Are You A Racist?

Monday, September 21, AD 2009

obamaflowchart21

Hattip to Powerline.  Jimmy Carter, incredibly enough one time President of the United States, believes a good portion of the opposition to Obama is racist.  Hmmm.  With Mr. Carter’s record on race, one could suspect that he might have a passing familiarity with racism.  The Obama administration quickly indicated that President Obama does not agree with his predecessor.  However, moogrogue at Missourah.com thoughtfully put together the above chart so that we may determine if we are racists according to the view enunciated by President 39.  Too bad Billy Carter is deceased and can’t be questioned about his elder brother’s statement.  I am sure it would be quotable and colorful as was this observation about his family: 
“My mother went into the Peace Corps when she was sixty-eight. My one sister is a motorcycle freak, my other sister is a Holy Roller evangelist and my brother is running for president. I’m the only sane one in the family.”

Continue reading...

101 Responses to Are You A Racist?

  • Methinks thou doth protest too much.

  • Ithinks thou hast no comprehension.

  • Well, if you have to rant that you aren’t a racist, it probably means you are. It’s like not trusting the guy that has to say trust me. If he has to plead to be trusted that says it all doesn’t it??

    You probably think Fox news is ‘fair and balanced’ too right??

  • Joe,

    Yeah, there’s nothing like declaring innocence that proves guilt, right? Give me a break.

  • You never took a logic course did you Joe? I posted this to hold up ex-pres Jimmuh to public ridicule.

    As to Fox, it is the network, judging from the ratings, that people are watching if they wish to have to have a clue about what is going on in the nation. Most of the rest of the media is too busy playing defense for Obama to have any interest in reporting on something as mundane as the news.

  • Well, if you declare your innocence when directly questioned, then yes, you are right. But if you offer a defense to something WITHOUT being accused, that says something.

    And yes many times declaring innocence is a way to hide the truth.

    “i did not have sexual relations with that women”

    “saddam hussein has a stockpile of WMD.”

  • One million wrong people don’t make it right.

    Does that mean islam is the #1 religion because there are more of them than any other religion??

  • Methinks Joe is entitled to a refund on that “formal education” he was bragging about earlier.

    Did he really get “formally educated”?? I’m starting to think he isn’t “formally educated”, or at least with a “formal education” I wouldn’t pay for.

    /paraphrase

  • Joe,

    You can add to your list “Abortion will not be covered in the Health Care bill.”

  • Unbelievable.

    Are you guys going to let this troll hijack every discussion?

    As for myself, following the chart above, I made it all the way to the very last “RACIST!”

  • Hoe (the troll, not Hargrave):

    When did you stop beating your wife?

  • The troll amuses me for the moment Joe H. When he ceases to amuse me I will show him the ban door.

  • It’s scary that they only reason all of you don’t murder and rape people is because of the spaghetti monster in the sky. Enlightened people don’t need to be threatened to know how to behave morally.

    It’s also deliciously ironic to get you guys to act very unchristian towards me.

    Your jesus must be proud.

    Go ahead and ban me. Censorship. That’s how religion deals with differing opinions so I suspect nothing less.

  • Joe,

    We’ve heard all this trope before. It’s old hat. At least be original if you’re going to come onto someone else’s blog and make an ass of yourself.

  • Well now, there’s an intelligent argument. You must have seen “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” this weekend.

  • I knew it was only a matter of time before Joe misapplied our own standards against us. Standards, I might add, to which he refuses to hold himself.

    LOL!

    Only slightly arrogant, I suppose, to think that you get to set such terms of debate for yourself.

  • Christians, like all humans, only have standards when it suits them.

    That’s what ‘sinning’ is. Dropping your standards momentarily for personal gain or survival, and NO ONE on this blog can honestly say they’ve never done that.

  • “It’s scary that they only reason all of you don’t murder and rape people is because of the spaghetti monster in the sky.”

    It’s actually more sad to me, than it is scary to you, that you have absolutely no rational basis for any good thing you do.

    I presume that you typically only believe in things that have evidence to support them.

    There is no scientific evidence for good or evil. You have belief without scientific evidence. You have faith.

    The only difference between us is that we acknowledge it and embrace it within a logically consistent framework, whereas you deny it. You live in a contradiction. One day, if you are honest with yourself, if you are humble enough to admit that you don’t know all there is to know, you will realize that.

    Philosophy 101, my fellow Joe – you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. In a random universe, rape and murder are just rape and murder. That we find such an idea appalling and unbearable suggests that we are designed/evolved to strive for moral truth, which cannot exist without God. God is the logical conclusion of all of the striving, hopes, and desires of humanity.

  • Folks,

    Look, I agree our visiting atheist here is just spouting off, but either ignore it or take the time to be substantive on it. Responding at the low level that he’s taking just takes up space and does little to actually answer the objections of unbelievers. (I don’t think you’re required to take up lots of time answering him, because I doubt he’s really inquiring at the moment, but there’s not much point in just sniping back.)

    JoeFromQC,

    Enlightened people don’t need to be threatened to know how to behave morally.

    No one needs to be threatened in order to behave morally, and I think any serious reading of the moral theology of Christianity will show you that this is not what Christian moral thinking consists of. However, it is actually rather difficult to come up with any clear understanding of what is “moral” without admitting the existence of any sort of absolute. Behavioralists come up with various “we instinctually see certain actions as good because they’re good for the species” but these don’t actually provide us with morality in the sense that humans naturally desire it in that they don’t provide absolute guidance. It’s easy to explain biologically why we can’t have people consistently killing and raping their neighbors, but it’s actually advantageous to do so occasionally and in certain circumstances from a biological point of view. However, as humans we have a fairly innate sense that moral laws ought to be absolute — that rape is actually _wrong_, not just a bad idea most of the time.

    And that’s before you even get into where it’s even possible to assert free will from a materialist point of view. If you hold that we are no more than our physical selves, then it’s hard to say whether people actually have any more responsibility for their actions then other animals do. In which case talking about doing “wrong” is rather fuzzy.

    So before lashing out at religious people as if they are fools when it comes to addressing moral questions, it might be a good idea to sit down and consider the internal tensions of your own professed position. They’re certainly not less.

  • >>>It’s actually more sad to me, than it is scary to you, that you have absolutely no rational basis for any good thing you do.

    No, you have it wrong. I do good things FOR rational reasons. I like the people I’m helping, I want my neighborhood to be nice, etc.. Those are RATIONAL reasons to do good.

    Believing you’re going to be eternally punished by an unconditionally loving god for not being good is IRRATIONAL.

    >>>I presume that you typically only believe in things that have evidence to support them.

    Presuming is like ASSuming buddy. That’s the problem. Belief and evidence are contradictory statements. To have faith or believe in something means you hold truth to be counter to the evidence provided.

    >>>There is no scientific evidence for good or evil. You have belief without scientific evidence. You have faith.

    That is just not true. There is no FAITH that convinces me Mr.Garrido is evil. If you need ‘faith’ to tell you that kidnapping an 11 year old and fathering 2 children with her is evil, you have serious problems you should go seek help for.

    >>>One day, if you are honest with yourself, if you are humble enough to admit that you don’t know all there is to know, you will realize that.

    HA!!! Well once you quit playing high and mighty maybe YOU will see the truth. I’ve never stated that I know all there is to know. That’s your team that does that.

    >>>Philosophy 101, my fellow Joe – you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. In a random universe, rape and murder are just rape and murder. That we find such an idea appalling and unbearable suggests that we are designed/evolved to strive for moral truth, which cannot exist without God. God is the logical conclusion of all of the striving, hopes, and desires of humanity.

    No, what makes us feel those emotions is OUR EVOLVED BRAIN. There are still tribes of people who have NEVER heard a word of the bible and have all those human qualities. Get over yourselves.

  • This post reminds me of last year’s round of remarkable logic (or, rather, reprehensible fallacy):

    If you don’t vote Obama, you’re racist!

  • Where to begin. Let’s start with faith. Faith is believing in what is revealed to us by another but not seen by myself directly. The Church would certainly agree with you that if there is empirical evidence then faith cannot contradict that.

    What you would seem to be referring to would be faith in God as you yourself have faith in may things – science for one. But belief in God is something that is apparent from reason alone and does not need faith. For example Aristotle held that there was the unmoved mover (God) apart from any religious claims. See his argument here:

    http:[email protected]/ontological/aristotleontological.htm

    Now this argument again is from pure reason. Thus for Aristotle the existence of God was given from reason.

    Now as for the personal God of faith and of Jesus, that becomes an argument from Revelation and the reliability of witnesses to Jesus’ life and resurrection. This does require a level of belief as I did not see him rise personally from the dead. Much as you take as articles of faith a number of scientific propositions as you did not prove them yourself.

  • Not voting for Obama doesn’t make you racist.

    But needing to repeat your non racism ad nauseum makes people wonder.

    If I went to the corner with a sign that said ‘I am not a sexual offender’ every day, pretty soon SOMEONE would rightfully get worried and check my background.

    The more you rail against something the more you are trying to hide something about yourself.

  • “No, what makes us feel those emotions is OUR EVOLVED BRAIN. There are still tribes of people who have NEVER heard a word of the bible and have all those human qualities. Get over yourselves.”

    Actually Joe we had a lab experiment running in the last century in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Mao’s China as to what would happen when people forsook morality based upon God and embraced morality based upon human precepts. The results were not pretty to say the least. Without God morality is merely a matter of opinon and superior force to impose those opinions.

  • No, you have it wrong. I do good things FOR rational reasons. I like the people I’m helping, I want my neighborhood to be nice, etc.. Those are RATIONAL reasons to do good.

    How is helping people you like, wanting your neighborhood to be “nice”, etc., all “rational” reasons to do good?

    Sorry, but your rather conspicuous petitio principii leaves all wanting.

    Believing you’re going to be eternally punished by an unconditionally loving god for not being good is IRRATIONAL.

    Eternally punished by an unconditionally loving god for not being good is irrational?

    If you’re going to use our religion against us, you might as well get it right: it is not our “GOD” who punishes us; it is we who deliberately choose against Him and, thus, by choice we opt for an eternal life absent of Him.

    No, what makes us feel those emotions is OUR EVOLVED BRAIN.

    I’m certain that its complex neuronal architecture is surely evidence that no such God exists and that everything man does is merely the result of haphazard neuronal firing having no actual teleological end whatsoever.

  • Phillip – Do you see how you have to bend over backwards to defend your position? Science is NOT an absolute belief. Science is adaptable. What is scientific truth today, may turn out to be something more or less depending on what we uncover in the future. Religion is the opposite. You HAVE to believe things AS THEY ARE. No matter how much is discovered you must still believe. Lemmings I tell you. Lemmings.

  • “But needing to repeat your non racism ad nauseum makes people wonder.”

    Joe you completely overlook the fact that this is post is a response to the trope on the left mouthed by the peanut farmer from Plains and others that opposition to Obama is largely based on racism. It is a ridiculous assertion and the chart accompanying this post demonstrates how ridiculous it is.

  • But needing to repeat your non racism ad nauseum makes people wonder.

    Repeating non racism?

    It’s “repeating non racism” to simply point out the logical flaw in the liberal’s libel: “If you don’t vote Obama, you’re racist”?

    Clearly, you are the epitome of illogic; I’ll grant you that.

  • Science is NOT an absolute belief. Science is adaptable. What is scientific truth today, may turn out to be something more or less depending on what we uncover in the future. Religion is the opposite. You HAVE to believe things AS THEY ARE. No matter how much is discovered you must still believe. Lemmings I tell you. Lemmings.

    Are you actually saying that Science does not require the same “belief” and “faith” as does religion?

    Kindly produce for me a quanta so that I need not have simply “belief” or even “faith” in its existence; then, I shall have proof that what you say here is true!

    My, oh my, you are worse than a lemming, as your lurid imbecility in these series of comments demonstrates.

  • >>>Actually Joe we had a lab experiment running in the last century in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Mao’s China as to what would happen when people forsook morality based upon God and embraced morality based upon human precepts. The results were not pretty to say the least. Without God morality is merely a matter of opinon and superior force to impose those opinions.

    Well, if things like burning heretics at the stake, and the spanish inquisition, and the church allowing the holocaust to happen weren’t in the church’s past, you’d have a point. But…….

    Not to mention you’re wrong about hitler. He fought against the ‘godless communism’ and considered himself religious, and believed ‘god’ was an active deity that supported the Aryan race.

  • Joe,

    No. Again, it is rational to know that God exists. You can read Aristotle’s argument if you wish.

  • Aww, isn’t that precious. E thinks he’s smart… LOL

    No one has said all of it is based on racism. But things like a poster that says Obama 08 with a picture of curious george on it. That is racist. You are fools if you think none of this is based on race.

  • It is never rational to believe in something that there is zero evidence for.

  • Oh Joe.

    “Belief and evidence are contradictory statements. To have faith or believe in something means you hold truth to be counter to the evidence provided.”

    Belief is just another way of saying “hold to be true”. You are splitting hairs.

    Also, why can’t faith or belief be held in the absence of empirical evidence? When you say “contrary to the evidence”, you are asserting that we’ve looked at evidence and rejected it. But the Christian faith has done no such thing; there is no material process or phenomenon that is not fully incorporated into a Christian worldview.

    Rather, it is those aspects of life that materialism and the scientific method alone cannot explain – starting with the conditions for the existence of good and evil as objective categories independent of the human mind – that are completely rejected by the militant atheist.

    But let us get to the very important thing.

    I said:

    “There is no scientific evidence for good or evil. You have belief without scientific evidence. You have faith.”

    You replied:

    “That is just not true. There is no FAITH that convinces me Mr.Garrido is evil.”

    Then, what, I ask, does convince you? Personal feelings? Subjective experience? Why, these sound like the sort of things that believers have used to justify their belief in God for centuries. Not a very rigorous application of the scientific method there, is it? And yet there is a truth there all the same.

    You’re trying to take the hard things in life – evils such as rape and murder, and our response to them as humans – and place them in a box that is “off limits” to rational inquiry and objective analysis. You declare that anyone who wants to explore them is sick and warped.

