision in the continued battle for the institution of marriage. As you may recall, the court ruled last November, that there was no “rational basis” to deny homosexual couples the “right” to “marry.” The court stayed the order for 180 days to allow the Massachusetts legislature to take up the matter before same-sex “marriage” licenses would be issued. The court had looked to foreign law (in Ontario, Canada) – rather than any express language in its own Constitution – to base their decision.
One of the alternatives that the state legislature has proposed is so-called “civil unions,” that grant all of the legal benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. The legislature asked the court for an advisory opinion on whether or not they could implement civil unions instead of same-sex “marriage.” Today, the court said “no,” that the legislature has no choice but to grant full-fledged same-sex “marriage.”
Today’s ruling will be heralded by the secular press as another step towards the inevitability of same-sex “marriage.” However, there is another side to the story. ADF funded lawyers asked the court not to replace marriage with civil unions either. Why? Because the court has now made the battle lines even clearer: it is either full-blown marriage or no marriage substitute for radical homosexual activists. While some may bemoan this ruling, we see this now as an opportunity to protect marriage from the clutches of the radical homosexual activists, since no redefined replacement, such as civil unions, is acceptable.
The quote above from Michelangelo Signorile tells us what is at stake. The most radical of the homosexual activists have made their motives clear. They do not want marriage in order to set up monogamous stable relationships – they want the term “marriage” so they can bring about the wholesale destruction of the institution. That is why they will not relent until they receive this title for their “relationships.” What is happening in Massachusetts is just another “peeling of the onion” of the radical homosexual agenda to re-order society on their terms.
But in the words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over ‘till its over.” ADF funded lawyers continue to work overtime in the highly complex legal battle to preserve traditional marriage and overturn this decision. This next Wednesday, the state legislature will convene a constitutional convention to determine whether or not the people of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment that will define marriage as being between “one man and one woman.” In addition, ADF, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and many other allied groups will be working together to press for the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would protect traditional marriage nationwide. ADF will continue its major support of legal efforts in this area. This morning, President Bush agreed to join the effort to push for the passage of this amendment.
This is not a time to despair, but it is a time for us to get on our knees in prayer (1 Thessalonians 5:17), roll up our sleeves, and work even harder. Working together, we can preserve traditional marriage, not only for this generation, but for generations to come.
Special News Alert
FROM: Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund President
Another Twist in the Battle For Marriage…
“[You need] to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely…to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.” – Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile.
This morning, the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court issued another decision in the continued battle for the institution of marriage. As you may recall, the court ruled last November, that there was no “rational basis” to deny homosexual couples the “right” to “marry.” The court stayed the order for 180 days to allow the Massachusetts legislature to take up the matter before same-sex “marriage” licenses would be issued. The court had looked to foreign law (in Ontario, Canada) – rather than any express language in its own Constitution – to base their decision.
One of the alternatives that the state legislature has proposed is so-called “civil unions,” that grant all of the legal benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. The legislature asked the court for an advisory opinion on whether or not they could implement civil unions instead of same-sex “marriage.” Today, the court said “no,” that the legislature has no choice but to grant full-fledged same-sex “marriage.”
Today’s ruling will be heralded by the secular press as another step towards the inevitability of same-sex “marriage.” However, there is another side to the story. ADF funded lawyers asked the court not to replace marriage with civil unions either. Why? Because the court has now made the battle lines even clearer: it is either full-blown marriage or no marriage substitute for radical homosexual activists. While some may bemoan this ruling, we see this now as an opportunity to protect marriage from the clutches of the radical homosexual activists, since no redefined replacement, such as civil unions, is acceptable.
The quote above from Michelangelo Signorile tells us what is at stake. The most radical of the homosexual activists have made their motives clear. They do not want marriage in order to set up monogamous stable relationships – they want the term “marriage” so they can bring about the wholesale destruction of the institution. That is why they will not relent until they receive this title for their “relationships.” What is happening in Massachusetts is just another “peeling of the onion” of the radical homosexual agenda to re-order society on their terms.
