What Does Mike Think?

Sola Scriptura

2012-01-30T19:34:00.000-05:00

This past week I began what will hopefully be a fruitful dialogue with a woman who is, by her definition a Christian (as opposed to a Catholic, which is what she used to be before she found Jesus). Make no mistake, I also call her a Christian (in that she believes in Christ) I just object to her claim that Catholics do not believe in Christ. According to her, she was "more" Catholic than I am, which begs the question of why she left. After all, if she was more completely devoted to the Church, more understanding of the truth, then why abandon said Church and truth.

Her position is that nothing can be said about the Bible except other texts in the Bible. In other words, the Bible is its own commentary, and one interprets it by reading different parts of it. She has requested that I use only the Bible to prove my points. The nice part about it is that I have not read the Bible as much as a good Catholic should, and this is a perfect opportunity to become more familiar with scripture. As St. Jerome said "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ."

So I was thinking about her claims as I did my research, and realized something. Totally by coincidence (of course), my friend Owen Swain posted a link on Google+ about Sola Scriptura which said the same thing I was thinking. Namely, if scripture alone holds the truth, and it is self-interpreting, how came someone publish a book on it? For that matter, how can one evangelize? This woman is arguing for me to accept her interpretation of scripture, but if scripture is its own interpretation than either (a) the Catholic interpretation is as valid as hers, or (b)we are both wrong.

In fact, by telling me how to interpret scripture, she is doing what she decries the Catholic Church for doing - preaching "outside" of scripture. And so I think the question I must pose is "who is more likely to have a correct interpretation of scripture?" A woman with no formal training who reads the Bible every day for 14 years, or a bishop who has at least two PhDs in theology and Philosophy, at least seven honorary PhDs, has been at the forefront of theology and Biblical studies for years, and who has written numerous books on the subject. Oh yes, and has read the Bible every day since (at least) 1951. My answer appears at the top of this post.

Ice Age (not the movie)

2012-01-29T17:44:00.000-05:00

It's been over a year since I wrote Stupid Letters, The Global Warming Scam, and Science? I Think Not! As you may recall, I've noted that the best predictor of Earth's climate is not CO₂, but solar activity.

So, since a noble squirrel friend pointed me towards this article in the UK Daily Mail, I thought I'd make a quick post about it.

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

of course, this can't be right, can it?

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

So we have the battle of astronomers and climate scientists using actual data, against climate "scientists" who cling to their computer simulations. The points I think are worth learning from all of the brouhaha are:

The Earth's climate is constantly changing. Global ~~warming~~ Climate Change is not something new.
Despite our desire to have everything about us, not everything is about us.

That's not to say that I don't think we should respect the environment or conserve energy (I do), but simply that alarmist propaganda is just that - a manufactured crisis in order to create an opportunity to push an ideological agenda.

The Language of Abortion

2012-01-28T09:29:00.000-05:00

A friend pointed me to Aggie Catholics where they have this great pro-life commercial by Signal Hill. I've written before, in "What's another word for 'thesaurus'?" about how human beings are dehumanized by language, and in particular the claim that calling human beings "human beings" is too vague.

Signal Hill is an advocate for human rights that provides information on life issues, women's health, and family support. Signal Hill's position is grounded in the conviction that the life of human beings ought to be understood as a fundamental human right and protected from conception until natural end.

Signal Hill undertakes in-depth research and provides leadership in the fields of life issues, women's health and human rights. We provide resources for counseling, outreach, support and understanding for women and families struggling with issues surrounding pregnancy, abortion and other life-related issues. We are non-judgmental, compassionate and caring. Signal Hill faces today's most challenging issues with maturity, dignity and academic excellence. Everyone has the right to make informed decisions and it is our mission to make certain that education is provided with clarity and individual support.

There is a large amount of educational and helpful material available on the site. I wish we had a similar site in the US (or maybe we do - please post if you know of one). I know about Option Line, but they don't have the same depth of informational materials as Signal Hill.

Science of the Gaps

2012-01-25T20:03:00.000-05:00

One phrase used by atheists and Christians alike is "god of the gaps". The phrase originally meant that that it is not helpful to say that whatever science can't explain is God, because someday science may explain it. Today, however, it is used as a panacea in ay discussion about the existence of God. But, as Isaac Asimov's Salvor Hardin remarks in Foundation (one of the greatest SF books of all time), "It's poor atom blaster that won't point both ways."

The book of Genesis is often scoffed at as being unscientific, but the scoffers miss an important point - it is not a science text. However, it does impart some truths which are scientifically verifiable, but which atheists throughout history have railed against, even to the point of distorting science. Creation, for instance. Genesis teaches that the universe, and everything in it was created, and created over time.

And so we have early natural philosophers (for so were physicists called) declaring that the Earth was static and unchanging. Until it was incontrovertibly shown that mountains and oceans did rise and fall, and there were earlier forms of life, and even a time when the Earth itself wasn't. No, problem, must be the stars that are eternal. But then we saw stars die, and eventually, be born, and that was no longer defensible.

OK, cried the astronomers, but the universe itself is in a steady state and has existed forever. Until the "primeval atom" or "big bang" (which was the creation deniers' own derogatory term for it) destroyed that claim. Now atheists embrace the big bang, and we hear that the universe might come and go, but it's just because the multiverse is eternal. Except now that idea too appears to be false, as the BVG theorem says that any multiverse with universes with an expansion rate greater than zero (like our own universe) has to have a beginning.

I know, I've written about this before in "Belief Part 3", but this is a blog about what I think. I think it seems like the creation deniers' "gap" is getting smaller and smaller.

March for Life 2012

2012-01-24T23:02:00.000-05:00

Where has Mike been? At the March for Life in Washington D.C. I would have loved to have blogged about the event beforehand, but life got in the way. So, here's my all too brief recap.

This was my second time at the march. Despite all the news stories showing "clashes" between pro-life and pro-choice protests (in near equal numbers), neither I nor anybody I spoke with has ever seen a pro-choice protester during the march. I'm told by some locals that there is a small group of a dozen or so pro-choice protesters who come with news teams for a photo shoot at the Supreme Court building early in the day, before the march starts, and then leave. As I said I have not seen it, but if you look at the news shots they never show anything but closeups featuring a small number of pro-choicers. I do know that from before the march starts until it ends the Supreme Court steps are empty. [BTW if you look at the Washington Post slideshow linked to above, my favorite is picture 4, where an "antiabortion advocate, points her finger at an abortion rights advocate" - they don't mention the blurry finger in the foregound that the abortion rights advocate is giving the antiabortion advocate]

From what I saw, this year's march was about the same size as last year, although people who have been going for many years said they thought it was bigger. The U.S. government will not allow the official head count to be released, but according to LifeSiteNews the number was estimated to be 400,000. The thing that was different about this year's march was the ages. The last march I was at was a pretty good cross section of young to old. This year the march was by far dominated by kids. By kids I mean high school and college age kids. They were religious (one group handed me free rosary beads), political (many had "I vote Pro-life first!") signs and friendly (one group was giving free hugs).

A group of young ladies and gentleman gave me an "I'm worth waiting for" sticker, although I told them that I being married with three kids, I hadn't been waiting for a long time. I saw the very vocal "Silent No More" women, the "Chicago Life Mob" people, and the TFP youth, all impeccably dressed and handing out material while the bagpipes played.

I took a few pictures, but my batteries died at some point and by the time I replaced them I had lost some good photo ops. Here's a few that I did get:

I'm sot sure what building it was, but the people on the steps in the background were all spectators who were cheering wildly as we passed, and dancing on the steps, and the ones in front were giving out the free hugs.

The brave "Silent No More" women started the march right behind us.

It's hard to see much from the middle of the march (actually we were right near the front, but it's hard to tell). The umbrellas made it harder.

We passed the Chicago "Life mob" people. I'd seen their flash mob video and their pro-life rosary video.

They were carrying two platforms with cheerleaders on them. They were singing and chanting like crazy. I can't believe the amount of energy these kids have!

Not my finest shot, but this is looking down Constitution Ave. from Capitol Hill. The yellow crane, near the left hand side of the picture, is near where the rally was before the march started. Having been near the end of the march before I can tell you that it takes something like an hour after the march starts before the people in back even get moving.

Just another random shot taken during the march. I think this is near the Supreme Court, which is where the march officially ends. However, there is a steady stream of people continuing on to go talk to their representatives. The pro-choice ones make it a point to be either out or in "staff meetings" the entire time, so you don't actually get to speak to them, but you can leave messages with their staff.

The pro-life representatives have receptions for their constituents and whoever else wants to join. This was in "the gold room" of the house offices, where Congressmen Garrett and Smith, of New Jersey, were handing out donuts, coffee and other refreshments to pro-lifers after the march. The room was packed, so we basically got some food and went searching for our pro-choice legislators.

I could write about the fun we had on five hour ride down or the five hour ride home, but I'll leave that to your imagination. I left my house at 5:30 AM and got home at 10:30 PM. A long day, but a satisfying one.

Weasel Words

2012-01-20T11:33:00.001-05:00

I've been reading the text of S-1/A-1, the latest attempt by the New Jersey legislature to redefine marriage, and I find the wording troubling. The bill purports to create equality for same sex couples who are currently being discriminated against by hospital visitation policies and employers' benefits.

I think the most troubling thing about this bill, for those who oppose or support same-sex relationships, is that it is deemed necessary at all. Under the current NJ civil union laws, P.L.2006 C103, same-sex couples are provided "the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples who choose to marry" and now we are being told the law needs to be changed to provide same-sex couples with the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples who choose to marry. But that language is already in the law. One has to ask why the existing law is not being enforced, and why should we expect a new law granting identical rights will be enforced any differently?

But there are also many important differences in the wording of the law. The existing law authorizes religious institutions (and others) to conduct same-sex civil unions. The new law requires that they do so, except for very narrow restrictions. The existing law states exemptions for [emphasis mine]:

any institution, bona fide club, or place of accommodation, which is in its nature distinctly private; nor shall anything herein contained apply to any educational facility operated or maintained by a bona fide religious or sectarian institution

any organization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization

The proposed law contains the following exemption:

no member of the clergy of any religion...shall be required to solemnize any marriage

any such religious society, institution or organization, or any employee thereof

The exemption for performing same-sex "marriages" only applies to clergy and employees. The definition of clergy is "ordained to perform pastoral or sacerdoatal functions." How would this apply to denominations that have non-ordained ministers or elders? In fact, the original text of the bill said ministers or clergy, but the word "minister" was removed. The second exemption applies only to actions of employees of religious organizations. Many (most) functions of many churches are performed by lay ministers who are not employees, and therefore they would not be protected under the law.

But all of this points to a bigger problem. The exemption is based on religious organizations, not on individual belief. I can refuse to support same sex unions if I am an employee of the Church, but as a member I have no protection under the law. For that matter, an atheist who believes marriage is the union of a man and woman has no conscience protection. If an exemption is allowable for belief, then it should be made on the basis of belief, not on employment. If an exemption is not allowable based on belief, employment should not matter.

Life

2012-01-19T06:32:00.002-05:00

It seems, according to a Mr. Zimmer, that NASA has wasted $2.5 billion, because scientists can't define life. Last November, NASA launched Curiousity, a rover designed to look for life on Mars. However, according to the article:

When NASA says it wants to find out if Mars was ever suitable for life, they use a very circumscribed version of the word. They are looking for signs of liquid water, which all living things on Earth need. They are looking for organic carbon, which life on Earth produces and, in some cases, can feed on to survive. In other words, they’re looking on Mars for the sorts of conditions that support life on Earth.

But there’s no good reason to assume that all life has to be like the life we’re familiar with. In 2007, a board of scientists appointed by the National Academies of Science decided they couldn’t rule out the possibility that life might be able to exist without water or carbon. If such weird life on Mars exists, Curiosity will probably miss it.

Of course, the claim of the article, that scientists can't define life, is absurd. The standard definition of life used by biologists is in no way restricted to carbon-based water loving life forms. But we do have to use some criteria for looking for life, and in fact, I think looking for places that we think are like Earth is a good strategy. Certainly we stand a greater chance of finding life if we look in places like those where we know life exists.

But what the article fails to mention is how we could look for the kinds of life proposed. If we make no assumptions about the chemistry used or the conditions required, we literally have to look at everything, everywhere. That is not something we have the technology to do. It's easy to criticize someone else's methodology as being too narrow, but harder to come up with an alternative approach.

A few years ago I attended a lecture by Freeman Dyson. He has an interesting idea, which I like to explain this way. There's an old joke about a drunk looking for his keys under a street lamp. A passerby stops and helps him look and finally asks if he's sure the keys are here. The drunk replies that he thinks he lost the keys in the alley. Then why have we been searching here? Because the light is better, says the drunk.

Dyson's idea is not to look for life where we think it is, but to look where it is easy to look. Hunters find animals in the dark by shining a light out into the darkness, and when the animals look back, observing the reflections from their eyes. The method is called "pit lamping" and it is illegal in most places.

According to Dyson we could search for life in the solar system without ever leaving Earth. We simply (OK, it's not that simple, but easier than sending robotic probes) illuminate parts of the solar system with powerful beams of light and using ground-based telescopes observe the reflection. By analyzing the spectrum of the returning light we could look for chlorophyll or other chemicals associated with photosynthesis. This assumes the life gets its energy from light, which is not necessarily true either, but as I said some assumptions have to be made or the search is too hard.

Dyson gives a similar lecture in the TED talk entitled Let's look for life in the outer solar system.

At about 3:50 into the video he begins speaking about the search for life. It sounds like a viable way to search, for someone who had the desire and funds. Is it a likely way to find life? Dyson himself admits it is not, but it covers a large amount of real estate very cheaply.

Banning Books

2012-01-18T07:09:00.001-05:00

Well, looks like old "Sarah" (if that's her real name) is up to it again. This time, though, she's posing as homosexuals. That's right. In Spain, no less!

According to this article in LifeSiteNews, a homosexual campaign to suppress a book on healing same-sex attraction backfired, creating lots of publicity for the book.

A campaign waged by homosexuals in Spain to suppress a book about reparative therapy for homosexuality has backfired, generating media coverage that has drawn new attention to the formerly ignored work.

As a result, the publisher says that it has been overwhelmed by requests for the book and is now in the process of printing 7,000 more copies.