    That’s not very scientific. It sounds like a nervous evasion.

    “If you need ‘faith’ to tell you that kidnapping an 11 year old and fathering 2 children with her is evil, you have serious problems you should go seek help for.”

    This is the ad homoniem that many atheists resort to when they cannot come up with a rational explanation for their beliefs.

    You believe our default mode of existence is to accept and believe things without any scientific evidence to support them. I would say that that is exactly what religious people have always believed about man. Your faith stops with your morality; ours stops with the only possible condition for the existence of good and evil outside of our minds.

    You declare this act to evil on the basis of no evidence. You have faith that it is evil.

  • The belief in the empirical is an act of faith. That’s part of your Scientism.

  • That should read “the belief in the empirical only…”

  • Apparently, a guy who thinks “If you vote Obama, you’re racist” is logical and possess such eloquence as to employ “LOL” is clearly clever.

    Too bad it speaks more as concerning his incorrigible stupidity than anything else.

  • >>>Then, what, I ask, does convince you? Personal feelings? Subjective experience? Why, these sound like the sort of things that believers have used to justify their belief in God for centuries. Not a very rigorous application of the scientific method there, is it? And yet there is a truth there all the same.

    No there isn’t. You saying something is true does not make it so. What convinces me that it is wrong?

    Morality. You do not need faith to have morality.

    If you need faith to tell you a middle age man kidnapping and fathering children with an underage girl is wrong, you need serious help. Like right now. Call a doctor.. Oh wait, just ask ‘god’ to heal you.. LOL

  • >>>Apparently, a guy who thinks “If you vote Obama, you’re racist” is logical and possess such eloquence as to employ “LOL” is clearly clever.

    I never said those things. Typical. I can’t debate what he’s talking about so I’ll make stuff up.

    >>>Too bad it speaks more as concerning his incorrigible stupidity than anything else.

    Aww, how christian of you. Not really loving your enemy are you??

  • It is never rational to believe in something that there is zero evidence for.

    Really, Joe?

    Then, there goes most of the scientific theories that we simply take for granted.

  • “Morality. You do not need faith to have morality.”

    Please provide proof that ‘morality’ is necessary or that it is even ‘rational’.

    (Not that I deem you capable of even performing such a feat or that you are sufficiently intelligent to detect exactly the point of the inquiry.)

  • No, that’s not true. There is no scientific theory that hasn’t been tested. Newton didn’t just write “there is a law of gravity” He studied it, and found out the rate, and realized it was CONSTANT.

    Religion says take this as truth but don’t question or test it.

  • >>(Not that I deem you capable of even performing such a feat or that you are sufficiently intelligent to detect exactly the point of the inquiry.)

    Spoken like a true christian. Kudos to you sir.

  • JoeQC said: “Well, if things like burning heretics at the stake, and the spanish inquisition, and the church allowing the holocaust to happen weren’t in the church’s past, you’d have a point. But…….”

    This is really, really digging back into the past though, if one is talking about the Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials. To stand back, talking of things 500 years ago really seems to dilute the point.

    JoeQC sadly, must have been let down with his concept of the divine or religion. That is what I think.

  • “I never said those things. Typical. I can’t debate what he’s talking about so I’ll make stuff up.”

    And we never posted up any such Obama poster with Curious George on it. So, perhaps it is you who should quit “making stuff up”.

    “Awww, how Christian of you.”

    I can’t help it if you’re yet another stupid modern-day Galatian incapable of grasping logic.

  • In regard to Hitler here are some of his diatribes against the Church contained in his “Table Talk” compiled following the war from notes taken at the time he spoke:

    ‘The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life’s final task will be to solve the religious problem. Only then Will the life of the German native be guaranteed once and for all.”

    “The evil that’s gnawing our vitals is our priests, of both creeds. I can’t at present give them the answer they’ve been asking for, but it will cost them nothing to wait. It’s all written down in my big book. The time will come when I’ll settle my account with them, and I’ll go straight to the point.”

    “I don’t know which should be considered the more dangerous: the minister of religion who play-acts at patriotism, or the man who openly opposes the State. The fact remains that it’s their maneuvers that have led me to my decision. They’ve only got to keep at it, they’ll hear from me, all right. I shan’t let myself be hampered by juridical scruples. Only necessity has legal force. In less than ten years from now, things will have quite another look, I can promise them.”

    “We shan’t be able to go on evading the religious problem much longer. If anyone thinks it’s really essential to build the life of human society on a foundation of lies, well, in my estimation, such a society is not worth preserving. If’ on the other hand, one believes that truth is the indispensable foundation, then conscience bids one intervene in the name of truth, and exterminate the lie.”

    “Once the war is over we will put a swift end to the Concordat. It will give me the greatest personal pleasure to point out to the Church all those occasions on which it has broken the terms of it. One need only recall the close cooperation between the Church and the murderers of Heydrich. Catholic priests not only allowed them to hide in a church on the outskirts of Prague, but even allowed them to entrench themselves in the sanctuary of the altar.”

    “The fact that I remain silent in public over Church affairs is not in the least misunderstood by the sly foxes of the Catholic Church, and I am quite sure that a man like the Bishop von Galen knows full well that after the war I shall extract retribution to the last farthing. And, if he does not succeed in getting himself transferred in the meanwhile to the Collegium Germanium in Rome, he may rest assured that in the balancing of our accounts, no “T” will remain uncrossed, no “I” undotted!”

    At Nuremburg after the war the Prosecution noted the Nazi hostitility to Christianity:

    “We come now to deal with the responsibility of the defendant Bormann with respect to the persecution of the Church. The defendant Bormann authorised, directed and participated in measures involving the persecution of the Christian Church. The Tribunal, of course, has heard much in this proceeding concerning the acts of the conspiracy involving the persecution of the Church. We have no desire now to rehash that evidence. We are interested in one thing alone, and that is nailing on the defendant Bormann his responsibility, his personal, individual responsibility, for that persecution.

    I shall now present the proofs showing the responsibility of Bormann with respect to such persecution of the Christian Churches.

    Bormann was among the most relentless enemies of the Christian Church and Christian Clergy in Germany and in German-occupied Europe. I refer the Tribunal, without quoting therefrom, to Document D-75, previously introduced in evidence as Exhibit USA 348, which contains a copy of the secret Bormann decree of 6th June, 1941, entitled “The Relationship of National Socialism to Christianity.” In this decree, as the Tribunal will well recall, Bormann bluntly declared that National Socialism and Christianity were incompatible, and he indicated that the ultimate aim of the conspirators was to assure the elimination of Christianity itself.

    I next refer the Tribunal, without quotation, to Document 098-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA 350. This is a letter from the defendant Bormann to the defendant Rosenberg, dated 22nd February, 1940, in which Bormann reaffirms the incompatibility of Christianity and National Socialism.

    Now, in furtherance of the conspirators’ aim to undermine the Christian Churches, Bormann took measures to eliminate the influence of the Christian Church from within the Nazi Party and its formations. I now offer in evidence Document 113-PS, as Exhibit USA 683. This is an order of the defendant Bormann, dated 27th July, 1938, issued as Chief of Staff to the Deputy of the

    [Page 300]

    Fuehrer, Hess, which prohibits clergymen, from holding Party offices. I shall not take the time of the Tribunal to put this quotation upon the, record. The point of it is, as indicated, that Bormann issued an order-forbidding the appointment of clergymen to Party positions.
    THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this would be a good time to break off for ten minutes.

    (A recess was taken.)

    LIEUTENANT LAMBERT: May it please the Tribunal, we are dealing with the efforts of the defendant Bormann to expel and eliminate from the Party all Church and religious influence.

    I offer in evidence Document 838-PS, as Exhibit USA 684. I shall not burden the record with extensive quotation from this exhibit, but merely point out that this is a copy of a Bormann decree dated 3rd June, 1939, which laid it down that followers of Christian Science should be excluded from the Party.

    The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 840-PS, previously introduced in evidence as Exhibit USA 355. The Tribunal will recall that this, was a Bormann decree of 14th July, 1939, referring with approval to an earlier Bormann decree of 9th February, 1937, in which he had ruled, that in the future all Party members who entered the clergy or who undertook the study of theology were to be expelled from the Party.

    I next offer in evidence Document 107-PS, Exhibit USA 3M. This is a circular directive of the defendant Bormann dated 17th June, 1938, addressed to all Reichsleiters and Gauleiters, top leaders of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, transmitting a copy of directions relating. to the non-participation of the Reich Labour Service in religious celebrations. The Reich Labour Service, the Tribunal will recall, compulsorily incorporated all Germans within its organisation.

    DR. BERGOLD (Counsel for defendant Bormann): The member of the prosecution has just submitted a number of documents, in which he proves that, on the suggestion of Bormann, members of the Christian religion were to be excluded from the Party, or from certain organisations. I beg the High Tribunal to allow the member of the prosecution to explain to me how and why Bormann’s activity, that is, the exclusion of Christians from the Party, can be a War Crime. I cannot gather this evidence from the trial brief. The Party is described as a criminal conspiracy. Is it a crime to exclude certain people from membership in a criminal conspiracy? Is that considered a crime? How and why is the exclusion of certain members from the Party a crime?

    THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will answer you.

    LIEUTENANT LAMBERT: If the Tribunal will willingly accommodate argument at this stage, we find that the question –

    THE PRESIDENT: Only short argument.

    LIEUTENANT LAMBERT: Yes, Sir – admits of a short, and, as it seems to us, easy answer.

    The point we are now trying to prove – and evidence is abounding on it – is that Bormann had a hatred and an enmity and took oppositional measures towards the Christian Church. The Party was the repository of political power in Germany. To have power one had to be in the Party or subject to its favour. By his efforts, concerted, continuing and consistent, to exclude clergymen, theological students or any persons sympathetic to the Christian, religion, Bormann could not have chosen a clearer method of showing and demonstrating his, hatred and his distrust of the Christian religion and those who supported it.

    THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Bormann can present his argument upon this subject at a later stage. The documents appear to the Tribunal to be relevant.

    LIEUTENANT LAMBERT: With the Tribunal’s permission, I had just put in Document 107-PS and pointed out that it transmitted directions relating to the

    [Page 301]

    non-participation of the Reich Labour Service in religious celebrations. I quote merely the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Page 1 of the English translation of Document 107-PS, which reads as follows:
    “Every religious discussion is forbidden in the Reich Labour Service because it disturbs the comrade-like harmony of all working men and women.
    For this reason also, every participation of the Reich Labour Service in Church, i.e., religious, arrangements and celebrations is not possible.”

    The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 070-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA 349. The Tribunal will recall that this was a letter from Bormann’s office to the defendant Rosenberg, dated 25th April, 1941, in which Bormann declared that he had achieved progressive success in reducing and abolishing religious services in schools, and in replacing Christian prayers with National Socialist mottoes and rituals. In this letter, Bormann also proposed a Nazified morning service in the schools, in place of the existing confession and morning service.
    In his concerted efforts to undermine and subvert the Christian churches, Bormann authorised, directed and participated in measures leading to the closing, reduction and suppression of theological schools, faculties and institutions. The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 116-PS, Exhibit USA 685, which I offer in evidence. This is a letter from the defendant Bormann to the defendant Rosenberg, dated 24th January, 1939, enclosing, for Rosenberg’s cognisance, a copy of Bormann’s letter to the Reich Minister for Science, Training and Public Education. In the enclosed letter, Bormann informs the Minister as to the Party’s position in favour of restricting and suppressing theological faculties. Bormann states that, owing to war conditions, it had become necessary to reorganise the German high schools, and in view of this situation, he requested the Minister to restrict and suppress certain theological faculties.

    I now quote from the first paragraph on Page 3 of the English translation of Document 116-PS, which reads as follows:

    “I, therefore, would like to see you put the theological faculties under appreciable limitations in so far as, according to the above statements, they cannot be entirely eliminated. This will concern not only the theological faculties at universities, but also the various State institutions which, as seminaries having no affiliation with any university, still exist in many places. I request you not to give any express explanations to churches or other institutions and to avoid public announcement of these measures. Complaints and the like, if they are to be answered at all, must be countered with this explanation, that these measures are carried out in the course of planned economy, and that the same is being done to other, faculties. I would be glad, if the professorial chairs thus made vacant could then be turned over to the fields of research newly created in recent years, such as racial research and archaeology.
    “Martin Bormann.”

    In our submission, what this document comes to is a request from Bormann to this effect: “Please close down the religious faculties and substitute in their place Nazi faculties and university chairs, with the mission of investigating racialism, cultism, Nazi archaeology.” This sort of thing was done in the Hohe Schule, as was so clearly demonstrated in the prosecution’s case against the plundering activities of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg.
    The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 122-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA 362. The Tribunal will recall that 122-PS is a letter from the defendant Bormann to the defendant Rosenberg, dated 17th April, 1939, transmitting to Rosenberg a photostatic copy of the plan of the Reich

    [Page 302]

    Minister of Science, Training and Public Education for the combining and dissolving of certain specified theological faculties. In his letter of transmittal, Bormann requested Rosenberg “to take cognizance and prompt action” with respect to the proposed suppression of religious institutions.
    I next offer in evidence Document 123-PS, Exhibit USA 686. This is a confidential letter from the defendant Bormann to the Minister of Education, dated 23rd June, 1939, in which Bormann sets forth the Party’s decision to order the suppression of numerous theological faculties and religious institutions. The Tribunal will note that the letter lists 19 separate religious institutions with respect to which Bormann ordered dissolution or restriction.