But in the words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over ‘till its over.” ADF funded lawyers continue to work overtime in the highly complex legal battle to preserve traditional marriage and overturn this decision. This next Wednesday, the state legislature will convene a constitutional convention to determine whether or not the people of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment that will define marriage as being between “one man and one woman.” In addition, ADF, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and many other allied groups will be working together to press for the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would protect traditional marriage nationwide. ADF will continue its major support of legal efforts in this area. This morning, President Bush agreed to join the effort to push for the passage of this amendment.
This is not a time to despair, but it is a time for us to get on our knees in prayer (1 Thessalonians 5:17), roll up our sleeves, and work even harder. Working together, we can preserve traditional marriage, not only for this generation, but for generations to come.
Exposing Absurdity Through Absurdity
Happy Conservative Coming Out Day! Ah, to be young and in college.
"I started having certain thoughts," said Mr. O'Holleran, 19, a student at the University of Colorado (CU). "I would go out into my mom's car, turn it on auxiliary and listen to Rush Limbaugh."
Yesterday, he said, it was time to come out of the closet. In the middle of a crowded university dining area, he took to the podium and announced, "I'm Jeff, and I'm a conservative."
Happy Conservative Coming Out Day! Ah, to be young and in college.
"I started having certain thoughts," said Mr. O'Holleran, 19, a student at the University of Colorado (CU). "I would go out into my mom's car, turn it on auxiliary and listen to Rush Limbaugh."
Yesterday, he said, it was time to come out of the closet. In the middle of a crowded university dining area, he took to the podium and announced, "I'm Jeff, and I'm a conservative."
Monday, February 02, 2004
Was it Unjust?
The revelations of weapons inspector David Kay that Iraq didn't have large stockpiles of WMD is troublesome at best. At worst, it is a grand indictment on the competency of U.S. intelligence gathering. While President Bush himself cannot skirt all responsibility for this information blunder, I don't believe it can be used as a charge that he committed the U.S. to an unjust war. Consider, for instance, that it is an indisputable fact that everyone, including the U.N., France, Germany and Russia, believed that Iraq was in material noncompliance with its obligation to reveal and hand over all of its WMD. In light of this, it is not beyond the pale of reason to have believed that Iraq's breach indicated that it was harboring large stockpiles of WMD. Indeed, none of the countries that refused to miltarily engage in Iraq with us has ever disputed this. Along with this reasonable inference, as well as the verified connections that Saddam had with terrorist groups, the decision to ultimately go to war was partly clinched by the WMD intelligence information that has since been shown to be erroneous. (But even then, note that Bush was still hesitant to go to war as evidenced by his promise not to attack Iraq if Saddam and his sons immediately exiled themselves. Hardly proof, as some Bush-haters have alleged, that Bush is a war-monger).
Wrong intelligence information or not, all indications strongly suggest that the Bush administration made a good faith and reasonable decision to wage a just preemptive war. And although in hindsight our credibility in the international community might be a little shot by executing this decision, there is no getting around the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who probably wouldn't be alive today if we hadn't done what we did. This may be of little consolation to those who feign concern for the lives of our military in their opposition to the war (the very same people who tend to have no regard for the lives of the unborn and disingenuously equate Bush with Hitler) but I think it's something that all Americans can be proud of and claim that, in the end, was a war that was well worth fighting.
The revelations of weapons inspector David Kay that Iraq didn't have large stockpiles of WMD is troublesome at best. At worst, it is a grand indictment on the competency of U.S. intelligence gathering. While President Bush himself cannot skirt all responsibility for this information blunder, I don't believe it can be used as a charge that he committed the U.S. to an unjust war. Consider, for instance, that it is an indisputable fact that everyone, including the U.N., France, Germany and Russia, believed that Iraq was in material noncompliance with its obligation to reveal and hand over all of its WMD. In light of this, it is not beyond the pale of reason to have believed that Iraq's breach indicated that it was harboring large stockpiles of WMD. Indeed, none of the countries that refused to miltarily engage in Iraq with us has ever disputed this. Along with this reasonable inference, as well as the verified connections that Saddam had with terrorist groups, the decision to ultimately go to war was partly clinched by the WMD intelligence information that has since been shown to be erroneous. (But even then, note that Bush was still hesitant to go to war as evidenced by his promise not to attack Iraq if Saddam and his sons immediately exiled themselves. Hardly proof, as some Bush-haters have alleged, that Bush is a war-monger).
