You gotta be kidding me

Tonight I heard a new ad against President Bush, this one starring Edie Falco of "The Sopranos" fame. The ad is from MOB -- Mothers Opposing Bush. Yes, I'm serious.

Ms. Falco makes a handful of criticisms against the President, all of them around the theme that he has failed our families and our children, and hence should be opposed by all mothers. Or something.

One of her complaints is that our schools are failing our children. This has got to be the most disingenuous of all the charges, considering the the Leave No Child Behind Act has sunk billions upon billions of dollars into public education.

But that doesn't matter. The important thing is to make people think that the President cares neither for our children nor for their education. In other words, to make people afraid.

And I thought that only Republicans used the politics of fear.

C'mon, Tom...

The other night I saw Senator Daschle's latest ad, in which he criticizes his opponent, John Thune, for running a negative ad which claims -- among other things -- that Daschle supported gas tax increases, when he did no such thing.

Small problem.

Thune didn't run the ad.

And Daschle did support gas tax increases.

Go here for more.

And while you're at it, visit www.DumpDaschle.com.

The Anglican Church and Theology

Interesting column by George Weigel on the apparent tendency to avoid theology by higher prelates in the Anglican Church. One quote:

Dr. Rowan Williams is a formidable and well-regarded theologian. Whether he can convince his fellow bishops of the Anglican Communion to think theologically, rather than sociologically and politically, about central questions of Christian doctrine and Church order would seem to be one of his challenges.

New site:

www.Ra^thergate.com

Speaking of oil...

as I was in the last post, many people continue to believe that the US invaded Iraq last year for its oil, and that opposition to the war from France was motivated by peace-loving intentions.

Guess again. (Shorter summary here.)

Oil did play a role in the diplomatic war leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, but not in the way a lot of people think.

Human Rights

Last week, Tacitus of Redstate wrote a post entitled A Lonely Beacon, detailing how the US government has declared that the violence in Sudan constitutes genocide.

While Europe dithers (refusing to call it genocide, because, as Instapundit notes, "Because if it were, you know, we [the EU] would have to do something about it"), the Arab League refused to get involved (rejecting sanctions and international intervention), and the UN does little, it is the US and its President, George W. Bush, that calls a spade a spade (again) and seek action against this ongoing, current genocide.

How will our allies in Europe (that's more than France & Germany, Senator Kerry) and elsewhere respond? Will they refuse to get involved? In the case of France, I wonder why (do a Find for oil).

Update: there was a rally for the genocide today in Washington; check out some pictures of the event here, including the one of the sign headlined, "Thank You President Bush For Your Leadership".

New MS Office program

Jeff Miller discusses the latest offering in the Microsoft Office line of software: MS Forger.

As he says, "if you are a Kerry campaign operative or a CBS intern then this is the program for you."

Ra^thergate

By now, most of you have probably heard about Rathergate.

The other night, Dan Rather broke a story on 60 Minutes II, revealing newly-discovered military records indicating that certain aspects of President Bush's Air National Guard service weren't as he claimed. In other words, he lied.

Thanks to the blogosphere, however, (especially the guys at Powerline) serious questions have been raised regarding the authenticity of these records, with many people claiming that they are clearly forgeries (see this post for a summary). The story was picked up last night by the mainstream media, and there have been a number of articles on this today, including the AP, Washington Post, and ABC. Apparently, the conventional wisdom among the major media outlets at this point is that these documents are, in fact, forgeries.

Dan Rather, however, is sticking by the story. Hence, the name being bandied about by some regarding this... Rathergate.

Interestingly, Rather will not be anchoring CBS News tonight... you can see his sub here. (Update: fixed the link to the pic of Dan's sub.)

Confrontation

From the AP the other day: Ministers confront lawmakers on gay marriage: Black clegy have heated exchange with member of the Black Caucus.

See also the Worldnet Daily story, "Black caucus ignores black clergy".

And Focus on the Family also discussed it: "African-American Pastors Stand Up to Lawmakers on Marriage".

Un amico di Roma

Early this morning, I got a comment from a friend I got to know in Rome. It turns out he has his own blog.

Go check out Chateau du Meau!

Global poll

As many of you have heard, a recent poll indicated that were all the people of the world able to vote in this falls US presidential election, Senator John Kerry would win in a landslide.

Since things aren't looking good for Mr. Kerry at the present, I have an idea that might make everyone happy: the American people, the people of the world, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Bush:

President Bush can be re-elected, and Senator Kerry can run for Secretary-General of the United Nations.

What do you think?

Who Should President Bush thank? Warren Burger

Why? Because if it weren't for the infamous decision of Mr. Burger's court handed down in 1973 -- Roe v. Wade -- it overwhelming likelihood is that Al Gore would have won Florida and hence the Presidency in 2000. And the same realities are bound to impact this November's election, although events right now (which, it must of course be said, hardly guarantee what they will be in early November0 indicate that things won't be 2000-close.

Nonetheless, it remains true that from a purely realpolitik perspective, abortion has been harder on Democrats than Republicans (NB: abortion is, of course, hardest on its victims: the child that is killed and the woman that is victimized, even if the victimization is consensual). What's my evidence for that claim? Exhibit A has to be an article which many of you readers are already familiar: Larry Eastland's article, "The Empty Cradle Will Rock," which appeared at OpinionJournal in June. Mr. Eastland crunches the numbers, and concludes that were abortion illegal, Al Gore probably would have won Florida by some 45,000 votes.

A number of Mr. Eastland's conclusions are worth citing directly:

Abortion has caused missing Democrats--and missing liberals. For advocates so fundamentally committed to changing the face of conservative America, liberals have been remarkably blind to the fact that every day the abortions they advocate dramatically decrease their power to do so. Imagine the number of followers that their abortion policies eliminate who, over the next several decades, would have emerged as the new liberal thinkers, voters, adherents, fund-raisers and workers for their cause.

• Six out of 10 Americans call themselves conservatives. Only a quarter of them are having abortions.

• A little more than one-third of Americans call themselves liberals. More than four in 10 are having abortions.

• This means that liberals are having one third more abortions than conservatives.

As liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and supporters through events, fund-raisers, direct mail and every other form of communication available, they achieve results minuscule in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from their own abortion policies. It is a grim irony lost on them, for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.

A similar argument is advanced by scholar Phillip Longman, author of the recently-released book, "The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It." In an article for the Washington Post, Longman argues that conservatives (i.e. Bush supporters) are having considerably more kids than Gore/Kerry supporters, and considering that the majority of people tend to follow the political persuasions of their parents, this clearly does not bode well for Democrats. Longman concludes his article,

If Gore's America (and presumably John Kerry's) is reproducing at a slower pace than Bush's America, what does this imply for the future? Well, as the comedian Dick Cavett remarked, "If your parents never had children, chances are you won't either." When secular-minded Americans decide to have few if any children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide. Sure, some children who grow up in fundamentalist families will become secularists, and vice versa. But most people, particularly if they have children, wind up with pretty much the same religious and political orientations as their parents. If "Metros" don't start having more children, America's future is "Retro."

Ouch.

I strongly believe that we need two viable political parties in our country. Perhaps after the Democrats finish aborting themselves out of existence (unless Democrats for Life can make some headway in their party), a new party -- also pro-life -- can be formed out of the debris, which would balance those elements of the GOP which are less than palatable to the Catholic worldview.

It would be easier if Democrats woke up and remembered that they champion themselves as the party that stands up for the oppressed and defends the defenseless and started advocating the respect of all humans' rights, including both mothers and their children. Unfortunately, the odds of that happening are currently slim to none.

Too bad.

A couple anecdotal letters...

from The Corner.

First:

I am a northeast Pennsylvania resident who also happens to work up the road from the stadium where Bush made his first post-convention appearance.

As expected, security was tight, traffic was a nightmare, and those of us who had to work had to find ways to get around it. To make it possible I left for work at 5 am this morning. Since we're a bank operations center, I just didn't have the option of saying "another day, time to play hooky."