    After directing the action to be taken by the Minister in connection with the various theological faculties, Bormann stated as follows, and I quote from the next to last paragraph of Page 3 of the English translation of Document 123-PS:

    “In the above I have informed you of the Party’s wishes, after thorough, investigation of the matter with all Party offices. I would be grateful if you would initiate the necessary measures as quickly as possible. With regard to the great political significance which every single case of such a combination will have for the Gau concerned, I ask you to take these measures, and particularly to fix dates for them always in agreement with me.”
    I next offer in evidence, without quotation, Document 131- PS, as Exhibit USA 687. In summary, without quotation therefrom, this is a letter from the defendant Bormann to the defendant Rosenberg, dated 12th December, 1939, relating to the suppression of seven professorships in the near-by University of Munich.
    Now, I deal briefly with the responsibility of Bormann for the confiscation of religious property and cultural property. Bormann used his paramount power and position to cause the confiscation of religious property and to subject the Christian churches and clergy to a discriminatory legal regime.

    I offer in evidence Document 099-PS, Exhibit USA 688. This is a copy of a letter from Bormann to the Reich Minister for Finance, dated 19th January, 1940, in which Bormann demanded a great increase in the special war tax imposed on the churches. I quote from the first two paragraphs of Page 2 of the English translation of this document, which reads as follows:

    “As it has been reported to me, the war contribution of the churches has been specified from 1st November, 1939 on, at first, for a period of three months, at R.M. 1,800,000 per month, of which R.M. 1,000,000 are to be paid by the Protestant church, and R.M. 800,000 by the Catholic church per month. The establishment of such a low amount has surprised me. I see from numerous reports that the political communities have to raise such a large war contribution, that the execution of their tasks, partially very important – for example, in the field of public welfare – is, endangered. In consideration of that, a larger quota from the churches appears to be absolutely appropriate.”
    The question may arise: Of what criminal effect is it to demand larger taxes from church institutions? As to this demand of Bormann’s taken by itself, the prosecution would not suggest that it had a criminal effect, but when viewed within the larger frame of Bormann’s demonstrated hostility to the Christian Church, and his efforts, not merely to circumscribe but to eliminate it, we suggest that this document has probative value in showing Bormann’s hostility and his concrete measures to effectuate that hostility against the Christian churches and clergy.”

  • >>>I can’t help it if you’re yet another stupid modern-day Galatian incapable of grasping logic.

    You serve your master well.

  • “You serve your master well.”

    Thank you — so did St. Paul who said something similar!

  • >>This is really, really digging back into the past though, if one is talking about the Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials. To stand back, talking of things 500 years ago really seems to dilute the point.

    So let me get this straight. The horrors of the past that secularism caused is list able, but the 1000’s of years of church oppression aren’t. Check.

    >>>JoeQC sadly, must have been let down with his concept of the divine or religion. That is what I think.

    You hit it on the head.. When I developed rational thought I said ‘You mean the people I trust have been feeding me LIES all these years??? It’s pretty disheartening until you realize they’ve been brainwashed and don’t realize they’re lying to you.

  • Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to provide demonstrative proof that ‘Morality’ is indeed *rational”… again, not that you’re actually capable of doing thus but, hey, here’s some charity on my part!

  • So Paul’s word’s are more important than jesus’ who said to love your enemies?

    Typical bible thumper, only heeds what is good for them.

    Onward christian soldier, onwards.

  • Also can you provide a refutaion of Aristotle’s argument for the existence of God.

  • My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the code of law predates the 10 commandments.

    All of the civilizations prior to monotheism still believed in right and wrong.

    All mythologies are defined by a battle between good and evil.

  • I am “loving” my enemies but granting you an audience, however hopelessly stupid you have demonstrated yourself to be.

  • 15 Minutes later… no demonstrative proof provided concerning ‘Morality’ as actually being *rational*… nothing but typical evasions by the clearly cognitively deficient.

  • >>Also can you provide a refutaion of Aristotle’s argument for the existence of God.

    You are the one selling a good (religion). The burden of proof is on you. It’s impossible to prove that god doesn’t exist. Just like it’s impossible to prove that Unicorns, leprechauns, and superman don’t exist.

    If I went around say EXACTLY the same things you were, but I said Superman visited me instead of ‘god’. I’d be ridiculed. Just as you should be.

  • So since its impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist you’re taking it on faith?

  • My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the code of law predates the 10 commandments.

    All of the civilizations prior to monotheism still believed in right and wrong.

    All mythologies are defined by a battle between good and evil.

    So your ‘proof’ is based on nothing more than that primitive peoples espoused morality?

    If anything, it only proves that morality, as such, is merely the remnant of a primitive and even superstitious culture!

    So much for your *scientific* proof!

    Although, I find it quite telling that rather than provide something *scientifically-based*, you resorted to such flawed (and even self-refuting) reasoning as that (though, no surprise there)!

  • Not at all. Whereas I can’t ‘prove’ there is no god, all evidence points in that direction.

    There is real tangible evidence that the judeo-christian god is a figment of man’s imagination.

  • No, my scientific proof is the evolved human brain.

    I was merely stating that your little religion didn’t ‘invent’ morality.

  • My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the code of law predates the 10 commandments.

    All of the civilizations prior to monotheism still believed in right and wrong.

    All mythologies are defined by a battle between good and evil.

    How is that a proof that morality is rational? All cultures also believed in spells, curses, ghosts and gods. Do you believe in all of those and well and consider them to be rational?

    Also, your analysis is a bit off. Not all mythologies are defined by a battle between good and evil. Ancient Sumerian and Egyptian and Greek and Roman mythology were not. Norse mythology was to an extent. Dualism is certainly a common theme in ancient mythologies, but it’s not universal.

    Further, the question is not so much whether various pre-Christian and non-Christian societies believed in right and wrong, but how exactly as an atheist (and I would assume thus materialist?) can achieve a rational explanation of what makes some actions right and others wrong. Do you think that there is some objective standard of “the good” which we all have an innate understanding of? And if so, why?

  • It doesn’t matter. You guys are so afraid of a dissenting opinion I’m finding that my posts are dissappearing. You guys must think your god is pretty impotent if you’re scared of my little words.

  • JoefromQCA, hey! You forgot to mention the Crusades!

  • There are more atrocities committed by the church than I can list.

  • “Scared of [your] little words.”?

    Really?

    You quite foolishly attempted to prove to me that morality is *rational* simply because primitive people believed in it.

    To be intimidated by somebody whose intelligence quotient is no doubt less than that of a reptile is ludicrous.

  • Joe,

    Just answer the question, since you cannot show that God does not exist you take it as an article of faith.

  • It IS rational. Just because you needed to be taught what comes naturally to most doesn’t make it untrue.

    I must have hit a nerve to make you act so christianly towards me. I guess I should be glad it’s this century and all you have is words instead of weapons.

  • Just because you didn’t like the answer doesn’t mean I didn’t answer it… Oh wait, it was one that was deleted.. Hold on…

    It may be impossible to prove god doesn’t exist, but all evidence points in that direction. It’s impossible to prove that unicorns don’t exist. Do you believe in them??

  • Joe: Just answer the question, since you cannot show that God does not exist you take it as an article of faith.

    Well, since Joe argued that morality is indeed *rational* since primitive people happened to believe in it ever since; similarly, based on the same premise that Joe himself provided, believing in a Divine Providence is likewise *rational* since primitive people happened to believe in it ever since as well.

  • I never said ancient people believed in religion because it was rational, I stated that morality and laws were invented before your little invisible best friend was.

  • “It IS rational. Just because you needed to be taught what comes naturally to most doesn’t make it untrue.”

    Primitive people believed in ‘Morality’; therefore, it is *rational*.

    Primitive people believed in ‘Divine Providence’; therefore, it is *rational*.

    Just because you needed to be taught what comes naturally to most doesn’t make it untrue, Joe!

  • I suppose you probably don’t realize how incoherent that is.

    >>>Primitive people believed in ‘Morality’; therefore, it is *rational*.

    Once again, I never SAID that. I stated that morality existed before your jesus myths were invented.

  • Therefore the theory that morality exists because of ‘god’ are false.

  • ‘Morality’ existed before Jesus; therefore, it is *rational*?

    Well, sorry to say, but ‘Divine Providence’ existed even before Jesus; therefore, it too is *rational*!

  • Hearing Mr. Carter’s words, I could not but recall Mr. Reagan’s words: “There you go again”.

    Without God, without the Bible, there would be no science. Read Stanley Jaki’s works.

    “Morality is helping I like, living in a good neighborhood”. What about people you don’t like?

  • That’s the problem. You guys speak as if you hold the copyright to what is true.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. Something predating something doesn’t instantly make it rational.

    Okay let’s go a different route.

    Do you believe that 2 great pillars hold up the earth? Do you believe if you go to the tallest mountain on earth you can see the entire planet?

  • JoeFromQCA,

    Given that Christians assert that God is eternal, and that as the creator of the world God gave humanity a certain natural moral sense (an ability to perceive natural moral law) the fact that morality was envisioned prior to Jewish and Christian revelation is hardly a critique of the Abrahamic religious tradition.

    Seriously, if you’re going to critique a religious understanding of morality, you need to understand what the religious understanding of morality is first, and your antics here don’t really suggest that this is the case.

    If you want to engage in something resembling serious discussion, that’s great. Always up for a good argument when there’s the time. But this kind of hit and run spouting off has already got tired — which is probably why you’re finding yourself in and out of moderation.

  • Joe,

    If it hasn’t dawn on you, the extent of your inherent stupidity is becoming embarrassingly apparent in your rather egregiously flawed syllogisms.

    To the point, if I were you, I’d save myself from further embarrassment.

  • No, I have stated things you don’t want to hear. I’m trying to have a discussion, but all your side can say to anything is “Nuh-uh!! LALALALALA!!! How DARE you question my beliefs!!!! I’m right and you’re wrong and someday you’ll learn!!!”. Real serious open minds you have here.

  • “It may be impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist though all the evidence points in that direction.” Good you changed the wording since the previous wording hangs you. Though since the evidence points in such a direction only and does not “prove” again you are taking it on faith.

    Can I prove that a non-contingent being such as God exists? Yes, again read Aristotle’s argument. It seems you can’t do that. Why?

  • Hey look at that!! E can use big words!! Good boy!! Here’s a biscuit.

    Once again your attitude must make jesus proud. You are a boon to your religion…..

  • >>Good you changed the wording since the previous wording hangs you. Though since the evidence points in such a direction only and does not “prove” again you are taking it on faith.

    WRONG!!! I never changed my wording. I’ve never said that I could prove god doesn’t exist. No wonder you guys can’t debate anything, you make stuff up. No, ‘faith’ means that you accept something as truth although all evidence says it’s not.

    >>Can I prove that a non-contingent being such as God exists? Yes, again read Aristotle’s argument. It seems you can’t do that. Why?

  • But this kind of hit and run spouting off has already got tired —

    What I want to know is why would ‘Morality’ be considered *rational* simply because primitive people (who were actually themselves infamously *irrational*, often given to rampant & vile superstitions, some of whom even made human sacrifices in order to appease the gods) believed in it?

    In like manner, one can argue based on the same premise that ‘Divine Providence’ itself should likewise be considered *rational* since primitive people believe in it, too.

  • >>>>Can I prove that a non-contingent being such as God exists? Yes, again read Aristotle’s argument. It seems you can’t do that. Why?

    No buddy. Aristotle’s argument proves nothing. He also believed the Earth stay still while the stars and sun rotated around us. I wouldn’t be using him as your argument. I’ve noticed that you can’t point to any science that isn’t 2000 years old to prove your points…..

  • I never said that it is rational because ancient peoples believed in it. GET OFF THAT TRACK.

    I said that morality predates the judeo-christian myths, that’s it. I never said it was therefore rational thought that led to that.

  • I’m trying to have a discussion, but all your side can say to anything is “Nuh-uh!! LALALALALA!!! How DARE you question my beliefs!!!! I’m right and you’re wrong and someday you’ll learn!!!”. Real serious open minds you have here.

    Yeah, your compelling argument that *morality* must be accepted as *rational* because primitive people believed in it was quite overwhelming!

    Too bad it was nothing more than a childish troll shouting: “LALALALALA!!! How DARE you question my beliefs!!!! I’m right and you’re wrong and someday you’ll learn!!!”

  • >>Yeah, your compelling argument that *morality* must be accepted as *rational* because primitive people believed in it was quite overwhelming!

    Again, I never said that. Are you dense?? I stated that morality existed before the judeo-christian myths were invented. So the statemnt that you can’t have morality with out religion is patently false.

    >>Too bad it was nothing more than a childish troll shouting: “LALALALALA!!! How DARE you question my beliefs!!!! I’m right and you’re wrong and someday you’ll learn!!!”

    Oh no!?!?!? A troll????? Oh the humanity!! The mean ol’ christian called me a troll.

  • Let’s see. Your 12;53 post is:

    “It is impossible to prove that god doesn’t exist.”

    Your 1:13 post is:

    “It may be impossible to prove that god doesn’t exist…”

    From an unconditional to a conditional statement. Both your words. Your changes. The conclusions you draw from both require faith.

  • One example of JoeFromQCA’s remarkable logic —

    In one instance, the fool says:

    My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the code of law predates the 10 commandments.

    All of the civilizations prior to monotheism still believed in right and wrong.

    All mythologies are defined by a battle between good and evil.

    Then, he says in a follow-up post:

    You have no idea what you are talking about. Something predating something doesn’t instantly make it rational.

    Do we really require further evidence on just how hopelessly abysmal this individual’s intelligence happens to be?

  • DO you not understand that since I don’t talk about rationality in the first statement. Therefore my 2nd statement doesn’t contradict my first. No matter how badly you wanna ‘get me’.

    You must think of yourself as a dim bulb to keep attacking my intelligence.

  • Hey, Joe, you said:

    “My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the code of law predates the 10 commandments.”

    Well, I say:

    “You have no idea what you are talking about. Something predating something doesn’t instantly make it rational.”!

    Oh, and thank-you for refuting your own faulty logic!

  • ‘It is impossible’ ‘It may be impossible’ are not different statements. Just slightly different wording used in different contexts. By my saying may be, I am doing nothing more than speculating.

    Your lack of debating the issue and instead attack me says a lot about your beliefs.

  • JoeFromQCA pretty clearly has an inability to engage in rational debate. Rather than prolonging this, I for one am going to leave things where they stand and stop releasing his comments from moderation.

