Here is a post with some links to various Papal Encyclicals regarding pressing issues of the day. I will post them by their english title. The official titles are of course in Latin. Some of them are a little difficult to read, and some are not. Some are truly humbling (at least for me) when you realize the depth of thought that exists outside your own. All are very enlightening.
Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor the landmark teaching from Pope Leo XIII regarding workers and industry in the new world economy emerging in the 19th Century.
Human Life The prophetic teaching and explanation of proper Christian thought on contraception. Pope Paul VI
Gospel of Life John Paul II's remarkable letter expanding on Paul VI's encyclical. Really the seminole teaching on the value of all human life.
Faith and Reason John Paul II showing how faith and reason are not in opposition to each other, but compliment each other. It was sure nice having a world class philosopher as Pope.
Centissimus Annus JP II expanding on Rerum Novarum on it's 100th anniversary.
Saved Though Hope Benedict XVI, an explanation of what is hope. Very interesting in how it shows that placing hope in "salvation" though science and civil government is false. An absolute must read, especially in these days of Barack Obama and his whole HOPE slogan. After reading this encyclical, you will be better able to explain why Obama makes you ill. Also, it illuminates what is so stupid about liberals wanting to be called "progressives" as if it is flattering.
9/13/2008
Sarah Palin Sex Scandal
I have been very pleased so far with Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign strategy of promoting her positive traits. I believe that the left has played their role exactly as expected. They couldn't have been more predictable in their vitriol if they had actually been following a written script. It's almost as if the same Republican strategist has provided both camps with their talking points.
The liberal feminist's are showing that "Envy Green" and "Leftist Lavendar" are their true colors and not "Parity Pink". You see; NOW, the League of Women Voters, etc... don't exist to promote the cause of women being treated with equality in society. They exist to secure power for the political left by delivering the votes of a particular demographic group. They are completely intollerant of social viewpoints that don't conform to their leftist social agenda. They owe their allegiance to the leftist political philosophy more than they do to women.
They see the emergance of Sarah Palin as a scandal to their cause. "How is it that Governor Palin can be successful and not goose step with the liberal femenists?" they wonder. They actually can't comprehend and won't tolerate a woman holding a social philosophy that includes a pro-life agenda. It goes against what they've been brainwashed with for decades, that the pro-life agenda is born of men trying to control women and limit their choices.
So... they attack Governor Palin and the Republicans for using her gender exploitatively. How ironic to be accused by liberals of exploiting a particular demographic group through political pandering and candidate selection. I believe that this is part of what Pope Benedict XVI was referring to when he preached against the "Dictatorship of Relativism".
Here is a list of Sarah Palin's scandalous positions:
1. She is pro-life (and she's a women...? she must be brainwashed or dumb)
2. She Believes in traditional marriage.
3. She isn't a member of the "Lavendar Mafia".
Here is what NOW president Kim Gandy said of Governor Palin;
“She may be an intelligent, motivated, highly successful professional woman,” NOW President Kim Gandy said, “but she’s the wrong woman. She’s a bad woman. She’s not even half the woman Joe Biden is.”
Gandy cited Biden’s support for pay equity, his authorship of landmark domestic violence legislation, and his “lovely tribute to his mother” in his own acceptance speech as stark contrasts to Palin, who, according to Gandy, “foolishly believes in carrying all pregnancies to term” and “has consistently put herself and her career ahead of the fight for women’s rights.”
“It would be best for everyone if Sarah Palin would just stay home and raise her kids,” Gandy said. ”When you have one child with Down syndrome and another with an unwanted pregnancy who won’t even consider the ease and convenience of abortion, you need to be a better mother, not Vice President.”
So... the Sarah Palin sex scandal is this. Sarah Palin doesn't think like the liberals have been telling people of her sex to. How dare she think for herself and be successful without worshipping at their altar!
The liberal feminist's are showing that "Envy Green" and "Leftist Lavendar" are their true colors and not "Parity Pink". You see; NOW, the League of Women Voters, etc... don't exist to promote the cause of women being treated with equality in society. They exist to secure power for the political left by delivering the votes of a particular demographic group. They are completely intollerant of social viewpoints that don't conform to their leftist social agenda. They owe their allegiance to the leftist political philosophy more than they do to women.
They see the emergance of Sarah Palin as a scandal to their cause. "How is it that Governor Palin can be successful and not goose step with the liberal femenists?" they wonder. They actually can't comprehend and won't tolerate a woman holding a social philosophy that includes a pro-life agenda. It goes against what they've been brainwashed with for decades, that the pro-life agenda is born of men trying to control women and limit their choices.
So... they attack Governor Palin and the Republicans for using her gender exploitatively. How ironic to be accused by liberals of exploiting a particular demographic group through political pandering and candidate selection. I believe that this is part of what Pope Benedict XVI was referring to when he preached against the "Dictatorship of Relativism".
Here is a list of Sarah Palin's scandalous positions:
1. She is pro-life (and she's a women...? she must be brainwashed or dumb)
2. She Believes in traditional marriage.
3. She isn't a member of the "Lavendar Mafia".
Here is what NOW president Kim Gandy said of Governor Palin;
“She may be an intelligent, motivated, highly successful professional woman,” NOW President Kim Gandy said, “but she’s the wrong woman. She’s a bad woman. She’s not even half the woman Joe Biden is.”
Gandy cited Biden’s support for pay equity, his authorship of landmark domestic violence legislation, and his “lovely tribute to his mother” in his own acceptance speech as stark contrasts to Palin, who, according to Gandy, “foolishly believes in carrying all pregnancies to term” and “has consistently put herself and her career ahead of the fight for women’s rights.”