Groggy and tired, I arrived at the location at 5:45 and was amazed to see the traffic already backing up. The poor officers who arrived at 4:30 am to handle a Presidential appearance at 9:15 were smiling and waving us on. The organization as they tried to route those of us who had to get to work and at the same time direct those who were determined to get to the stadium was difficult, impossible at times, but well-done and determined.

And I found I was astonished. The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area is a renowned Democratic stronghold, run by a political machine that's been in place for decades. Where did all these Republicans come from? How did they fill every one of the 18,000 seats they could? Why would 18,000 people (and more if they could have) come out in the pre-dawn darkness to hear a speech? Why did students from the University of Scranton arrive at the airport at 12:30 this morning to greet the President and First Lady and show their support? Why did even more crowds see him off at the airport this morning - unable to get to the stadium but needing to cheer him on?

Why did the total number of protestors at the stadium, in this Democratic town, number 3 whole people? Even the newspapers seem incredulous.

And then it occurred to me. There's a base of support that's farther and wider then realized. That people are quietly supporting Bush, keeping to themselves because they're unwilling to find themselves a part of the vitriolic smear and attack debates launched by those who hate him. That they walk away from political argument because you can't talk to someone who rants, but their silence doesn't mean agreement.

Second

I'm writing for the first time to the Corner because this post gave me the chills. I'm a student at NYU, one of the most liberal strongholds in one of the most liberal cities in the country. I have experienced several similar occurrances over the past year, and am continually amazed at the level of quiet support for Bush. Although nearly every single political gathering at NYU has a drastically liberal slant, there are more members of the College Republicans than College Democrats. Although our students lead protests and participate in die-ins, there are invariably twice as many people quietly disgusted with their actions than vocally supporting them. Volunteering at the convention, I spoke with numerous police officers, one of whom spelled it out for me very succinctly. "I'm 16 hours deep in a 20 hour shift, and I spent the first half of it being harassed, cursed at, and attacked by protesters over on Eighth Ave. One of them bit me on my hand, so I got sent back here to wat ch over the delegates for the second half of my shift. Since I showed up, I've gotten nothing but smiles, thank yous, and salutes from these delegates. One of my friends just offered to relieve me, but I told him I didn't mind staying around for a while longer. I voted for Gore last time, and Clinton before him, but I'm voting for Bush this time, without a doubt." Hearing that made up for all of the vitriol I've had to deal with being a Conservative at NYU.

Not polls. Just interesting.

Template update

As you can see, I've updated the color scheme of my blog. I'd wanted to do so for some time, but don't possess the html know-how for the changes I want.

Fortunately, Jeff Miller, The Curt Jester, does.

Thanks again, Jeff!

Oops

The Kerry campaign should have vetted the city they made as their latest Ohio stop a bit more. I'm referring to Steubenville, on the banks of the Ohio river across from West Virginia. Steubenville is a steel town, and that and other reasons make it seem to be a good Kerry stronghold.

But that's not the case.

Thanks to Franciscan University of Steubenville (someone's alma mater ;-) and to a fairly strong diocese, the Catholic population of the area (which makes up a good chunk of the entire populace) is pretty solid, being especially pro-life on the abortion issue.

I don't think the Kerry campaign realized this, because they had kn0wn, they probably wouldn't have come.

Here's an email sent to Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online explaining how things went:

John Kerry came to Steubenville yesterday and quickly realized he was in the wrong city. Steubenville is a city where there are 6 Democrats for every 1 Republican, and the Steelworkers unions are alive and active. You would think this was solid John Kerry territory. The mob used to control Steubenville and now the unions think they do. Well, they are wrong.

The Kerry campaign first scheduled a visit to Steubenville two weeks ago but "scheduling conflicts" came up at the last minute. Oh, and did I mention that Kerry wanted to use a local gun range as a campaign stop, but the owner turned him down? And that the Fire Department Union President told the Kerry campaign that not only would he not organize the union to support Kerry at the rally, but that he was supporting President Bush! The Kerry campaign took for granted that this area was sown up. Mistake number one. So they rescheduled the campaign trip when Franciscan University was back in session. Mistake number two.

Before Kerry arrived there was a huge pro-life march led by Franciscan University students, 500 strong. "You can't be Catholic and pro-abortion", read some of their signs. Students and members of local Catholic parishes were full of energy and FoxNews reported that this was the largest protest against Kerry outside of the Democratic Convention. Just picture 500 pro-lifers marching from their college campus to meet Kerry. Where else but in Steubenville, Ohio! Though the Franciscan University did not organize the event, it is well known for its orthodox Catholic education which encourages students to put their faith into action. These students simply cherish their Catholic faith and could not stand to let Kerry use their faith as a political prop. I am proud of my alma mater.

….The Kerry campaign not only made a mistake in their timing, but they also chose to hold the rally in a public park which should be open to all the public. Mistake number three. The police chief, sheriff, and mayor all agreed with me that protesters and their signs would be allowed inside the Kerry rally site. Freedom of speech is alive and well here in Ohio. The Kerry campaign flipped out!

So, now add another 500 local Bush supporters to the Kerry rally. They tried to turn up the music but they could not drown us out. According to the Herald Star (local press), "The crowd, estimated by officials as 3,500 strong, was almost split in half with people for and against the Massachusetts senator." John Kerry must know he has a problem when over 15% of his audience was booing him. We were respectful and did not heckle him - but upon arrival and when he sought our applause he got something he didn't expect. As the press arrived a feisty nine year old little girl began shouting, "We want Bush!", and we all chanted along. The campaign staff was beside themselves. This is history in the making! Even places like Steubenville are not supporting John Kerry. He is in serious trouble.

My friends, John Kerry will not be coming back to Steubenville. Kerry was visibly shaken when he received boos from the audience.....

I'm not surprised.

Update: more on Kerry's Steubenville reception at Redstate here.

Bush's speech

I suppose I ought to say a word or two about last night's speech.

Like many others, I thought the first half was a bit too laundry list-ish, but that the second half was outstanding. I think he clearly laid out his rationale for going to war, and even though you might disagree, I don't see how anyone could accuse him of rushing into the war.

Relatedly, I think any honest observer who watched him speak about meeting wounded soldiers and the families of soldiers who gave their lives in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can possibly say that he acted in anything but good faith. Look at the man! He's a decent man! Don't tell me that he's a cold-hearted liar who just wants to line the pockets of his oil buddies... he did what he had to because he believed it was necessary for the security of our nation. You can think he was wrong, but there's no way you can honestly tell me that he acted dishonestly.

Among the many reactions, I'd like to note that of the Vodkapundit, Stephen Green, a libertarian blogger with whom I don't share a lot in common, in terms of worldview. But I think he's reaction is spot on in many ways, and I want to quote part of it:

There was no overriding theme to President Bush’s speech, except for the unspoken one: “This is who I am.” No, wait -- let me amend that. The unspoken theme was, “This is who we are.” As Americans.

For all its faults, for all its overtly- and overly-religious tones, this small-l libertarian prefers George Bush’s America to John Kerry’s. I don’t care for NASCAR. I’m not much for country music, Sundays at church, blue-eyed soul, or faith-based initiatives.

But Bush made me feel welcome all the same. No, wait – let me amend that statement, too. Bush made me feel like his place is somewhere I’d like to spend some time and get to know the locals. You know -- down a few beers, chat up the natives and learn their quaint customs.

I don’t feel as welcome, as at home, in the America Kerry painted for us tonight.

I’ll repeat something I said earlier.

Forget the war. Forget policy. Forget everything but two men who want something from me. Kerry could never have joked about the way he walks – or made any other joke at his own expense. Bush can, and did. That's a guy comfortable in his own skin, and that's a guy I'd give something to, before the other guy. I'm pretty sure a lot of people recognize that, even if only instinctively. In other words, my gut tells me to vote for Bush.

My brain does, too.

Bush was apparently clueless and driftless for much of his adult life, until he was 40. I think that when he woke up, he wanted to make up for his time and serve, and I think that's a big part of what led him to seek the presidency, including his second term.