“Understanding and Healing Homosexuality,” which has been available since 2004 in Spanish, became the object of protest in Spain in December when the book was republished by Libros Libres and the new edition appeared in the catalogs of such online booksellers as Amazon, La Casa del Libro (the House of Books), and La Corte Inglés (The English Court).

The book, written by therapist Richard Cohen, discusses Cohen’s own liberation from homosexual attraction, what he regards as the principal causes of the problem, and methods for bringing about the healing of same-sex desires.

The appearance of the new edition sparked a protest on Twitter and other Internet media, including a petition that gathered tens of thousands of signatures demanding the removal of the book. Reporting on the campaign in the Spanish news media began on December 27th and has continued unabated.

Asked about the controversy in the Spanish media, Cohen told El Pais that he believes that “gays and lesbians who are happy have the right to live their lives. I would hope that they would respect the right of other who want to explore an exit from homosexuality.”

Join a Facebook page to defend marriage here.

P.S. I know this must really be Sarah in disguise, as everyone knows homosexuals are all about freedom and Sarah is evil.

My marriage won't affect you

2012-01-16T20:33:00.000-05:00

"My marriage doesn't affect you" is the phrase used by some proponents of redefining marriage to mean, well, whatever they want to mean today. The claim is that redefining marriage is a "private" thing, and it is not your concern. But marriage is not a private thing, and it does affect us all.

Here in New Jersey same-sex civil unions have been recognized by the state since 2006. According to the bill:

Those rights and benefits afforded to same-sex couples under the “Domestic Partnership Act” should be expanded by the legal recognition of civil unions between same-sex couples in order to provide these couples with all the rights and benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy;

And the state of NJ is now considering yet another bill (actually the same bill that failed to pass in 2010) to redefine marriage because, as I pointed out in "Same-sex marriage, why not?" and further explained in "Bigot", it doesn't matter if they have all of the rights, same sex "marriage" is about getting the state to force you to accept such relationships as being "good". If you care about this kind of bullying, call your legislators and governor Christie and ask them to oppose this bill and defend marriage and religious rights.

But back to my point. Redefining marriage will affect you. Last week a New Jersey judge declared that a United Methodist Church had to allow same-sex civil unions on its property in spite of its moral beliefs. From LifeSiteNews:

The United Methodist Church teaches, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” and that “ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”

But Judge Metzger said church doctrine was irrelevant...

“He said this isn’t a case of religious liberty, which is simply not true,” Jim Campbell, who represented the resort and serves as litigation staff counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), told LifeSiteNews.com. “What this case involves at its core is the rights of a religious group to use its property in a way that is consistent with its religious beliefs.”

Campbell said most people will find Metzger’s belief that the state can force a religious facility to violate its conscience “a very scary concept. If that is a principle of the law, then essentially the government can cast aside religion if it deems something more important.” Campbell called Metzger’s ruling “an error of Constitutional law.”

The local ruling seems to place non-discrimination above concerns of religious liberty, the mirror image of a Supreme Court ruling that took place earlier in the week. In the Hosanna-Tabor case, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled: “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.” He concluded, “the First Amendment has struck the balance for us.”

What were they thinking?

2012-01-13T18:33:00.000-05:00

One of the rights guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights is the right to free speech. Here is what hey wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What do you think the founding fathers had in mind?

Citizens should be able to criticize their government and express their opinions and beliefs without fear of government reprisal?
Children should all be forced to hear F-bombs wherever they go?

Ironically we live in a time when the government tells religious institutions they cannot speak about matters the government deems as "political speech" (even if the topic is one of morality and religious values) without losing their status as religious institutions (and thus lose all of their other first amendment protections), while it tells us we cannot create a venue which does not expose our children to explicit language.

Is this what most Americans want? I don't think so. As I was thinking about this topic I came across this article at LifeSiteNews "New numbers show G-rated movies earn 3 to 5 times more than R-rated." One has to wonder, when big media is lobbying for no restrictions on vulgar and sexually explicit language for children's programming, are they doing it because they think their viewers/listeners want it or because they want to push their agenda on our children? What were they thinking?

On Love and Hate

2012-01-12T17:39:00.000-05:00

The video in my previous blog post referred to a statement from the following video, "Penn Jillette gets a gift of a bible". In the video Jillette, an avowed atheist, is confronted by a man who gives him a religious booklet, and he (Penn Jillette) says [emphasis mine]:

If you believe that there's a heaven and a hell, and you could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life, or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward - and atheists who think that people shouldn't proselytize, just leave me alone keep your religion to yourself - how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

If I believed that a truck was coming towards you and you didn't believe it, and the truck was bearing down on you; there's a certain point where I tackle you, and this is more important than that.

On May 18, 2011 I met Bill. I was praying the rosary with some others in front of an abortion clinic. Bill parked his car across the street and walked over to our side. He saw our rosary beads and asked if we were Catholic. He then proceeded to tell us that we were damned to hell, that our priests were all pedophiles, that we worshiped idols, and other interesting facts.

I walked over to him and started defending the faith. The conversation became heated, and for about 10 minutes he and I shouted in each other's faces. After a while we got tired of yelling. I told him I'd listen to him without interruption or contradiction for as long as he liked if he would do the same.

He told me he was an altar boy, and wanted to be a priest, but his mother stopped him, because had he stayed in Catholic institutions he knows he would have been repeatedly raped. He told me that I worshiped my rosary without knowing it. he told me that priests are evil, and contrary to the Bible, which is the sole word of God. He told me that all churches were evil, and that Satan had entered into the church. And he told me I had only a few days to live, because the Rapture would occur on May 21, 2011. But most of all, he sincerely thanked me for listening.

In turn I told him that priests who break their vow of celibacy are not living what the Church teaches, that he can't know what would have happened, that I use my rosary as a counting aid so I can concentrate on my prayer, that priests are all over the Bible (remember Caiaphas?). I agreed about Satan, and told him the Pope had said something similar and that we must understand that we (he and I) are not enemies, but our common enemy is Satan. And I told him that I thought he was wrong about the world ending.

Bill remained unconvinced, but we spoke calmly and respectfully to each other after that. I explained to him that the reason why I defended my faith so vigorously wasn't because I hated him but because I wanted to see him in heaven. God wills all men be saved, and so it is important to me that he hear the truth in order to have that option.

In the end, we hugged and parted friends, although still disagreeing on many thing. I made Bill and offer (that still stands); if the world didn't end on May 21, to come back one Wednesday and we'd have lunch together and talk more. In the meantime, I said I'd pray for him. Bill replied that if he wasn't taken up one May 21 he'd know he wasn't saved and there wouldn't be any more point to life.

I prayed hard for Bill. When he didn't show up the next Wednesday, I prayed harder, hoping that he hadn't done anything rash when he wasn't taken up. I kept this up for weeks, and carried a Bible with me wherever I went, so that if I met Bill, I could show him some passages.

I never did meet Bill again. As you can see by this blog post, I still think about Bill, and still pray for him. I pray for you too, dear reader, and ask that you pray for Bill, and for me. And Bill, if somehow you read this blog post, come on back. Lunch is on me.

Got 14.5 minutes?

2012-01-11T13:35:00.000-05:00

Then please watch (or at least listen to) the first 14:30 of this video:

On June 25, 2011 LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen gave this powerful and moving talk to a Toronto, Canada audience. Westen, in a personal way, presented an overview of LSN reporting philosophy related especially to the most controversial issues covered by this news service. John-Henry received a standing ovation from the conference audience at the end of his presentation.

There are consistent themes tying the entire talk together as well as specific divisions within the talk as follows:

1. The first 14 and one-half minutes addresses the reasons, experiences and philosophy behind LifeSiteNews coverage of the homosexual issue.

Defending racism for "the cause"

2012-01-10T19:06:00.000-05:00

The Huffington Post published this story about Rick Santorum, including the following video. In their usual style, HuffPo follows the video with a long series of Planned Parenthood apologetics, about how women will lose their heath care if Planned Parenthood doesn't receive federal funding.

As Live Action has proven, Planned Parenthood for the most part doesn't perform these health procedures anyway. But of course, that is not mentioned. Nor is the fact that Santorum didn't call for shutting them down, or even reducing funding for women's health care, he specifically mentioned redirecting it to less controversial providers. But the facts don't seem to matter here - this is a fight for principles!

The article quotes Pamela Merritt of RH Reality Check who writes

We do not associate the Ford Motor Company with anti-semitism, despite the well documented history of it’s founder Henry Ford in collaborating with Nazis and we should not associate contemporary reproductive health care providers or the reproductive justice movement with eugenics because of some views expressed by Margaret Sanger.

and that's true, but Ford Motor Company was founded for the purpose of making automobiles, not collaborating with Nazis, and it continues to make automobiles today. Planned Parenthood was founded specifically to promote birth control, sterilization, and abortion in order to reduce the "undesirables", and it is still performing these "services" today.

From The Negro project:

Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that "virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists." Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of "revolutionary" literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services "almost without the exception." And Planned Parenthood’s international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.

So, is the HuffPo defending women's rights? Or are they defending a corporation that made over a billion dollars last year, with almost $500 million of it from your tax dollars? It seems the people who are outraged when the government bails out "big business" in financial trouble are quite willing to overlook government funding a big business that's doing great, as long as the business is abortion.

But the whole "racism" thing is ultimately not the primary reason to defund Planned Parenthood. The fact that they kill babies is. I would like to leave you with this post by Abbey Johnson:

True story. I once read about a man named Dennis Rader. He was very active in his community. He was a deacon in his church, a cub scout leader, a military man, and a volunteer for many different local organizations. He has two children by his wife of 34 years. Radar was caught and arrested in 2005 and sentenced to multiple life sentences. Why? During a 17 year time period, Rader (also known at the BTK killer) stalked, tortured, raped and killed 10 women. Shouldn't we just let that slide? I mean, he was a really good guy...look at all of the good stuff he did. Nevermind that he killed ten women. Certainly we can overlook that, right? Of course not. However, that is EXACTLY what many people do when they think of Planned Parenthood. Well, PP does so much good...perhaps we can just look over the more than 320,000 children that they kill every year. Why do we give PP a pass, but not other criminals?

The Rite

2012-01-09T21:31:00.000-05:00

I was in a conversation online a long time ago, about the movie "The Rite". Having summed up a bit about it in 140 characters I thought I'd go for a more verbose medium. Of course, it took me months to get around to blogging it, and you've probably already seen the movies, do probably never will. But here goes anyway. This post will cover the book as well. I'd warn you that this post contains spoilers for the movie, but that would imply something to spoil. OK, I'll avoid spoilers.

The Book
The book The Rite is an interesting treatment of exorcism. And who isn't fascinated by the supernatural? We all want proof of the existence of things beyond our experience. I think it is comforting in some respect to know these things exist, because it points to the existence of God, and not just any God, but a God who loves us and who is infinitely good and powerful.

In the book, Matt Baglio intertwines a biography of Fr. Gary Thomas with the history and real world experiences of exorcism. The story is not scary, although it is disturbing to think of the reality of demonic oppression and possession, and our part (or lack of it) in the spiritual battle for souls. I think most Christians, and most Catholics, are ashamed to mention exorcism, since it sounds so superstitious and "unscientific." That's what society tells us it is, and I can't help but think that in itself is a demonic influence.

If you are a Christian you have to admit the existence of demons, or deny the words of Christ himself. Although recent bible "scholars" have tried to convince us that Jesus' driving out of demons was really Him healing schizophrenia, their argument remains unconvincing. First off, we have Jesus' healing of the paralytic in Mark 2.

A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!

Jesus is teaching that a spiritual event can have physical consequences. I don't think that He's trying to say all physical ailments are a result of sin, because He doesn't generally heal people by saying "your sins are forgiven", but He is saying that sin is real and forgiveness from sin can cure a physical illness. Likewise when He cures the demoniacs, Jesus doesn't say "be sane" but "Go!".

When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,[a] two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”

Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”

He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region.

If demons did not exist, Jesus would not have bothered to talk to them. He could have healed them of a mental illness as simply as He healed the Centurion's servant.

And whether or not you're a Christian, you have to admit that there are phenomenon that science can't explain. The Catholic church is very skeptical about miracles and all supernatural phenomena in general, employing investigators who are skeptics to investigate these things before arriving at the conclusion that things are beyond science. In fact, before an exorcism can be attempted it is generally necessary to find some proof that the condition isn't medical. The priest will speak to the affected person and look for signs of possession. Such signs may include knowledge of events that the person could not know, ability to speak and understand all languages, the ability to tell the difference between blessed and unblessed objects. These are abilities you don't get form a mental illness.

I found the book enlightening, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I had read it in anticipation of the movie, and so when the movie came out, and was not panned, I saw it. What a huge disappointment.

If you are at all curious about the subject, rather than watching Hollywood's distorted views, I urge you to read the book. Or. if you prefer a different medium, Catholic Answers Live! also has interviews available with both Matt Baglio and Fr. Gary Thomas.

The Movie
If you want to see the movie be advised that other than titles and names very little is like the book. The protagonist (Michael Kovak, played by Colin O'Donoghue) is not a priest, he's a seminarian who's dropping out because he doesn't believe God exists. Despite this, a priest looks on as the seminarian gives last rites to a woman. Of course, the priest should have been doing himself, since a seminarian cannot validly give last rites or forgiven sins - or perform an exorcism for that matter (but I get ahead of myself). This scene, early in the film, looks like the setup for something deep, but it is just a random event not referred to again.

Of course there has to be a woman involved, in this case a secular journalist (Angeline, played by Alice Braga) who's trying to get an interview with the very priest (Fr. Lucas, played by Anthony Hopkins) that the seminarian is assigned to study under. The whole thing is bad theologically, and as a movie completely predictable and relies on cheap tricks like a cat jumping at you to try to be scary. The makeup and special effects are so overdone as to detract from the story rather than enhance it. Even Hopkins (whom I usually like) doesn't seem to be able to do anything with this movie.

The climax is, like the rest, predictable and bad. I wish I could tell you what it is so you could grimace, but I did say I'd leave out spoilers.

Oh, and there's one scene in which I think Fr. Lucas makes the sign of the cross incorrectly. I'm not sure and I don't have the desire to see it again just to make sure, but it looked like it to me when I saw it.

Of course my views of the movie are partially based on my disappointment at it not being the book. And it wasn't totally bad. On the plus side, there is a scene involving a frog that I thought was very well done. And as much as I didn't like this movie I must admit that it's better than "The Exorcist" sequels. If you like exorcism films, I think the best one I've seen is "The Exorcism of Emily Rose".