“It would be best for everyone if Sarah Palin would just stay home and raise her kids,” Gandy said. ”When you have one child with Down syndrome and another with an unwanted pregnancy who won’t even consider the ease and convenience of abortion, you need to be a better mother, not Vice President.”
So... the Sarah Palin sex scandal is this. Sarah Palin doesn't think like the liberals have been telling people of her sex to. How dare she think for herself and be successful without worshipping at their altar!
9/10/2008
Questions for members of labor unions on abortion
For the last 13+ years as a professional firefighter, I have been privileged to belong to a labor union. In that time, I have served in various capacities including my current position as assistant V.P. I believe this membership in a labor union is a privilege for several reasons; early in my career I benefitted from the union’s, and specifically from my Local leadership’s dedication to ensuring that all represented employees are treated with justice. Also, my membership has afforded me the opportunity to express to those with opposing viewpoints and opinions, the moral and philosophical justification of the labor movement in regards to workers rights, and its’ contribution to a just society. To many, I appear to be enigmatic in my seemingly contradictory embracement of positions traditionally held and championed by opposing political parties with contradictory liberal and conservative philosophies.
I realize that for some, membership in a union is simply a necessity of employment with the only requirement being the payment of monthly dues. For others, it’s no different than membership in some social fraternal organization (e.g. the “Elks”, “Eagles”, or “American Legion”). For many it is seen as an opportunity to have a voice in the workplace and in the local, state, and national political discourse. For me it’s all of those things, and something much more.
Before I explain, let me ask:
Do you support the labor movement? Do you promote the cause of workers receiving a livable wage? Do you believe that the hours of work required of laborers should be limited by contract rules and statutes that include mandatory overtime pay? Should employers be responsible for providing a workplace free of unnecessary health risks and disparity in the treatment of workers based on their race, creed, skin color, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation?
Are your answers to those questions just simply your opinion? Is there no right or wrong answer? Is your “yes” simply because supporting and promoting those causes puts money into your pocket, improves your economic and social condition, and gives you power? Does it come down to the simple idea of “Might makes Right” born of the 18th century “Will to Power” philosophers that inspired Marxism and National Socialism? If supporters of "organized labor's" issues happen to be in power because they win a popular election does that establish or prove the truth of those positions regarding workers (and anyone else’s) rights? Is there no right or wrong but only the powerful and the powerless?
I think not. I believe that the cause for worker’s rights is worthy of being supported because they are based on an objective moral truth. That is; all people have the right to be treated with dignity, respect, and justice simply due to the fact that they are human persons. Collectively; workers rights, minority rights, religious rights, freedom of speech, freedom of self determination… are basic human rights issues. Those who are powerless are still entitled to those rights (such as the people in Darfur) and when deprived of them, it is recognized as a human rights violation.
To deprive someone of these rights is an injustice. All injustices are wrong. However, some injustices have more grave consequence on the victim than others do. Therefore it can be said that all injustices are equally wrong, but all wrongs are not equally unjust. For Example; it is rightly recognized by our judicial system that stealing a pack of gum is an injustice and is therefore against the law (a misdemeanor). Embezzling someone’s pension is also stealing, but is a worse injustice and therefore the consequences of breaking that law are greater (a felony with prison time).
As you readily see, the more grave the consequence of a wrong, the worse the injustice that has been committed. The Founding Father’s of our country rightly recognized that we have "...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...” arranged in that order out of right reason not coincidence. To pursue happiness you must be free, to be free (have liberty) you must first be alive! To be alive is the foundation of all these rights because we're talking about a human person who is alive.
To work for protecting the rights of people in regards to workers justice is good. But, it is only good as long as you are not denying them a superior right. You can't promote a grave injustice while protecting a hierarchically inferior issue of social justice. To do so opposes the integration of human rights into our society, thus disintegrating human rights.
The protection of innocent human life, from conception to natural death, must be promoted by organized labor and all interested in a civil society. This encompasses the issues of abortion, destructive embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia (“death with dignity”). To promote other human rights issues at the expense of, or while simultaneously attacking a hierarchically superior right, (specifically the right to life upon which all other human rights are contingent), is an abomination of justice.
Every day approximately 3,200 (ref. CDC 2008 statistics) unborn infants lives’ are ended through procured abortions in the United States. It is the single most important human rights issue of our time, and I daresay, of all time. We must protect and promote the rights of workers to fair wages, reasonable hours, and healthy working conditions. Just not at the expense of innocent people’s lives.
The endorsement of candidates for political office who defend this human rights violation is not warranted. Especially from a union that represents a profession dedicated to protecting people's lives.
I realize that for some, membership in a union is simply a necessity of employment with the only requirement being the payment of monthly dues. For others, it’s no different than membership in some social fraternal organization (e.g. the “Elks”, “Eagles”, or “American Legion”). For many it is seen as an opportunity to have a voice in the workplace and in the local, state, and national political discourse. For me it’s all of those things, and something much more.
Before I explain, let me ask:
Do you support the labor movement? Do you promote the cause of workers receiving a livable wage? Do you believe that the hours of work required of laborers should be limited by contract rules and statutes that include mandatory overtime pay? Should employers be responsible for providing a workplace free of unnecessary health risks and disparity in the treatment of workers based on their race, creed, skin color, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation?