He's got my vote, now more than ever.

This tops the cake

President Bush made a stop in West Allis, Wisconsin today, and when speaking at a rally, he informed the crowd that he'd just heard that former President Clinton was in the hospital for heart surgery. He said that Clinton was in their thoughts and prayers, and according to an AP story on the event, "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them."

Okay, I'm not Clinton fan, but that's a pretty cold-hearted, callous reaction.

There just one thing...

It didn't happen.

The audience didn't boo. Bush didn't fail to stop them from doing so.

In fact, their audible reaction was one of surprise and dismay.

Don't believe me? You can hear a soundbite of Bush's words and the crowd's reaction here.

So, how are we to interpret the quote I offered above? Is there any explanation, other than that it was a bald-faced lie? How could the reporter who penned the report possibly explain the reaction in that manner in good faith?

This is unbelievable.

For all of you who don't think there is a liberal bias in the media, here's your example.

You know what makes this all the more interesting? The AP corrected the story and removed the quote above. Later, they offered another version of the story, telling us that "the crowd reacted with applause and with some "ooohs," apparently surprised by the news that Clinton was ill."

You don't say?

Yet the AP failed to give an account for the first version and its lie, let alone apologize.

There needs to be an accounting for this. Someone's butt has to be fired. (Any liberals who read this... don't bother trying to compare this to Bush's WMD "lies". We both know that there is a difference between a mistake and a lie, so don't even think about it.)

For more on this, go here, here, and/or here.

I almost caved

I came this close to commenting again at The Village Gate today... I had a subject and first sentence typed before I stopped myself.

What prompted my almost-off-the-wagon episode? This line by another commenter:

the Christian Right is pursuing a fear-based and extremist socio-political agenda that they're attempting to put a veneer of respectability on by cloaking it in religion.

Questions:

Who exactly constitutes "the Christian Right"?

What exactly is a fear-based agenda?

What exactly is an extremist agenda?

Whatever those things are, they must be very, very bad; how does cloaking them in religion make them respectable?

Do words mean anything anymore?

Good points

Jonah Goldberg makes some good points about Kerry, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War, points that he (and I) think Bush et al should be making.

For instance...

Kerry opposed the Iraq War because the right nations (i.e. France & Germany) weren't in our coalition. But both of them and everyone else Kerry loves supported the Gulf War.

Kerry voted against it anyway.

Kerry opposed the Iraq War because the UN didn't give final approval. Bush 41 got that approval from the UN for the Gulf War.

Kerry voted against it anyway.

As Zell put it tonight:

Against,

Against,

Against.

Cheney & Halliburton

VP Dick Cheney, of course, has become the veritable lightning-rod for controversy over the past couple of years. Michael Moore and his fellow unhinged liberals (no, the last two words are not redundant... cf. Zell Miller, for instance ;-) believe that the whole Iraq war was fought to line the pockets of Bush, Cheney, and all their fat cat friends (remember, Kerry is a poor rich guy), Cheney's former company, Halliburton, being Public Enemy Number One.

There's a little problem, though. It appears that the perception of Moore et al and reality don't quite match up (surprised?), which is another way of saying that their perception is not true. Why do I say that? Because between late 2000 and November of 2003 (several months after the cessation of major combat ops in Iraq), Halliburton's share value dropped by more than a third. (See Niall Ferguson's Colossus.)

As C+C Music Factory might have said, this is one those "things that make you go hmmm."

(Hat tip: John Hillen.)

RNC tonight

Wow! Zell Miller! He didn't hold back, did he? (Well, actually he did, thanks to some of the "bigwigs" running the convention... see here.)

And Cheney was solid, as always.

But I think I loved the crowd most of all... how about the "flip-flop!" chants during Cheney's speech! Amazing!

In the post-speech surf to see what the Web is saying, I came across some excerpts of the big liberal bloggers' responses. It occurred to me... whoever wins this race, there is going to be a lot of ink handy for that guy's bloggers to rub in the face of the loser's bloggers. Kos, for instance, who apparently sees no way for Miller's speech to bring votes to Bush. I strongly disagree, and either way, our words will always be available. (Unless, of course, Kos decides to try to wipe his words out of the internet, which he's done before.)

Ciao.

It's up and ready!

As promised, the audio of Bishop Carlson's presentation is now available online.

Go to the website of the Diocese of Sioux Falls and click on "Theology on Tap", right underneath the image of the Church. It will open a new window, with all of the presentations currently available. Click on "Bishop Carlson: 'Faith & Politics'", and enjoy!

Protesters' chants and signs

I love these.

"Billions for the war, still nothing for the poor."

"Racist, sexists, anti-gay R-N-C, go away."

(Found here.)

"Five, six, seven, eight, we don't want your police state!"

(Found here.)

Let me try...

Two, four, six, eight... why don't you try and use your brain and drop the unhinged rhetoric before you make yourself look even more foolish (if that's possible).

Yeah, it doesn't rhyme, but hey! it makes my point.

Why I left

If you want to see an example of why I stopped commenting at The Village Gate (or at least one of the reasons), go read the first comment to this post.

The author, Edward Batchelor of NYC, offers his thoughts and observations regarding the anti-Bush protests in NYC:

I live in NYC and attended the protest march on Sunday. It was quite peaceful, although the anger at this regime was very palpable. Although I have not had conversations with delegates, I have watched debates between protesters and delegates (most of whom are fundamentalist 'christians'). Unfortuntaly, this segment of the American population live in a false bubble reality. They are incapable of logical, reasoned debate. You can throw volumns of facts at them and they will disregard it completely. This is most evident in the platform that was ratified by the delegates yesterday. The media have predictably not reported on the platform. If they did, the republicans attempt to portray themselves are moderate and middle of the road would be destroyed. The current platform is virulently homophobic, anti-woman, and anti-family. It seeks to make permanent the tax cuts on the lower classes and would permanently encourage the laisez-faire capitalism of the big interest oil companies and exploitative employment practices of companies such as Walmart. All...all this is done in the name of "compassionate christian conservatism."

The reality is should the Bush regime re-elected, we will be traveling further down the road of religious fascism supporting a multi-national corporate feudal culture. Any ideas on how we stop this? I fear it is too late...this began in the late 60's under Nixon and Kissinger, continued through the Reagan era when Reagan engaged the religious fascists as foot soldiers. It is my opinion that 9/11 was the opportunity and justifnation for corporate interests to use fear and the commodification of religion to silence dissent and justify their "war on terror."

I would love to hear comments and critiques!

Where to begin?

First, we have the standard reference to "this regime". Oy veh.

He then describes the segment of the American population which lives "in a false bubble reality. They are incapable of logical, reasoned debate. You can throw volumns of facts at them and they will disregard it completely." I think he's referring to the delegates, but it really applies more aptly to the protesters. They are, after all, the ones who support solidarity with the Iraq resistance (see the post from yesterday). They are the ones whose style of argumentation is to walk up to a counterprotester, extend their middle finger, and stand there with a smirk on their face... what a display of "logical, reasoned debate" (see this).

Then, we get to the Republican party platform, of which the mainstream media has been silent.

Apparently, Mr. Batchelor doesn't read his city's own paper, the NYTimes, because they ran a story today on the platform, entitled, "Social Conservatives Wield Influence on Platform".

He then lists the standard ad hominem mantras against the platform: virulently homophobic, anti-woman, and anti-family. Mr. Batchelor apparently has no idea what these words mean. Either that, or he has no idea what the Republican views on them are. What we have here is standard, overheated, disconnected-from-reality rhetoric and polemics. Nothing else.

And, of course, when President Bush is reelected, we will be even further propelled down the road of "religious fascism supporting a multi-national corporate feudal culture."

Wow. Wow. (Once more....) Wow.