    If someone else sees value to doing so, feel free.

  • Poor JoeFromQCA isn’t even capable of grasping how woefully stupid he happens to appear.

    Let me try to explain with “JoeFromQCA for DUMMIES”:

    Joe, you said:

    “My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the CODE OF LAW predates the 10 COMMANDMENTS.”

    Then, you said:

    “Something predating something doesn’t instantly make it rational.”

    I happen to agree with the latter statement!

    “Something [CODE OF LAW] predating something [10 COMMANDMENTS] doesn’t instantly make it *rational*.”

  • Joe – you keep saying “faith” means believing in something against all the evidence. I don’t know where you got that definition of faith. Faith means believing in something which you may not be able to observe directly. For example, if you believe the witness when she says Mr. X committed the crime, you are putting faith in certain evidence – her testimony. Likewise, when you “believe” a black hole exists near some particular quadrant of space, you are putting faith in the statement of some scientist who himself is putting faith in his observation that irregular light and orbital patterns of some distant blurr means a gravitational field is acting upon it, and that field is a black hole. He’s never been there, and neither have you. That is a lot of faith.

  • c matt,

    You’ve said it better than I have. I hope Joe gets it.

  • God existed before Christianity existed as a religion, before anything or anyone ever existed.

    Morality is not about “behavior”, which can be explained deterministically. It is about choice, which cannot.

    JoeQC, you have belief without evidence – you have faith. And you insult, belittle, and question the sanity of all those who dare to question your faith.

    Even if it were true that I needed to see a doctor, it is equally true that you need to read a book about philosophy.

    You sound like a Christian fundamentalist. Maybe you should try a Baptist blog next time.

  • Joe

    There are many different definitions (or use) of the word faith, and all you are doing is equivocating, saying they are all the same. Here, you will see only one of many is “belief in which there is no proof.”

    Of course, we must also not confuse “no proof” as being “no evidence.” When people say “there is no proof” they think that means “no evidence.” Yet, faith relies upon evidence.

    1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
    2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
    3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
    4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
    5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
    6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
    7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
    8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

  • Joe,

    That is one definition. Another is as c matt notes. As per the definition you cite, your denial of the existence of God is still a matter of faith.

  • This has been an exercise in giving a troll free reign in a thread, and the entirely predictable results that ensue. I also confess that I did this for my own amusement. Joe is obviously here only for purposes of emotional venting rather than to engage in a fruitful discussion. The resulting chaos has a sort of Three Stooges screwball comedy element, but ultimately is a waste of time. I am closing comments on this thread. Joe, you are banned from my threads on this blog. My colleagues have you in moderation, and they can decide whether or not to ban you in regard to their threads.

  • Pingback: Carter Tries to Deny He Said Obama Critics Driven By Race « The American Catholic

Deliver Us!

Saturday, September 19, AD 2009

Something for the weekend.  You know that you are living in an odd cultural period when the best musicals are animated!  Deliver us from the Prince of Egypt

God is always with us in all of our travails, perhaps never more so than when He appears to us to be completely absent.  When our spirit is lowest and we give way to despair, I suspect that God is never closer to us than at those times.  As Isaiah noted so long ago,  “See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the LORD rises upon you and his glory appears over you.”

Continue reading...

House to Acorn: Drop Dead

Friday, September 18, AD 2009

 

Acorn

The House has voted to cut off all federal funds for Acorn.  The vote was 345-75.  Here is a list of the 75 House members who want to continue to shovel your tax dollars to Acorn.  Everyone of the 75 is a Democrat.

In other Acorn news,  the Obama campaign website has been scrubbing away references to Acorn down the old Orwell memory hole.

You know that Acorn is toast when even the Lying Worthless Political Hack, a/k/a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is calling for an investigation of Acorn.  The day before yesterday she wasn’t even aware that the Senate had voted to cut off funding for Acorn.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to House to Acorn: Drop Dead

  • Donald,
    One congressman argued this legislation was unconstitutional because it’s a bill of attainder, which Congress is prohibited from passing. What is your opinion on that?

  • Zak,

    it’s not a finding of guilt or a punishment for a crime. It’s cutting of taxpayer funding of their programs, to which they are not “entitled”.

  • ACORN prepares to retaliate against Dems
    ACORN Considers Ending Voter Registration Work
    Troubled community-organizing group Acorn announced Thursday it was considering quitting its voter-registration work amid growing outrage over its activities, a move that could hurt Democrats at the polls.

  • Matt,
    I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer, but I was looking at U.S. vs. Lovett (referred by wikipedia), and there the Supreme Court said that Congress couldn’t prohibit the paying of salaries of government employees because they were Communists. It ruled (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0328_0303_ZS.html):

    Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial, are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution. Cummins v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333. P. 315.

    (c) The fact that the punishment is inflicted through the instrumentality of an Act specifically cutting off the pay of certain named individuals found by Congress to be guilty of disloyalty make it no less effective than if it had been done by an Act which designated the conduct as criminal. P. 316.

    It seems like establishes a pretty close precedent.

  • Although one could argue, as you are, that paying a salary is something to which one is entitled, while government procurement is not, so it is different. But what if Congress prohibited Boeing from any aerospace procurement contracts? Would that be a bill of attainder?

  • I don’t see how, since those people where “entitled” to their paychecks. Nobody is entitled to have the federal government grant them funding for a project.

  • what if Congress prohibited Boeing from any aerospace procurement contracts? Would that be a bill of attainder

    I don’t think it would be technically a bill of attainder, but it could be challenged for other causes if the action wasn’t justifiable.

  • Zak, my opinion is that it was a manifestly silly statement by the Congresscritter. Matt’s statement is absolutely correct, and it has been well litigated that Congress, as controller of the purse, can cut off funding to any organization at any time.

  • I don’t know. It’s an interesting question, and I’m glad to have learned a little more about our founding document on Constitution Day! Thanks

  • Oh. I hadn’t seen your comment, Donald. I guess it makes sense that there has been plenty of litigation on this issue in the past. Thanks

  • Donald has nailed it. Silly reference to bill of attainder. Not a chance.

  • One other interesting thing – are you familiar with Cummings v. Missouri, another case on Bills of Attainder? “Cummings, a Catholic Priest, was convicted for teaching and preaching as a minister without taking the oath [of loyalty].” (from Black’s Decision in Lovett. It struck me as interesting that there does not appear to be a first amendment consideration (probably because it was a state law, and there was no incorporation doctrine at the time – actually the decision predates the 14th amendment).

  • I’m quite sure there are numerous provisions attached to the receipt of government grants (well, there should be). I don’t think it would be hard to argue that the actions of Acorn violated one or many of those provisions. Also, years ago I looked at the 501c3 provisions and they’re pretty restrictive. Acorn could easily lose it’s tax status, which if done, *may* preclude them receiving much of their other grant monies. I’m not a lawyer – I just know they’re really good at making things complex. 😉

Lying Worthless Political Hack Fears Violence in the Debate Over ObamaCare

Friday, September 18, AD 2009

The Lying Worthless Political Hack, a/k/a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, not content to call opponents of ObamaCare Nazis,  has now raised the spectre of political violence:

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

Continue reading...

36 Responses to Lying Worthless Political Hack Fears Violence in the Debate Over ObamaCare

  • And her concerns during the Bush years were where? When protesters wouldn’t even let the man take a vacation without picketing at the end of his driveway. When members of her party advocated every measure of obstruction, and hurled every sort of vile epitaph at Bush. Where was her concern?

    Lying Worthless Political Hack is too polite a title for this mouthpiece of Satan.

  • She’s desperate. With 48 congressional Democrats (8 more than their majority) coming from districts that voted for both Bush and McCain, Mrs. Pelosi knows that in all likelihood her gavel will be handed over to Mr. Boehner in 2010.

  • Templar:
    Mouthpiece of Satan – good one. I’m stealing that.

  • This name-calling does grave disservice to the church in that you identify this blog as Catholic. I am not convinced by your argument that Pelosi is liar, but even is she were, there is a way–a Catholic way–of calling attention to the truth that avoids the ad hominem. Not to mention that there is a way–a Catholic way–of calling another Catholic to conversion. And yes, Nancy Pelosi, is a Catholic. And no, you or I, until such time one of us is named to the bishop of the diocese in which she lives–you or I do not have the authority to determine that she is not a Catholic. Mouthpiece of Satan–the name-calling gets more ugly and unbefitting of followers of Jesus.

  • Harold, you seem much more concerned about the fact that I accurately refer to the Lying Worthless Political Hack as a Lying Worthless Political Hack than you do about the misdeeds of the Lying Worthless Political Hack, which includes being one of the champions of abortion in Congress. I think your priorities are upside down.

  • As to name-calling not befitting followers of Jesus, actually Our Lord was quite fond of calling a spade a spade as any member of the “Generation of Vipers” could attest.

  • Speaker Pelosi – a Catholic, as Harold reminds us – is calumniating her political opponents as Nazis and fomenters of violence, and is doing so on a much bigger stage than what Don has here at American Catholic; but it is Don who is a big ‘ol meanie for calling her out on it.

    Nice set of priorities you have there, Harold.

  • Okay, so let’s retract the mouthpeice of Satan wording, if that makes everyone feel better. The fact remains that Speaker Pelosi is trying to short-change public discourse and short-cut our Freedom of Speech just because she feels its violent. As the article points out, the only real violence came from those for Obama Care and she publicly called everyone who opposed this plan Nazis.

    Nice work for a communion-receiving Catholic. We need to pray for her – she seems to be quite a mess these days.

  • There is a Catholic description of Pelosi: a fountain from which all fecal matter springs.

    If you folks truly believe Pelosi’s program of vicious Pro-abort initiatives is actually ‘Catholic’, then you don’t know exactly what that word actually means!

  • Harold says, “The name-calling does grave disservice to the church in that you identify this blog as Catholic.”

    This is one of the underlying reasons why we should eject the entire corpus of Pauline writings from the New Testament.

    Who can trust somebody with a foul mouth as his who himself did curse at people?

    1 O stupid Galatians!
    3 Are you so stupid? (Galatians 3:1,3)

    SOURCE:
    http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/galatians/galatians3.htm

    Obviously, this “name-calling does grave disservice to the church”.

  • St. Paul was a self-proclaimed sinner. We imitate their holiness, not their sins.

    Our Lord tells us, “You have heard hard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven…for if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you only salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (cf. Matthew 5:43-48)

    Just a week ago, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who was pro-choice. She has now rethought her position and is going to attend the Texas Right to Life Gala (on my invitation) and seek to learn more about the pro-life movement. Even despite her originally very “radical” positions, I did not take liberty to insult her. And this is no testament of self-proclaimed holiness. I am in front of St. Paul as the foremost of all sinners.

    But, what does it gain us to return evil for evil? What do we gain morally? And how does it make us any more like Our Lord and perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect?

    It seems to become very petty and childish. At the end of the day, when you call Speaker Pelosi a “Worthless Political Hack” there is not one unborn child saved from that comment nor is there any amount of justice restored or reconciliation between divided sinners brought about. It just reaffirms much of what is wrong with our society.

    We all do it. We are all guilty. But this is no way establishes justification.

  • And yes, Christine. Let us pray for her. I’m not sure how going through a litany of Pelosi’s sins — except but to establish correctly a false sort of thinking that we admonish other Catholics not to follow — really will solve anything but to reaffirm our only self-righteousness. I’m not accusing anyone of being sanctimonious. It is very subtle. And before we are so sure that we can correct judge Nancy Pelosi to be “worthless” and a “hack,” it wouldn’t hurt to do an examination of conscience. We’re all just as guilty and we all have sins too many in number to account for on the Day of Judgment.

    Division is the game of the Devil.

  • Charity does not consist in not being bluntly honest to those wielding power. In her public capacity I fear my description is not blunt enough. Of course I addressed these points in the comboxes in the first post in which I referred to the Worthless Political Hack after she was denied a photo-op by the Pope.

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/02/18/pope-denies-worthless-political-hack-photo-op/

    Pelosi is a born and bred Catholic. She does not have the benefit of a rank ignorance of the Truth that actually causes me to have some sympathy for Mr. Obama, believe it or not. She was educated at Catholic schools and her family long prided itself on its Catholicism. In spite of that, throughout her career she has been at war with the Church in regard to abortion, escr, euthanasia and other issues.

    She has deliberately mistated Catholic teaching in defense of her positions:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082502.html

    If I were to be completely honest in my assessment of Ms. Pelosi, my statements would be considerably stronger than Lying Worthless Political Hack.

  • “Just a week ago, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who was pro-choice. She has now rethought her position and is going to attend the Texas Right to Life Gala (on my invitation) and seek to learn more about the pro-life movement.”

    That is wonderful news, Eric.

    You have done a great thing!

  • God working through you Eric, and I completely agree with Joe!

  • Sure, I’ll pray for this hack.

    And pass the ammunition.

  • Really?

    Lord, have mercy on us.

  • Career and Special Interests Politicians, Sebelius, Mikulski, Pelosi, Biden, all I’m sure raised Catholic.

    They sell their soul a bit to do this, you know, I’m not against the individual personally but their stances on the issues.

  • What is really sad is that whenever someone tries to disagree with the current bills based on facts ( I have read them ) they are called racist or anti gay in this case. Each of us can voice our opinion civility, but this pseudo Catholic uses her rhetoric as a political tool to enhance her position instead of defending her stance with facts and this is what makes her a disgrace to her position.

  • Harold, you are my kind of Catholic. As I have tried to explain to other commenters before, this blog is actually the Republican American Catholic,
    very often, the Catholic part goes out the window if it doesnt line up with the Republican part.