Are your answers to those questions just simply your opinion? Is there no right or wrong answer? Is your “yes” simply because supporting and promoting those causes puts money into your pocket, improves your economic and social condition, and gives you power? Does it come down to the simple idea of “Might makes Right” born of the 18th century “Will to Power” philosophers that inspired Marxism and National Socialism? If supporters of "organized labor's" issues happen to be in power because they win a popular election does that establish or prove the truth of those positions regarding workers (and anyone else’s) rights? Is there no right or wrong but only the powerful and the powerless?
I think not. I believe that the cause for worker’s rights is worthy of being supported because they are based on an objective moral truth. That is; all people have the right to be treated with dignity, respect, and justice simply due to the fact that they are human persons. Collectively; workers rights, minority rights, religious rights, freedom of speech, freedom of self determination… are basic human rights issues. Those who are powerless are still entitled to those rights (such as the people in Darfur) and when deprived of them, it is recognized as a human rights violation.
To deprive someone of these rights is an injustice. All injustices are wrong. However, some injustices have more grave consequence on the victim than others do. Therefore it can be said that all injustices are equally wrong, but all wrongs are not equally unjust. For Example; it is rightly recognized by our judicial system that stealing a pack of gum is an injustice and is therefore against the law (a misdemeanor). Embezzling someone’s pension is also stealing, but is a worse injustice and therefore the consequences of breaking that law are greater (a felony with prison time).
As you readily see, the more grave the consequence of a wrong, the worse the injustice that has been committed. The Founding Father’s of our country rightly recognized that we have "...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...” arranged in that order out of right reason not coincidence. To pursue happiness you must be free, to be free (have liberty) you must first be alive! To be alive is the foundation of all these rights because we're talking about a human person who is alive.
To work for protecting the rights of people in regards to workers justice is good. But, it is only good as long as you are not denying them a superior right. You can't promote a grave injustice while protecting a hierarchically inferior issue of social justice. To do so opposes the integration of human rights into our society, thus disintegrating human rights.
The protection of innocent human life, from conception to natural death, must be promoted by organized labor and all interested in a civil society. This encompasses the issues of abortion, destructive embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia (“death with dignity”). To promote other human rights issues at the expense of, or while simultaneously attacking a hierarchically superior right, (specifically the right to life upon which all other human rights are contingent), is an abomination of justice.
Every day approximately 3,200 (ref. CDC 2008 statistics) unborn infants lives’ are ended through procured abortions in the United States. It is the single most important human rights issue of our time, and I daresay, of all time. We must protect and promote the rights of workers to fair wages, reasonable hours, and healthy working conditions. Just not at the expense of innocent people’s lives.
The endorsement of candidates for political office who defend this human rights violation is not warranted. Especially from a union that represents a profession dedicated to protecting people's lives.
8/29/2008
Christian Voter part 3: Embryonic Stem Cell Research
I now come to the seven issues to which there is only 1 legitimate position for a Christian voter. To take the opposite position (through activism, or by placing your vote), would be indicative of a corrupted conscience or a disingenuous spirit of compromising moral truth for the spirit of the age.
ISSUE #2 Embryonic Stem Cell Research:
What: embryonic stem cell research- the conducting of medical/scientific research on human embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells which results in the destruction (death) of the embryo.
Other names: Human pluripotent stem cell research, stem cell research,
Sticking to the specifics of embryionic stem cell research, it is wrong simply because life begins at conception. Conception is that point in time when the human cells which mature into an adult human begin to grow (divide). That is life. The destruction or cessation of this process ends this life. It is a human life. Purposefully ending an innocent human life is a moral evil.
Pretty simple really.
Now, the discussion by proponents of embryonic stem cell research will follow along the lines of all sorts of great benefits that can result from this research. the problem with that is this... you can't do evil to bring about good. The ends don't justify the means. That is not a Christian philosophy, it is a 19th century humanistic philosophy from such secular and anti-christian thinkers as Bacon, Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Bentham, John Stuart Mill... et al.
If you want to read good Christian philosophy and thinking look here, here, and here!
Some of these are long and pretty deep, but if you can't even make the sacrifice of time necessary to study the question of
1): when human life begins.
2): if you can do an "evil" to bring about a "good"...
then perhaps your lack of sincerity in action regarding your dedication to learn where the thoughts that are contrary to; abortion, human cloning, human stem cell research, etc... will be proof of what you sincerely believe in your heart and how you don't act in concert with your knowledge of right and wrong.
ISSUE #2 Embryonic Stem Cell Research:
What: embryonic stem cell research- the conducting of medical/scientific research on human embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells which results in the destruction (death) of the embryo.
Other names: Human pluripotent stem cell research, stem cell research,
Sticking to the specifics of embryionic stem cell research, it is wrong simply because life begins at conception. Conception is that point in time when the human cells which mature into an adult human begin to grow (divide). That is life. The destruction or cessation of this process ends this life. It is a human life. Purposefully ending an innocent human life is a moral evil.
Pretty simple really.
Now, the discussion by proponents of embryonic stem cell research will follow along the lines of all sorts of great benefits that can result from this research. the problem with that is this... you can't do evil to bring about good. The ends don't justify the means. That is not a Christian philosophy, it is a 19th century humanistic philosophy from such secular and anti-christian thinkers as Bacon, Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Bentham, John Stuart Mill... et al.
If you want to read good Christian philosophy and thinking look here, here, and here!
Some of these are long and pretty deep, but if you can't even make the sacrifice of time necessary to study the question of
1): when human life begins.