Wrong intelligence information or not, all indications strongly suggest that the Bush administration made a good faith and reasonable decision to wage a just preemptive war. And although in hindsight our credibility in the international community might be a little shot by executing this decision, there is no getting around the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who probably wouldn't be alive today if we hadn't done what we did. This may be of little consolation to those who feign concern for the lives of our military in their opposition to the war (the very same people who tend to have no regard for the lives of the unborn and disingenuously equate Bush with Hitler) but I think it's something that all Americans can be proud of and claim that, in the end, was a war that was well worth fighting.
It's the Courts Stupid
Among other things, I've been getting into a cyclical debate with other Catholics on a discussion forum over whether President Bush can rightly be regarded as an opponent to abortion. Some people seem to think he isn't because despite Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, Bush hasn't even attempted to introduce one piece of legislation that would make abortion illegal. (The ban on partial birth abortion was a nice gesture, but it doesn't go far enough).
I can only sigh over the uninformed charges that have been made against Dubya by what appear to be sincerely pro-life Catholics. What some of these folks fail to understand is that by effectively declaring abortion to be a fundamental right, the Supreme Court in 1973 took the abortion issue out of the democratic process. Thus, for any legislator to ban abortion now would be the legal equivalent of legislatively banning Catholics from going to Mass or receiving Communion.
As I've argued in the aforementioned forums, the current composition of the federal judiciary must first be changed if abortion is ever to be abolished. Accordingly, if you want to know how committed President Bush is to overturning Roe v. Wade, look at who he has nominated to serve on the various federal courts. The fact that several pro-abortion groups and Democrat Senators have vigorously opposed these nominations should tell you something.
Among other things, I've been getting into a cyclical debate with other Catholics on a discussion forum over whether President Bush can rightly be regarded as an opponent to abortion. Some people seem to think he isn't because despite Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, Bush hasn't even attempted to introduce one piece of legislation that would make abortion illegal. (The ban on partial birth abortion was a nice gesture, but it doesn't go far enough).
I can only sigh over the uninformed charges that have been made against Dubya by what appear to be sincerely pro-life Catholics. What some of these folks fail to understand is that by effectively declaring abortion to be a fundamental right, the Supreme Court in 1973 took the abortion issue out of the democratic process. Thus, for any legislator to ban abortion now would be the legal equivalent of legislatively banning Catholics from going to Mass or receiving Communion.
As I've argued in the aforementioned forums, the current composition of the federal judiciary must first be changed if abortion is ever to be abolished. Accordingly, if you want to know how committed President Bush is to overturning Roe v. Wade, look at who he has nominated to serve on the various federal courts. The fact that several pro-abortion groups and Democrat Senators have vigorously opposed these nominations should tell you something.
Saturday, January 31, 2004
America's First Excommunicated President
What do you think the odds of this happening would be if John F'n Kerry wins the Party of Death's nomination and beats Dubya in November? If Kerry faces Bush in November, expect the election to be closer than previously thought, even if conservatives decide not to stay home in protest over the President's questionable moves over illegal immigration and government spending.
What do you think the odds of this happening would be if John F'n Kerry wins the Party of Death's nomination and beats Dubya in November? If Kerry faces Bush in November, expect the election to be closer than previously thought, even if conservatives decide not to stay home in protest over the President's questionable moves over illegal immigration and government spending.
At Least They Aren't Selling Official T-shirts...Yet
San Mateo County charges media $51K for spots near the courthouse where the Scott Peterson trial is being held.
The 16 spaces, which are approximately 13 feet by 17 feet, will be used for television reporters to store equipment, work and conduct interviews. Each station must provide its own tent.
In addition, television stations must pay $7,500 for space to park their satellite trucks. Twenty spaces set aside for journalists in a nearby lot cost $200 a month each. Reporters are not being charged for space in a media center about a block away.