  • Any Catholic who isn’t horrified by the abortion advocacy of the Lying Worthless Political Hack is a Catholic who needs to read this section of the Catechism:

    “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.(71)

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. (72)

    My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth .(73)

    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 .(74)

    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.(75)

    2272 Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. 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’ (76) ‘by the very commission of the offence’, (77) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law . (78) 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.'(79)

    ‘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.’ (80)”

  • The title of the article is unnecessarily offensive. From this distance (the Caribbean)the language used on Fox News, and reports in other media,all seem to point to a desire for violence to get rid of Obama. The fears of the Speaker are shared by many – don’t blame her. She may not be a “good Catholic” and the U.S. may not be a good country for leagalizing abortion (which the Constitution clearly supports)But do try to be civil while working hard to persuade both Catholics NOT to avail themselves of the legislation (after all it is permissive not mandatory)and the wider population that abortion is murder by another name. It is very sad to admit ther’s some truth in the statement, made long ago by a European, that the “U.S. moved from primitive to modern without passing through a period of civilization”. Please do not confuse a strong conservative Catholicism with either religious fundamentalism or downright incivility. These attitudes only turn people off our pro-life cause, which we SHALL win, because it is the truth about the human person NOT because we maligned our enemies. J-P II’s Peace Message a few years ago on Ro. 12:14-21..”do not let evil defeat you, but conquer evil with goodness”.

  • “and the U.S. may not be a good country for leagalizing abortion (which the Constitution clearly supports)”

    You say tomatoe, I say tomato, right?? You will not slide this aberration by. Only per legislating from the judicial bench, does this lie fly. Without wasting time on such a cruel view: The Constitution protects life and extends rights to all living, so therefore a pre-born should have rights.

    Cheers for the Tories in England who brought out how Ted Kennedy supported horrid partial birth abortion in discussing whether he should receive Knighthood. This horridly offends most of the English, late term abortions who have a very liberal policy already. But figures, with the liberals, the constitution protects it. Pathetic.

  • I discussed in a prior post, that the debate is often couched in such terms of which I often do not approve of between what the Left and the Right says, it gets to be a vicious circle and I tend to shy away from saying such things, often. At times, unfortunately, it seems to be saying the truth as well.

    To another subject and adding on to my last post, great to see LA Lett’s word on this, I guess Slaves were 3/4 of a human being as well under the constitution.

  • “She may not be a “good Catholic” and the U.S. may not be a good country for leagalizing abortion (which the Constitution clearly supports)”

    From the dissent of Justice White in Roe:

    “With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

  • Tip of the Hat Donald, it is better to light a candle!

  • Pingback: Radio Personality: Members of the Opposing Party Should be Denied Health Care « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Stupak Gets His Vote « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Get Health Insurance—Or Else! « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Father Norman Weslin, Champion of the Unborn « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Pelosi, Saint Joseph and the Catholic Medical Association « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: ObamaCare=Jonestown Politically for Democrats? « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: The Dignity and Worth of Every Person « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: The Values of the Word « The American Catholic

One Response to Acorn San Diego: O'Keefe and Giles Strike Again!

  • I actually wonder how much of this is actually from the organization itself, and how much is from the liberal mindset? It seems like a really bad case of non-judgementalism on behalf of the employees. From the ‘consent is the criteria for the good’ angle, the people they are dealing with are consenting adults whose illegal activities will be ‘victimless’. The smuggling girls across the border – that seems a little hard to believe.

The Crowd Size of the 9/12 Rally in Washington

Thursday, September 17, AD 2009

capitol-view-lo-res

A controversy has blown up on the internet with claims that the 9/12 rally in Washington had about 60,000-90,000 people in attendance.  Charles Martin at Pajamas Media drives a stake through the heart of that claim here.

“Since I wrote that piece, though, we have two new sources of information. First, the ridership statistics from D.C. Metro became available after being delayed, apparently because of a fatal accident on the Metro tracks. The Heritage Foundation, using these figures, computed that Metrorail ridership was about 235,000 greater than the previous weekend. As they say, that in itself is more than three times the (unreliable and badly sourced) number reported in the legacy media.

Second, there is now a high-resolution photo from FreedomWorks, which you can see in the poster here.

His conclusions from all available evidence:

“What can we take away from this exercise? Here are the main points:

  • The estimate widely used in the legacy media is not from an authoritative source, and it isn’t even consistent with itself: “full back to 3rd Street” is around 250,000 by Park Sevice methods, not a quarter of that.
  • Many estimates, using different assumptions and different methods, arrived at numbers well into the hundreds of thousands.
  • This is clearly consistent with the panoramic photo that we can source reliably.
  • With everything above, and with several more estimates, I don’t think there is a plausible argument for any total attendance figure much less that 500,000 to 600,000. That is, nearly ten times the reported attendance.”
Continue reading...

One Response to The Crowd Size of the 9/12 Rally in Washington

Acorn on the Ropes

Thursday, September 17, AD 2009

 

1.  The second part of the San Bernardino Acorn expose of O’Keefe and Giles.  Go here to read the comments of Giles regarding her “girl talk” with the flakey Acorn employee.

 

2.  In the wake of the Acorn scandal exposed by the intrepid duo of O’Keefe and Giles, Acorn has announced that it is suspending advising new clients and is setting up an independent review board.  Hmmm, this is an amazing turnabout from the initial reaction of  Acorn to the videos  which was that the whole thing was a conspiracy against Acorn put together by Fox.  Of course the “independent review board” is stacked with cronies and supporters of Acorn, but at least Acorn is under such pressure that it has to pretend to be trying to reform itself.

3.  Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota has ordered a review and suspension of any state contracts with Acorn.

4.  Governor Schwarzenegger in California is calling for a full investigation of Acorn’s California activities.

5.  Meantime Acorn has joined the Reverend Wright, and many other groups and individuals under the Obama bus.  Obama had a somewhat different attitude regarding the organization just last year:

When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, “I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That’s what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That’s the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

6.  The Lying Worthless Political Hack, a/k/a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, was asked about the Senate bill cutting off funding for Acorn, her response was as follows:  “I don’t even know what they passed,” Pelosi told The Post yesterday. “What did they do? They defunded it?”

7.  I have never liked Jon Stewart:  too liberal for my conservative tastes.  However, this clip of his show here where he lambastes the mainstream media for missing the Acorn story is a must see.  As he notes, he is a fake journalist and he feels terrible about being scooped on a story by a couple of kids.  He gets to the heart of the matter.  The corruption of Acorn has been apparent for years, but neither the media nor the politicians did anything until a very inventive “couple of kids” took the initiative to expose the corruption for all to see.  A media that ignores this type of story is a media that is worthless.  Politicians who tolerate this type of corruption and shovel taxpayer funds at a manifestly corrupt organization are worse than worthless.  What O’Keefe and Giles have demonstrated is that we do not have to put up with this state of affairs.  Look forward for more shoes to drop:    more videos are on the way.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Acorn on the Ropes

  • Someone pointed out at NRO that all this is because of 2 brave people whose combined age is 45. If the media had done their jobs, this sort of citizen activism would be unnecessary.

  • No, I do not work for Acorn, I simply wish to share links to contribute to a fair and balanced discussion.

    http://tinyurl.com/ovtndn

    Again, I do not ask you to agree with every words in the comments. I simply ask you to take a look at the charges of promoting lies and then respond. Thank you.

  • I love the way Jon Stewart says these two did the entire story for less than it costs CNN to shop-vac Wolf Blitzer’s beard or turn on their fancy hologram! 😉

  • Well, Brian, looks like they debunked the dead husband (and lucky for him!).

    As to the rest of it…?

    Moreover, to have a balanced discussion, it would be nice if you at least acknowledged the grotesque employee behavior that occurred at the other offices.

  • As Dale points out, please address the problems with the other sites. I know you provided links about thes also. Most of the comments on those links were “they broke the law” by taping. Maybe so. Still doesn’t absolve the wrongs that ACORN does.

    Also noted this banner on the link your provided above. Why is this using the “N” word?

    “Why Won’t The Media Address the Real Issue? ‘ACORN’ Is Wingnut Code for The ‘N’ Word.”

  • Why on Earth would the San Diego lady go along with this little “hoax” and play up the hooker angle? At best, she is incredibly stupid, and funding should be stopped for that alone.

  • What is most damning about these vids is that the workers take the requests completely in stride – as if they’ve given similiar advice many times.

    The thing I wonder about is that while just about any woman under the age of 40 can make herself look whorish just by applying makeup with a trowel and putting on some tacky clothes*, O’Keefe strikes me as the world’s least convincing “pimp.” (And not because he is white. He just doesn’t have a “street-smart” aura about him.) I’m surprised the ACORN workers bought it.

    *I remember the hookers on DC’s 14th Street before that area was cleaned up. I felt sorry for them. Virtually none of them looked liked Giles or Julia Roberts. Many of them looked ill – either obese or heroin-addict skinny -and like they were in a drug haze. What a wretched life.

  • O’Keefe and Giles are a pimp and a whore right out of a Disney cartoon. They are completely unconvincing. This makes the whole thing all the more delicious! The Acorn people are not only crooks, they are stupid crooks!

  • I suppose that I made yet another weak attempt at stirring discussion. I apologize. I have tried before and I may try again, but I admit that this time I made mistakes.

2 Responses to Now This, This Is A Warcrime!

The Acorn Scandals Continue

Tuesday, September 15, AD 2009

O’Keefe and Giles take their pimp and prostitute masquerade to an Acorn office in San Bernadino California and are met with open arms!  Four Acorn offices across the nation have no problem with helping out a criminal enterprise involving underage prostitutes!  This has been a brilliant sting which has brought Acorn to its knees in just a few days.  Amazing, simply amazing!  Go here to read Hannah Giles’ comments on the science behind the Acorn sting. 

The mainstream media and this story?  Best summed up by ABC’s Charlie Gibson’s comment this morning on WLS in Chicago that he knew nothing about it.  If a story reflects poorly on Democrats, it might as well not exist for much of the mainstream media.  In the day of blogs and youtube, this type of partisan “ostrich journalism” is rapidly becoming extinct.  They will not be missed.

 

Update:  The New York City city council has suspended payments to Acorn and the Attorney General of New York has announced an investigation into pork barrel grants to Acorn. 

Continue reading...

7 Responses to The Acorn Scandals Continue

  • I don’t why I’m still surprised by Charles Gibson’s reaction. But I like the term you coined “ostrich journalism”.

    I think we should add that as our new tag to articles such as these.

  • Good idea Tito. I have added the “OJ” tag!

  • Ostrich journalism? I think not. The MSM is bravely covering Congress’s heroic effort to censure Joe Wilson.

  • “The mainstream media and this story? Best summed up by ABC’s Charlie Wilson’s comment this morning on WLS in Chicago that he knew nothing about it.”

    Charlie Wilson? or Gibson??

    Mini Rant:

    From ACORN to Unions to Planned Parenthood, I will say it seems to be so much about SPECIAL INTERESTS.

    Perhaps it is fair play to say Insurance Companies are behind some who oppose Health Care, I don’t know. That is why Tort Reform is needed.

    Now, Carter and the Democrats are trying an end run and bringing up race. Some oppose Obama based on race I would admit but not a significant percentage.

    But these matters with ACORN certainly bring to light the special interest nature of some Democrats. If as we have heard a long time ago, we did not have the most pro-abortion president ever, I might be more tolerant in other areas.

  • Tom, thank you for catching my error as to Mr. Gibson’s last name and I have corrected it in the post.

  • Pingback: Acorn on the Ropes « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Jesuitical 8: I am Shocked! Shocked! « The American Catholic

From Tiny Acorns Mighty Scandals Grow

Tuesday, September 15, AD 2009

Acorn, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a left wing political action group with close ties to the Democrat party.  Since 1994 it has received over 53 million dollars in federal funds.  It has a long history of involvement in voter registration fraud.  Obama has a very long history of involvement with Acorn.  Acorn has acknowledged problems in voter registration fraud but has blamed a few “bad apples”.

Thanks to the intrepid James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, posing as a pimp and prostitute, we now know quite a bit more about advice that Acorn gives to those seeking assistance from them.  Hitting Acorn offices in Baltimore, Washington and Brooklyn, Acorn employees were only too happy to assist O’Keefe and Giles in setting up a fictitious house of prostitution involving underage prostitutes.  The advice of the Acorn worker in Baltimore that the girl prostitutes could be listed as dependents on the tax returns of O”Keefe and Giles is pure comedy gold!

Continue reading...

31 Responses to From Tiny Acorns Mighty Scandals Grow

  • Looks like Bob Casey is also one of the seven.

  • Am I remembering correctly that back around the election, conservative Catholics were being scolded for objecting to the bishops funnelling a million or so from the Catholic Campaign For Human Development into these folks?

  • Accusing left wing Catholics of defending Acorn? For shame Darwin!

    http://vox-nova.com/2008/11/24/the-house-that-neuhaus-built/#more-5186

  • Interesting; all that talk about breaking the cycle of poverty and structures of sin. Of course those are noble goals and I’d say a moral obligation. But as often the case it boils down to what one considers to be the cycle of poverty, the structure of sin, and the means of breaking it – and what one is willing to do, allow, or overlook to enact their cure. Clearly some will excuse any injustice, immorality, or counterproductive acts if it favors their political ideology.

    Here’s the prototype of the response:

    You so called conservatives, you’re really liberals in the true sense of the word. You’re not against human trafficking, the exploitation of minors and wome. You’re just imperialists who don’t want poor Latin American to have gainful employment!

  • It is truly amazing with all that smoke and indeed some fire these folks were going to play a role in the Census. And no one in the media seemed to care

  • funnelling a million or so from the Catholic Campaign For Human Development into these folks?

    they got a lot of money from there, which is cut-off now, but the money is going to birds of a feather anyway. Don’t give anything to these socialism pushers.

  • I agree with Matt. I used to give, but unfortunately no longer trust them to use the money wisely.

  • MIke I still urge people to give to the collection. THey just did to be asking the Bishops where it is going!!

    I think the very Orthodox Diocese of Kanasa City did this right

  • Oh, I apologize for the links leaking over onto the next column. I really had no idea that would happen.

  • Sort of off topic: Undercover work requires lying. Can Catholics be undercover officers?