2): if you can do an "evil" to bring about a "good"...
then perhaps your lack of sincerity in action regarding your dedication to learn where the thoughts that are contrary to; abortion, human cloning, human stem cell research, etc... will be proof of what you sincerely believe in your heart and how you don't act in concert with your knowledge of right and wrong.
7/25/2008
Seattle Seahawks training camp opens!!
Finally, NFL training camps are open. Not that I don't like other sports but Football reigns supreme as far as I'm concerned. I can't stand NBA basketball (March Madness is good though). Baseball is OK when the playoffs come around. I like soccer more and more every year. but... back to the NFL!The Seahawks are gearing up for another campaign. This year looks to be very interesting and has quite a few side stories. An offense with some question marks, a defense set to dominate, a lame duck head coach, the replacement head coach on staff...
I'll try to hit on a few of those stories throughout the season. Today though, I will highlight some training camp news.
OFFENSE: The biggest news of the offseason was the release of Shaun Alexander (2005 MVP ['06-'07 softy]) and the additions of TJ Duckett and Julius Jones. The Seahawks also drafted F.B. Owen Schmitt from West Virginia, T.E. John Carlson from Notre Dame and H.B. Justin Forsett from California. The Hawks signed LG Mike Wahle from Carolina in an attempt to shore up a suspect offensive line. Perhaps the most important move however, was bringing in Mike Solari as the offensive line coach. Bill Lazor (QB's), Kasey Dunn (RB's) and Mike Debord (Asst. O' line).
All of the rookies were in camp on the first day with the exception of John Carlson. His agent must be playing some real hardball with the Hawks since Seattle is hurting so bad at TE. I sure hope he doesn't miss much camp as the offense will be difficult to learn.
Wide Receiver: Bobby Engram was in camp on the first day much to the relief of everyone. Bobby would like to restructure his contract but decided to honor Mike Holmgren and his contract by not holding out. Overall I'd say that receiver is the biggest question mark. Losing DJ Hackett was big, Branch has been very fragile. Burleson and Engram will probably be the starters on opening day. Don't be surprised to see Seneca Wallace work his way in at receiver or slot every once in a while now that Charlie Frye has a year under his belt with Holmgren.
Running Back: will be fun to watch this year. While I wouldn't expect as dominant a running game as in '05, it will be greatly improved over the last two seasons. Jones and Duckett hit the hole hard, and Morris should be running like someone with something to prove. The big sleepers in my estimation are; O. Schmitt (I hope that's what they put on his jersey) and Forsett. Schmitt is a head banging brawler, I believe him to be very similar to Mike Alstott. And Justin Forsett who is simply a play maker. Wouldn't be surprised to see him returning punts and kickoffs.
Quarter Back: Matt (Isn't his NFL Network commercial great) should be an NFC Pro-bowler again. Frye will probably be competing for the two spot with Wallace.
O Line: Jones is getting long in the tooth and is starting to get beat (3-7 times a year). The addition of Wahle should help improve things (as should some running backs who will hit the hole on their feet instead of curling up and falling down). They won't be great like '05, but they will be better than the last two seasons.
7/23/2008
Christian Voter part 2: Abortion
I now come to the seven issues to which there is only 1 legitimate position for a Christian voter. To take the opposite position (through activism, or by placing your vote), would be indicative of a corrupted conscience or a disingenuous spirit of compromising moral truth for the spirit of the age.
Issue #1 Abortion:
What: Abortion - The intentional termination of a pregnancy by direct mechanical means or medicinal means.
Other names: Choice, reproductive choice, womens sexual health, reduction (when there is a pregnancy with multiple babies), emergency contraception, infanticide.
What the Catholic Church officially teaches regarding Abortion:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."
I used here the official teaching of the Catholic Church as defined in the official Catechism. The teaching contained there however is not such that Christians from other ecclesial communities would encounter doctrinal difficulty in embracing it. No Christian can in good conscience support legalized abortion or candidates who; facilitate, embrace, champion, safeguard, or enable legalized abortion.
Politicians who declare that, "I oppose abortion, personally, I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my religious belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on... [someone] who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." are dishonest with themselves and with everyone.
How about if you are an athiest or agnostic politician who opposes abortion?
How about if you are a Muslim politician but your stance against abortion is strictly scientific?
Why isn't a person allowed to use metaphysical philosophy to inform their consience?
Politicians who make statements about "not forcing their religious views..." aren't being truthful. What they really care about is keeping in the good graces of their party and keeping the money rolling in from their special interest groups.
Issue #1 Abortion:
What: Abortion - The intentional termination of a pregnancy by direct mechanical means or medicinal means.
Other names: Choice, reproductive choice, womens sexual health, reduction (when there is a pregnancy with multiple babies), emergency contraception, infanticide.
What the Catholic Church officially teaches regarding Abortion:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."
I used here the official teaching of the Catholic Church as defined in the official Catechism. The teaching contained there however is not such that Christians from other ecclesial communities would encounter doctrinal difficulty in embracing it. No Christian can in good conscience support legalized abortion or candidates who; facilitate, embrace, champion, safeguard, or enable legalized abortion.
Politicians who declare that, "I oppose abortion, personally, I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my religious belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on... [someone] who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." are dishonest with themselves and with everyone.
How about if you are an athiest or agnostic politician who opposes abortion?
How about if you are a Muslim politician but your stance against abortion is strictly scientific?
Why isn't a person allowed to use metaphysical philosophy to inform their consience?
Politicians who make statements about "not forcing their religious views..." aren't being truthful. What they really care about is keeping in the good graces of their party and keeping the money rolling in from their special interest groups.