Altogether, the fees would raise $816,000 for the county, about a third of which has already been spent on preparations for the trial, Alms said.
San Mateo County charges media $51K for spots near the courthouse where the Scott Peterson trial is being held.
The 16 spaces, which are approximately 13 feet by 17 feet, will be used for television reporters to store equipment, work and conduct interviews. Each station must provide its own tent.
In addition, television stations must pay $7,500 for space to park their satellite trucks. Twenty spaces set aside for journalists in a nearby lot cost $200 a month each. Reporters are not being charged for space in a media center about a block away.
Altogether, the fees would raise $816,000 for the county, about a third of which has already been spent on preparations for the trial, Alms said.
Friday, January 30, 2004
9th Circuit: Publicly Exposed Self-Intimacy is a Free Speech Right
If for nothing else, reelect Geroge W. because he nominates sensible people to the federal Courts of Appeal.
If for nothing else, reelect Geroge W. because he nominates sensible people to the federal Courts of Appeal.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
St. Blog's Loves Patricia Heaton
As evidenced by HugeTim Terminator Kathy Shaidle and Holy Roman Emperor wannabe Mark Shea. And rightly so to the extent that Patricia Heaton is a publicly avowed anti-abortion Christian in an environment that is extremely hostile to such perspectives and people. Notice, however, that I've used the term "anti-abortion" to describe Ms. Heaton. For me, in order to be considered "pro-life," you not only have to be against the killing of unborn children, you should also be against any artificial and unnatural acts that prevent the conception of children (i.e., artificial contraception).
In all truthfulness, I have no idea whether Patricia Heaton is for or against the use of contraceptive devices like condoms and IUDs. However, I have seen several episodes of "Everybody Loves Raymond" where the married characters that Ms. Heaton and Ray Romano play, Deborah and Ray Barone, affirmatively consider their use without even a cursory discussion of the Catholic Church's moral opposition to artificial contraception (the fictional Barone family is Catholic). Presuming that she would never agree to play a sympathetic character who condones abortion, an inference can probably be made that Ms. Heaton's personal belief toward artificial contraception is reflected by her willingness to play someone who doesn't think they are that big of a deal. Although it may seem a little picky or semantic, it is on this basis that I am hesitant to call Patricia Heaton, or any other similarly situated anti-abortion advocate, "pro-life."
As evidenced by HugeTim Terminator Kathy Shaidle and Holy Roman Emperor wannabe Mark Shea. And rightly so to the extent that Patricia Heaton is a publicly avowed anti-abortion Christian in an environment that is extremely hostile to such perspectives and people. Notice, however, that I've used the term "anti-abortion" to describe Ms. Heaton. For me, in order to be considered "pro-life," you not only have to be against the killing of unborn children, you should also be against any artificial and unnatural acts that prevent the conception of children (i.e., artificial contraception).
In all truthfulness, I have no idea whether Patricia Heaton is for or against the use of contraceptive devices like condoms and IUDs. However, I have seen several episodes of "Everybody Loves Raymond" where the married characters that Ms. Heaton and Ray Romano play, Deborah and Ray Barone, affirmatively consider their use without even a cursory discussion of the Catholic Church's moral opposition to artificial contraception (the fictional Barone family is Catholic). Presuming that she would never agree to play a sympathetic character who condones abortion, an inference can probably be made that Ms. Heaton's personal belief toward artificial contraception is reflected by her willingness to play someone who doesn't think they are that big of a deal. Although it may seem a little picky or semantic, it is on this basis that I am hesitant to call Patricia Heaton, or any other similarly situated anti-abortion advocate, "pro-life."
World's First "Happy" Farm
If all the world were like this place, either eventually nobody would be left or it would be controlled by a select group of people makers.
If all the world were like this place, either eventually nobody would be left or it would be controlled by a select group of people makers.
You Might Be Catholic in Name Only if...
...you try to dismiss these clear statements from the Catholic hierarchy as a means to support Howard Dean, or any pro-abortion candidate, for President.