  • Considering the number of brave priests over the centuries who have adopted false identities in order to spread the message of Christ in areas hostile to the Church, I do not believe there is a blanket condemnation of deceit in all circumstances. Here are some relevant passages from the Catechism:

    “2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

    2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.282

    2491 Professional secrets – for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers – or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.”

  • Don,

    I’m not so sure you can call it “deceit”; this has too much of a negative connotation attached to it that folks might mistake it as having malicious intent.

    Just like those brave priests you mentioned, I would not think theirs could even be considered such a case.

    They are not unlike those brave Catholics who essentially did the same when facilitating the escape of those Jews undergoing persecution during WWII.

  • Pingback: The Acorn Scandals Continue « The American Catholic
  • I agree with you e. There are times when it is very immoral to tell the truth.

  • “the filmmakers reportedly went to several ACORN offices, where their ploy was unsuccessful, before finding someone to fall for their scheme.”

    Sorry, Brian, but that statement does not equal “they found only one office that took their bait.” It merely implies that some ACORN offices of the total that were visited didn’t bite. (Why they didn’t immediately call the police is another question.) Unless you’ve got something more definitive stashed somewhere, I’d say the Newshounds appear to be the kind of hound who’ll yap at anything.

  • I will grant, however, that there appears to be a time stamp discrepancy on the film (Newshounds missed that, but a commenter remarked on it so it doesn’t alter my opinion of them.) The version Big Government has is edited and has no time stamp, but the camera pans briefly to a dry-erase calendar labeled “July ’09.” I’m looking for it on the vids above, but no dice yet.

  • They allegedly visited multiple branches of ACORN and found only one that took their bait.

    Given that they’ve already released videos from four different offices (each offering to help them with their prostitution ring) this seems unlikely.

  • There are times when it is very immoral to tell the truth.

    But isn’t it always immoral to lie? “I’m a pimp” is a lie, not a withholding of truth.

  • “But isn’t it always immoral to lie? “I’m a pimp” is a lie, not a withholding of truth.”

    Well, there go investigative journalism, detective work, and intel as career options for practicing Catholics.

  • restrainedradical: It’s 1942 and you’re hiding Anne Frank and her family in Amsterdam. An SS officer asks you if you know where any Jews are hidden. Do you say, “Well, since it’s always immoral to lie, officer, they’re in that building over there, right up those stairs.”

  • restrainedradical: It’s 1942 and you’re hiding Anne Frank and her family in Amsterdam. An SS officer asks you if you know where any Jews are hidden. Do you say, “Well, since it’s always immoral to lie, officer, they’re in that building over there, right up those stairs.”

    I’d hope that God gives me the strength to say to the officer, “none of your business.”

  • I covered this issue with my criticism of Lila Rose.

    What I decided, since there does not seem to be clear Church teaching on this, is that undercover work may be moral, but entrapment is not, because it is an attempt to lead people into sins they would not otherwise commit. As I see it, that is an offense against human dignity. We’re supposed to lead people away from sin in order to save them, not lead them into it in order to condemn them (that would be Satan’s mission).

    I’m not sure it is the case here, since the ACORN employees seem to have been ready with the relevant information, as if it were a thing they typically do. They didn’t have to be persuaded. The possibility was brought up and they immediately seized upon it. It suggests that they have done this sort of thing before.

  • I interpret Aquinas as saying that undercover work is a venial sin and entrapment is a mortal sin. But wouldn’t it be a mortal sin to accepts a job that requires constant venial sinning? Shouldn’t the Church ban Catholics from becoming undercover officers?

  • I’m not sure it is the case here, since the ACORN employees seem to have been ready with the relevant information, as if it were a thing they typically do. They didn’t have to be persuaded.

    Same thing with Rose and Planned Parenthood. That’s the whole point of Rose’s videos.

  • I wonder if I can respond to this without having every word I type “reinterpreted” to suit the needs of the moment.

    I didn’t see the ‘same thing’ in the videos where Lila Rose is trying to expose racism at Planned Parenthood.

    People never seem to understand or acknowledge a very simple thing: she did two different things. Exposing Planned Parenthood’s flouting of state laws was, I think, legitimate undercover work.

    Trying to make the case that Planned Parenthood is racist because one of its clinics took money that was supposed to be ear-marked for black abortions is entrapment, if not of a legal kind, of a moral kind. The people on the other end of the line had clearly never heard such a request before and were clearly not in the habit of doing that sort of thing.

    So, in one case, yes, it was the same. In the other case, no, it wasn’t.

  • Pingback: Acorn on the Ropes « The American Catholic
  • I’d hope that God gives me the strength to say to the officer, “none of your business.”

    Do you think that was an option in Nazi-occupied Europe? So you say that and the SS officer has you arrested and tortured and imprisoned. In the meantime, the Jews you have hidden are starving because you haven’t been able to bring them provisions and they can’t very well go out and get them themselves.

    So not only your life, but theirs is endangered. But gee, that’s fine, because you haven’t lied.

  • Under such circumstances I’d lie a million times if need be to save an innocent life and I do believe my guardian angel would be cheering me on.

  • Pingback: Jesuitical 8: I am Shocked! Shocked! « The American Catholic
  • ?????????? ??????, ?? ??? ???????

Of Tea and Elections

Monday, September 14, AD 2009

I have had my eyes on the tea party movement protesting government spending since the beginning of the movement.  On Saturday a huge national tea party protest was held in Washington.  Estimates of crowd size range from 500,000 to 2.3 million.  Some organs of the mainstream media are attempting to downplay the significance of this event.  Politicians on both sides of the aisle are not so gullible.  They realize that a political storm is brewing.  Perhaps even more significant than this show of strength by the forces opposed to the drunken sailor spending of the Obama administration are the state tea parties taking place each week.  For example in the completely blue state of Illinois, my home state, there was a tea party at New Lennox near Joliet last week that drew 10,000 people.   This weekend a tea party at Quincy, Illinois drew 12000 people.   Receiving scant coverage from the national media, these parties are are becoming a real factor in the 2010 elections.

Charlie Cook is one of the best political prognosticators in the business.  Here is what he is seeing:

 

“Even in the best of times, Congress is unpopular. And now voters see Obama as having sent suggestions rather than proposals to the Hill, staking his future and reputation on a body that they hold in low regard. (On foreign-policy matters, where Congress plays a small role, Obama’s job-approval ratings remain quite good. It’s on the domestic side that his numbers are dismal.)

With 14 months to go before the 2010 midterm election, something could happen to improve the outlook for Democrats. However, wave elections, more often than not, start just like this: The president’s ratings plummet; his party loses its advantage on the generic congressional ballot test; the intensity of opposition-party voters skyrockets; his own party’s voters become complacent or even depressed; and independent voters move lopsidedly away. These were the early-warning signs of past wave elections. Seeing them now should terrify Democrats.”

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Of Tea and Elections

  • To be sure, this movement is about liberty and the founding principles. Every hour we work to fund unconstitutional government boondoggles is an hour we are enslaved to it. The founding fathers never envisioned that so much power would be centralized and would trample the rights enshrined in the founding documents.

    It should also be noted that this is not a Republican movement, and many Republicans should fear it, but for the Democrats it should be terrifying.

  • Estimates of crowd size range from 500,000 to 2.3 million.

    No they don’t. The D.C. Fire and Emergency Department says 60,000-75,000. Most places are reporting 70,000. It is impressive but protests many times larger (Iraq War, immigration, March for Life) go ignored. After the world-record setting Iraq War protests, Bush was reelected. Obama is not invulnerable but this rally is hardly terrifying.

  • Restrained Radical the pictures of the events speak for themselves. This was clearly an event with at least 500,000 people in attendance.

    I would also note this comment from a participant:

    “Eric, September 13, 2009 2:20 PM
    The 70,000 number came from the original estimated size of the march, and the Fire Dept. safety estimate of the capacity of Freedom Square. This was the projected estimate of the expected crowd at 1130. The Capitol police ordered the march to begin at 0930, because Freedom Square had REACHED IT’S MAXIMUM SAFETY CAPACITY two hours before the event. The crowd filled the west lawn and spilled into the National Mall, where the Capitol Police tried to prevent overflow into the mall, but for safety reasons they permitted the attendees to fill the Mall ALMOST AS FAR AS 9TH STREET. I was there. You can try to prevent the truth from escaping, but every single person that was there is fired up,and you can’t stop first-person eyewitness accounts from leaking out.”

    http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/09/video-shows-massive-crowd-gathered-for.html

  • A good article on the difficulties of determining the precise size of the crowd. I agree with him that good aerial pics of the event would make this a lot easier.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-big-was-the-crowd/

  • I was there and there were clearly more than 70,000 the number is closer to 1+ million. I saw an estimate, using a statistical analysis of the area covered from aerial photographs and crowd density that puts it at 1.7 million, that is 1,700,000!!!

    It was peaceful, zero arrests, polite, chanting of USA, USA, chanting of we own the dome and we own the Mall, and singing of the national anthem. This is far more than a protest (and it isn’t necessarily against Obama or event the Demopublicans or the Republicrats) this is a pro-government movement — pro CONSTITUTIONAL government under God that is.

    Even the atheist from the so-called Objectivist Ayn Rand institute made some good points. The media, political establishment and the trans-national banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve want to downplay the numbers because they don’t want us to know that most of the people of the states and commonwealths of America, united, are of the same fundamental mind-set:

    ONLY USE THE POWERS ENUMERATED in the CONSTITUTION and never forget that the so-called separation of church and state is to PROTECT the church from the government — not the other way around.

    This is the beginning of the end (it will take time) of the decay of America (and probably Western Civilization) God willing. If not, it will be over — perhaps the second coming maybe just the downfall of civilization as we know it. The moral decay of a civilization always precedes the ultimate decay.

    Most of the people I met, from all over the country and one guy from Australia, were moral, God-fearing people who are sick of the decay, both moral and the rejection of God and the true American principles (based on Christian principles).

    We need not fail, we cannot give in and without seeming too much of an American exceptionalist [well maybe a little too much:)], the downfall of America is the downfall of civilization and the ascension of Communist/fascist/collectivist slavery.

    Sure the Church universal will not fail until Christ returns, but the Church in America has no such guarantee.

    My favorite sign, other than the one my wife made, was simple. It was white, with blue writing and it stated:

    Ephesians 6:12

    Mary of Sorrows, ora pro nobis.

  • Pingback: The Crowd Size of the 9/12 Rally in Washington « The American Catholic

Irena Sendler

Sunday, September 13, AD 2009

Some people just make you proud to be a human being, and the incredibly heroic Irena Sendler is in that category.  When asked why she saved 2500-3000 Jewish kids she said simply:  “I was taught that if you see a person drowning, you must jump into the water to save them, whether you can swim or not.”  The acclaim she received late in life bothered her somewhat:  “Every child saved with my help is the justification of my existence on this Earth, and not a title to glory.” 

When any of us confront evil and think, “What can I do?”, may the example of Irena Sendler cause us to do the very most that we can.  Irena Sendler did not think of herself as a heroine.  She said that she could have done much more.  I find that hard to believe, but with such a conscience to guide her I can understand how she accomplished the near miraculous.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Irena Sendler

God Save The Tsar

Saturday, September 12, AD 2009

Something for the weekend.  God Save The Tsar, the national anthem of pre-Revolutionary Russia.  As a whole the members of the Romanov dynasty who ruled Russia for three centuries prior to 1917 were a rather bad group of rulers, with the exceptions of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Alexander II, the Tsar Liberator who freed the serfs, and seemed to specialize in inept mediocrities,  especially poor doomed Nicholas II, the last Tsar, who lacked the ability to run a town let alone a vast empire.  However, they were fortunate in their successors.  They shine when compared to monsters like Lenin and Stalin.  Perhaps the Obama administration could revive the song and have it played when some of their “tsars” consult with the President?

Continue reading...

One Response to God Save The Tsar

  • Kontakion 1

    O passion bearer chosen from birth and incarnation of the love of Christ, * we sing thee praises as one who did love all the fatherland. * As thou hast boldness before the Lord, * enlighten our darkened minds and hearts that we may cry to thee: *
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.
    Ikos 1
    The Creator of angels did send thee to the Russian land as an angel of meekness and instructor to thy people, as He did choose thee after the example of His Only Begotten Son to be a sacrifice of redemption for the sins of the people. And we, marveling at the Providence of the Almighty towards thee, cry out with contrition:

    Rejoice, O likeness of Christ.
    Rejoice, sacrifice of whole burnt offering.
    Rejoice, adornment of the Tsar’s of Russia.
    Rejoice, thou who gavest an example of meekness and forgiveness to all.
    Rejoice, true hope of the offended.
    Rejoice, unshakable foundation of faith.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.

    Kontakion 2

    The All good Mother of God, seeing her chosen place, the Russian land, defiled by the abomination of corruption, chose thee from thy birth as a most pure one who would be for the cleansing of Russia, that all might as a funeral lamentation make a hymn to thee: Alleluia.
    Ikos 2
    The pre eternal Mind did fore know thy salvation and thy life, prefigured by Job the Much Suffering, joining thy birth and the memory of the righteous one. And we, recalling our sins and lawless deeds, with trembling of heart and contrition of soul cry out to thee thus:
    Rejoice, thou who didst endure abuse and trials from thine own people.
    Rejoice, thou who didst preserve the Faith to the end.
    Rejoice, example of meekness.
    Rejoice, guardian of the worship of God.
    Rejoice, rule of humility.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.

    Kontakion 3
    The power of the Most High did overshadow thee, O God crowned Nicholas, who didst fight back to enlighten the West in its false wisdom, that the world might cry out to God: Alleluia.
    Ikos 3
    Having fervor for the enlightenment of those gone astray, thou, O right believing Tsar, was zealous for the erection of churches, the glorification of the relics of the Saints who pleased God, the planting of Christian enlightenment, and the protection of the unfortunate against violence, and so the Christian world cried out to thee thus:
    Rejoice, namesake of St. Nicholas upon the earth.
    Rejoice, fellow intercessor with St. Seraphim in Heaven.
    Rejoice, planter of Orthodoxy.
    Rejoice, bearer of the Light of Christ.
    Rejoice, teacher of Christian patience.
    Rejoice, intercessor for Orthodox Christians.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.