7/22/2008
Christian Worship vs Christotaintment
I read this story and found it to be rather silly. One of the things that I remember from my sojourn through various Protestant (Evangelical, Main-Line, Fundamentalist) churches was that they focused on the entertainment aspect of the Sunday worship service. Mostly the "Evangelical" and "Fundamentalist" communities, but also the Main-Line (Protestant Churches more than 100 years old) churches to a lesser degree. Contemporary music is a very important aspect of this entertainment. Often times I even found it to be the focus of the service.
Plays and skits were also frequent tools used during the service. Again the focus was on entertaining the people present, while delivering a message.
I think that these type of low, irreverant forms of church services have led to a general lack of "awe", respect, and "fear of the Lord" in American Christianity. What else could account for a T-Shirt line like this...
Now back to the pastor who wrecked his motorcycle in church and broke his wrist. He was going to use the motorcycle to show how we must become one with Christ. I suppose by showing that when you sit on a motorcyle to ride it, you become part of the bike. Whatever, I see the analogy and I think that it could be an effective, albeit silly, way of explaining we must unite ourselves with Christ.
These innovative ways of conducting a church service become necessary when a community is cut off from the Traditions/traditions of Christ's Church. And when a community is cut of from authentic tradition, it necessarily creates it's own traditions. Christ himself prayed for us to have unity (John 17: 20-26), and he put the structure in place for us to be united. Through the hands of the priest, we receive the great gift of the Eucharist. Through this Eucharist, we are able to be united with Christ, his Church, and each other. As St. Paul said in Ephesians; "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all."
Now, the Catholic Church has it's own problems with innovation of the liturgy
The problem with all of these "Christotainment" versions of worship service is this. It makes man the focus of our worship. It makes man the focus of the liturgy. It makes worship and praise horizontal and not vertical.
7/18/2008
Immigration President Bush and the Economy
I think I figured it out. Since President Bush and Congress can't seem to figure out a comprehensive immigration policy they did the next best thing.
They mismanaged the economy such that nobody will want to immigrate.
They mismanaged the economy such that nobody will want to immigrate.
7/17/2008
MLS Soccer player to Catholic Priesthood
I came across this news story and thought I would share it.
You often hear that there is a shortage of vocations to the priesthood. I don't think so however. I think there is a lack of answering the call to a vocation as a priest. Why is there this lack of answering the call? I think there are several reasons, I will give one here.
Parents don't embrace or promote the priesthood for their sons. This is done both directly and indirectly. A subtle way that this lack of support for a vocation to the priesthood is exhibited is in the way parents talk with their children and others about their children's future. Here is an example of a typical conversation between parents and their son.
Mother: "Johnny, when you grow up and have a family of your own, then you'll have the same rules for you your kids"
or
Dad: "Andrew, you need to go to college so that you can have a good job to be able to support your wife and children"
I've heard it thousands of times. There is an underlying assumption that a sons vocation is to the married life. It pervades a persons speech. It generates assumptive language when discussing the future of their children. It isn't a direct hinderance to following a call to the priesthood. But it creates a manner of thinking about the future that excludes the priesthood for young men. This in turn causes young men to reject those thoughts about being a priest when they begin to appear in their conscience because, the only normal thing in all their discussions with family is being a husband and dad.
Whenever I talk with my son, I consciously make a point of including the priesthood as a possible part of his future. Here is an example of my coversation with my son.
ME: "When you grow up and have a parish of people who depend on you, or a wife and kids that depend on you, you'll be glad that I tought you that a person needs to do their chores everyday."
Me: "It's important to learn how to talk with people and to learn how to listen to people because if you have a wife and kids, you need to be able to do those things. And if you are a priest, you have to be able to give people really good advice during confessions or spiritual direction."
I think if people would just make that subtle contextual change in their speech, there would be a dramatic increase in young men following their call to a vocation to the priesthood.
You often hear that there is a shortage of vocations to the priesthood. I don't think so however. I think there is a lack of answering the call to a vocation as a priest. Why is there this lack of answering the call? I think there are several reasons, I will give one here.
Parents don't embrace or promote the priesthood for their sons. This is done both directly and indirectly. A subtle way that this lack of support for a vocation to the priesthood is exhibited is in the way parents talk with their children and others about their children's future. Here is an example of a typical conversation between parents and their son.
Mother: "Johnny, when you grow up and have a family of your own, then you'll have the same rules for you your kids"
or
Dad: "Andrew, you need to go to college so that you can have a good job to be able to support your wife and children"
I've heard it thousands of times. There is an underlying assumption that a sons vocation is to the married life. It pervades a persons speech. It generates assumptive language when discussing the future of their children. It isn't a direct hinderance to following a call to the priesthood. But it creates a manner of thinking about the future that excludes the priesthood for young men. This in turn causes young men to reject those thoughts about being a priest when they begin to appear in their conscience because, the only normal thing in all their discussions with family is being a husband and dad.
Whenever I talk with my son, I consciously make a point of including the priesthood as a possible part of his future. Here is an example of my coversation with my son.
ME: "When you grow up and have a parish of people who depend on you, or a wife and kids that depend on you, you'll be glad that I tought you that a person needs to do their chores everyday."
Me: "It's important to learn how to talk with people and to learn how to listen to people because if you have a wife and kids, you need to be able to do those things. And if you are a priest, you have to be able to give people really good advice during confessions or spiritual direction."
I think if people would just make that subtle contextual change in their speech, there would be a dramatic increase in young men following their call to a vocation to the priesthood.