Does Mr. Batchelor have a clue as to the nature of fascism? Obviously not. If he did, he'd know that there is no way to say that we are anywhere near a "religious fascism" in this nation. Tell me, Mr. Batchelor, are you prevented from free exercise of your religion? Has any religious practice been outlawed under Bush? Are you being compelled to attend "fundamentalist Christian" religious services? What a buch of crap.

Oh, and then we close with, " I would love to hear comments and critiques!"

Sure you would, Mr. Batchelor. But only from those who already agree with you. Because we all know that any attempt to engage you from the other side will only be met with complaints of illogic and fascism.

Last night, John McCain (with whom I have little in common) said,

My friends, we are again met on the field of political competition with our fellow countrymen. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis we have these contests, and engage in spirited disagreement over the shape and course of our government. We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, and promote the general welfare. But it should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause, and in the goodness of each other. We are Americans first, Americans last, Americans always. Let us argue our differences. But remember we are not enemies.

You hear that, Mr. Batchelor?

Oh, one more thing... those "peaceful" protests? They aren't the only ones: "When marchers approached the Garden, a police detective was knocked off his scooter. He was then repeatedly kicked and punched in the head by at least one male demonstrator." (See this, too.)

I welcome real discussion with anyone. But please... don't pretend to be open to an honest, civil discourse, when it's clear that you have no interest in doing so.

Those in Ascendancy (in one party)

So some of the guys at Redstate are in NY this week to cover the Republican National Convention.

Today, rather than listen to a series of one-minute speeches, Tacitus decided to check out one of the protests going on today. He took his digital camera along with him, and... well... go take a look. You'll find signs expressing "Solidarity with the Iraqi Resistance", among other things.

Sad.

James Carroll

A couple of weeks ago, I stopped commenting at liberal Christian blog, The Village Gate, for a number of reasons. However, I regularly stop by, just to see where things are moving there.

Recently, Dale blogged on James Carroll, the Boston Globe columnist and former priest. Dale is a fan of Carroll's, considering his book Constantine's Sword "a monumental work of history, theology, personal reflection and hope for what Christianity might become."

It's unfortunate that Carroll's book has this much sway, over anyone. A number of reviewers have pointed out the serious errors and fallacies in Carroll's work. One such review is that by Robert Lockwood. Unfortunately, due to the fact that Mr. Lockwood would be described by some as a conservative Catholic, his review is often rejected out of hand by some.

Fortunately, we also have a review from America Magazine (no conservative journal, that) by Eugene Fischer (never identified as a "conservative Catholic"). If you want a solid review of Carroll's book which points out some of his most serious errors, and need one penned by a "non-conservative Catholic," this is it.

I can't believe this

Did you hear about Kerry's recent comments in Florida regarding Castro?

According to this newspaper report, Kerry said he's pretty tough on the Cuban dictator, noting that eight years ago, "I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

But as the journalist who wrote the story noted, there's a tiny little problem: Kerry voted against the legislation.

Let's pick up the reporter at this point:

Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.

Ah! So he voted for it before he voted against it!

Sound familiar?


(Hat tip: Andrew Stuttaford)

Hey

If politics is your thing, and conservative thought is it in particular, make sure you're reading Redstate regularly.

Sharp, sharp folks over there, with quality, substantive posts.

Where Was I Again?

Apparently, Senator Kerry has a hard time remembering where he was in 1968.

According to his campaign's website, he was deployed to the Western Pacific in February of that year, but didn't report for duty in Vietnam until November.

But when giving a speech on Martin Luther King Day last year (2003), he said,

I remember well April, 1968 - I was serving in Vietnam -- a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home - and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of [Dr. King].

You remember it well, Senator?

"Idiot Americans"

Canadian MP Carolyn Parrish today referred to Americans as "idiots."

You can send her a comment here, and her email can be found here.

First Draft

The first draft of the script of the 1987 film The Princess Bride was recently discovered. It's notable for some subtle yet significant changes in some of the dialogues.

For instance, during the "battle of wits" between the Sicilian Vizzini and the Dread Pirate Roberts/Westley, one of the more well-known exchanges is the following:

Vizzini: Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?

Westley: Yes.

Vizzini: Morons.


Apparently, the original draft had three other morons listed: Deech, Bob, and Dan. But due to the fact that no one has any clue who these three morons are, the writers went with some more well-known folks.

No Instant Replay

Okay, this post is a bit off-topic from the other recent ones...

Paul Hamm won the gold medal in the all-around gymnastics event in Athens last week. Because of a judging error, it appears that a Korean should have won it. The error has been acknowledged, and the Koreans want at least a second gold awarded to their guy, or have Hamm's taken and awarded to the "real" winner.

No way.

First, it has been made (crystal) clear that you need to lodge a protest before the next event begins, which the Koreans failed to do. Hence, they cannot challenge the outcome, as has been reiterated numerous times.

But more importantly, if we're going to review the tape for the start value (the points in dispute), then the rest of the routine should also be reviewed. And what happens then? Well, we discover that the Korean committed four holds, one more than allowed, but the judges missed it. If that error is also taken into account, Hamm still wins the gold.

So there you go. Hamm won the gold, and he should keep it.

Fiscal Discipline?

John Kerry promises to return fiscal discipline to the White House, where deficits will be a thing of the past.

Exactly how he plans to do so is a bit of a mystery, considering the price of all the programs he's promising in order to bribe win voters to his side.

Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has analyzed Kerry's economic proposals, and summarizes his findings as follows:

Our best estimate is that Kerry's proposals will add up to between $2 trillion and $2.1 trillion over the next ten years. Since the revenue from his tax proposals relative to the current baseline is actually negative, this implies that the Kerry proposal would increase the deficit by perhaps as much as $2.5 trillion over the next ten years. ...

While making all of these promises, Kerry and his surrogates repeatedly have made the claim that they will restore fiscal discipline if elected. They have also promised to adopt a "pay as you go" rule that will guarantee deficit reductions. But they do this at the same time that they promise voters the moon and the stars. It is time for them to state exactly which of Senator Kerry's promises are no longer valid, or stop all of the warm and fuzzy embraces of deficit reduction. They cannot have it both ways.

Of course, Kerry supported deficits before he opposed them, but is willing to reconsider is supportive opposition, considering the complexities of the situation.

Exxxxxxcellentttttt!

An Instapundit reader writes,

Bush is bringing our troops home from Germany because he realizes American-style democracy will never succeed there. After freeing the German people from a brutal dictatorship and protecting them from Soviet tyranny for almost fifty years, Bush is finally willing to admit that Germans aren't capable of contributing to the security and prosperity of the world.

Now, I have to admit, I think that Germany is far less intransigent than France, and that were the leadership in the country different, the comment wouldn't apply.

But as it is, it does.

Can You Deceipher This?

I forgot about this... in a debate last September among those seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, John Kerry said,

'If we hadn't voted the way we voted, we would not have been able to have a chance of going to the United Nations and stopping the president, in effect, who already had the votes and who was obviously asking serious questions about whether or not the Congress was going to be there to enforce the effort to create a threat.

Huh? As Christopher Hitchens said in a recent article, "And all smart people know how to laugh at President Bush for having problems with articulation."

Hitchens also made the following observation:

Actually, when Kerry sneered at ''the coalition of the willing'' as ''a coalition of the coerced and the bribed,'' at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, no less, he was much more direct and intelligible. Yet I somehow doubt that he would repeat those clear, unmistakable words if confronted by the prime ministers of Britain, Poland or Australia. And how such an expression is likely to help restore America's standing is beyond this reviewer.

This all comes from a Redstate post by Pejman Yousefzadeh, who posits that "John Kerry didn't so much woo voters as he became the lucky beneficiary of Howard Dean's implosion, and Dick Gephardt's lack of popularity with the Democratic base. Kerry caused Democratic primary voters to settle for him."

More bad news...