...you try to dismiss these clear statements from the Catholic hierarchy as a means to support Howard Dean, or any pro-abortion candidate, for President.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
A Man For All Seasons?
This editorial on Bill Pryor and his role in the Judge Moore/Ten Commandments monument controversy in Alabama harkens to mind the following quote from St. Thomas More in the play/movie "A Man for All Seasons":
"This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. Man's laws, not God's. And if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
This editorial on Bill Pryor and his role in the Judge Moore/Ten Commandments monument controversy in Alabama harkens to mind the following quote from St. Thomas More in the play/movie "A Man for All Seasons":
"This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. Man's laws, not God's. And if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Holy Bologne!
Dean welches on hefty lunch bill. No response yet from Catholics for Dean on whether this is consistent with Church teaching.
Dean welches on hefty lunch bill. No response yet from Catholics for Dean on whether this is consistent with Church teaching.
Would He Have Body Slammed the Guy if it Was Saddam?
Al Franken loves free speech so much that he's willing to physically assault a guy who is exercising said right. What a hypocritical moron.
Al Franken loves free speech so much that he's willing to physically assault a guy who is exercising said right. What a hypocritical moron.
Monday, January 26, 2004
Catholic Deaniac
Some yayhoo who seems to regard himself as a pro-life Catholic has constructed a website called Catholics for Dean. While a number of right thinking Catholic bloggers have already commented on its senselessness in regard to the issue of abortion, I would also add that there is no way that any serious Christian can legitimately support a man for President who thinks homosexual conduct is ok because he believes God made homosexuals. By that astounding logic, since God "made" heterosexuals, fornication, adultery, and polygamy must be ok.
Some yayhoo who seems to regard himself as a pro-life Catholic has constructed a website called Catholics for Dean. While a number of right thinking Catholic bloggers have already commented on its senselessness in regard to the issue of abortion, I would also add that there is no way that any serious Christian can legitimately support a man for President who thinks homosexual conduct is ok because he believes God made homosexuals. By that astounding logic, since God "made" heterosexuals, fornication, adultery, and polygamy must be ok.
Saturday, January 24, 2004
Credibility Problem
Would you trust someone's evaluation of Mel Gibson's movie if you knew that person had an agenda to be critical of it, and had to lie to people to get in and see it? Neither would I.
Would you trust someone's evaluation of Mel Gibson's movie if you knew that person had an agenda to be critical of it, and had to lie to people to get in and see it? Neither would I.
Friday, January 23, 2004
Bush is Not Pro-Life Enough
So complains influential and respected Catholic bloggers Amy Welborn and Mark Shea because 1) the Prez didn't mention abortion in his recent State of the Union Address and 2) he didn't personally appear at the March for Life protest yesterday.
From a substantive standpoint, I myself don't think President Bush is "perfect" on the general issue of life, as exemplefied by his limited allowance of embryonic stem cell research and his seemingly uncritical support of the death penalty. However, insofar as abortion is concerned, Bush has publicly done more to support and uphold the rights of the unborn than any other U.S. President in recent history. See, e.g., the signing of the partial-birth abortion ban, proclamation of the National Sanctity of Human Life Day, and the nomination of several pro-life and pro-life leaning individuals to the judiciary. In light of these acts, for folks like Welborn and Shea to lambast Bush simply because he didn't mention abortion in a speech or personally show up at a rally down the street from the White House is downright silly. Indeed, one wonders what Welborn and Shea must think of the Pope, since I don't believe he has mentioned abortion in any of his Wednesday General Audience talks for quite some time.
So complains influential and respected Catholic bloggers Amy Welborn and Mark Shea because 1) the Prez didn't mention abortion in his recent State of the Union Address and 2) he didn't personally appear at the March for Life protest yesterday.