Just to prove I'm not nuts here's another review that runs along the lines of this one (but contains spoilers).

Why not?

2012-01-08T21:22:00.000-05:00

I saw this editorial cartoon by Steve Benson on Jill Stanek's site the other day. According to Jill, Benson is the one obsessing about banning abortion, not Santorum.

I think the whole thing is absurd, along with this "Santorum is coming for your birth control" idiocy. The president does not have the authority to ban abortion or confiscate condoms. The real goal is to scare people into voting for a president who has looser morals than they do because, hey, then he can't possibly criticize anyone else.

I say absurd, because what we desperately need in politics are people with morals. When we elect people who are OK with killing children, why are we surprised that they can't be trusted with money either?

But the good thing about this cartoon is it got me thinking. Is banning abortion really the way to fix the economy? To end war? To balance the budget? Last year, the federal government paid close to $350,000,000 directly to the abortion industry. What if we got rid of that? I know it's a drop in the bucket, but what would happen economically if abortion were banned?

As I pointed out in my post "Healthcare economics and abortion" the children aborted since Roe v. Wade would have contributed 17 trillion dollars to the US GDP. And that's net gain, not gross.

So, if you want to make fun of the idea that banning abortion is the solution to all our problems go ahead. But you've chosen some pretty shaky ground to stand on.

Monument to the Unborn

2012-01-04T08:30:00.000-05:00

"On 28 October 2011 at 16:00 o'clock in Nova Ves Bardejovske a dedication ceremony was held for this memorial to unborn children, which is the work of a young sculptor Martin Hudáčeka of Banska Bystrica. This ceremony was attended by the Minister of Health, Ivan Uhliarik MD.

The idea to build a memorial to unborn children came from the community of young women, mothers who are deeply aware of the value of each human life and the damage that is inflicted by abortion; not only a waste of unborn children, but also permanent damage on the mental (and sometimes physical) health of every woman who chooses to abort her unborn child.

The monument expresses sorrow and regret, not only mothers but also forgiveness and love for the unborn child to mother.

Initiators thank all who contributed financially, or otherwise make this work."

Belief Part 3 - Ending the Beginning

2011-12-27T21:53:00.000-05:00

In Part 2 of this series I talked about Thomas Aquinas' "five proofs" for the existence of God. There are a couple of things to add before we go onto other arguments. In the last post, Einstein, Hubble, and Lemaître demolished Fre Hoyle's steady state model of the universe, but there are two other logical replies to the "uncaused cause" argument that are commonly given to avoid a universe with a beginning.

Multiverse

The multiverse hypothesis holds that the universe exists because all things that can exist exist, everything that can happen happens. This not only appears to get around the origin of the universe, but of any need for any sort of deity, belief, moral stricture, etc. Everything is random. There are a couple of problems with this, both logically and scientifically. First off, the logician might say "OK, why does everything happen, rather than nothing" which is really Thomas' "why is there something rather than nothing" question repackaged. You still have to posit and uncaused cause, only now it's for everything, not just the universe.

Secondly, if everything that can happen happens, why doesn't it happen in our universe? Why don't the laws of physics suddenly change? Why doesn't the laptop I'm writing on turn into a grapefruit? How can we ever believe in a scientific principle, when those principles can change at any given time?

"Oh, but Mike, they can't!" you reply. Why not? Show me, if everything that can happen happens, how you can ever posit that something can't happen in this universe. Perhaps this is the universe where gravity reverses every 13.7 billion years, which happens to be tomorrow? If you believe in an ordered universe, then you have to suppose that not everything that can happen happens, and if you're going to put some restrictions on it, occam's razor would suggest that rather than limiting it to only those universes you like, using a large number of restrictions, you might as well go the whole way and say there's only the one, and it's the one we're in and this is how it works.

Besides, evidentially we can only say there is one universe, despite attempts y some to wish that every bit of unexplained data "leaks" in from another universe. Once again occam's razor suggests an argument from evidence is stronger than one based on wishing.

Bouncing Universe

The second argument against the beginning of the universe is the "cyclical universe" or "bouncing universe" hypothesis. This is the one Stephen Hawkings resorts to in his latest book. In this we suppose that the universe either repeats itself forever, or changes each time (which is basically a serialized version of the multiverse). Either way, there are still two flaws with this hypothesis. First off, in the sense that this is a serialized multiverse, it is subject to all the counterarguments above. Secondly, the second law of thermodynamics makes it impossible. Like a ball that bounces a bit lower each time, our bouncing universe is subject to entropy and will run down.

In fact, what Hawking conveniently left out of his book were all the scientific arguments against the bouncing universe. One of these is the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (BVG). In 2003 Borde Vilenkin and Guth came up with a proof that says that given the laws of physics, any universe or system of universes (whether they be bouncing or multiverses) where the universe has a Hubble expansion rate greater than 0, must have a beginning.

In fact, this proof is vastly applicable to just about any model universe or multiverse that could be produce our universe. Alexander Vilenkin put it this way in 2006:

We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible.

Kind of hard to hold to eliminate a "first cause" at this point, no?

I think this puts the last nail in the coffin for the arguments against Thomas' five proofs (or at least all the ones I know - do you know any others?). I realize that at this point all I have addressed is "does the universe have a creator". I have not shown that that creator is an "invisible friend in the sky" or even that the creator is an intelligence, only that a creator exists. It's going to take a long time to get to that.

In the meantime, I would like to highly recommend Robert Spitzer's book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. The physics section will give and awful lot to chew on, such as the above.

Belief Part 2: Doubting Thomas

2011-12-16T18:44:00.000-05:00

This is the second post in a series on the existence of God. I've read and heard a lot from atheists of late, and frankly I have not found one who is willing to consider any possibility outside of their belief system (and of course, they deny that they ave a belief system when clearly they believe so strongly that God can't exist they will forgo logic and reason to keep that faith). My purpose in writing this series is to explore what we can know about God through reason, and if it is "unreasonable an unscientific" to believe in God, or, as I contend it is more unreasonable and unscientific to believe He doesn't exist.

Of course, no discussion of the existence of God is complete without referring to St. Thomas Aquinas' "five proofs". His "five proofs" are the basis of many arguments from theists and atheists alike. Thomas wrote these almost 800 years ago, and so you'd think there was nothing new to say, but modern science has added some new observations. Let's look at them.

First Mover - since objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force (e.g. Newton's laws), the observation that objects are in motion implies an outside force to set them in motion. One can appeal to forces like gravity and explosions for things to "move by themselves" but each requires potential energy to have been put in the system (e.g. for a star to form via gravity it must have been formed from particles which were already separate against gravitational forces).

Philosophically speaking the "movement" can be something other than physical. I've couched this in terms of physics because it is the easiest for me to discuss. I never personally found this argument to be compelling because it seems to me that if the universe were always in motion, that motion could be simply transferred, as one billiard ball will set another in motion, and the second can come back and hit the first. It wasn't until college physics that I learned that this position doesn't work. More on this after I discuss the other two.

First Cause - things cannot cause themselves. Therefore, all that exists must have been caused to exist by something. To posit that the universe caused itself presents the dilemma refuted by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time and Space, which he terms "turtles all the way down". Oddly, Hawking uses the argument that the universe caused itself in his latest book The Grand Design. I guess he only accepts logic when it supports his conclusions.

At first I found this argument unconvincing, because I had read books on quantum mechanics about how particles spontaneously came into existence in a vacuum. However, a vacuum isn't really nothing. As a physicist will tell you, there is space-time, and that is required for quantum laws to allow particles to come into existence. What makes space-time? According to Hawking gravity, a warping of space-time, creates space-time, which creates it. Beginning to sound like turtles?

The other argument I find used involves hypotheses like multiverses. I'll be covering these in a later post, but to whet your appetites, the scientific principle of Occam's Razor suggest that relying on something imagined to replace something you claim is imagined does not improve your position. Plus the multiverse is just another layer of "turtles". It does not address a first cause.

Contingency - all things in the observable universe are contingent on something else for their existence. Therefore the thing which brought them into existence existed without them. There must be something which exists outside of the universe.

Fr. Robert Barron, in his excellent PBS series "Catholicism" explains this in terms of a cloud on a Summer's day. The cloud exists because of the humidity, pressure and temperature of the air. Those conditions are caused by things like sunlight hitting the Earth, and the very composition of the atmosphere is influences by things like the respiration of plants. Those in turn depend on things like gravity, nuclear forces, evolution etc. Ultimately there comes a point where we get to the universe itself. To posit the universe is not contingent is not supported by any evidence, and in fact all evidence points to all things being contingent. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there exists something outside the universe.

Of course, Fr. Barron is much more eloquent than I am. After all, he's a TV star. However, I think you get the point. And saying that the thing outside the universe is more universes (AKA the multiverse again) is falling back to the "turtle" argument.

The main thing about all three of these arguments is that they involve "the buck stops here". When people refer to these and say "turtles" they obviously haven't read or didn't understand these proofs. They are persuasive because to avoid them you have to postulate "turtles". You might ask "well, why can't the universe have gone on forever?" That was a position held by astronomer Fred Hoyle.

Fred Hoyle was a brilliant astronomer, cosmologist, and the man who coined the phrase "Big Bang" to disparage the theory proposed by Georges Lemaître. Monsignor Lemaître was a priest and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain, who proposed that the universe was expanding from a single point, which he called the "primeval atom". Hoyle supported a theory called "steady state" which claimed that the universe was eternal and constantly renewed itself.

A detailed discussion of what went on would take more than this post, but suffice it to say Einstein's general theory of relativity coupled with Edwin Hubble's observational evidence, put the final nail in the coffin of the steady state model. Hoyle later recanted his steady state claims, and even left atheism and became a theist because of science. I'll cover his story in more detail in a future post as well, because his change of heart was due to science, not revelation.

That someone can today insist that the universe always existed, or regenerates itself simply does not fit with observed scientific evidence or with established laws of physics. For instance, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy never decreases. Any claim that the universe exists forever or regenerates has to assume a magical way that this and other laws of physics can be suspended. I see no reason to think that this sort of imaginary process is any more likely than God.

The last two proofs of Thomas are different.

Greatest Being - some things are greater than other things. Therefore, there must be a being of perfect greatness, from which all other things derive their greatness.

This argument is based on ancient Greek philosophy, but I find it unconvincing, since there is an assumption that such a perfect being exists as proof that one exists. One argument in favor is that existence is greater than non-existence, so if the greatest being did not exist, it would not be the greatest being (and therefore the greatest being must exist).

I don't hold with the assumption that if we can imagine a being it must exist. Ironically, that is an argument used by some atheists to support the "all possible timelines" model of explaining the universe. They assume that the reason the universe exists is because everything that can exist must exist. By that argument, of course, God must exist (unless He can't exist, which is something they will argue without evidence).

Intelligent Designer - purpose requires intent. Since there are things in the universe that work towards a purpose, they must have been an intelligence who directed them towards that purpose.

This is another argument I find weak, because it supposes that the universe has a purpose without offering evidence to that end. I believe there is evidence to that end, which I will explore in a future post, but without that evidence, it would seem to be a circular argument - it relies upon intelligence behind the universe to prove intelligence behind the universe.

Your mileage may vary. I know some find one proof more compelling than another. However, I have yet to see a refutation of the first three proofs that does not rely upon a logical or scientific contradiction, or just plain wishing. If you know of one, I would be more than happy to hear it.

There are dozens more proofs to be covered and lots of counterarguments to debunk, so this series is for now open ended. The next post will begin to cover a different class of proofs.

Does this make sense?

2011-12-04T13:49:00.000-05:00

A number of months ago I began thinking about a series of posts on belief. I want to start from the beginning with "Is there a God?" and "What is God?" and see where it goes. I know that a lot f greater minds than I have already pondered and written on the subject, and so much of what I write will be my understanding of others' work.

But before I even get that far I'd like to spend a moment pondering whether it is even a useful question to ask about God. These days, so called "new atheists" deride the whole idea that we should (be allowed to) think about God. They dismiss the whole concept as useless.

I would maintain that there are several important reasons to be concerned about the existence of God.

Pascal's wager.

Blaise Pascal based his logic on probability theory, specifically expected value. Here's how it works.

Let's say I want to decide whether or not to play the NJ Lotto Pick 6 lottery. I can calculate the odds of winning, which are 49 choose 6. That's a mathematical shorthand which works out to one chance in 13,983,816 of winning (let's call it 14 million to make things simpler). But is that good or bad? It depends on the payout. As I write this, the jackpot is $2.7 million.

That means 1/14,000,000 of the time I win $2,700,000 and 13,999,999/14,000,000 of the time I lose $1. So the expected outcome is (2.7 - 14)/14 or $-0.81. In other words I can expect to lose 81 cents on each ticket by playing the lottery. Or, to look at it another way, if I bought all possible tickets I would spend $14 million but only make $2.7 million (meaning I would have lost $0.81 per ticket). I should not play.

If the jackpot were $27 million, however, my expected outcome would be (27-14)/14 or $0.93. In other words, I could expect to almost double my money (if I played enough times - obviously for a single ticket I either win or lose).

The principle is that a large enough payout makes it worthwhile to play, even if the odds of winning are small. Pascal applied this to theology. He claimed that if you don't know whether God exists, it is a good bet to behave as if He does. Pascal's reasoning is that if the probability that God exists is anything greater than zero (in other words unless you can absolutely prove He doesn't exist), the benefits of heaven vs. hell so far swamp the small price of living a moral life that it pays to live a moral life.

Now, this is not a perfect description of the problem. For one thing, the wager assumes that we are "justified by works alone" which is anathema to Christians (including Catholics). However, it does show why it makes sense to determine whether or not there is any probability of God's existence (and heaven and hell).

Abstract knowledge

It is in man's nature to know things, even if the knowledge is not immediately applicable to his situation. For instance, astronomers study the early universe not because it is useful for their lives per se, but because it is interesting, and who knows what may come out of this information in subsequent generations.

One of the things that amuses me is how many people will defend that Steven Hawking talks about the origin of the universe, but deride theologians doing the same thing. At least the theologians are using metaphysics to try to answer a metaphysical question. Hawking is using physics to try to explain metaphysics. The best he can possibly come up with using those tools is "turtles all the way down"*, which, ironically, is a phrase Hawking himself uses to ridicule Thomas Aquinas' unmoved mover. Apparently as brilliant as he may be in physics, Hawking does not even understand the basic concepts of metaphysics.