    Kontakion 4
    Thou didst not fear the storm of folly and abuse, O Passion bearer Nicholas, when thou didst renounce agreement with the enemies for the destruction of the fatherland; and thou didst endure censure, imprisonment, and death, crying to the Almighty: Alleluia.
    Ikos 4
    Hearing of the tumults of the Russian land and beholding the destruction of Christians, thou didst unceasingly pray, that the alleged Mother of God save Orthodox Russia. Wherefore, we cry out to thee:
    Rejoice, fragrant incense of prayer.
    Rejoice, inextinguishable lamp of faith.
    Rejoice, admonisher of the violent by the meekness.
    Rejoice, consoled of the disconsolate amid sorrows.
    Rejoice, lover of heavenly things.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.

    Kontakion 5
    Thou hast been revealed as a God-guided star for Russians in the diaspora, O Tsar Nicholas; for, gathering them together in thy name, thou dost show the path to the rebirth of the Russian land, that we may hear angels crying out: Alleluia!
    Ikos 5
    Seeing that thy meekness and humility accomplished nothing, thou didst place all thy hope in the Most Pure Mother of God and give thyself entirely into the hands of the Almighty, that even the senseless might be instructed to sing to thee:
    Rejoice, vanquisher of pride,
    Rejoice, invincible rampart of the infirm.
    Rejoice, enlightenment of the proud.
    Rejoice, overflowing love for thy people.
    Rejoice, fervent sacrifice for the Russian land.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God-crowned Tsar and great passion- bearer.

    Kontakion 6
    The ends of the world preach thy glory, and thy word hath gone forth into all the earth; for there is no sacrifice thou wouldst not have offered for the good of the Russian land, thereby teaching thy people to sing in thanksgiving to God: Alleluia.
    Ikos 6
    Thou didst shine forth greater than the sun for the Russian land, O Tsar Nicholas, revealing thine intercession for the Orthodox people even unto death, that all might be converted to Christ and hasten to thee. Therefore we hymn thee thus:
    Rejoice, O light that hath come out of the East.
    Rejoice, example to Orthodox kings.
    Rejoice, unquenchable shining of righteousness.
    Rejoice, unsetting luminary of meekness.
    Rejoice, fatherly exhortation to sinners.
    Rejoice, fervent glorification of the righteous.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God-crowned Tsar and great passion-bearer.

    Kontakion 7

    Wishing to strengthen Orthodox Faith on earth, thou didst move thy whole kingdom to the defense of the wronged land of Serbia, that all might cry out to God: Alleluia.
    Ikos 7
    The Lord did manifest thee as a new Noah, a builder of salvation for the Russian people, that all, remembering thy labors, might cry out ceaselessly thus:
    Rejoice, helmsman of the Russian ship.
    Rejoice, consoled of the Slavs in misfortunes.
    Rejoice, guide of Russians.
    Rejoice, proclaimer of the love of peace.
    Rejoice, planter of Christian virtues.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.

    Kontakion 8
    We see strange wonder in thee, O Nicholas, who many times wast saved by the right hand of the Most High and was crowned by a martyr’s crown with thy children and kinsmen, that we might cry out to God the Provider of all things: Alleluia.
    Ikos 8
    Thou was entirely a defender for all Christians, O divinely chosen Nicholas, and didst show a double intercession for the Slavic peoples, moving them to sing to thee in praise:
    Rejoice, defense of the offended.
    Rejoice, exhortation to offenders.
    Rejoice, refuge of the grieving.
    Rejoice, intercessor for the persecuted.
    Rejoice, intercessor for the persecuted.
    Rejoice, peacemaker in thy life.
    Rejoice, champion of Christians after thy murder.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.

    Kontakion 9
    By many wonders did the Lord reveal His good will to the Russian people, until they did grieve Him mightily; but being called by thee in repentance, we cry out together unto God: Alleluia.
    Ikos 9
    Eloquent orators, like voiceless fish, cannot express the height of thy patience; but we, beholding the abyss of our fall, cry out in contrition of spirit:
    Rejoice, unvanquishable patience.
    Rejoice, unwavering faithfulness of Christians.
    Rejoice, wise teacher of the foolish.
    Rejoice, thou who didst give an example to the faithful in thy life and martyr’s death.
    Rejoice, thou who didst suffer for the sins of thy people.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.

    Kontakion 10
    Christ the Knower of hearts, Who founded His Church on the blood of martyrs, desiring to save all men, did place thee, O Passion-bearer Nicholas, as the foundation of the new house of the Russian realm, that all within it might cry out to God: Alleluia.
    Ikos 10
    Thou art a rampart for all who hasten to thee with faith, and an inextinguishable protection for the Orthodox world, and thou dost teach all the faithful to glorify thee thus:
    Rejoice, manifestation of heavenly things on earth.
    Rejoice, new strength for those grown faint in virtues.
    Rejoice, dawn that hath shone forth on the land of Russia.
    Rejoice, river that doth nourish all her boundaries.
    Rejoice, teacher of the humility of wisdom.
    Rejoice, planter of faith and love.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer

    Kontakion 11
    Offering a hymn to the Most Holy Trinity even unto thy death, thou didst finish thy course and keep the Faith, by which thou dost move all Orthodox Christians to sing: Alleluia.
    Ikos 11
    Thou wast sent by the Giver of Light to the Russian land like an immaculate lamb, and thou didst lay down thy life for the redemption of our sins, that we all might ceaselessly glorify thee thus:
    Rejoice, sacrifice beloved of God.
    Rejoice, unquenchable abundance of love.
    Rejoice, praise of the faithfulness of Christ.
    Rejoice, invisible blowing of the Spirit.
    Rejoice, mirror of wisdom.
    Rejoice, hope of the hopeless.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.

    Kontakion 12
    Divine grace which health the infirm did fore know thee as an imperishable healing for thy subjects who cry out to God: Alleluia.
    Ikos 12
    Hymning thy sufferings, O Passion-bearer Nicholas, we bow down before thy patience, for the power of the Almighty Trinity was manifest in thee, that we might all with one accord cry out:
    Rejoice, beloved child of Christ.
    Rejoice, thou who didst conduct thine immaculate children and faithful servants to Christ.
    Rejoice, thou who didst aid the Queen to be righteous and a martyr.
    Rejoice, thou who didst truly direct thy people.
    Rejoice, thou who didst not bring abuse to the honor of thy fatherland.
    Rejoice, thou who didst gain the Kingdom of Heaven.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.

    Kontakion 13
    O most wondrous and most glorious Passion-bearer Nicholas, look down upon thy earthly kingdom and thy people, for we have no answer for our sins, and entreat the Almighty that He may not enter into judgment with us, but might vouchsafe us ceaselessly to cry out: Alleluia {three times}.
    Ikos 1
    The Creator of angels did send thee to the Russian land as an angel of meekness and instructor to the people, and He did choose thee after the example of His Only Begotten Son to be a sacrifice of redemption for the sins of the people. And, we, marveling at the Providence of the Almighty towards thee, cry out with contrition:
    Rejoice, O likeness of Christ.
    Rejoice, sacrifice of whole burnt offering.
    Rejoice, adornment of the Tsars of Russia.
    Rejoice, thou who gavest an example of meekness and forgiveness to all.
    Rejoice, true hope of the offended.
    Rejoice, unshakable foundation of faith.
    Rejoice, O Nicholas, God-corwned Tsar and great passion bearer.

    Kontakion 1
    O passion-bearer chosen from birth and incarnation of the love of Christ, * we sing thee praises as one who did love above all thy fatherland. * As thou hast boldness before the Lord, * enlighten our darkened minds and hearts that we may cry to thee: *
    Tropar ion, Tone 5
    Thou didst meekly endure the loss of an earthly kingdom, * and bonds and many sufferings from the fighters against God, * witnessing of Christ even unto death, * O great Passion-bearer and God crowned Tsar Nicholas. * Wherefore Christ God did crown thee and thy Queen and children with a martyr’s crown in Heaven; * do thou entreat Him to have mercy on the Russian land and to save our souls.

    A Prayer To The Holy Tsar-Martyr Nicholas

    O holy passion-bearer Tsar Martyr Nicholas! The Lord has chosen thee as His anointed one to judge with mercy and righteousness thy people and to be the guardian of the Orthodox Kingdom.

    This royal service and the care for souls thou hast completed with the fear of God. Testing thee as gold in the furnace, the Lord has allowed bitter sorrows to come upon thee, as to the much suffering Job, by depriving thee of thy royal throne and sending upon thee martyric death. Having meekly endured all this, like a true slave of Christ, thou art partaking of the highest glory at the Throne of the God of All, together with the Holy Martyrs, the holy Tsarina Alexandra, the holy youth Crown Prince Alexis, and the holy princesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia and with the faithful servants of thine, as well as with the holy Martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth and with all the Royal Martyrs and the Holy Martyr Barbara.

    For as having great boldness before Christ King, for whose sake thou hast endured everything, pray with us, that the Lord might forgive the sin of thy people, who did not stop thy slaughter, as King and Anointed One of God, that the Lord will deliver the suffering land of Russia from the fierce and godless ones, who came upon it because of our sin and apostasy, and that He will restore the throne of Orthodox Tsars, and to us will grant forgiveness of sins and will instruct us on every good deed, that we might acquire humbleness, meekness and love, as these Martyrs have done, that we will be vouchsafed the Heavenly Kingdom, where together with thee and all the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, we might glorify Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, both now and ever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Bishop Gracida: Sensus Fidelium

Thursday, September 10, AD 2009

Bishop Rene Gracida

Over on his blog, Abyssus Abyssum InvocatBishop Rene Gracida, retired bishop of Corpus Christi, explains why he thinks it is the duty of the laity to speak out against the Kennedy Funeral:

“OVER ON THE “PRIESTS’ SECRETARY BLOG,

http://4thepriests.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/first-bishop-to-express-concerns-with-kennedy-funeral/

some of what I had written about the scandal of the Ted Kennedy funeral was reproduced and posted on that Blog.
One person, Drew Black, sent in a comment to that Blog:

“Drew Black

Thank-you, Excellency for the courage to speak out, to put the truth into print. May I ask why it is the laity’s duty to formally criticize the Cardinal of  Boston?     It would seem that the most efficacious means of correction would come from the top. Authority in the church lies with its leaders. You must stand up publicly to one another. Please. We pray for you in this year of the priest.?Mary help you.

Thinking that others might be asking themselves the similar question “why did Bishop Gracida consider it the laity’s duty to formally criticize the Cardinal of Boston?” I decided to send an answer to Drew Black on that same Blog.  Here was my answer:

September 9, 2009 at 2:16 pm

abyssum

Drew Black,

You ask “why is it the laity’s duty to formally criticize the Cardinal of Boston?”?In response I would refer you to the Historical Tracts written by the Servant of God, John Henry Cardinal Newman, in which he describes the situation in the Fourth Century when, he says, practically all of the Church’s bishops were tainted either with Arianism or Semi-Arianism, all except for the Pope and Saint Athanasius. The “sensus fidelium” of the laity saved the Church because they would not follow the lead of their bishops. The Pope and Saint Athanasius, relying on that “sensus fidelium” were able to carry the day at the Council of Nicea. Sometimes, history does repeat itself.

My point in referring to what Cardinal Newman wrote was that there are times in the life of the Church when the laity needs to make known to the Church’s hierarchy exactly what the sensus fidelium is with regard to whatever burning issue is affecting the unity of the Church at that moment.”

Bravo Bishop!  It is all too easy for we laity to sit back and leave protecting the teaching of the Church to the clergy.  Rubbish!  The teachings of Christ apply to the laity and the clergy both, and the laity cannot shirk the duty to point out when events are taking place within the Church that are in flat contradiction to that teaching.  The Church, the Bride of Christ, is no less precious to the laity, and when the clergy neglect their duty, that is no excuse for faithful members of the laity to forget theirs.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Bishop Gracida: Sensus Fidelium

  • If I may correct something. Athanasius carried the day AFTER the Council of Nicea. He was only an elder, not a bishop, during Nicea, so he wasn’t one of the participants. (He was appointed bishop in 328, 3 years after Nicea.) It was afterward, during the decades of battle over Nicea, that Athanasius won the day against the Arians.

    As _The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_, 2nd series, vol. 4, quoting another author, put it: “[Athanasius] was molded by the Nicene Creed, did not mold it himself.”

    Of course, in the process of winning the battle, the Athanasian Creed (http://www.christian-history.org/athanasian-creed.html) was created–whether or not it was actually written by Athanasius–which is different from what the Nicene Creed teaches. (Nicene Creed: One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ; Athanasian Creed: One God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; we can make an awful good argument that Nicea was “semi-Arian”)

    Also, I haven’t found anywhere that the “pope” is even mentioned concerning the Council of Nicea. In fact he wasn’t there, sending presbyters in his place. (NPNF says it was because of his age that he did not come.)

    In fact, it’s of note, in my opinion, that the only mention made of him is that the bishop of Rome is said in Canon 6 to have a similar authority (not a greater one) to that of the bishop of Alexandria.

  • In regard to Saint Athanasius you are correct. He led the fight against Arianism after Nicea. In regard to the pope, the popes of the fourth century and the Church in the West in general were the bulwark against Arianism which was very strong in the East, which made the fight of Saint Athanasius in Egypt such an uphill struggle.

  • I love the notion of the sensus fidelium. It is very much in the spirit of Vatican II, the affirmation that the Holy Spirit is working through all the faithful. Of course, that would mean that artificial contraception is permissible and monogamous homosexual relationships are also in play. I like this idea.

  • It’s “sense of the faithful” Kevin, not the “sense of in-name-only-Catholics”.

Bishop Gracida on the Kennedy Funeral

Thursday, September 10, AD 2009

Bishop Rene Gracida

Hattip to the ever vigilant Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia, who I really should put on retainer for the number of blogging ideas I steal, that is borrow, from him each month.