We now have a Vatican hierarchy who prays with pagans, promotes voodooism, and encourages the world's religions to pray to their false gods for world peace; who gives cushy jobs to known pedophile protectors; who fails to rid the seminaries, chanceries and universities of homosexuals; who fails to discipline heretical and immoral prelates; who allows communion to be given to pro-abort politicians; who teach that the Jews have their own covenant with God and need not convert to Christianity for salvation; who teach that most, if not everyone, will be saved; who sign joint statements with Protestants that say "justification is by faith alone"; who allow production of Catholic bibles (NAB) and commentaries (NJBC) that question or deny major tenets of the Catholic faith; who teach that Scripture is rife with historical errors; who has consistently refused to consecrate Russia as Our Lady requested in 1929 and has never completely released the Third Secret of Fatima; who has watered-down the Mass to conform to Protestant sensibilities; who has weakened the wording of certain sacraments; who says that the consecration formula is not necessary to confect the Eucharist; who allow women to act like priests and hold positions of high authority in dioceses and universities; who teach our children that they descended from apes; who excommunicate and chastise those who want to remain faithful to the Church's traditions; who say that the United Nations (which promotes abortion, population control, contraception, euthanasia, and many other moral atrocities) is "the best hope of mankind"; who, instead of recognizing its own voluminous faults, makes profuse apologies for the actions of past popes and saints. The list goes on and on.

From Bob Sungenis.

After documenting these evidences of the collapse of the Catholic Church [sic], Bob recites the now-standard list of the decrease in vocations to religious and priestly life since Vatican II and the mass exodus from both as well.

Once again, coincidence does not prove causation... that these things occurred after Vatican II is not proof that Vatican II was the cause of them.

The reality of the other things in Mr. Sungenis' litany is also not quite what he portrays them to be. But I'll leave it to others to undertake that demonstration... I just wanted to present where he's going/gone (sadly).

Pray for Bob and those others who seem on the verge of despair... pray that their hope (and ours) is strengthened.

Briefly

Hi all.

Baby Burgy is keeping me busy, as you might expect, and thus posts have been very few and far between.

For the moment, a few things.

First, I invite you all to read a recent letter by the bishop of Sioux Falls, SD (my bishop and my boss), Robert Carlson, on Catholicism, abortion, and voting. You can find it here. Relatedly, Bishop Carlson will be giving this fall's first Sioux Falls Theology on Tap presentation on August 27th, and appropriately, the topic is faith and politics. Within a couple of weeks after that date, his presentation and responses to questions will be available at the diocesan website, here.

On another note, there's a new conservative website/blog that I encourage you all to read, and if you so desire, join. It's called Redstate.

Recently, I've been discussing the question of Bush lies [sic] at The Village Gate, and haven't really gotten anywhere, at least with my primary interlocutor. Go to these comments and scroll down to the comment titled, "an opportunity" by yours truly. The next comment which addresses the lies question is down a bit farther, so scroll down to the comment, "Bush lied," and go from there.

Today, John Kerry said that he would have authorized the use of force against Iraq, even if he'd known that there were no WMDs. He said, Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively, which means that he would have gotten more countries involved in the war. Relatedly, Kerry recently said that he'd seek to internationalize the force in Iraq, with the goal of bringing our troops home by next August. But as tacitus of Redstate notes, The purported allies are balking. France, Germany, and Russia all now explicitly deny that they would send any troops to Iraq as a favor to President John Kerry. The British quietly demur. The Saudis can't put a force together. And the Iraqis themselves don't want a different foreign force package than the one they've got right now. One wonders how Kerry plans to magically persuade these nations to send troops, when they've made it abundantly clear that they will do no such thing. (I'd also recommend this story by JayReding and this one by John Cole.)

Okay, that's it for now. More when I'm able :-)

Baby Burgy!

Baby Burgy was born yesterday, I'm happy to report (although everyone who knew she was coming probably already knows that she arrived).

Mom and the baby are fine, but continued prayers are more than welcome for their health.

Rest in peace...

The state funeral for Ronald Wilson Reagan is today. Take a moment and say a prayer for the repose of his soul.

One of the most powerful things I've read about him this week (and there's been plenty to read) is from this article at NRO, discussing Mother Theresa's visit to Reagan the June after the assassination attempt:

The late Mother Teresa, who visited the White House that June, told Reagan, "You have suffered the passion of the cross and have received grace. There is a purpose to this. Because of your suffering and pain you will now understand the suffering and pain of the world. This has happened to you at this time because your country and the world needs you." Reagan was speechless. Nancy Reagan wept.

On a more mundane & political note, I think that what Regan had that Bush 43 lacks is the ability to clearly articulate his understanding of the world... I have little doubt that President Bush has a clear vision of things, but I don't think he's so good at articulating that vision, something which Reagan had no problem with. As someone (I think his biographer, Edmund Morris) said Wednesday, Reagan wasn't an intellectual, but he was intelligent. As his letters show (Reagan in His Own Hand), he had spent years working out his understanding of the world, especially by means of interacting with others via the numerous letters he composed.

As has been demonstrated even by those in the mainstream media this week, Reagan wasn't the simpleton his enemies made him out to be while in office.

And above all, he was a good man, as no one seems to dispute.

Requiescat in pace.

CL-leaning blogs

I've done some work lately with the list of blogs, as you probably haven't noticed, and I want to point out two new links in particular:

Being! or Nothingness

and

The Tricostal Commission

Why do I highlight these two in particular? Because they are the only bloggers I know of who are actually involved in Communion and Liberation, one of the newer ecclesial movements in the Church. There are some bloggers who are familiar with CL, but these two are the only bloggers I know of who are involved in CL, and I think their blogs (especially Being!) reflect it.

Check 'em out!

American Culture: Antithetical to the Gospel?

A couple of weeks ago I finished Tracey Rowland's book, Culture and the Thomist Tradition: After Vatican II.

This was one of the most exciting reads I've had in a few years. Rowland combines the philosophical analysis of modernity by Alasdair Macintyre with the theological analysis of the Communio school (deriving from Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and today, David Schindler in particular) along with others to argue that the culture referred to by the title of "modernity" (which includes modern American culture) is not as open to the Gospel as many think, but in fact is oriented away from Christianity. Unlike the Greco-Roman culture encountered by the early Church, the very structure of modernity is antithetical to the Gospel, meaning that the mileu in which Americans live is in a systemic way hostile to the Gospel.

What this means is that the problems the Church faces in evangelizing our culture are not due simply to the fallout of the sixties, but in fact go to the core of the American way of life, which in many ways is derived in its worldview from the Enlightenment.

Now, this isn't to say that there is nothing good in American culture for the Church to engage in... that's not what these scholars are saying. Their point is that out culture is not as open to the Gospel as many theologians have heretofor believed, and that we need to take a more discerning (critical) approach in how to reach those who live in this culture.

My interest in this line of thought goes back to my grad days in Rome, when I "discovered" the debate between David Schindler on one hand George Weigel, Fr. Richard Neuhaus, and Michael Novak on the other. That debate centered on the same question: how Christian is American culture, actually but more importantly, potentially? The discussion dated back to the mid-eighties, when Cardinal Ratzinger referred to American culture as bourgeois. Weigel denied the claim, Schindler countered with a defense of Ratzinger's reference, and they were off. The debate raged in particular over the next several years, and although it has cooled off since then, it has never completely faded, as Rowland's contribution indicates.

Rowland's book is definitely not written for the layman, but I would still recommend it if you're interested in anything I've stated here, which itself is woefully incomplete, but does the job for now.

Objective Disorder?

One of the more controversial of Catholic teachings today is its claim that homosexuality is an objective disorder. Many people argue that because homosexuality is not chosen (which seems to be the case, whether or not its origins are genetic, psychological, or a combination of the two), it's demeaning to claim that it's a disorder.

To better understand the theological underpinnings of this teaching, I'd recommend Msgr. Livio Melina's article, Homosexual Inclination as an "Objective Disorder": Reflections of Theological Anthropology. Be attentive and patient in your reading... it's weighty, but well worth it.

[Thanks for Fr. Bryce for the link.]

JPII's addresses to the U.S. bishops

Back in April I linked the first ad limina address by the pope to the U.S. bishops as they make their quinquennial pilgrimage and report to Rome.