I'll be debunking Hawking in a future post, but my point is that even many atheists believe the question of God's existence is important (even if their methods of answering the question are flawed).

* BTW in his latest book Hawking does exactly that. He states that space-time is created by gravity. Gravity, of course, is a curvature of space-time.

Discovery of universal truth

Relativists will tell you that there are no universal truths (except, the truth that there are no truths). So, given that they have thus demonstrated that there is at least one universal truth, can we discover more? Is there an underlying meaning to it all? If not, there's certainly no reason to read blogs. If there is, then the question of interest is "what is truth?"

Understanding humanity

Most people throughout all of history have had a belief in God. Some scientists believe that the human brain is "hard-wired" for a belief in God. Given how much effect God has had on humanity, it makes sense to study the existence of God even as purely a phenomenon to understand how humans think.

It is interesting (in a sad way) to note how the secularists who claim that our lives should be ruled by sex because our brains are wired for it insist that religion should be abandoned because our brains are wired for it. If sex is useful, then so is theology.

Finding joy

Everybody wants to be happy. There are innumerable self-help books out there to help you to find happiness. Yet study after study has found that the most joyful, peace filled, contented people in the world are those who devote their lives to God. If knowing God is a path to happiness, then it becomes personally advantageous to find out.

I'm sure there are many other reasons, but these are a few I came up with for wanting to find out if there's a God even if I didn't already know what I know about Him.

Occupied

2011-12-03T11:07:00.000-05:00

More gaps in blogging, as real life intrudes on my online presence. However, now that everyone has said everything there is to say about the "occupy" movements, I thought I'd add my $0.02, since nobody else has said it. Or perhaps they have and I've been too busy to read it.

From what I've read the occupiers are "the 99% fed up with the greed and corruption of the 1%". It sounds reasonable. It sounds great! But what does that really mean?

When my oldest son took the SAT the essay question was along the lines of "is it possible to get ahead in life without acting immorally." He took the position "no, you can't" - not because he believes that (he claims) but because it is the more easily defensible position. Society paints the rich and successful as being evil, and certainly there are many examples to choose from.

But there are also counterexamples. Consider Bryan Bedford, CEO of Frontier Airlines and featured on "Undercover Boss". Consider all the philanthropy that exists that would not be possible had individuals not had the money to give.

I'm not trying to hold the rich up as paragons of virtue, but I think it is ignoring the plank in your own eye (Matthew 7:3-5) to imply that the not-as-rich-as-the-99% are blameless. Our country has always held the principle that anybody could be successful if they worked hard. It seems that the occupiers deny that principle. Their cynical, might-makes-right attitude I find no less corrupt than the unequal distribution of wealth they protest.

Unthankful

2011-11-24T11:05:00.000-05:00

Everybody's got their Thanksgiving blog posts about how thankful they are. I'm here to tell you how unthankful I am. Last night I watched a wonderful movie, Amish Grace. It is based on the true story of an Amish community that was devastated by a mass murder, and of how they forgave their killer. I highly recommend this movie, and rate it 3 Kleenex.

There was a point in the movie where the father of one of the slain little girls explains something that struck me hard. He says "God gave us our little girl. he has every right to call her back." We're so busy today saying how thankful we are for our friends and families, but how many look deeply into the fact that every second of every life is a gift that surpasses our wildest expectations. How many of us hold onto that thankfulness though loss and tragedy, like the gentleman portrayed in the movie.

I know that I, for one, and a pretty unthankful fellow.

Bigot (Part 4)

2011-11-22T06:41:00.000-05:00

This is the fourth, and I believe final installment of my series on the attempts to redefine marriage. In the original post, Bigot, I spoke about the lack of a reason to redefine marriage. There is no right being denied homosexuals, other than the "right" to force others to call them married. Whenever the subject is brought up by individuals, the conversation focuses on "why shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to marry?" The answer, of course, is the nature of that love. Should parents be allowed to marry their children? Should currently married people be allowed to marry?

But this argument is divorced (pun intended) form the legal arguments for redefining marriage. For instance, Google, Microsoft and Starbucks, along with over 60 other businesses and firms, filed a brief to uphold a circuit court decision to strike down part of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law which defines marriage as between one man and one women). They claim that homosexuals are discriminated against by having to pay tax on money paid for benefits for their partner.

Now, that would truly be discrimination if those couples were married (e.g. if the definition of marriage were already changed). So the reasoning is circular. If we take the opposing stance, that the definition of marriage is not relevant to the claim of discrimination, the same claim of "discrimination" could be made of anyone who wants to pay for another person's benefits, whether they be a parent, friend, or a cohabiting heterosexual couple. Yet the brief seeks only a remedy for homosexuals. In other words, it in fact discriminate against the cases above.

But the main point is that legal arguments don't involve the "love" of homosexuals, but are all about one of two things; money or religious liberty. In the case of the brief mentioned above, the article itself notes "Essentially, the companies are asking the federal government to help them save money."

In Bigot Part 2, I discussed what marriage is, and why it is harmful to make it what it is not. Marriage is ordered towards strengthening families, and notwithstanding Disney movies which attempt to redefine a family as any group of individuals who work together towards a goal, family means children and their parents. Marriage is designed to give children a mother and a father, both of which have an important role.

Redefining homosexual relationships as marriage is harmful to the institution of marriage and to children. The reason is the redefinition of mother and father into a concept of "parent". Because two men or two women can't have a child by themselves, in each and every case of a homosexual couple "having" child, there is at least one (possibly 2) real biological parent who is separated from that child. So rather than being the institution that ensures a child has a right to both its parents, marriage becomes the means by which a child is separated from its parents. This also commoditizes children in that the in each case there would be a contract, and presumably money changing hands, so parentage becomes a financial transaction, not an act of love.

In Bigot Part 3, I discussed the negative effects of redefining marriage. Whether by intention or not, the redefinition of marriage does not and cannot allow for the religious rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and just about any other person of faith. All religions that have some claim on morality include sexual morality and that morality universally recognizes the principle that the purpose of sexuality is procreation.

We live in a society and despite claims that "what I do is none of your business" when "what I do" becomes a matter of law it affects everyone. Redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships is incompatible with moral teaching. When a force meets and object something has to give. In countries where marriage has been redefined we see an erosion of religious rights, followed by an erosion of civil rights of religious believers. At first, there are conscience clauses and exceptions for religious reasons. But those exceptions can't last, because the concepts involved are fundamentally incompatible.

In the UK, it started out by a denial that redefining marriage harmed children. This led to religious organizations that disagreed being denied the ability to run adoption services. This is the state of things in the US right now, in places like Illinois. In the UK things have progressed along their natural course to the point where the High Court has officially ruled that people of religious conviction cannot adopt or foster children if their religion claims that homosexual acts are sinful. As I speculated, the logical conclusion to this is either to outlaw the religion, or to outlaw contact with children for any such believers (including keeping their own children).

Nor is the OK the only place where this is happening; they are merely the first to take this step. In Germany, parents are being jailed for teaching their children Christian beliefs about homosexual acts. In Canada, there is a court case pending involving people who were fined or jailed for reading the Bible in a public place.

In fact, throughout most of the western world religious freedom is being taken away in the name of redefining marriage. This redefinition does not convey any rights to homosexuals, but deprives children of their rights to a mother and father, and deprives people of their rights to practice their faith. For all of these reasons I can definitively say that I am not a bigot. I think that name belongs more accurately to those who cannot let Christians live in peace, without forcing them to approve of sin.

Bigot (Part 3)

2011-11-12T09:57:00.002-05:00

This is the third in a series on the attempts to redefine marriage. In the first post, Bigot, I spoke about the rights that are supposedly being infringed by the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman for the benefit and education of children. I was unable to find any. People are free to live together, have sex, and accomplish all the benefits of marriage without the title regardless of gender. The only "rights" are made up ones (like the "right" to marry). In fact, redefining marriage infringes on the rights of children and on religious liberty.

In Bigot Part 2 I spoke about what what marriage is and isn't. The purpose of marriage is primarily to ensure that children have the benefit of two parents to raise them. Numerous studies have confirmed that physically, mentally, and spiritually it is a benefit to children and to society for them to be raised by their father and mother. Redefining marriage would make it into an institution that would separate children from their natural parents. It would also restrict the rights of traditional Jews, Christians and Muslims from being able to practice their religion freely, and marginalize them in society.

In this post I'd like to expand on that and speak about the consequences of redefining marriage. Since there are countries more "progressive" than America, where marriage has already been redefined, we have an excellent look at what is likely to happen here in a few years.

First off, let's look at what has happened in the name of "tolerance" close to home. Despite the claims that Catholics are haters and homosexual advocates are more tolerant, the reverse seems to be the case on looking at evidence. Let's consider California's proposition 8 debacle. Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative in California to explicitly define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Note that this was merely confirming federal law as specified by DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that that "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.").

Many groups supported Proposition 8, while homosexual advocacy groups opposed it. Christians and Mormons were the primary targets of many violent acts perpetrated in the name of tolerance. These include death threats against people who supported it, theft and vandalism of "Yes on 8" signs, beating of people (including an elderly couple) trying to put signs on their property, shooting out windows, slashing of tires, and spray painting the word "BIGOT" on cars, buildings and other property.

Proposition 8 passed, but the story doesn't end there. It was challenged legally, and the California Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality. However, the federal court stepped in and overturned it. The case is controversial (BTW this is a good example of subtle bias in Wikipedia, which makes no mention of this in its article on Proposition 8) in that the judge who overturned it, Vaughn Walker, is himself a homosexual in a long term relationship. An argument was made that the judge should have recused himself based on the fact that he had a personal interest in the outcome of the case. That argument was rejected by judge James Ware who based his decision on the argument that sexual orientation shouldn't disqualify someone from hearing a case. It remains a controversy because the issue was not the judge's sexual orientation, but the fact that he had a personal interest in the outcome of the case. Proposition 8 challenges are still going on, and it remains to be seen what the final outcome will be. The point may be moot if the federal government repeals DOMA, which it is in the process of doing, and then enacts legislation to reverse DOMA, which it is likely to do.

There are other examples anti-Christian and anti-family intolerance due to the marriage issue. In Illinois Catholic Charities was told it had to place children with same sex couples in order to be allowed to continue its adoption services. No matter that other adoption services would serve same sex couples, Catholics had to do it too, in violation of their religion. A Sangamon County judge has stopped the action for now, but it remains an issue.

Recently in Illinois, a Christian school was vandalized for holding a pro-family award ceremony. A New Jersey teacher is under attack for saying on Facebook that she believes homosexual acts are wrong. In Texas a student was suspended for saying he believed homosexual acts are wrong (the school eventually apologized). Paypal has suspended accounts and frozen assets of organizations and individuals who uphold traditional marriage. Apple has removed and banned software on its devices which supports marriage or offers alternatives to homosexual behavior. In Canada, sports anchor Damian Goddard was fired over a tweet supporting marriage. William Whatcott was fined $17,500 and ordered to stop speaking about homosexuality. The "Human Rights Tribunal" declared that reading the Bible (specifically the letters of St. Paul) was "hate speech". The issue is currently going through Canada's legal system. Various businesses, such as Bed and Breakfasts, photographers, and a Christian retreat center are being sued because of their religious beliefs. It is not enough to tolerate what other people do, you must approve and participate in their acts, even if it violates your own beliefs.

The result of redefining marriage is that not only must Christians place foster children with homosexual couples, but eventually will be unable to care for children themselves. This sounds absurd, but it is a natural consequence of this doublespeak version of tolerance. In 2008, a couple in the UK was denied a foster child because they were Christian. This ruling was upheld by the UK High Court, who later claimed that the ruling wasn't anti-religion because it dealt with beliefs about morality, not directly about God.

Let's get this straight, because it is important. As a direct result of defending the redefinition of marriage, the UK High Court has declared that the state is the arbiter of morality, and that religion has no place doing so. Christians are only free to participate in society if they reject the parts of the Gospel that do not conform to government defined morality.

The next step is obvious. If it is "harmful to children" for foster parents to be Christians, to the extent that children should not be placed in such a household, then the natural children of Christians are being "harmed" and should be "rescued" by taking them away. In fact, a more economical and natural solution is to have Christians sterilized so that they cannot harm children.

There are many more examples I could give about families being destroyed and religious rights being denied, but I think the UK foster parent case above makes the point succinctly. Just understand that it is not a mistake or a one-off - it is the goal and direct consequence of redefining marriage.

Next, see the last installment, Bigot, part 4.

To Russia, with Love

2011-10-29T18:32:00.000-04:00

In the spirit of welcoming the 7 billionth human being to our planet, here's an article about Russia: Vladimir Putin Receives Virgin Mary 'Fertility' Relic. It seems that under the Soviet Union's draconian abortion policies, the Russian people have achieved a fertility rate of 1.4. That means each generation is producing only 1.4 people to replace each couple, which is a loss of 1/3 of the population per generation. Russia is trying to counter the trend by making abortions past 12 weeks' gestation illegal, but it may be a case of too little too late.

Japan has an even bigger problem, with a fertility rate of 1.37, and a smaller population to begin with. The Japanese government has offered a bonus of 350,000 Yen (about $4600) for each baby born, offers paid "conjugal leave," and has invented, with typical Japanese ingenuity, a robot designed to encourage couples to have children.

The United States is also experiencing population loss, although immigration is making up the difference for now. Let's learn a lesson from Russia and love our kids.

7 Billion Served

2011-10-28T15:11:00.000-04:00

This Halloween the world's population will reach 7 Billion, according to the UN FPA. Oh, and if the news sends you into a panic, calm down and watch the video below. As I calculated in my post CEASE Procreating there is plenty of room. With 7 billion people the calculation still holds, but the size of the backyard each family of 4 would get is 15" smaller.

According to projections, we only have 2 billion to go before the population decreases and the human race begins to die out, so let's roll out the welcome mat for precious gift from God, baby # 7,000,000,000!

Sick of Neighbors

2011-10-23T20:57:00.000-04:00

Sorry I haven't blogged in so long - life keeps getting in the way. Today I just got back form a scout camp out, and collapsed. So no time to write part 3 of the Bigot series. However, I wanted to write something and mass today provided it.