7/14/2008
World Youth Day
The Pope is in Australia for World Youth Day. I offer my prayers up for this to be a blessed event for everyone. I was reading through several of the news reports off the wire. For the most part the coverage is fairly typical; "The Pope has his questions screened", "...sexual abuse scandal...", "the Pope is old...", "the Pope doesn't hang out with the rest of us in the back of the plane". "the Pope wears red shoes". ad. nauseum...
I think the issue is that people try to fit the Pope, (and with him, the Church) in to a tidy little partisan political box. All other world leaders are of some particular political ideology. But the Pope, to most main stream media, is an enigma. One minute he is defending and promoting the traditional model of marriage being reserved to one women and one man. Then he goes and exhorts people to care for the environment and to fight against global warming. It brings about a type of journalistic schizophrenia. So, they try to ignore the things he says which conflict with their secular philosophical sensibilities (or misrepresent and attack them) and concentrate on shouting out to the world that, "EVEN THE POPE PROMOTES ENVIRONMENTALIST ISSUES".
For jounalists it must be like when Charlie Brown's teacher talked. They hear "blah, blah, blah blah whaah whah", when the issue cuts against their grain. Then they're surprised that the Pope actually gets it right when he is on the same side of an issue as them!
Truthfully I would suggest to everyone that when the Pope and you agree on an issue (specifically one that involves faith and morals), that means that you have somehow come to know the truth. When you and the Pope are on opposite sides, you should rethink your position.
You see, the problem isn't that the Pope teaches that certain things are right and wrong, regardless of public opinion (contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexual relations...). The problem is that all the other "Popes" don't like the real deal. Some creatures can't stand the light!
HABMUS PAPAM!!
I think the issue is that people try to fit the Pope, (and with him, the Church) in to a tidy little partisan political box. All other world leaders are of some particular political ideology. But the Pope, to most main stream media, is an enigma. One minute he is defending and promoting the traditional model of marriage being reserved to one women and one man. Then he goes and exhorts people to care for the environment and to fight against global warming. It brings about a type of journalistic schizophrenia. So, they try to ignore the things he says which conflict with their secular philosophical sensibilities (or misrepresent and attack them) and concentrate on shouting out to the world that, "EVEN THE POPE PROMOTES ENVIRONMENTALIST ISSUES".
For jounalists it must be like when Charlie Brown's teacher talked. They hear "blah, blah, blah blah whaah whah", when the issue cuts against their grain. Then they're surprised that the Pope actually gets it right when he is on the same side of an issue as them!
Truthfully I would suggest to everyone that when the Pope and you agree on an issue (specifically one that involves faith and morals), that means that you have somehow come to know the truth. When you and the Pope are on opposite sides, you should rethink your position.
You see, the problem isn't that the Pope teaches that certain things are right and wrong, regardless of public opinion (contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexual relations...). The problem is that all the other "Popes" don't like the real deal. Some creatures can't stand the light!
HABMUS PAPAM!!
7/13/2008
Christian Voter
Another presidential election is upon us and news stories of the two candidates and their faith frequently find their way on the air and on the page. Typically the "news" centers around polling numbers. How candidate "X" is doing with demographic "Z" and so forth. I feel it's lazy journalism to constantly focus on polling and demographics. I think it leads to a lazy and uninformed electorate. Kind of a "Democracy for Dummies" thing.
"You don't want to study issues and make an informed decision? Just study the polling numbers (statistics) and find out how much support a candidate has from your demographic group(s) and vote along with the majority of them!" What a dumb way to decide how to vote. I think investigating poll numbers has a place in the decision making process, but only so far as it leads you to investigate the issues that are attributed to the numbers revealed by the poll.
In my opinion, political polling is simply an instrument used by the political parties to generate momentum for their candidates with individual demographic groups. The news media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS) use their polling data to influence the election in favor of their favorite candidate.
All that being said... how is a serious Christian supposed to approach this election? I'm not going to get bogged down by declaring what a Christian is or isn't. That's not the focus of this post. I'll let the individual's self identification stand as the yard stick. The focus will be on the candidates stance on issues that afford only one legitimate position based on fundamental human rights and right moral principle. There are issues that afford serious Christians the opportunity to legitimately hold divergent positions such as immigration policy, tax policy, education...
Here is my list of issues that only afford one legitimate position consistent with Cristian faith and morals. In the following weeks I will explain what the one legitimate position is for the Christian voter.
1. Legalized Abortion
2. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
3. Euthanasia ("Mercy Killing, "Assisted Suicide", "Death With Dignity")
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
6. Torture of Prisoners
7. Contraceptive Education
"You don't want to study issues and make an informed decision? Just study the polling numbers (statistics) and find out how much support a candidate has from your demographic group(s) and vote along with the majority of them!" What a dumb way to decide how to vote. I think investigating poll numbers has a place in the decision making process, but only so far as it leads you to investigate the issues that are attributed to the numbers revealed by the poll.
In my opinion, political polling is simply an instrument used by the political parties to generate momentum for their candidates with individual demographic groups. The news media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS) use their polling data to influence the election in favor of their favorite candidate.
All that being said... how is a serious Christian supposed to approach this election? I'm not going to get bogged down by declaring what a Christian is or isn't. That's not the focus of this post. I'll let the individual's self identification stand as the yard stick. The focus will be on the candidates stance on issues that afford only one legitimate position based on fundamental human rights and right moral principle. There are issues that afford serious Christians the opportunity to legitimately hold divergent positions such as immigration policy, tax policy, education...
Here is my list of issues that only afford one legitimate position consistent with Cristian faith and morals. In the following weeks I will explain what the one legitimate position is for the Christian voter.