From a substantive standpoint, I myself don't think President Bush is "perfect" on the general issue of life, as exemplefied by his limited allowance of embryonic stem cell research and his seemingly uncritical support of the death penalty. However, insofar as abortion is concerned, Bush has publicly done more to support and uphold the rights of the unborn than any other U.S. President in recent history. See, e.g., the signing of the partial-birth abortion ban, proclamation of the National Sanctity of Human Life Day, and the nomination of several pro-life and pro-life leaning individuals to the judiciary. In light of these acts, for folks like Welborn and Shea to lambast Bush simply because he didn't mention abortion in a speech or personally show up at a rally down the street from the White House is downright silly. Indeed, one wonders what Welborn and Shea must think of the Pope, since I don't believe he has mentioned abortion in any of his Wednesday General Audience talks for quite some time.
Sin Boldly
I was reading this article by Ralph McInerny about the pseudoscience that purports to prove that human behavior is controlled by genetics, and all the while I kept thinking about Protestantism and its historic theological doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved." Under this doctrine, of course, man is generally presumed to be a hopeless reprobate (i.e., man is immutably bad). However, as long as a person has faith in God and accepts Jesus Christ as the Messiah, then it doesn't matter how many "involuntary" sinful acts he commits as his reprobate soul is externally covered by God's infinite grace.
By their inherent denial of the existence of free will, as well as the internal efficaciousness of God's grace through the Sacraments, Protestants, especially those of the Fundamentalist stripe, better hope that science never one day universally determines that there is a "gay" gene. Such a determination, from the general Protestant perspective, would effectively render biblical condemnations of homosexual conduct as nothing more than a legalistic and social/cultural hangup that has no importance or relevance to salvation. Sure, two men having sexual intercourse with each other is objectively disgusting and sinful, but if it is genetically in their nature to engage in such conduct, and they profess to be Christians, who are many Protestants to say these men shouldn't be doing what they're doing, or more importantly, that they aren't "saved?"
I was reading this article by Ralph McInerny about the pseudoscience that purports to prove that human behavior is controlled by genetics, and all the while I kept thinking about Protestantism and its historic theological doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved." Under this doctrine, of course, man is generally presumed to be a hopeless reprobate (i.e., man is immutably bad). However, as long as a person has faith in God and accepts Jesus Christ as the Messiah, then it doesn't matter how many "involuntary" sinful acts he commits as his reprobate soul is externally covered by God's infinite grace.
By their inherent denial of the existence of free will, as well as the internal efficaciousness of God's grace through the Sacraments, Protestants, especially those of the Fundamentalist stripe, better hope that science never one day universally determines that there is a "gay" gene. Such a determination, from the general Protestant perspective, would effectively render biblical condemnations of homosexual conduct as nothing more than a legalistic and social/cultural hangup that has no importance or relevance to salvation. Sure, two men having sexual intercourse with each other is objectively disgusting and sinful, but if it is genetically in their nature to engage in such conduct, and they profess to be Christians, who are many Protestants to say these men shouldn't be doing what they're doing, or more importantly, that they aren't "saved?"
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Intriguing
In an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, South Dakota may pass a bill that would outlaw most abortions.
"This is a decision that should be made by the people in each of the states through their elected representatives, not by nine un-elected judges in a courtroom 1,500 miles from the capitol of South Dakota. This bill puts South Dakota in the forefront of the nation and says we will lead the fight to protect unborn children," said McCaulley, a Republican who was 4 months old when the high-court decision came down.
"Medical and scientific discoveries over the last 30 years have confirmed that life begins at conception, a question the Roe Court said they could not answer."
A most noble and admirable endeavor. However, unless the composition of the current U.S. Supreme Court radically changes, it simply won't survive judicial review.
In an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, South Dakota may pass a bill that would outlaw most abortions.
"This is a decision that should be made by the people in each of the states through their elected representatives, not by nine un-elected judges in a courtroom 1,500 miles from the capitol of South Dakota. This bill puts South Dakota in the forefront of the nation and says we will lead the fight to protect unborn children," said McCaulley, a Republican who was 4 months old when the high-court decision came down.
"Medical and scientific discoveries over the last 30 years have confirmed that life begins at conception, a question the Roe Court said they could not answer."
A most noble and admirable endeavor. However, unless the composition of the current U.S. Supreme Court radically changes, it simply won't survive judicial review.
Year 31
Another reminder that intelligence is not a primary qualification for being a Justice on the United States Supreme Court.