Today's homily was all about how Jesus said "Love thy neighbor" and how you can see God in your neighbor. We get this pretty much every week, but this week it rankled me a bit because that is not what the Gospel reading said. From Mt 22:34-40

When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees,
they gathered together, and one of them,
a scholar of the law tested him by asking,
"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"
He said to him,
"You shall love the Lord, your God,
with all your heart,
with all your soul,
and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

How many times have you heard this to support "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Now go back and read it again, and answer me this question; "which commandment in the law is greatest?"

So how come no homilist ever talks about that? Jesus Himself said it was the most important law, more important than the second one. Why do we hold up the second law as if it were the first? Maybe I'm just getting too old and crotchety.

Bigot (part 2)

2011-10-09T08:35:00.003-04:00

In my previous post, Bigot, I spoke about the lack of evidence of any "rights" that are denied homosexual couples under current law, and therefore the lack of a reason to change the definition of marriage. In this post I intended to talk about reasons not to change the definition of marriage, but it occurs to me that I should first ask the question "why marriage?".

I was going to start with Merriam-Webster again, then discovered that they recently changed their definition from

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
1 : the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united on a permanent basis

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

which is a poor definition for reasons that will become clear later in this post (not the least of which is that a dictionary is supposed to record the definition of a word as commonly used, not attempt to introduce new usage). So for now let's start with the Oxford dictionary, which has not changed its definition.

marriage :/ˈmarɪdʒ/ noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:

So, my question about this definition is "why?". Why does the law recognize this union? What interest does the state have in who I hang out with, or live with, or sleep with?

My pro-SSM friends will argue that it has to recognize this union for the purpose of property rights. However, I find this unconvincing. First off, the state recognizes shared property rights without a marriage. Secondly the state doesn't intrude in property rights for partnerships other than marriages. It is pretty clear from looking at the structure of family court that the state's interest in marriage is ensuring that children are cared for. And that's a noble goal. After all, children are human beings.

Children have rights, and one of those rights is the right to their father and mother. The father and mother, in turn, have the responsibility to care for and educate their child to produce a citizen. In recognizing marriage, the state recognizes an institution that is far older than itself, and in fact is the basis of society and government; the family.

In other words, marriage is an institution not for the "rights" of parents to have children if they want, but for the rights of children to have their own parents care for them. This is common sense. Clearly marriage is not necessary to get together and have children. But it is a commitment to stay together to raise those children.

The Catholic Church has always recognized this, and indeed every religion and government recognized this throughout all of history until the last century. I won't get into how and why this changed for some organizations because that would be another entire series of posts. But let's look at the Catholic perspective on marriage.

If you wish to be married in the Catholic Church you are required to post banns of marriage - that is, state your intent to marry publicly for a period of time. You must receive instructions on what marriage is. You must promise that you will have whatever children God gives you. You must promise to raise those children and educate them in the Catholic faith. These are requirements for marriage.

What about people who don't want to have children? They should not be married, and in fact cannot be married as Catholics. What about people who can't have children? They can be married. Isn't that a contradiction? No. Nobody can predict what will happen, we can only say what we want to happen and what we promise to do in that situation.

Why is the Catholic Church so hung up on sex? We're not. We're hung up on life. Marriage is about bringing life into the world, and the Catholic Church is one of the few organizations that not only talks the talk but walks the walk.

But what about same sex couples? Can't they have children and raise them and educate them? No, they can't. If you have read a biology book (or even if you haven't) you should realize it takes both sexes to produce a child. Hence no need for marriage, because they are not going to produce children with each other.

What about adoption? Adoption exists again not for the "rights" of adults to get children they want, but for the rights of children to get the parents they need. It is not a matter of "ownership" of a child, but of meeting the needs of children. If a child loses one or both parents for some reason (including abandonment), adoption gives that child the benefit of a mother and father (and usually brothers and sisters as well). Adoption by two people of the same sex does not give that child any benefit. Two "mommies" (or two "daddies") does not make a mother and father, regardless of what role playing goes on.

Of course, many pro-SSM people will disagree with this definition of marriage. To them I offer the following observation and question. First off, whether they like it or not, this is the definition of marriage by the Church today and by everyone since before recorded history. I did not invent this, and neither did the Church. Secondly, if marriage is something else, what is it that makes it distinct from any other thing (such as a contract, for instance)?

Next, see Bigot Part 3.

Race for the Kill

2011-10-02T11:42:00.000-04:00

Yesterday my entire newspaper was pink. No, it wasn't licked by a yink. It was to notify people about breast cancer awareness month. Eliminating breast cancer is a noble goal, and one which I support. But it was also to encourage people to donate to one organization, which was mentioned over and over; the Susan G. Komen foundation for breast cancer.

Sadly, Susan G. Komen donates between $600K to $1M each year to Planned Parenthood. According to their web site http://ww5.komen.org/Content.aspx?id=16162 the money is only used for breast cancer screening and mammograms, and no money funds abortions. However, there are two thing wrong with that.

First off, money is fungible, meaning if I give PP money to fund breast cancer screening, I am freeing up the money PP would have spent on that to subsidize abortion. Please follow the link above to my earlier post to read my thoughts on fungibility.

Secondly, Komen claims that PP is the only recourse women in certain areas have for getting mammograms, etc. The problem is PP doesn't offer mammograms, and refers women to their primary care physicians for those services. Live Action called every PP clinic in the country and asked to schedule a breast exam and mammogram, and in every case was told they don't do that and referred elsewhere.

So, where is this money really going? Why do we have "meta" fundraising organizations at all? Why can't cancer organizations keep themselves clean from controversy and just address cancer directly through their own programs instead of getting involved in organizations that are not primarily involved in cancer work?

On the first day

2011-09-29T23:20:00.000-04:00

Wednesday began the fall 2011 40 Days for Life campaign. As I drove up to the clinic I go to every Wednesday, I saw a new face, Patti. She saw me walking up and greeted me with a big smile and a hug. There was almost a constant stream of cars beeping and waving and cheering us on. Despite the rain sprinkling on and off it was a fun day.

I held my sign, said my rosary and spoke to the other people there. But the best part of all was the lack of an abortionist. The clinic had been open for hours before I even got there, and by the time I left, the fourteen or so people inside were still waiting for someone to show up!

Now, it is often the case that the abortionist shows up late, making the women inside wait for hours (and we thank him for his contempt of his "patients"), but to miss more than half a day we took as a hopeful sign. I don't have any illusions that he has changed his mind about his "career", but I am hopeful that somehow he has a conscience and that our presence makes him uncomfortable.

Bigot

2011-09-24T09:56:00.002-04:00

Last week I was told I was a hateful bigot. That remark came from a friend, no less. What can motivate someone to say that about a person whom they otherwise like? Given the title of this article I bet you can imagine what the conversation was about that led to the accusation.

This accusation affected me deeply. The hateful part is easy to shrug off, because it is patently untrue. While I might not be a model Christian (by far), I can honestly say that I don't hate any group, or even any individual, even those that I feel have done me serious wrong. You may think that's a big feat, or you may think that I'm lying, but I assure you it is no big thing not to hate. I believe hating takes as much effort as loving, and if you aren't taught to hate ad don't practice it, it is no big deal to avoid it. That's not to say I love everybody, either. There are people I find distasteful, that I'd rather have nothing to do with. That is far from hate (actively seeking what's bad for the other person).

The title of "bigot" bothered me though. I don't think of myself as a bigot, but I suppose neither did Archie Bunker, or for that matter George Jefferson (for those who are not as ancient as I am, these are two notoriously prejudiced characters from the 1970s sitcoms "All in the Family" and its spinoff "The Jeffersons"). I decided it was time to reexamine my actions.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines bigot as follows:

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

and further defines intolerant as:

in·tol·er·ant adj \-rənt\
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted

Well, I'm off the hook, because to be a bigot I'd have to treat people with hatred and intolerance, and I don't treat people with hatred. However, my friend equates intolerance and hate as being the same thing. Am I intolerant?

Obviously, the primary definition of intolerant is not what my friend was alluding to. If that were the case, and since she is unwilling to grant me freedom of expression of my religious views, the term bigot would apply to her, not to me. I don't think she intended to be a bigot by calling me one. So she must mean that I'm unwilling to grant social, political, or professional rights to homosexuals.

That's a serious accusation, but is it true? What rights are homosexuals denied that changing the definition of marriage would grant them? Are they being denied the right to life? No, last I looked nobody was killing them. Are they being denied their liberty? No, last I looked they weren't being put in prison. Are they being denied the right to participate in economic activities, own property, and enjoy the fruits of their labor? No. Right to bear arms? No. Right to Assemble? No. Right to free speech? No.

I continued down through the Bill of Rights and other aspects of law, and I can't find a single right which is not granted them. OK, let's talk about "rights" in a looser sense, and look at lifestyle choices. Are they forbidden from practicing sexual acts in privacy? No. Are they forbidden from living together as a couple? No.

So what rights do they claim they are being denied (other than being able to change the definition of institutions like marriage, and I dictating changes to society is not a "right" in any sense of the word)? The things that I have heard brought up in conversation are:

They can't get family health benefits from their employer for their partner. That's a fair point. Shouldn't I be able to purchase benefits for anyone I want? Oh wait! There's a thing called an insurance company, and I can pay them to purchase health insurance for anybody, not just my family. The problem is that insurance companies have made it expensive to do so. So, no right has been denied.

Still one can make the argument that if insurance companies are going to give a discount for a family policy, shouldn't that include all the people who live in my household whom I support? Suppose my elderly mother lives with me, or my aunt, or cousin who's our of work? Insurance companies now have ways to address some of these issues (like elder care and same sex partners). Here in NJ, same sex partners are by law treated equally with married couples for insurance purposes. I think if anything that should be expanded to include the other cases (e.g. anybody I support). If I'm willing to pay for it, there's a market.

So there's an argument that falls flat on its face, both as a reason to say they are being denied rights and as a reason to say I'm a bigot.

Reason number two is that same sex partners aren't treated as spouses when hospitals grant visiting privileges. Again fair point, but that's a hospital policy, not anything to do with the institution of marriage. I can understand that hospitals have to limit visitors for the patients' benefit and that without the patient's ability to designate who should visit they have to come up with a rule. On the other hand, a patient should have people who love and care for him able to visit. This is something that I think needs to be addressed by modifying hospital policies, not marriage.

Reason number three is adoption. Same sex couples need to be married to legally adopt children. Without getting into the moral issues of whether this is good, let me cut off the argument right here by saying that they can. This argument is false. While Catholic adoption agencies do not place children with same sex couples, there are other agencies that do. A simple web search comes up with sites like Adoption Open, which lists "gay friendly" adoption agencies.

When you go through the list of all the justifications for changing the institution of marriage, there is none that is an actual justification. The last resort argument that I have been given is that it makes them feel like their relationship isn't accepted by everyone. That's true in a way. Their relationship probably isn't accepted by everyone. But is that what marriage is about? Is it merely a title, a piece of paper, a popularity contest? I've been told by so many, and I believe it to be true as well, if your relationship is based only on a piece of paper, it's not worth the piece of paper it's written on.

I was going to talk about the other side, but this post is getting long so I'll continue this discussion in another post about reasons not to change marriage. I think I've debunked the reasons given for wanting to change it, though if you know of any reasonable arguments that aren't covered please comment below.

Next, see Bigot Part 2.

St Michael

2011-09-20T18:55:00.000-04:00

For obvious reasons I have always been partial to St. Michael the Archangel. Each night I pray

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

So I of course will be participating in Joe's big event. Won't you join us in the Novena to St. Michael the Archangel?

The price of everything

2011-09-17T14:38:00.000-04:00

In Oscar Wilde's play Lady Windemere's Fan Lord Darlington describes a cynic as "a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Recently, our house was damaged by hurricane Irene, and we've been doing a lot of triage of the things we have accumulated over the years. This is not small task, as my wife and I are both pack rats. Still, there are things to get rid of. Some books that got wet, for instance, are easily replaceable. Other things, like family photos, I will spend time and money drying out and restoring. They may be worth less in terms of dollars, but could never be replaced. They are valuable.

Such is the irony of couples that abort children who may have a health problem. They know the price of the abortion, but not the value of the child they discard. "We can always have another one" is frequently heard, but can they replace that child?

There are 23 pairs of chromosomes in a human cell. One couple could have 70,368,744,177,664 (70 trillion) children without repeating the child they conceived. And that's just genetically. There will never be another point in their lives like this. That child is literally irreplaceable.

Even more than just physically, that child is a human being, made in the image of God (and its parents). When we decide to "throw out" a human being we are demonstrating that that a human life, even the life of our own child, is worth less to us than the car we repair, the dog we take to the vet, or even the flowers in our scrapbook.

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” Using Wilde's definition of a cynic, Mother Teresa was a great optimist.

A screw loose

2011-09-12T22:07:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON, DC - Whether you're building a deck on your house or buying a new refrigerator, be prepared for big changes in the way they are constructed. In an unprecedented move lawmakers today introduced legislation to eliminate the phillips-head screw from all products sold in the USA. Because of the unique design of the screw, when the screw head is viewed face-on it appears to form a cross. In fact, the likeness is so striking that many call the fastener a "cross-head" screw.

Some have never noticed the design that adorns almost all the screws used in modern appliances and electronic devices.

Others say the design clearly resembles a Christian cross.

The photo above, taken of an actual phillips-head screw, appears to have this characteristic.

A. C. Lu, Chairman of the board of the National Screw Design University, or Screw U., told The Washington Free Explorer during a telephone interview that the cross design was not part of the original plans, and that the design was to have been what could be described as a plus sign.

"As soon as we found out there were issues we got a copy of the plan design and talked to the designer about it, it was not the intent of the plan at all."

Lu added, "I appreciate the concern that was brought up and it does look that way and we need to be careful about that process of what we're doing. It's a legitimate concern, and it was not the intended design."

If the proposed law goes into effect, all mechanical designs in the US will have to change the alleged cross designs sometime in the spring at no cost to consumers, Lu said.

But some say, what's the big deal?

"As far as I'm concerned this country was brought about on Christian principles and I love that," said Mr. A. Bishop.

"This country's founding principles require separation of church and state," countered Mr. A. Theist. "This is an offensive product that must be removed from the market to protect our citizens."

[N.B. My inspiration for this was The TPS Elementary School cross indcident plus the 9-11 "cross" lawsuit, plus the Mohave desert cross lawsuit, plus the Mount Soledad cross lawsuit, plus Utah's American Atheists v. Duncan, plus too many others to list.]