1. Legalized Abortion
2. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
3. Euthanasia ("Mercy Killing, "Assisted Suicide", "Death With Dignity")
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
6. Torture of Prisoners
7. Contraceptive Education
7/12/2008
Obamabortion
Found this interesting political caricature of the American Secular Messiah Obama "ASMO"It got me wondering how many people actually know what his voting record or interest group rating is on abortion as opposed to his "campaign speak".
7/06/2008
curious
Just wondering.
It seems that during my "time in the desert" as far as posting is concerned that there has been a lot of visitors to "The Antisophist". Not sure why the activity level picked up, so I was wondering if some of you could enlighten me?
It seems that during my "time in the desert" as far as posting is concerned that there has been a lot of visitors to "The Antisophist". Not sure why the activity level picked up, so I was wondering if some of you could enlighten me?
7/02/2008
Done with my break
Well, I just took an eight month break from blogging.
One big thing on my mind is a big change at my Parish. Fr. Freitag, Our pastor of 9 years, was transferred to another parish in the Archdiocese midway through his second term as our pastor. This was to fill a vacancy left at the other parish. His last week with us was at the end of June.
It is a difficult time for myself and my family because the departing pastor was the priest who helped me find my way back to the Catholic Church. His straightforward manner of presenting Catholic beliefs and practices were exactly what my wife (an evangelical Protestant) had been thirsting for since we met. She converted to the Catholic Church along with my oldest daughter, about 9 months after I returned.
I can't help but wonder how things would be different with the Catholic Church in the United States if all the bishops, priests, religious, and Catholic educators would simply present the faith without watering it down to make it more "palatable" or "friendly". It seems as if there exists a great hesitency in being straighforward about the faith. I think it's derived from a false sense of ecumanism, from being so worried about offending or challenging a persons ideas, beliefs, or conscience that people, (cradle Catholics, Protestants, and others) are left with an ignorance regarding what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
To highlight just two of the things my wife learned:
1: Jesus established a Church that was/is both visible and corporate, and entrusted the leadership of that Church with the Apostles. The Apostle Simon was specially called and placed by Christ as the leader of the Apostles and the Church. Simon's name was changed by Jesus to Cephas (Aramaic for rock). This showed that he was blessed and specially annointed by God for his new lifes role (the leader of the Church). No where in scripture does God change someones name without it being a blessing. A name change always indicates a calling, and defines a role that the individual will fill.
Abram to Abraham
Sarai to Sarah
Jacob to Israel
Hosea to Joshua
Simon to Cephas (Peter)
2: The Eucharist IS the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. It isn't a symbol, it isn't somehow both bread & wine and body & blood (as it is for those who want it both ways) the substance of the bread and wine are completely transformed into the substance of Christ. This can only be believed through faith, because our physical senses fail us in discovering this truth. We are called to "...eat the flesh and drink the blood..." of Christ in order to have His life in us.
One big thing on my mind is a big change at my Parish. Fr. Freitag, Our pastor of 9 years, was transferred to another parish in the Archdiocese midway through his second term as our pastor. This was to fill a vacancy left at the other parish. His last week with us was at the end of June.
It is a difficult time for myself and my family because the departing pastor was the priest who helped me find my way back to the Catholic Church. His straightforward manner of presenting Catholic beliefs and practices were exactly what my wife (an evangelical Protestant) had been thirsting for since we met. She converted to the Catholic Church along with my oldest daughter, about 9 months after I returned.
I can't help but wonder how things would be different with the Catholic Church in the United States if all the bishops, priests, religious, and Catholic educators would simply present the faith without watering it down to make it more "palatable" or "friendly". It seems as if there exists a great hesitency in being straighforward about the faith. I think it's derived from a false sense of ecumanism, from being so worried about offending or challenging a persons ideas, beliefs, or conscience that people, (cradle Catholics, Protestants, and others) are left with an ignorance regarding what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
To highlight just two of the things my wife learned:
1: Jesus established a Church that was/is both visible and corporate, and entrusted the leadership of that Church with the Apostles. The Apostle Simon was specially called and placed by Christ as the leader of the Apostles and the Church. Simon's name was changed by Jesus to Cephas (Aramaic for rock). This showed that he was blessed and specially annointed by God for his new lifes role (the leader of the Church). No where in scripture does God change someones name without it being a blessing. A name change always indicates a calling, and defines a role that the individual will fill.
Abram to Abraham
Sarai to Sarah
Jacob to Israel
Hosea to Joshua
Simon to Cephas (Peter)
2: The Eucharist IS the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. It isn't a symbol, it isn't somehow both bread & wine and body & blood (as it is for those who want it both ways) the substance of the bread and wine are completely transformed into the substance of Christ. This can only be believed through faith, because our physical senses fail us in discovering this truth. We are called to "...eat the flesh and drink the blood..." of Christ in order to have His life in us.
Those are only two of the numerous things that my wife had illuminated for her through Fr. Freitag and his RCIA program. Fr. Freitag ensured that everything taught was from, or derived from, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or from Magesterial documents. My wife originally went to the RCIA classes simply to learn what it was that I believed. She didn't feel compelled to convert until about 6 weeks in to the class. This desire to convert came through the conviction of the Holy Spirit after having heard the truth of the Gospel in a faithful RCIA program. If only all RCIA programs told the truth without addition or subtraction based on some persons personal agenda and ulterior motives.
Thank God for good and holy priests such a Fr. Patrick Freitag. We wish him well at his new assignment with St. Monica's Parish on Mercer Island.