Another reminder that intelligence is not a primary qualification for being a Justice on the United States Supreme Court.
What the...?!
Chinese New Year dragon dances during Mass. Give me a break Cardinal Hollywood. (link via Amy Welborn)
Chinese New Year dragon dances during Mass. Give me a break Cardinal Hollywood. (link via Amy Welborn)
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Visions of Michael Moore's Inane "We're Living in Fictional Times" Remark
Drudge reports asinine Wesley Clark quote of "marriage" being a term of art. No word on what other social conspiracies that Clark believes every living culture and religion in the world has created out of whole cloth.
Drudge reports asinine Wesley Clark quote of "marriage" being a term of art. No word on what other social conspiracies that Clark believes every living culture and religion in the world has created out of whole cloth.
Missing
Lack of posting from two of my favorites, the Mighty Barrister and the Conservative San Diego Chica. Not sure why, but maybe the MB is being consumed by a big case and Molly is in the throes of trying to delude herself into believing that Marty Schottenheimer can bring the Chargers back to the Super Bowl. Hope you guys come back soon and often.
Lack of posting from two of my favorites, the Mighty Barrister and the Conservative San Diego Chica. Not sure why, but maybe the MB is being consumed by a big case and Molly is in the throes of trying to delude herself into believing that Marty Schottenheimer can bring the Chargers back to the Super Bowl. Hope you guys come back soon and often.
Judge Pickering and the Pathological Dems
Reacting to the recess appointment of Charles Pickering to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sen. John Edwards transforms himself into a living caricature of the American lawyer.
On his Web site, Mr. Edwards repeats a most egregious smear against Judge Pickering: that he "took extraordinary steps to reduce the sentence required by law for a man convicted of cross burning." But the facts of the case are as follows. In January 1994, three hoodlums burned a cross on the lawn of a house. Two of the three — including the apparent ringleader and chief organizer of the cross-burning attack — received a sentence of six months of home detention and one year of probation. Judge Pickering urged prosecutors to reduce the sentence of the third, less culpable defendant, who had been sentenced to seven years in prison.
Reacting to the recess appointment of Charles Pickering to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sen. John Edwards transforms himself into a living caricature of the American lawyer.
On his Web site, Mr. Edwards repeats a most egregious smear against Judge Pickering: that he "took extraordinary steps to reduce the sentence required by law for a man convicted of cross burning." But the facts of the case are as follows. In January 1994, three hoodlums burned a cross on the lawn of a house. Two of the three — including the apparent ringleader and chief organizer of the cross-burning attack — received a sentence of six months of home detention and one year of probation. Judge Pickering urged prosecutors to reduce the sentence of the third, less culpable defendant, who had been sentenced to seven years in prison.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Choosing a Flavor of Ice Cream, Playing God With Humanity...It's Really All the Same
This fairly disturbing story in Newsweek reminds me of the futuristic world portrayed in the movie Gattaca. If you've never seen it, do so. It may end up not being as fictional as it was intended.
The brave new world is definitely here. After 25 years of staggering advances in reproductive medicine—first test-tube babies, then donor eggs and surrogate mothers—technology is changing baby-making in a whole new way. No longer can science simply help couples have babies, it can help them have the kind of babies they want.
This fairly disturbing story in Newsweek reminds me of the futuristic world portrayed in the movie Gattaca. If you've never seen it, do so. It may end up not being as fictional as it was intended.
The brave new world is definitely here. After 25 years of staggering advances in reproductive medicine—first test-tube babies, then donor eggs and surrogate mothers—technology is changing baby-making in a whole new way. No longer can science simply help couples have babies, it can help them have the kind of babies they want.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
Pray for Unity, But Uphold the Truth
Today marks the begininng of the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity; or, as my Tridentine Latin-English Missal more bluntly phrases it, an International Week of Prayers for the removal of schism. For more background on this week, visitLane Core's blog.
Today marks the begininng of the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity; or, as my Tridentine Latin-English Missal more bluntly phrases it, an International Week of Prayers for the removal of schism. For more background on this week, visitLane Core's blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)