Ten years later

2011-09-08T22:32:00.000-04:00

Pictured above is Frigate FFG 29 the USS Steven W. Groves. It is leaving New York harbor on a shakedown cruise of the Mk92 FCS. This picture was taken in the 1980s and hung in my parents' kitchen for years. It now hangs in my house. I remember looking at it soon after the 9-11 attacks ten years ago, and thinking of the brave Americans, both first responders and military, who have given and still give their lives to keep ours safe. Please join me in prayers for them on the 10^th anniversary of the attacks.

Blessed are you, Lord, God of mercy,
who through your Son gave us a marvelous example of charity
and the great commandment of love for one another.
Send down your blessings on these your servants,
who so generously devote themselves to helping others,
and protect them always as they work to protect us all.
Grant them courage when they are afraid,
wisdom when they must make quick decisions,
strength when they are weary,
and compassion in all their work.
When they are called to aid both friend and stranger,
let them faithfully serve you in their neighbor.
We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

O Prince of peace, we humbly ask your protection for all our men and women in military service. Give them unflinching courage to defend with honor, dignity and devotion, the rights of all who are imperiled by injustice and evil. Be their rock, their shield, and their stronghold and let them draw their strength from you.

For you are God, for ever and ever. Amen

Good night Irene

2011-09-05T13:56:00.000-04:00

OK, the "storm of the century" has passed (but hey, the century is young). Perhaps some bloggers have come out of the experience with witty life lessons learned that they can impart to all their many readers. I'm just tired. It's been a long and short week. I have no deep thoughts, just an account of where I've been for the past 168 hours or so.

Saturday we were supposed to drive to my sister's for my niece's daughter's first birthday party. However, we canceled the trip due to the impending storm. Now, it may be coincidence, but the last time we were panning to go out there, there was a blizzard. Our track record is not good.

Sunday I was supposed to lector, and we were supposed to cook Sunday dinner for a group of homeless people who were staying at our church for the week. Saturday evening we went to mass just in case, and it was a good thing, because the parish announced that all Sunday masses would be canceled and the homeless people were staying at the shelter they were at until Monday.

We always have non-perishable food in the house, even if it means living on tuna and chunky soup for days, and since we camp with out scout troop a lot we have plenty of flashlights and batteries on hand.

We had already stocked up on drinking water (one gallon/person/day, and we had twelve gallons, which is a three day supply for the four of us). Since we have a well, no power means no water. Period. Now, there are clear guidelines for how much drinking water to have on hand, but none about flushing. I was on my own. They say fill up a bathtub, but our bathtub drain leaks, and while it's OK for a 1/2 hour bath it will not hold water for days. I filled some five gallon pails and rubbermaid containers with about 45 gallons of flushing water, which I estimated was 15 flushes, or a four day supply if we each flushed once/day.

Of course all this was a lark, since we didn't really expect to lose power for that long. In fact, I have a generator, but we've only had to use it once, when we were without power for two days. Usually a power outage is a matter of a couple of hours, and we can ride that out. We were watching storm coverage on TV, and actually enjoying being in our cozy house while the wind whistled and the rain pelted outside.

The children were nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of Iron Man danced in their heads. [Yes, we had stayed up and watched Iron Man as our family movie™.] And dear wife in her slippers and I went to creep, up to our room for a long summer's sleep. When out in the yard came a FLASH! and a BOOM! The lights were all gone and the night filled the room!

OK, enough poetry. The kitchen was filled with the smell of burning plastic insulation. We grabbed flashlights and went searching about the house for something that might be on fire. Yes, wisdom might say "get out" rather than "search about", but unless the house is actually aflame it's probably safer to be inside than outside in the hurricane. We shut off the main breaker, in case there was some short that might be causing the burning smell.

After we issued the "all clear" the kids had to immediately go to the bathroom, and while they remembered not to flush they washed their hands (amazing!), using the last of the pressurized house water. Nobody wanted to go to sleep, or even up ti their rooms. I took my flashlight up to find the first book I could lay my hands on that might be entertaining, and came down with "The Little World of Don Camillo".

For those who've never heard of him, Don Camillo is a fictional priest in Italy, who regularly has conversations with Christ, usually involving his nemesis, the mayor and head of the communist party, Peppone. Each short story has a lesson, about friendship and love and redemption. The stories are beautifully simple and entertaining. If you want to hear some of them, Fr. Z. has a series of podcasts in which he reads the stories.

After a few Don Camillo stories we all slept in the living room. Sunday was a bit of a disaster. Fortunately, the storm petered out early. I woke to light rain and strong gusty winds and looked out upon the lake that used to be my back yard. I walked out the garage into the stream that used to be my driveway and surveyed the place where wires used to go from my house to the pole. They were laying on the front yard. Not good. My next door neighbor had power and was frantically pumping water out of my basement. Their basement often floods. Ours never, but I went down to check anyway. Splash! An inch or so of water greeted my foot.

I started the generator, ran an extension cord down stairs and the rest of the day was a blur of shop-vacuuming water, carrying it up and out in buckets, and moving stuff that might be damaged by the water. That was a big task. There are nine book cases that all had to have bottom shelves emptied. Some of these are things that can't be replaced, like my complete set of Telescope Making Magazine, which has been out of print for many years, but is a gold mine for anyone in the hobby. The basement became a scene of chaos in the dark, punctuated by unusual commands like of "put the interferometer next to the tents, on top of the catechism" and "Don't let the cerium oxide get wet." Dinner was steaks on the grill - our goal was to eat the most expensive food before it went bad.

Monday very little got done. The power company visited us twice; once to verify that the wires on the front lawn were not "live" and once to cut up the tree that was blocking the road (and access to the power lines). Both crews assured us the power would be fixed "soon". On the phone they told us they would be there "as soon as possible". AT&T came and put up a new phone line to the house (yay). Verizon would not talk to us until we had commercial power restored. Water was still coming in the basement, so there was more vacuuming, but it wasn't as bad and didn't require continuous vacuuming like Sunday.

We had planned a nice Sunday meal for the people at church, and I had purchased $100 worth of rib roast. Rather than watch it rot in the fridge we went down to cook in the church kitchen (our oven is electric). I ran out and bought an extra 100 feet of hose and an adapter to connect our neighbor's garden hose to ours to run water into our house. This was important because we were already low on flushing water. It seems 3 gallons is not enough to effectively flush a toilet that has not been flushed all day.

We quickly discovered that the neighbor's untreated well water is incredibly rusty! The toilets looked like someone had bled into them, but at least they flushed! Of course the generator broke, which involved a trip to the hardware store and some tinkering.

Tuesday was more water vacuuming. We borrowed a carpet cleaner from a neighbor, which was much more effective than the shop vac, but still it was a losing battle. We lost the carpet. In the evening, the power company came with two trucks and said they were going to fix our power, but they had to turn off the power to do it. They drove off and did so, and the all the neighbors were annoyed. An hour later the neighbors' power came back on, and the trucks never came back.

Another neighbor suggested that maybe we needed to call an electrician. We did, on Wednesday, and found out that unlike what we had been told by the power company on the phone, and by their work crews, the power company does not fix the stuff "on the house" and it needs to be replaced and inspected before they will fix it. Thursday the electrician came and replaced the stuff, and also installed a switch so we could run more stuff off the generator. We had lights and a well pump again!

The basement was still wet, and smelled horrible. Coincidentally, the dehumidifier bucket didn't seem to be filling. More disassembly and tinkering, and it was determined that it could not be fixed. The local home center store was out of them.

Friday the inspector came. The garbage truck came and picked up the neighbor's carpet but not ours. The garbage company told us they don't pick that stuff up and it will cost $80 to have them do it. The neighbor told us they will pick up anything he puts out because he tips them well at Christmas, and sure enough they picked up our carpet when we put it with the his garbage.

We found a Home Depot that had a truckload of dehumidifiers, and even though I don't like to patronize them we had to buy one. Saturday evening the power company shows up with three trucks, and put the wires back up. The power cable now crosses the phone cable (and actually lifts up the phone cable, which makes me worry they will rub together and short something out some day), but we had power (yay). We called Verizon.

Sunday morning Verizon shows up just as we're going to 11 AM mass (where I am lectoring and my son is serving). We went while the rest of family stayed home and went to Sunday evening mass. At last we had cable and internet (yay).

My youngest said "when the tree fell I was in the middle of praying that nothing bad would happen to our family." "Nothing bad did happen," I replied, and I meant it. Despite the annoyances, nobody was hurt, and we actually became closer to each other and our neighbors as a result. I'm not saying I want to go through it again, but in retrospect we got what we needed, even if it wasn't what we wanted.

Chalk one up...

2011-08-25T22:31:00.000-04:00

What activity requires almost no money and minimal time commitment yet saves lives and impacts a whole school campus?

SIDEWALK CHALKING!

Students for Life of America is promoting National Pro-Life Chalk Day! Sounds kind of silly at first, but if you think about it, it is a good, non-confrontational way to raise awareness about pro-life issues. Follow the link and chalk it out (sorry).

What's another word for thesaurus?

2011-08-22T23:02:00.000-04:00

Mark Twain once said "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."

I was reading this post by Jeff Miller about the inherent conflicts of parents using IVF. Several interesting posts have been generated by the New York Times article on "half abortions." I know, there's a lot of links there, but they are all worth the read.

But since I've been reading "Dehumanizing the Vulnerable" I've noticed something. The culture of death is gradually dehumanizing unborn children (even more than they already have) by controlling the language we use to talk about them. Even staunch pro-lifers are bullied, by a desire to appear to be "accurate" and "factual" to pro-aborts, into using medical terms like:

Zygote noun \ˈzī-ˌgōt\ : a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
Embryo noun \ˈem-brē-ˌō\
1. archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching
2. : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
Fetus noun \ˈfē-təs\ : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

These are terms which, while scientifically accurate, server to obfuscate the humanity of the unborn. I propose we should start calling these people what they are - our children.

Minty Fresh

2011-08-18T23:02:00.000-04:00

We took the kids to the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia last week. If you have kids, this is not a good place to take them. The mint is pretty well automated, and there's pretty much nothing for them to see. There is a self-guided tour that takes you past many many many many coins behind glass with plagues under them. There is nothing interactive. Even the gift shop was boring, with cheesy giant rubber coins and key chains containing a "lucky" penny.

There were a number of special medals made to honor various public figures. They generally had a likeness of the person on the obverse side (a term I learned at the mint) and some quote or something about the person on the reverse side. One of the medals features Jackie Robinson and featured this quote by him

"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."

Meaning no disrespect to Jackie Robinson or the designer of the medal, but that's about the worst quote I saw at the mint. While it sounds reasonable and even noble (who doesn't think it's worthwhile to touch other lives?), it's totally wrong.

You see, every life is important. Adolph Hitler had an impact on almost every life in the world in the last century. And yet the life of a child who dies in the womb (and thus only has impact on his parents) is equally important.

The Fall 2011 40 Days for Life starts Sept 28

2011-08-14T14:08:00.000-04:00

...but the work continues even today. A message from Frank, one of our local pro-life leaders and captain of our team from 40 Days for Life:

Saturday is always one of the busiest days at the Toms River abortion clinic.

This day, August 13, started off with several of the women entering the clinic accepting literature and speaking with the Sidewalk Counselors.

A mother and her two young daughters arrived. They stopped their vehicle in the street and spoke with a Sidewalk Counselor. The mother and one daughter were BOTH pregnant. The daughter was there to abort her baby, the mother was keeping hers and did not want the daughter to have an abortion.

They parked, got out of their vehicle, continued to dialogue and were joined by one Prayer Warrior. The daughter said that she and her Mother could not both have babies at this time. She decided that she would give up hers. They spoke about other options, local assistance and even adoption. The young girl was determined to have this procedure.

They said they were Catholic, they had Rosary beads hanging from the car mirror. They pregnant daughter was even wearing a Scapular around her neck. They prayed together and our Sidewalk Counselor got on his knees to pray that she would not do this to herself and her baby.

They said thank you but entered the clinic. Outside a group of Prayer Warriors were ready to begin the Rosary. They were told about the family that just entered the clinic, and prayed for all mothers, but specifically for this young girl who was inside the clinic. A prayer intention was clearly expressed that the Holy Spirit would touch this girls heart, give her the vision to see the alternatives to abortion, give her the strength to say YES to God and keep her baby.

About 30 minutes later, the abortionist arrived. Although women have found the courage to change their mind after his arrival, it was becoming less likely that this mother was coming out.

Prayers continued.

As women who had this horrible procedure done started to exit the clinic, hope was lost that our prayers would be answered.

The group praying outside the clinic started to disburse. Only a few were left when the pregnant mother of the young girl came out. She was smiling. Both her daughters followed her out. They went straight to the person they prayed with before going in and announced that they didn't have the abortion. She just couldn't do it. They knew we were praying outside, and they prayed inside, they talked, they discerned, they struggled; this young mother was waiting for the abortionist and in that time was touched by the HOLY SPIRIT and said NO TO ABORTION and YES TO GOD'S GIFT OF A NEW CHILD.

They were filled with joy (AND SO WERE WE !) They exchanged hugs, and took literature about local assistance.

They drove off, waving and smiling.

SATAN'S PLAN FOR THIS BABY WAS STOPPED. GOD'S PLAN WAS RESTORED.

DO NOT LISTEN TO THE ENEMY WHO TELLS YOU THAT OUR PRAYERS AND PRESENCE DO NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE because it made a difference today. Our prayers were heard. "So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, 'Father, I thank you for hearing me. I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me.'" John 11:41-42

DO NOT LISTEN TO THOSE WHO SAY WE SHOULD NOT REACH OUT TO THE MOTHERS ENTERING THE CLINIC, because reaching out this day opened a mother's heart to the power and love of God. "Rescue those who are being dragged to death, and from those tottering to execution withdraw not. " - Proverbs 24:11

DO NOT BE DISCOURAGED BY THE ENEMY'S NEGATIVE COMMENTS, but "Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus." - 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18

DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY THE ENEMY WHO PULLS YOU AWAY FROM PRAYER. "So submit yourselves to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you." James 4:7-8

THERE IS NO GREATER WORK TO BE DONE and THERE IS NO CHOICE BUT TO JOIN THIS SPIRITUAL BATTLE. “You must feel the full urgency of the task. Woe to you if you do not succeed in defending life.” - Blessed Pope John Paul II

IS GOD CALLING YOU?