10/26/2007
Westboro Baptist Church puts the "dam(n)" in fundamentalist
This Group makes me sick.
Now they have been sued and are in court for attacking a fallen Marine's funeral.
I hope they finally get what's coming to them. Here are some examples of their disgusting version of free speech and freedom of religion.
Now they have been sued and are in court for attacking a fallen Marine's funeral.
I hope they finally get what's coming to them. Here are some examples of their disgusting version of free speech and freedom of religion.
10/24/2007
Pull Your Pants Up!!
I must be officially old. It drives me up the wall when I see guys (and sometimes girls?!?!) with their pants like this.
This is a funny campaign for a city to have to do on a billboard. I can't see this working though. At least Dallas is trying though.
This is a funny campaign for a city to have to do on a billboard. I can't see this working though. At least Dallas is trying though.
10/23/2007
Boxer Blames Bush For Fire Damage
Barbara Boxer, (yes it was difficult just to type her name) blamed President Bush, (watch the John Gibson video here) for the widespread fire damage because there would be twice as many guard troops and equipment to fight the fires if all those guard troops weren't deployed fighting that damn war in Iraq (that she voted FOR!!!).
What a load of crap. I looked into the facts, here they are;
California has somewhere between 21,000 and 25,000 National Guard members.
Currently about 3,000-4,500 of those troops are "deployed".
That's mostly from one unit, the 1st Brigade of the 40th ID.
around 85% of the California guard troops aren't deployed. A logical assumption would be that around 85% of their equipment isn't deployed either, (though you don't use army tanks and howitzers to fight fires).
Barbara Boxer is an ingnoramus attempting to make political hay from a tragic diasaster. What a Neo-Scalawag.
What a load of crap. I looked into the facts, here they are;
California has somewhere between 21,000 and 25,000 National Guard members.
Currently about 3,000-4,500 of those troops are "deployed".
That's mostly from one unit, the 1st Brigade of the 40th ID.
around 85% of the California guard troops aren't deployed. A logical assumption would be that around 85% of their equipment isn't deployed either, (though you don't use army tanks and howitzers to fight fires).
Barbara Boxer is an ingnoramus attempting to make political hay from a tragic diasaster. What a Neo-Scalawag.
Christian Heritage Week
Much to my surprise, governor Chris Gregoire has declared that this week (Oct 21-27) as Christian Heritage Week. The News report on it is o.k. though there is some careful wording at the beginning of the article which establishes some opposition to the idea without coming out and directly opposing it. Here is the text of her proclamation:
WHEREAS, the Declaration of Independence declares that governments are to secure our
creator-endowed unalienable rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness;” and
WHEREAS, our country was founded in part because of the desire of people to have the
freedom to worship as they please;
NOW THEREFORE, I, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of the State of Washington, do
hereby proclaim October 21-27, 2007 as Christian Heritage Week.
I appreciate this effort on behalf of Governor Gregoire.
Here is an example of Christian influence in the settling of Washington State. This was written in 1912. You have to page down to find the specific portion regarding Christian history.
Here are the current demographics of religion in Washington
The religious affiliations of Washington's population are:
Christian – 63%
Protestant – 29%
Lutheran – 6%
Baptist – 6%
Methodist – 4%
Presbyterian – 3%
Other Protestant or general Protestant – 10%
Catholic – 20%
Other Christian – 11%
Latter-day Saint; 3%
Other Religions – 5%
Refused – 6%
No religion – 25%
As with many other Western states, the percentage of Washington's population identifying themselves as "non-religious" is higher than the national average. The percentage of non-religious people in Washington is the highest of any state, and its Christian population is the lowest of any state.
WHEREAS, the Declaration of Independence declares that governments are to secure our
creator-endowed unalienable rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness;” and
WHEREAS, our country was founded in part because of the desire of people to have the
freedom to worship as they please;
NOW THEREFORE, I, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of the State of Washington, do
hereby proclaim October 21-27, 2007 as Christian Heritage Week.
I appreciate this effort on behalf of Governor Gregoire.
Here is an example of Christian influence in the settling of Washington State. This was written in 1912. You have to page down to find the specific portion regarding Christian history.
Here are the current demographics of religion in Washington
The religious affiliations of Washington's population are:
Christian – 63%
Protestant – 29%
Lutheran – 6%
Baptist – 6%
Methodist – 4%
Presbyterian – 3%
Other Protestant or general Protestant – 10%
Catholic – 20%
Other Christian – 11%
Latter-day Saint; 3%
Other Religions – 5%
Refused – 6%
No religion – 25%
As with many other Western states, the percentage of Washington's population identifying themselves as "non-religious" is higher than the national average. The percentage of non-religious people in Washington is the highest of any state, and its Christian population is the lowest of any state.
10/22/2007
All Clear!!
The Troll(s) have been identified. It was only a drill. It was good practice in the case of an actual Troll sighting or infestation. Let's go over the procedures again
1. identify the Troll(s) [they often work in pairs or groups, like wolfpacks]
2. give the Troll(s) a warning
3. begin shoveling up their feces [offensive posts]
4. enact security measures [turn on the comment approval button]
Thanks for the training to you Troll simulators.
reader comments will now be posted without delay.
1. identify the Troll(s) [they often work in pairs or groups, like wolfpacks]
2. give the Troll(s) a warning
3. begin shoveling up their feces [offensive posts]
4. enact security measures [turn on the comment approval button]
Thanks for the training to you Troll simulators.
reader comments will now be posted without delay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