The subsequent addresses can be found here:

To the Bishops of the ecclesiastical provinces of Baltimore and Washington

To the Bishops of the ecclesiastical provinces of Detroit and Cincinnati

To the Bishops of California, Nevada and Hawaii

To the Bishops from the ecclesiastical provinces of San Antonio and Oklahoma City

To the Bishops of the ecclesiastical provinces of Indianapolis, Chicago and Milwaukee

To the Bishops of the Church in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas


Enjoy!

I should mention...

On Friday morning, I had a strange urge... to join the Democrat Party and reestablish its Humphrey wing. For some reason, I felt that the Democrat Party as it was, oh, fifty years ago was more open to the common good than the Republican Party of that era.

By about 11 am, the temptation passed.

Must have been something I ate.

One of the Greatest

Yesterday Ronald Wilson Reagan, passed away at the age of 93.

He was, undoubtedly, one of our greatest presidents, probably the greatest of the twentieth century (yes, better than FDR).

He reinvigurated the American spirit, and after Pope John Paul II, is the person most responsible for the (in the minds of many, early) collapse of communism in Europe.

The flag went up at the Burgwald residence yesterday in his honor, and remains up today in honor of -- as Reagan put it -- "the boys of Pointe du Hoc": the men who stormed the beaches of Normandy on June 6th, 1944, in what was the beginning of the end of World War II in Europe.

Our flag will remain up through Flag Day on the 14th, in honor of Reagan's death and the sacrifices made on the shores of France.

DLs

I found out recently that here in South Dakota, you can get a driver's license at the age of 14. 14! Now, in Minnesota there are farmer's permits, but not just anyone can get them.

Not, only that, but SD also doesn't make taking driver's ed course manditory! Driving with an adult for six months is sufficient to qualify for a license (with the test, of course)!



No wonder people here don't know how to use their $*#(!@% turn signals.

Challenging conventional wisdom

PZ Myers complains about those who deny the Big Bang. Now, I regard the evidence for the Big Bang as sufficient to merit my acknowledgement, but I also know that back when the theory was first proposed, the dominant view among cosmologists was that the universe in fact had no beginning, and hence they ridiculed the idea of the Big Bang.

Kind of like Dr. Myers does with the Intelligent Design school, no?

(He'll protest that unlike the original Big Bang theorists, ID proponents have no evidence to back them up, but I think the same thing was true with the Big Bang; scientists -- like the rest of us -- often have vested interests in their own pet theories, and hence it often takes some time for ideas which both challenge the dominant ideologies and happen to be true to take hold in the academy. So I think I'll wait awhile before passing judgment on the ID theory.)

South Dakota Politics

One of my more recent permalinks is Jason Van Beek's South Dakota Politics. Jason chronicles most of the political goings-on in the state, and is well worth a read. A couple of recent items are particularly worth noting.

First, in this post Jason comments on a recent Daschle campaign ad in which self-described Republicans complain about negative Republican ads against Senator Daschle. One of these fellows makes his complaint while standing in front of a cornfield in which the corn plants have tasseled. Now, to those of us who don't do agriculture, that might not mean anything. But to those who know corn, there is something significant present, and Jason explains it for us:

Corn plants don't tassel until late summer, meaning that this Daschle ad, or at least the segment with Steve Grubbrud, was in the can almost a year ago. It leads one to ask exactly what negative ad Steve Grubbrud was upset about at the time.

Indeed.

In another post, Jason discusses a recent Roll Call ad in which we find that Daschle has raised three times more money from corporations than has John Thune, his Republican challenger. Jason contrasts that fact with this statement from a Daschle spokesman, made when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed Thune back in February: "Tom Daschle has taken on special interests for years, so we are not shocked when they target him for defeat." Jason comments appropriately: "Yes, Daschle has taken on the special interests so vigorously that they give him three times more money than they give to John Thune."

Well said.

Rage

During my recent blogging hiatus (work took me out of town for a bit) I visited Annie's blog After abortion (it's one of my permalinks under Lord of the Rings). Annie attended the abortion rights rally on Sunday, April 25th as a member of Silent No More, an awareness group which seeks to educate the public about the effects of abortion on women. Annie and many others stood (many with signs) in silence as the march passed by them, and the abuse that she and others dealt with is truly unbelievable.

Read her account here.

The Ordination of Women

One of my recent new permalinks is the blog of a pseudonymous systematic theologian, the Old Oligarch. I discovered OO over a year ago, but was lazy in finally getting a link up (what's new, right?).

One of his best posts (we do know his gender) is an argument against the ordination of women. Now, I have to warn you: by blog standards, it's a long piece. But trust me: it's well worth the read.

Ecclesial Tyrant?

Apropos of the recent discussions concerning John Kerry and other pro-abortion rights politicians possibly (or actually) being refused communion, a number of Catholic bloggers have pointed to the actions of Archbishop Joseph Rummel, the archbishop of New Orleans in the early 60's. In 1962, he excommunicated three Catholics who opposed his efforts to desegregate Catholic schools. What did they do in response? Gave speeches, organized rallies, wrote letters to the major local newspaper, and withheld church contributions.

Hmm... I wonder what those who up in arms about the statements of some bishops about refusing communion to Kerry et al would say in response to this? Would they complain that Archbishop Rummel was blurring the line between church and state, or that he was putting his nose in places it doesn't belong, or that this was just another example of an intolerant, un-pastoral Catholic hierarch? Somehow, I doubt it.

(Thanks -- in order of my seeing it mentioned -- to Stuart Buck, Bill Cork, and Dale Price.)

Round X

The official dialogue in the U.S. between Lutheran and Catholic scholars recently completed its tenth round of discussion, this time focusing on the structures and ministries of the church. The Common Statement of the text can be found here for anyone who is interested.

Too much spam

So in an effort to try to reduce it, I've simply put my email address after my fav blogs; sorry, you'll have to actually type it in if you want to email me.

Redemptionis Sacramentum

The Instruction "On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist" from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament (with the assistance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) was promulgated by JPII today.

You can find the text here.

Here's the Table of Contents:

Preamble [1-13]

Chapter I

The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy [14-18]

1. The Diocesan Bishop, High Priest of his Flock [19-25]
2. The Conference of Bishops [26-28]
3. Priests [29-33]
4. Deacons [34-35]

Chapter II

The Participation of the Lay Christian Faithful in the Eucharistic Celebration

1. Active and Conscious Participation [36-42]
2. The Ministries of the Lay Christian Faithful in the Celebration of Holy Mass [43-47]

Chapter III

The Proper Celebration of Mass

1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist [48-50]
2. The Eucharistic Prayer [51-56]
3. The Other Parts of the Mass [57-74]
4. The Joining of Various Rites with the Celebration of Mass [75-79]

Chapter IV

Holy Communion

1. Dispositions for the Reception of Holy Communion [80-86]
2. The Distribution of Holy Communion [87-96]
3. The Communion of Priests [97-99]
4. Communion under Both Kinds [100-107]

Chapter V

Certain Other Matters concerning the Eucharist

1. The Place for the Celebration of Holy Mass [108-109]
2. Various Circumstances Relating to Mass [110-116]
3. Sacred Vessels [117-120]
4. Liturgical Vesture [121-128]

Chapter VI

The Reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist and Eucharistic Worship outside Mass

1. The Reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist [129-133]
2. Certain Forms of Worship of the Most Holy Eucharist outside Mass [134-141]
3. Processions and Eucharistic Congresses [142-145]

Chapter VII

Extraordinary Functions of the Lay Faithful [146-153]

1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion [154-160]
2. Preaching [161]
3. Particular Celebrations Carried Out in the Absence of a Priest [162-167]
4. Those Who Have Left the Clerical State [168]

Chapter VIII

Remedies [169-171]

1. Graviora Delicta [172]
2. Grave Matters [173]
3. Other Abuses [174-175]
4. The Diocesan Bishop [176-180]
5. The Apostolic See [181-182]
6. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters [183-184]

Conclusion [185-186]

Atheists and abortion

It seems that pro-abortion atheists are used to dealing with pro-lifers who appeal to theology to support their position. I say this because when they encounter a pro-lifer who offers arguments demonstrating the humanity of the human embryo, they offer all sorts of non sequiturs, strawmen, and other baseless arguments.