Please join us in this fall's 40 Days for Life. You could save a life.

A Rose

2011-08-12T21:45:00.000-04:00

The Dred Scott decision in 1857 declared that blacks were not "sovereign people" and "are not included and were never intended to be included in the word 'citizen' in the Constitution." In 1936 the Reichsgericht (the German equivalent of the Supreme Court) said that Jews were "not persons in the legal sense". In March of 1938 Jewish congregations were officially deprived of legal protection by law. By 1942 Jews were referred to as "transport material" or "pieces" of "material". In 1973, Roe v. Wade declared that the word "person" does not include unborn humans, and huge numbers of unborn children lost any hope of legal protection of their lives. In 1974 patients at the Sunny Hill Convalescent Center were referred to as "work units". These changes in language and legal definitions played a large role in dehumanizing their subjects, and made it possible to mistreat and even kill them in large numbers.

These facts and more come from a disturbing scary book, "Dehumanizing the Vulnerable". Scary because of the dark side of human history exposed. Scary because it exposes how the meanings of words, and the words we use can kill. Disturbng because it relates to what's going on in U.S. Heath Care legislation.

The dictionary defines "contraception" as "the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means." In fact the word's originated in 1886 from Latin contra (meaning against) + ending from conception. However, over the past few years modern medical dictionaries have altered the definition to "(birth control) prevents pregnancy by interfering with the normal process of ovulation, fertilization, and implantation."

Why has this been altered? Note that with the new definition, and abortifacient can be called a "contraceptive". What does that have to do with the new health care legislation? Because the administration that claims that no tax payer dollars are funding abortions is going to require taxpayer dollars be used to pay for contraceptives (which cause abortions). What's perhaps as bad, women who use these "contraceptives" will not even realize that they are undergoing abortions.

As reported in this news story:

"All women do use contraception at some point in their lives, and we think it should be available to them as a preventive health service," said Judy Waxman, vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center.

I beg to differ. Not all women use contraception, and even if they did, why does this justify funding it 100%? Note that all people (men and women) require vitamins as a preventative health service, but the health care bill does not fund vitamins 100% (or at all). All people require exercise, but the health care bill does not fund gym memberships 100% (or at all).

So what then is the real justification? Profits for big pharma. Profits from the death of humans whose lives have been whittled away by words.

Relativity

2011-08-11T19:36:00.000-04:00

Earth's gravity pulls my rock down at 9.8 m/s² but your rock may fall at a different rate. My 2 + 2 = 6. The North won the civil war, if you believe it. Rape is wrong, for me, but may be not for you. Who knows if the Holocaust happened? Nobody. Abortion is right for you if you think it is. Water is necessary for some people to live. The Earth goes around the sun in my neighborhood. A pound is 16 ounces when I buy goods, but when I sell them I use an 8 ounce pound to charge customers.

Why would anybody agree with any one of those statements? "Well, because one of those is true," you might reply, and I can guess which statement that would be. But why do you think it is true? In no area of human knowledge do we accept that the rules that govern the universe are subject to personal opinion. Why do you think the morality of an act is subject to your personal whim?

American society (and I suspect others) drill into our heads constantly that there is no such thing as right and wrong, that moral knowledge is not knowledge, that right and wrong are just opinions. Yet, they expect us to follow laws. Why? If rape is right for me, why can't I do it? You can't say because it is wrong, because there is no right or wrong, remember? Oh, because it hurts someone, you say? But so does abortion. And now we're back where we started.

People who claim that morality is relative really mean that only the things that they want might want license to do are relative, and other things are. They will find it OK to restrict what we eat, because eating poorly would cause health problems down the line, but encourage homosexual activity that will cause health problems down the line.

If someone said that the weight of a pound was different for different people in order to make more money selling you stuff you'd stop them pretty quickly. Why should you accept that someone can do something else that's objectively wrong? The classic objection is that different people have different ideas about what's right and wrong? That's true, but different people also have different ideas about where Colorado is on a US map. Their ideas are mistakes or ignorance, and are not accepted as truth. People who believe in moral relativism are the modern day equivalent of flat earthers.

So, who's idea of right and wrong is the "right" one? For that we have to accept morality as a real branch of knowledge based on postulates and logic, just like mathematics. It is a real branch of knowledge, and the moral order as defined by the Catholic Church is based on the natural law - the order of things in the universe. It is not some arbitrary thing that dropped from the sky. For instance. the moral law tells us that killing an innocent human being is wrong. That is a premise. Science tells us that an embryo (or fetus) is a human being. Abortion kills an embryo (or fetus). Therefore abortion is wrong.

To contradict the statement "abortion is wrong" you have to either argue that abortion doesn't kill (it does), a human embryo is not alive (it is), a human embryo belongs to another species (it doesn't), an embryo is not innocent (which implies evil intent) or that it is OK to kill innocent human beings. If you want to disagree with the premise that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, then we can talk, but let's at least be honest and admit that the statement was properly reasoned from the premise and that the premise is a reasonable one.

Sorry if this post seems to ramble a bit - I've had a day of people arguing vociferously about morality being baseless, irrelevant and arbitrary, and so I'm taking it out on you, dear reader.

Back from camp

2011-08-09T19:50:00.000-04:00

As some of you may know I spent the last week camping at Boy Scout camp. I learned a lot of things there, and got some great stories which I will hopefully get to blog about. But what I wanted to talk about today was something that happened on the first evening, last Sunday.

There is a family of Lone Scouts who camp at the same time we do and join us for various events. They get camaraderie, pizza and ice cream from us, but we get the best of the deal. You see, there is a small open air Catholic chapel out in the woods on camp grounds. The Lone Scout patrol hikes to it, with two suitcases carrying the equipment (lectionary, candles, etc.) and matter to say mass. Following them is a priest, who says mass for us in the chapel.

The priest, who is Hungarian, is a very interesting and reverent fellow. While he prepares for mass he explains what he is doing and quizzes the kids on the Sacraments and other aspects of the faith. Not as if he's testing them, but matter of factly. He weaves it into stories.

Last Sunday he spoke about the origins of the word "Sunday." In languages descended from Latin, he told us, the word comes from the Latin "Dies Domini" or "Lord's Day." Hence "Domingo" in Spanish or "Domenica" in Italian. However, in Russian, the word is "воскресенье" which means "Resurrection." He told us when the communists took over, all words relating to Christianity were banned from speech. Yet, the Russians had to say "Resurrection" every time they spoke of Sunday, which left a bad taste in their mouths.

After this conversation one of the simplest, yet most beautiful masses I have attended began. The weather was hot and muggy, and we were all in our dress uniforms, sitting on logs and kneeling on the dead leaves and sticks of the forest floor, but nobody noticed. As the Eucharistic prayer began, a cool breeze blew through and it became quiet and comfortable. And at the elevation, the clouds parted and the setting sun shown down behind the altar.

I'm not claiming this was a mystical experience, but it was a beautiful peaceful moment, which stayed with me the rest of the week. God is good.

Abortion and the ISS

2011-07-27T21:19:00.001-04:00

One of the arguments put forth by pro-aborts in defense of abortion on demand is the "Thompson's violinist" argument. It goes something like this:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

There are so many flaws in this argument that it readily falls apart, because it is a seriously flawed analogy. A woman doesn't wake up mysteriously pregnant - some action has been taken (usually voluntarily) to cause it. And the fetus is not kept alive by extraordinary medical means that seriously hamper the woman's ability to live, but by the natural functions of the woman's body. I could go on.

In light of this, and the recent withdrawal of the United States from manned space flight, I would like to humbly offer what I consider to be a more accurate analogy, involving the International Space Station (ISS). Imagine you are an astronaut on the ISS. A visiting Soyuz capsule docks with you and unintentionally leaves behind an astronaut (perhaps because a safety device malfunctions). You didn't want this astronaut on the ISS, but here she is. The next scheduled Soyuz flight that could pick her up is due in nine months. You have the life support capacity (food oxygen) to keep her alive for the nine months, but it may mean certain accommodations, such as watching your diet, being a bit more cramped then normal, nor being able to exercise or use equipment exactly when you want to. Is it reasonable for you to shove this astronaut out the airlock?

I consider this to be a more accurate analogy in a number of ways. Although the astronaut is not physically connected to you, as the violinist is, she does rely on your life support system, which you control, and which was placed there for your benefit. In addition, it recognizes that the mother's body, like the life support system on the ISS, is designed to be able to support an additional life. The extraordinary action is the murder of the astronaut - the status quo is to keep her there. This is analogous to the case of abortion - the status quo would be to do nothing and let the baby develop. The visiting astronaut could have been left there by accident (aka contraceptive failure) or on purpose (aka rape). It doesn't matter how she got there, if she is human.

I've been thinking about this analogy for a couple of days now and I think it holds water. What do you think? In what ways is it an imperfect analogy? In what ways is the violinist argument stronger?

Dark Knight of the Soul

2011-07-23T11:14:00.000-04:00

I know it's been a while since my last post. I thought this spring was busy, but it is nothing compared to this summer. My wife is recovering from shoulder surgery, which gives me a perfect opportunity to reflect on just how much I need her and how perfectly suited marriage is to the creation and rearing of children. In other words, I'm super busy.

Michal Voris is a nut, but his heart is in the right place, and although I often feel he goes too far, at least he's going in the right direction. In a recent video he publicly resigns from the Knights of Columbus over the refusal of the national council to either allow a local council to police its own membership nor do it themselves.

For readers unfamiliar with the Knights of Columbus, their overview booklet states:

In 1882, Father Michael J. McGivney invited a small group of parishioners to gather in the basement of St. Mary’s Church in New Haven, Connecticut. His goal was simple — to establish an Order that would unite men in their faith as well as help provide for Catholic families in times of need. It was in that humblest of beginnings that the Knights of Columbus was founded.

At issue is whether or not a pro-abortion politician can remain a member of the K of C. The local council said "no", the national said it was not up to the local council, but up to them, then did nothing about the situation for over a year, through inaction implicitly approving the status quo.

I know people on both sides of the issue, and I don't mean to belittle their opinions, but this is "What does Mike Think" and I've been thinking about this. In fact, sad to say I lost sleep thinking about this. While I disagree with Voris' decision to leave the K of C, and I think his accusations of malfeasance on the part of the national council is inappropriate, he has a point about the scandal caused by the council's approval of the situation.

The Constitution of the Knights of Columbus states:

Ipso Facto Forfeiture — Members
SEC. 168. Any member of this Order shall, ipso facto, forfeit his membership in the Order —
Failure to Remain a Practical Catholic
1. Who shall fail to remain a practical Catholic in union with the Holy See.

In addition, in their Resolution on Building a Culture of Life, the Knights state [emphasis mine]:

FURTHER RESOLVED, that we reaffirm our long-standing policy of not inviting to any Knights of Columbus event, persons, especially public officials or candidates for public office, who do not support the legal protection of unborn children, or who advocate for the legalization of assisted suicide or euthanasia; and of prohibiting such persons from renting or otherwise using facilities over which we have control, or speaking at Knights of Columbus events, or bestowing on them honors or privileges of our Order of any kind, or inviting them to serve as honorary chairpersons of events, celebrations, or committees, or hold any office in the Knights of Columbus;

Which begs the issue of how one could remain a member yet be barred from any events.

The defenders of the national council say that "if the bishop fails to publicly excommunicate a person we must assume the bishop believes the person to be in union with the Holy See." Certainly the Knights should remain obedient to their bishop, but in this case the bishop has not stated whether or not the politician in question is in fact in union with the Holy See, but simply hasn't made a public statement one way or the other. As we saw in the case of Patrick Kennedy, a bishop may in fact decide a politician is not in union with the Church, but handle it privately for pastoral reasons.

So as I see it, the basis of the dispute is whether or not Catholics can in good conscience make a decision about the whether someone's behavior is in accord with the Holy See, or whether they need to appeal to a bishop in all cases. Rather than present my opinion on the matter, I will defer to Cardinal Arinze.

Happy Independence Day

2011-07-04T07:10:00.000-04:00

Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the "subjectivity" of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.

- Bl. Pope John Paul II in Centesimus annus

American Idol

2011-07-03T21:36:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago at the death mill I was verbally assaulted. Not by one of the customers or staff, or by a pro-death passerby, but by another pro-lifer. The subject of the assault was that I was an idol worshiper (aka Catholic). Apparently I worship statues, my rosary beads, and my scapular. After a five minute dress down, and being told that I was "disgusting" the accuser told me that she used to be a Catholic (as if I couldn't have guessed) until she learned to be a Christian. She told me she learned that her scapular couldn't save her, and her rosary couldn't save her and her statues couldn't save her - her Bible saved her.

Now, I understand how all these things can be used in a superstitious manner (and apparently were by this woman), but I can assure you that I don't worship anyone but God. A statue is a statue and the only use I have for it is to remind me of the men and women who have set an example for me of how to live. My rosary beads do nothing for me but mark the number of prayers I am saying so I can use my meager brain power to contemplate the life of Christ. My scapular is non-existent because I don't have one.

Note that she didn't even mention Eucharistic Adoration, which to a protestant actually is idol worship, and is a great way for me to slip in a reference to "Lift the City" into this blog post.

But that isn't really what I wanted to blog about. While I was listening to this woman's tirade, it struck me that while I am saved by Jesus, this woman claims she is saved by her Bible. I believe if pressed she would say that she didn't mean that literally, that she is saved by Jesus Christ, but I think her words are a Freudian slip. While she and other "Bible Christians" accuse us Catholics of worshiping idols, I would claim the finger points both ways (and more truly in their direction).

One theme in the bible is that "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord" (Deut. 8:3, Matthew 4:4) The Bible Christian twists this to mean that the Bible is king, but I think it means just the opposite. We are told in scripture that the bible does not contain every word or action of God (John 21:25). St. Paul reminds us in 2 Thessalonians to listen to what we've been taught, both orally and in writing (2 Thessalonians 2:15). And in Matthew we are told to take our conflicts to the church as the last word (Matthew 18:17). The bible should not be the last word. Christ tells us that is reserved for the church.

And to me that makes perfect sense. A book is a book. It has no meaning without human interpretation. If that human interpreter isn't divinely protected from fault, then the bible itself is not protected from fault. In other words, God doesn't deal in print, He deals with people. And it is the Bible Christian, not the Catholic, who has elevated a book to be superior to the authority appointed by Christ, and so is worshiping an idol - a paper idol - over the true Word.