Bishop Rene Gracida is the retired bishop of Corpus Christi.  He has a blog called Abyssus Abyssum Invocat.   During World War II he was a tail gunner with the 303rd Hell’s Angels B-17 bomb group.  Why does that come as absolutely no surprise to me?  When it comes to speaking out in regard to the Kennedy funeral, I suppose it requires little courage for a Bishop who faced the skies of WW2 Europe.  The Bishop minces no words:

“WHERE DO I BEGIN

There was so much wrong with the funeral liturgy celebrated in Boston last Saturday for Senator Edward Moore Kennedy that I hardly know where to begin.  Aside from the impropriety of such a grandiose celebration for one of the country’s most notorious dissident Catholics, the ‘celebration’ was filled with liturgical errors and transgressions against the General Instruction of the Roman Missal which governs every celebration of the Church’s liturgy.  I am afraid that if I, a bishop, were to go into the details of the scandal it would only add to the scandal and so I will let the laity speak to it.”

The Bishop then places on his blog critical articles about the funeral from many sources.  Go here to read the articles at his blog and then place the Bishop’s blog under your “Favorites” list.  It is definitely a blog to check in at on a regular basis.

Continue reading...

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and the Church

Wednesday, September 9, AD 2009

Pro-abort Catholic PolsFather Roger J. Landry concludes here that the strategy of the Church to privately persuade Catholic pro-abort pols of the errors of their ways has been a flat failure.

“Let us take an honest look at the numbers. When we survey the long list of pro-choice Catholic politicians from both parties — Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Leahy, Mikulski, Pelosi, Delahunt, Capuano, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Granholm, Sebelius, Pataki, Richardson, Cellucci, Cuomo, and Biden to name just a handful — is it possible to say that the strategy has worked with any of them? Over the last three and a half decades, can we point to even one success story?

Another way to assess the results of the education-alone strategy is to measure the direction that pro-choice Catholic politicians have moved over the years. Even if they haven’t experienced a total conversion, have they moved closer toward limiting abortions or toward making abortions easier to access? The facts show that the vast majority of personally opposed, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators have become far less personally opposed and far more publicly in favor over the duration of the strategy.

In the initial years after Roe versus Wade, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators generally whispered their support for abortion. They displayed a palpable sense of shame, letting their abortion position out just enough so that it wouldn’t cost them the votes of abortion supporters. That discomfort began to dissipate after Governor Mario Cuomo’s 1984 pro-choice defense at Notre Dame. We’ve now come to a situation when pro-choice Catholic legislators vigorously curry the favor of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List;  scores of Catholics in Congress have the chutzpah to co-sponsor the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate almost every abortion restriction ever passed at the federal or state level; and 16 out of 25 Catholic Senators vote against conscience protections to prevent their fellow Catholics in the medical field from being forced to participate in abortions and sterilizations.”

Father Landry ends by suggesting a new approach, perhaps we might call it the “more than hot air” approach:

“Jesus spoke of a different way in the Gospel (Mt 18:15-18). It involves not merely general educational statements that we hope offenders will apply to themselves in conscience, but the type of one-on-one instruction traditionally called fraternal correction. If that fails, and fails repeatedly, Jesus enjoined us to regard the offender as someone who no longer belongs to the community, who is no longer a member in good standing. This may seem harsh, but we should remember that Jesus always seeks nothing but the best for his Church and for individual sinners, even obstinate sinners. Implied in Jesus’ strategy is that education involves not just information, but formation, and that you can’t form disciples without discipline. This is a lesson that, after four decades of the undeniable failure of another approach, we need to consider anew.”

Hattip to my friend the ever vigilant Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia,  and please go here to read his comments on Father Landry’s argument.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and the Church

  • Finally, someone has the courage to state what must be done.

    Thanks
    Paul

  • Yes, I agree with the idea of not considering them part of the community anymore but I think we need to voice that more. We need to let our congregation, the nation and the world know that we do not tolerate abortion support….and that Catholics who support and advocate it are excommunicated. We need to literally stand up and state what our Catechism says:

    “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.”

  • Well stated Simon. I was disappointed that Caroline Kennedy was pro-choice, repulsive, it’s incompatible with Catholic beliefs. Isn’t their someone in the Kennedy clan who bolts from this philosophy and ideology? Isn’t it good to know, of course, that Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece is pro-life.

    I have never wavered being pro-life though I have considered the question in full when younger, I respect an argument. Now, I consider how central and pivotal of an idea is it for the Church to be pushing.

    It was an interesting editorial in the UK, by a spokesman for the Tories I believe in the Daily Telegraph that grilled Ted Kennedy for voting for the partial birth abortions. England, can’t speak for the total UK because abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland like the Republic of Ireland, but one would think England is a bit like the USA in this regard. However, many in England find our “partial birth” abortions very evil. Okay, I would find fault with all abortions but I have met others from England who do not accept the late terms abortions that occur in the USA even though they are pro-choice. The Tories by the way in the above articles did not want Ted Kennedy to get Knighthood since basically, he’s had long term ties to supporting the IRA or something of this nature. I apologize for any of this being offtopic.

  • Don:

    Totally agree with your post and the comments of Jay Anderson and the good Father. People forget that there were even limits to Christ’s spirit of charity and inclusiveness such as when he tossed the money changers out of the temple.

    That being said how can one justify actions by other “Catholic” laity and politicians in promoting other activity that runs contrary to Catholic teaching, i.e. torture, pre-emptive war, the death penalty, divorce? How can one be a “Catholic” divorce lawyer? How can one be a “Catholic” judge or prosecutor that encourages or enforces the death penalty? How can one be a “Catholic” public official that allows or attempts to justify torture and pre-emptive war?

  • Like most things in life awakaman you deal with each issue on its own merits. The Church has spoken with one voice on abortion since the time of Christ.

    On the issue of preemptive war on the other hand, well, I assume some of the popes have had interesting discussions on that topic in the next life. For example John Paul II and Urban II on the First Crusade. I would love, and I mean that sincerely, to listen to that discussion.

    On divorce John Paul II seemed at one point not to want Catholic attorneys involved in them, but then in a clarification said that Catholic attorneys could be involved if their aim was to secure a good custody outcome for any minor children involved. That is one area where I personally would like some clarification since, although it makes up a miniscule portion of my practice, like most small town attorneys I am confronted with these cases from time to time.

    In regard to the death penalty we have the problem of Church teaching basically being reversed on that question under John Paul II, with a great deal of confusion now as to when the death penalty is licit and when it is not.

    I have no problem with holding the feet of Catholic pols to the fire on any number of issues, but I believe that Church teaching is the clearest on abortion, it is the issue that involves the greatest death toll each year for the innocent, and for me, as it has been since 1973, abortion will always be the overriding moral issue of our time.

  • Don:

    In regards to the 1st Crusade it is debatable as to whether it truly was pre-emptive war. First, it went beyond its initial objective of defending the Byzantine Empire and the West from the expansion of Islam and became more of a war of aggression with the reconquest of Jerusalem. Secondly, saying the 1st Crusade was fought by those exclusinvely seeking to protect Christainity is like saying the Civil War was fought exclusively over the issue of Slavery – total nonsense. It was extremely interesting that Jerusalem was a major trading center as well as an important city to Christians – just as it was an amazing coincidence that Iraq happened to have a lot of oil as well as a nasty dictator. Finally, even if we regard it as a pre-emptive war to prevent the spread of Islam given the current status of Islam in the middle east (and Europe) I would hardly say that it speaks well for pre-emptive war.

    In regard to the Death penalty did church teaching on the death penalty reverse or did it develop as a result of the growth or evolution of the modern prison system? Your argument reminds me of those offered by the Church of Christ as to why they do not have instrumental music at their services – because the early Christians did not – of course they didn’t have air conditioning or heating either. As prisons have become relatively “escape proof” and we have developed systems of rehabilitation (as I assume you agree that it is our Christian duty to do) the death penalty has become less necessary unless you want to engage in pure retribution. I know, I know . . . the deterance argument . . . but given that countries and states without the death penalty generally have less crime then those with the death penalty this is not a very good argument.

    Finally, given that JPII was rather adament in his denunciation of Catholic lawyers being involved in divorces “Roman Catholic lawyers should refuse to handle divorce cases, Pope John Paul has said.
    He said divorce was ‘spreading like a plague’ through society, and lawyers should refuse to be part of the ‘evil’.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1787106.stm

    Yes, one can engage in some self rationalization such as one is doing some good such as getting children into a good custody situation, but isn’t that the type of rationalization used by pro-choice politicians and those who vote for them, i.e. ignoring the great evil you are doing by pointing ut the small amount of good that may result.

  • well, we as catholics are so stupid. If you work, for example for Pepsi, but you don’t like Pepsi, and talk the whole day about the wonders of Coke, and try to sell Coke at every chance you have … what would your boss do? Fire you!!

    Off course, if you were coherent and a normal and rational person, you would leave Pepsi and move to Coke asap.

    This is how ratio works, this how the world is, this is how everybody in this planet feels. And what does the hierarchy do, not only in the States but anywhere else, without some honorable exceptions? They are SCARED, because the sheeps will leave the flock.. so WHAT?

    It is better to be fewer but real,rather than have many who disturb, who don’t leave us do the work of our Heavenly Father!

  • I believe the Catechism [2383] expresses well the Church’s position. Separation [divorce] is not immoral. Indeed it may be for the benefit of both parties.

    It is remarriage which is wrong.

  • Exactly, Gabriel. No off the cuff statement, even by a pope, even by a saint, can change that.

  • TomSVDP,
    The late Eunice Kennedy Shriver was notable for her pro-life advocacy within the Democratic party and her activism outside it. Her passing several weeks ago was noted on this blog and elsewhere, though there was little mention of her pro-life associations outside pro-life sources.

  • Awakaman in regard to divorce cases and Catholic lawyers this is where the ambiguity enters in:

    “Lawyers, as independent professionals, should always decline the use of their profession for an end that is contrary to justice, as is divorce. They can only cooperate in this kind of activity when, in the intention of the client, it is not directed to the break-up of the marriage, but to the securing of other legitimate effects that can only be obtained through such a judicial process in the established legal order (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2383). In this way, with their work of assisting and reconciling persons who are going through a marital crises, lawyers truly serve the rights of the person and avoid becoming mere technicians at the service of any interest whatever.”

    http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264xh.htm

    In this area I wouldn’t mind at all if the Pope told me that I could never take such a case again as it would give me an excellent reason not to do so when clients press me for my services in these types of matters. These cases are time consuming, emotionally draining, and, as I noted in my earlier comment a miniscule portion of my practice, and the only reason I get involved with them now is when a client convinces me that the kids would be better off with them, or they are being denied visitation, or they want an increase in child support, or they wish to attempt to change custody because the kids are begging to live with the client, etc. I would cheer a papal ban as giving me a good conscience deafness to their pleas, but I do not think the Pope has done that yet.

    More on your other points in a day or so when I am no longer shackled to my desk in my law office.

  • But how can civil divorce really be “contrary to justice” in cases where an innocent spouse is merely trying to remove herself or himself and any children from a situation that gravely endangers their physical, mental, or spiritual health or safety?

    I don’t think even JPII would have argued that it was “evil” for a woman to divorce a husband who was beating her or molesting their children, or a man to divorce a wife who was shooting up drugs and prostituting herself to get the money for them, or had taken up witchcraft or Satan worship, etc.

  • On the other hand, if it’s just a case of a man or woman having fallen in “love” with someone else and wanting to divorce their spouse to marry their partner in adultery, that’s another story, and a case in which I would think no observant Catholic lawyer would want to get involved.

  • You can also add into the complexity mix Elaine that clients are often less than forthcoming in this area of the law, and will frequently tell their attorney all about the misdeeds, real or imagined, of their spouse while not mentioning their own. Not infrequently this is being done in a high state of emotion, especially when the custody of children is at stake, and quick decisions often have to be made by the attorney. In hotly contested custody cases sex abuse allegations regarding the kids not infrequently enter into the case, and often the attorney has no way of knowing if the allegations are true. This is a difficult area of the law for an attorney concerned about following a moral path, and, unfortunately, not difficult at all for an attorney completely unconcerned with the morality of what is going on.

  • Pingback: digg » Blog Archive » Roundup: Obama’s Speech on Health Reform
  • Elaine,

    I don’t think even JPII would have argued that it was “evil” for a woman to divorce a husband who was beating her or molesting their children, or a man to divorce a wife who was shooting up drugs and prostituting herself to get the money for them, or had taken up witchcraft or Satan worship, etc.

    divorce is still an “evil”, but it is the guilty party who is culpable. In the same sense, war is an “evil”, and the unjust aggressor is culpable.

  • And what of Catholic priests and bishops who encourage divorces when they know that one of the parties is opposed to the divorce and they, the Catholic priests and bishops, flatly refuse to listen to them as they plead for action to support their marriage? What when this goes on for twenty years and the Holy see has completely ignored the same please?

    Some of us have seen this and have chosen to leave the Catholic Church over this. Why is there no support among “rank and file” Catholics for the plight of abandoned spouses who have to defend their marriage against both civil courts and marriage tribunals? And why, when one has defended one’s marriage before the highest courts in the Catholic Church, and watched those courts uphold that marriage, is their no action on the part of priests, bishops and the Roman Curia to canonically hold to account a spouse who has abandoned, wrongly, a faithful spouse, when the evidence is clear and in the possession of the Catholic Church(and has been for twenty years) that the marriage was usurped with the full cooperation of priests(to this day) and bishops(to this day)with mostly complete disregard for the valid, sacramental marriage?

    I think the politicians should receive a bye on this divorce/annulment issue while the Catholic Church tends to the clergy whose actions are far more harmful in this regard. Only after the Catholic Church has tended to its own, in house, facilitators of adultery and all the crimes that unjust divorce entails should it take the time to attempt to call to order catholic politicians. the house should be in order before that house attempts to call others to order.

    Just my two cents.