My latest example of this is in my discussion of the humanity of the embryo with Ben, in the comments of this post.

Now, I've enjoyed my conversations with Ben thus far, and continue to do so. But neither he nor biologist PZ Myers have thus far offered a definition of a human being which excludes the embryo or fetus in a non-arbitrary and consistent manner. Nor, IMO, have they successfully refuted my arguments. But I'll let the readers of the comments judge who is more successful.

Ono Ekeh

Mr. Ekeh was -- until a few weeks ago -- an employee of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. When it was discovered that he was a strong Kerry supporter with a website "Catholics for Kerry", he was asked to resign, and rightly so: Kerry is unabashedly in favor of abortion rights, and there is simply no way to reconcile that with a Catholic perspective.

Mr. Ekeh has explained himself recently in a piece entitled More than one pro-life way in the National Catholic Reporter.

And Amy Welborn responds nicely.

SSM

In discussing same sex marriage with Ben, it's become apparent that I'm going to have to enter into a more lengthy discussion of natural law theory, as it is so crucial in understanding the rational case against said marriages. As I told Ben, I hope to begin that discussion soon.

In the meantime, a couple of more articles worth reading:

Shelby Steele's WSJ article, and his rebuttal to Andrew Sullivan's response to the WSJ piece.

Enjoy!

Which branch is unchecked?

William -- one of the guys at Southern Appeal -- posts today on the following comment made by SCOTUS justice Breyer in oral arguments yesterday: "It seems rather contrary to a nation with a constitution providing for three branches of government that one branch should be allowed to do whatever it wants without any check."

Go and read Bill's fisking of this somewhat ironic statement of a SCOTUS justice.

Hate speech

Candace -- one of the bloggers at The Village Gate (formerly The Right Christians) -- posts about this from the Family Research Council:

Gays disproportionately diseased "Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of America's most serious STD's, including syphilis, gonorrhea, genital warts, and hepatitis A and B."

She sees it as hateful, anti-gay rhetoric. But what if it's accurate? Is it hateful then? Is it hateful to say that a particular group accounts for a larger proportion of STDs? If it's an outright falsehood, that's one thing. But Candace doesn't challenge the accuracy of the statement... merely to utter it is hateful, even if true.

On the other hand, I wonder what she thinks of this little note sent to FreeDominion.ca:

Biil c250 will pass. Your group will be the first one we go after. You are nothing but a group of hatefilled bigots. How dare you use a name like freedominion, free for who, right wing ***holes. I was in Edmonton last week and I enjoyed ****** Lorne Gunters son in the *****. Tight. I am headed down to parliament hill later to slap that ******* Anne Cools[bible thumping nigger] and to ****** your hero Steve Harper. I'll bet he likes the taste of ********. Talk to you later redneck *********.

Hmm... which one sounds more hate-filled to you?

(Hat tip to Mark Shea on the latter.)

More Dan Brown inanities

I've read The DaVinci Code, but only because I gave a talk on it. Before that piece of historical rubbishnovel came out, I started Angels and Demons on my dad's recommendation, only to put it down within the first ten pages after references to the conflict [sic] between faith and reason.

Bill Cork, on the other hand, was able to finish the A&D, and he catalogs some of the egregious errors Brown makes in that novel.

But what does Brown care about truth? He's making a pile of money.

Two Is Enough: Why large families don't deserve tax breaks.

That's the title of this article by Dalton Conley, the director of NYU's Center for Advanced Social Science Research. Conley writes, "If we really care about kids' welfare and accomplishment, the United States should scrap policies that encourage parents to have lots of children. As my recent research shows, having more than two children is tantamount to handicapping their chances for academic, and thus economic, success."

Whatever. My wife is one of eight kids, and of the eight, six have at least a bachelor's degree. And my in-laws are most certainly middle class. But read the whole thing.

A Train on a Circular Track

Fyodorovna -- current Lutheran, former Catholic -- offers her thoughts on Josh's argument, which I linked below. She doesn't think that Josh's argument will convince many Catholics -- about that, she's right -- because whether your an orthodox Catholic or not, "the primacy of a personal commitment to the institution(!)" nullifies the most determined efforts to help Catholics see the truth.

Fyodorovna's argument reminds me of what a friend wrote to me some years ago. He -- currently an LCMS pastor, then a seminarian -- accused me of having a completely circular thought process, akin to a bullet train on a circular track. His point was similar to hers: I kept pointing back to the human institution of the Church.

I have to cut this post short... I'll return to the thought later.

Blogroll updated

I've updated the blogroll some.

Rowan Williams

Yesterday kendall of titusonenine linked an interesting (and lengthy -- 47 pages) article on the theology and sexual ethics of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. It might be worth reading...

Catholic certitude

Josh has a good post on the question of certitude in Catholicism. He notes how one so often hears Catholic apologists asking, "How can you know that what you believe is true without an infallible teaching authority?" and then proceeds to outline some of his problems with certitude in the Catholic Church. Pointing to what he views as contradictions between how one doctrine was explained back in the day and how it's explained today, he posits that a Catholic can never really know the truth of a doctrine, because the explanation he hears today might change tomorrow.

I've offered a few thoughts in the comments box... I think it's an important post that Catholics need to address, or rather, they need to address Josh's argument.

You knew it had to happen sometime...

Fr. Bryce Sibley has found something interesting (what's new)... a version of Star Wars, Episode IV... the opera.

"rely on"???

Jeff Miller wonders what the VP and General Counsel of the fledgling liberal talk radio network Air America meant when he said, "To shut off a broadcast that listeners rely on without warning and in the middle of discussions is the height of irresponsibility and a slap in the face of the media industry."

So, liberals can't do without their daily dose of Franken and Garafolo? With Jeff, I thought it was only Rush Limbaugh's listeners who were mind-numbed robots who depend on the talk show host in order to know what to think. Hmm...

JPII to the U.S. Bishops, I

Every five years all of the Catholic Bishops of the world make their way to Rome for consultation with the Holy Father and the Roman Curia. This year, the bishops of the U.S. make their quinquennial visit, doing so by Province, as always. The first such visit was made at the end of March and beginning of April by the bishops of the Provinces of Atlanta and Miami, and concluded --as always-- with a group meeting with the Holy Father, in which he shared his thoughts with this particular group of bishops (as he will with each group). That address is as follows:

Dear Brother Bishops,

1. "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!" (Eph 1:2). At the beginning of this series of visits ad limina Apostolorum by the Bishops of the United States of America, I offer a warm welcome to you, my Brother Bishops of the ecclesiastical provinces of Atlanta and Miami.

Your visit to the tomb of Peter and to the house of Peter’s Successor is in fact a spiritual pilgrimage to the heart of the Church. May it be for you a summons to a more intense encounter with Jesus Christ, a pause for reflection and discernment in the light of faith, and an impulse to new vigor in mission. I trust that this series of ad limina visits will also bear particular fruit in a deeper appreciation of the mystery of the Church in all its richness, and a far-reaching discernment of the pastoral challenges facing the Bishops of the United States at the dawn of the new millennium.

Our meetings are taking place at a difficult time in the history of the Church in the United States. Many of you have already spoken to me of the pain caused by the sexual abuse scandal of the past two years and the urgent need for rebuilding confidence and promoting healing between Bishops, priests and the laity in your country. I am confident that the willingness which you have shown in acknowledging and addressing past mistakes and failures, while at the same time seeking to learn from them, will contribute greatly to this work of reconciliation and renewal. This time of purification will, by God’s grace, lead to "a holier priesthood, a holier episcopate and a holier Church" (Address to American Cardinals and Bishops, 23 April 2002, 4), a Church ever more convinced of the truth of the Christian message, the redemptive power of the Cross of Christ, and the need for unity, fidelity and conviction in bearing witness to the Gospel before the world.


2. The history of the Church demonstrates that there can be no effective reform without interior renewal. This is true not only of individuals, but also of every group and institution in the Church. In the life of every Bishop the challenge of interior renewal must involve an integral understanding of his service as pastor gregis, entrusted by Christ’s will with a specific ministry of pastoral governance in the Church and the responsibility and apostolic power which accompany that ministry. To be an effective pastor gregis, however, the Bishop must also strive constantly to be forma gregis (cf. 1 Pet 5:3); his apostolic authority must be seen first and foremost as a religious witness to the Risen Lord, to the truth of the Gospel and to the mystery of salvation present and at work in the Church. The Tenth Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops recalled that "the Bishop’s life is to be completely submitted to the word of God in his daily commitment of preaching the Gospel in all patience and sound doctrine" (Pastores Gregis, 28; cf. 2 Tim 4:2).

The renewal of the Church is thus closely linked to the renewal of the episcopal office. Since the Bishop is called in a unique way to be an alter Christus, a vicar of Christ in and for his local Church, he must be the first to conform his life to Christ in holiness and constant conversion. Only by himself putting on the mind of Christ (cf. Phil 2:5) and acquiring "a fresh, spiritual way of thinking" (Eph 4:23), will he be able to carry out effectively his role as a successor of the Apostles, the guide of the faith community, and the coordinator of those charisms and missions which the Holy Spirit constantly pours out upon the Church.

3. The recent Synod of Bishops and the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Gregis have spoken insistently of the need to appropriate an ecclesiology of communion and mission, which must be "our fundamental point of reference" for understanding and exercising the episcopal ministry (Pastores Gregis, 2). In doing so, they have taken up the core vision of the Second Vatican Council, which called for a renewed appreciation of the mystery of the Church, grounded in the trinitarian life of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (cf. Ad Gentes, 2; Lumen Gentium, 2-4), as the basis of a reaffirmation of her inner unity and her missionary outreach to the world.

This appeal of the Council is as valid today as ever. A return to the heart of the Church, a recovery of faith’s vision of the nature and purpose of the Church in God’s plan, and a clearer understanding of her relation to the world must be an essential part of that constant conversion to God’s revealed word which is demanded of every member of the Body of Christ, reborn in Baptism and called to work for the spread of God’s Kingdom on earth (cf. Lumen Gentium, 36).

Ecclesia sancta simul et semper purificanda. The Council’s urgent summons to pray, work and hope that the image of Christ may shine ever more brightly on the face of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium, 15) calls for a constant reaffirmation of faith’s assent to God’s revealed word and a return to the sole source of all authentic ecclesial renewal: the Scriptures and the Apostolic Tradition as authoritatively interpreted by the Church’s Magisterium. Indeed, the Council’s vision, which found expression in the great Constitutions Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes, remains "a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning" (Novo Millennio Ineunte, 57).

4. Dear Brothers, at the start of these meetings of the Successor of Peter with the Bishops of the United States, I wish to reaffirm my confidence in the Church in America, my appreciation of the deep faith of America’s Catholics and my gratitude for their many contributions to American society and to the life of the Church throughout the world. Viewed with the eyes of faith, the present moment of difficulty is also a moment of hope, that hope which "does not disappoint" (Rom 5:5), because it is rooted in the Holy Spirit, who constantly raises up new energies, callings and missions within the Body of Christ.

The Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, celebrated in the wake of the epochal events of September 11, 2001, rightly noted that the Bishop is called to be a prophet, witness and servant of hope to the world (cf. Pastores Gregis, 3), not only because he proclaims to all the basis of our Christian hope (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) but also because he makes that hope present through his pastoral ministry, centered as it is on the three munera of sanctifying, teaching and governing. The exercise of this prophetic witness in contemporary American society has, as many of you have pointed out, been made increasingly difficult by the aftermath of the recent scandal and the outspoken hostility to the Gospel in certain sectors of public opinion, yet it cannot be evaded or delegated to others. Precisely because American society is confronted by a disturbing loss of the sense of the transcendent and the affirmation of a culture of the material and the ephemeral, it desperately needs such a witness of hope. It is in hope that we have been saved (cf. Rom 8:24); the Gospel of hope enables us to discern the consoling presence of God’s Kingdom in the midst of this world and offers confidence, serenity and direction in place of that hopelessness which inevitably spawns fear, hostility and violence in the hearts of individuals and in society as a whole.

5. For this reason I pray that our meetings will not only strengthen the hierarchical communion which unites the Successor of Peter with his Brother Bishops in the United States, but will bear abundant fruit for the growth of your own local Churches in unity and in missionary zeal for the spread of the Gospel. In this way, they will come to reflect ever more fully the "great mystery" of the Church which, in the words of the Council, is in Christ as it were a "sacrament of intimate union with God and of the unity of all mankind" (Lumen Gentium, 1), the firstfruits of the Kingdom of God and the prophetic foreshadowing of a world reconciled and at peace.

In the coming months, I would like to engage you and your Brother Bishops in a series of reflections on the exercise of the episcopal office in the light of the threefold munus by which the Bishop, through sacramental ordination, is conformed to Jesus Christ, priest, prophet and king. It is my hope that a consistent reflection on the gift and mystery entrusted to us will contribute to the fulfillment of your ministry as heralds of the Gospel and to the renewal of the Church in the United States.

6. Dear Brothers, I assure you of my prayers for each of you and for all the clergy, religious and lay faithful entrusted to your pastoral care. As we strive to meet the challenges which lie ahead of us, let us never cease to thank the Triune God for the rich variety of gifts which he has bestowed upon the Church in America and to look with confidence to the future which his providence is even now opening before us. With great affection I commend all of you to the loving intercession of Mary Immaculate, Patroness of the United States of America, and cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of joy and peace in the Lord.

Oh yeah...

Happy Easter!

Veritas celebrated its second birthday during Lent... although I certainly have not been posting as regularly and often as I did when I first started this blog, I'm still enjoying the opportunities for discussion which it affords. And I'm sure that the few dozen people in my email address book prefer being able to see what I have to say by going to the blog rather than plowing through the fwd's I used to send out.

Once again, Buona Pasqua!

SSM III

Ben has been patiently waiting for my response to his reply to my response to his reply to my post (whew.) on same sex marriage from before Lent. I don't have time this morning to get into the full enagement that his argument deserves, but in the meantime, I'm offering links to some articles which I think support my position, one way or another.

First is Donald Sensing's article from OpinionJournal. Sensing doesn't actually oppose same sex marriage; his argument is that The Pill already set the stage for SSM by separating sex from childbirth. I agree.

CA Assemblyman Tim Leslie's article is much more to the point; his position and my position are very similar. Leslie also points to the connection between sex and "the begetting & rearing of children" as the ultimate reason for why marriage is recognized as a public institution, and isn't just a private religious affair.

Next we have an op-ed by three profs at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul which lays out a case similar to Leslie's against same sex marriage.

Finally, we have science fiction author Orson Scott Card's argument, summarized by Peter Sean Bradley as follows:

(a) same sex marriage is no more "marriage" because 4 out of 7 members of the Massachusett's Supreme Court says it is than a cow would have 5 "legs" because they defined "legs" to include tails; (b) no homosexual has ever been denied the civil right to marry; and (c) we are at a point where "democracy" means allowing 4 out of 7 oligarchically selected individuals wearing black robes the power to unilaterally legislate sweeping social changes without the input of the people.

I hope to respond more specifically to Ben's counterarguments in the near future, but I offer these texts for now.

Coerced Conversion and Conquest?

The conventional wisdom about the Crusades today is that they were an attempt by the Catholic Church to conquer Muslim lands and forcibly convert Muslims to Christianity.

Pope Urban II's speech in 1095 -- which called the first Crusade -- gives a different picture:

For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.

Sounds like a defensive effort to me.