Jenny has

2011-06-28T23:30:00.000-04:00

Jenny has two women whom she was taught to call "mommy", although only one really is.

Jenny has a father in Boston who has laughing blue eyes and a beard. She will never know this, however because he will always be just "donor" to her. She imagines he was a spy captured by enemy soldiers and that's why he never comes to see her. In fact, he makes people happy playing beautiful music on the piano. Jenny will never take piano lessons because nobody knows how much she would love it if she had the opportunity.

Jenny has a Father in heaven who loves her, and she loved Him too until she was taught that He didn't exist and that people who believed in Him were ignorant and hateful. Jenny's mother teaches her that in reality things are what you believe them to be and if you want happiness you have to envision it and the universe will send it to you. Any sadness Jenny has is her own fault because she's not trying hard enough.

Jenny has a family history of colon cancer on her father's side, and since she doesn't know to get screening for it, it will probably kill her if she lives long enough.

Jenny's father has an aunt who could teach Jenny how to make pierogi and dance a polka, and how to speak Polish, and tell her about her grandfather, who was descended from a duke. Jenny will never meet her.

Jenny has a grandmother who lives in a nursing home. She wishes she had someone to visit her or a reminder that someone loved her. Jenny loves to draw and makes dozens and dozens of pictures of flowers that her "mommies" put on the fridge until they finally have to throw some out.

Jenny has an "uncle" who likes to borrow her mother's clothes, and who teaches her what a male body is like. Her "mommies" want her to be free to explore sexuality. Jenny uses this to her advantage and becomes a very popular fifth grader.

Jenny has a baby who loves her, whom she will never know. She's not sure whose it is, but since she is 13 and it might be her gym teacher's he takes her secretly to get an abortion.

Jenny has a savior who died for her, whom she will never know. He sheds a tear for her as the nail pierces the flesh of His left hand.

Heterophobia

2011-06-27T20:52:00.000-04:00

It is with disgust that I read this article about a "genderless" preschool in Sweden. According to the preschool:

The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.

Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.

So, if they are to be believed they are trying to solve this "problem". But instead of encouraging people to value girls more, the solution they have decided upon is to remove the "advantage" by attempting to alter the nature of the children themselves.

Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.

"Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued," says Tanja Bergkvist, a 37-year-old blogger and a leading voice against what she calls "gender madness" in Sweden.

Those bent on shattering gender roles "say there's a hierarchy where everything that boys do is given higher value, but I wonder who decides that it has higher value," she says. "Why is there higher value in playing with cars?"

Which is exactly the question. Why should anyone think that playing with cars is better than playing house? I don't.

Director Lotta Rajalin notes that Egalia places a special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. From a bookcase she pulls out a story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless — until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg.

Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no "Snow White," ''Cinderella" or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes.

Rajalin, 52, says the staff also try to help the children discover new ideas when they play.

"A concrete example could be when they're playing 'house' and the role of the mom already is taken and they start to squabble," she says. "Then we suggest two moms or three moms and so on."

Now we get to the real reason for this radical agenda - trying to teach children to accept the gay lifestyle. These children who quibble over the role of mom already being taken already understand something their "educators" have become to smart to understand - that a child actually has one mother and one father.

Attempts to raise children genderless or reverse their gender roles in the past have all either failed or resulted in severe psychological trauma. That the state should approve wholesale experimentation on this scale is appalling.

Pi equals three

2011-06-25T14:44:00.000-04:00

There is an urban myth that at one time in our nation's history Congress legislated that the value of "pi" (3.14159265...) be changed to 3 to simplify computations involving trade goods. The Huffington Post cribbed the idea in a spoof last month. Of course, what makes these "funny" is that we understand that the government can't change nature, and so the true value of pi will always remain what it is and all that would be hurt by such legislation is the US economy.

Such is the case with the legislation that Governor Cuomo signed into law yesterday. I know this has been posted in much more frequented blogs than mine, like The Curt Jester and Cleansing Fire, but it needs to be shouted form the rooftops, so here's my shout. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio's statement regarding the passage of same-sex "marriage" legislation reads as follows (emphasis mine).

Today, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have deconstructed the single most important institution in human history. Republicans and Democrats alike succumbed to powerful political elites and have passed legislation that will undermine our families and as a consequence, our society.

With this vote, Governor Cuomo has opened a new front in the culture wars that are tearing at the fabric of our nation. At a time when so many New Yorkers are struggling to stay in their homes and find jobs, we should be working together to solve these problems. However, the politicians have curried favor with wealthy donors who are proponents of a divisive agenda in order to advance their own careers and futures.

What is needed in our state is leadership and not political gamesmanship.

In light of these disturbing developments and in protest for this decision, I have asked all Catholic schools to refuse any distinction or honors bestowed upon them this year by the governor or any member of the legislature who voted to support this legislation. Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration.

The above request is intended as a protest of the corrupt political process in New York State. More than half of all New Yorkers oppose this legislation. Yet, the governor and the state legislature have demonized people of faith, whether they be Muslims, Jews, or Christians, and identified them as bigots and prejudiced, and voted in favor of same-sex “marriage.” It is mystifying that this bill would be passed on the last day of an extended session under the cover of darkness.

This issue has been framed as upholding marriage equality. This is not the case since one of the principal purposes of marriage is to bring new life into the world. This cannot happen in same-sex marriage. It is not a civil rights issue, but rather a human rights issue upholding the age-old understanding of marriage. Our political leaders do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did, how in good conscience could they carve out any exemption for institutions that would be proponents of bigotry and prejudice?

Republicans and Democrats equally share responsibility for this ruinous legislation and we as Catholics should hold all accountable for their actions.

Although I might add I don't find it "mystifying that this bill would be passed on the last day of an extended session under the cover of darkness" - I expect that. We've seen it from our pre-2010 Congress and current president often enough.

May God have mercy on us.

Monsters

2011-06-24T14:43:00.000-04:00

A short while ago on plurk my friend Adoro started a discussion about zombies. My friend Christie posted her theory of zombies:

Zombies are people who have succumbed to mortal sin. They are spiritually dead, devouring others in their selfish self gratification. They infect others and make more like themselves. We really are in a Zombie Apocalypse if you think about it

...which will be the topic of today's post. There are a lot of zombies out there. People who have given up their free will and mindlessly follow wherever their "natural" instincts lead them. From the idea that homosexuals are unable to control their impulses (and shouldn't try) and likewise for heterosexuals who are encouraged to "just do it." I think the attempts to redefine marriage in terms of sex instead of sacrifice are part of this zombie apocalypse.

But of course zombies are only one kind of monster. What else is out there? There are vampires. Vampires are people who have sold their soul for the promise of eternal life on Earth. They kill young innocent human beings, taking their life's blood in order to keep themselves alive longer. Although embryonic stem cells have yet to add one minute to anyone's life, they are taken in the name of longevity, and are being used increasingly in ways to "help benefit" people, from vaccines to cosmetics to artificial flavor enhancers to lasers!

Then there is Frankenstein's monster. He was created by Dr. Frankenstein, who took organs from executed criminals without consent. Monstrous, and yet we have it being used to support euthanasia in Belgium. Just as troubling are the presumed consent laws, which basically give the state de-facto ownership to use your body unless you "opt out" and, of course, unless they make a mistake or fail to find you on the list, etc. In those cases, you have no legal recourse but to be chopped up for the greater good.

There's the werewolf. Once a month this person looses control of their body and becomes only partially human. Women today are encouraged to use "the pill", which interrupts their monthly cycle and suppresses one of the natural functions of the human body - the giving of life. Just like the werewolf slowly becoming less and less human, they lose their desire and desirability, and the ability to love and be loved, and perhaps risk their lives as well.

There are monstrous chimeras, as depicted in the classic horror stories The Fly and The Island of Dr. Moreau. Consider the actual chimeras produced in labs today, such as the cows that give human breast milk or the man/mouse hybrids being used in research.

Those were all the monsters I could think of. Feel free to chime in if I missed something important. Eugenics and IVF are staples of sci-fi distopian stories as well, but I'll leave them for another post, since they are not typically thought of in the "monster" category. Scarily, unlike the monsters in books, movies, and TV, these are all real world things.

One other thing struck me as true about all the "traditional" monster stories. They are all afraid of the Catholic church, and can all be defeated by it. Some things never change. I find comfort in that.

This is so sick

2011-06-18T08:19:00.000-04:00

I have to post this, even if it is only a link to another site. The excellent blog Mary Meets Dolly has this post about the "euthanasia coaster". According to the designer it is a roller coaster (I kid you not) that kills 24 humans at a time for "dealing with overpopulation or when your life becomes too long". And this is produced by a site called "science gallery". Makes me want to think about removing the word "science" from my degrees.

Common Ground

2011-06-13T06:43:00.000-04:00

What do Israeli feminists and Catholics have in common? Concerns about surrogate motherhood. From BioEdge:

The Israeli feminist group Isha L’Isha has published a harshly critical report on surrogate motherhood. Israel was the first country to legalise surrogacy, in March 1996. But 15 years later, says Isha L’Isha, “insufficient data have, as yet, been gathered to enable full evaluation of this innovative social experiment.”

“It is our belief that perceiving pregnancy and childbirth for another couple or individual solely as a financial business transaction is inappropriate and unthinkable. The fact that surrogacy is a complex relationship which might be fertile ground for harm and exploitation must be recognized, especially when private organizations with financial interests are allowed to become involved. We believe, that surrogacy in Israel should be prohibited. In the least, surrogacy must not be allowed to becomes an accepted, routine procedure, and should provide a solution only in rare, very extreme cases.”

The report warns that surrogacy could easily become baby farming:

“Objective utilization of identity-related aspects of the human body contradicts basic ethical values, and by nature, has high potential for exploitation and degradation. Surrogacy is an experimental procedure with great potential for harm, especially if it will become prevalent and accepted. The distance between heroically presenting a unique human gift to a childless couple and time spent on a ‘fertility farm,’ which uses human machines, is not large, and the ability to preserve this distance will diminish as surrogacy becomes more widespread and routine.” ~ Isha L’Isha, June 1

The newsletter from which this came, Isha L'Isha, listrs similar concerns about the egg donation side. Although the articles warn that surrogacy and egg donation "encourage" the commoditization of human life, the Church recognizes that surrogacy and egg donation in fact is the commoditization of human life, and contrary to the dignity of human beings.

Backing up

2011-06-01T21:25:00.000-04:00

What do you do for backups? Until about four years ago most of my important data was on a Linux machine in a RAID array, and I periodically would just copy the whole thing to a separate disk. However, as the separate disk was in the same machine (this was in the days before USB external hard drives), a lightning strike could take the whole thing.

Over the years I decided to go with an external USB hard drive, but it is a pain remembering to connect it periodically, and if you leave it connected, it can get fried with the machine. Then I got a Macbook. My initial thought was to back it up to the Linux box over the network, and do backups there all in one place, but NFS connections on the laptop are somewhat unreliable, and I would often find the darn thing hung trying to do a disk write over the network.

I tried Time Machine, but I didn't like the way it worked. I don't want to keep all the old versions of stuff, I just want to be able to restore data. So I got a copy of SuperDuper! and it is very nice for backing up the laptop to an external disk. It's tech support is surly, but knowledgeable and I was happy with it for a number of years now. I also got a copy of Tuxera NTFS which lets my Macbook read/write external drives formatted for Windows. This makes interoperability of external drives between my Linux and Mac machines easier. Life was good.

Then I decided off-site backups would be a good idea in case the house floods, burns down, etc. I looked at some of the online backup solutions. The one I went with in the end was SafeSync. The reason I chose it was price - unlimited backup storage for $60/year. Since then the price has gone way up, so unless you have very little data to be backed up it's not a good solution (nor is any online backup I've seen). I have also some problems with them. They have a browser-based backup solution for non supported machines, but it doesn't work from a browser under Linux (so all I can back up is the Macbook). Their software insists on backing up everything under a folder - no exceptions. Which means if I want all my iTunes data backed up I also have to backup my podcasts, which means backing up many MB each day that I really don't need to. In addition, the Java app that performs backups is a resource hog. I don't think other online solutions are as bad, but I'm not willing to invest the money to find out.

So I found myself looking for a better backup solution that doesn't cost a fortune. Lifehacker suggests using multiple cloud services to get free online backups, but that is a headache, and still limited in storage size. I believe what I'm going to stick with is one of those fireproof safe boxes and keep my external drives in there. I know there are fireproof disk drives but they are more expensive than this solution, especially since I can use the fireproof safe for many drives.

Are you backed up? You should be!

Things of Interest

2011-05-31T23:15:00.000-04:00

My life's busy-ness continues unabated. Going on my third scout camp out in five weeks! So, still no time to write, but I do want to blog. So I'm going to be lame and just direct you to some stories I found interesting:

From the wonderful Mary Meets Dolly blog, comes "Is the United States backward in its embryo research policies? Yes! But not why you think!". Kind of scary.

Another great post over there is "How abortion magnifies our prejudices". An interesting take on prejudice.

And you've probably already sen the poll where "Americans Believe There Are More Homosexuals in the U.S. Than There Are Catholics". I guess if you watch TV, every show has at least one gay character - how many Catholics do you see (aside from "Blue Bloods")?

Memorial Day

2011-05-30T12:23:00.002-04:00

Here Comes the Sun

2011-05-29T08:58:00.000-04:00

Now that beach season is here, have you thought about sunscreen? I never did - just get the easiest stuff to apply. However, last year we got this spray on stuff that destroyed everything it touched, and even stained the kids' skin! So I did some looking and discovered many of the sunscreens we use contain chemicals which are kind of nasty - and by nasty I mean mutagens! No way I want to put that on my kids!

So I did some looking. Environmental Working Group (EWG) has a good list of the "best" sunscreens rated by effectiveness and also safety of ingredients. Their information looks sound, and they publish their methodology for assessing sunscreens, which appears to be quite well thought out. They recommend sunscreens based on titanium dioxide or zinc dioxide rather than chemicals like oxybenzone, since these metal oxidess are effective at blocking UV and relatively harmless to humans and animals. Some info from their report Sunscreens Exposed:

Poor UVA protection

Three of five U.S. sunscreens wouldn’t be acceptable in Europe. EWG’s analysis of more than 500 beach and sport sunscreens with SPF ratings of 30 and higher finds that more than 300 of them, about 60 percent, provide inadequate UVA protection and are too weak for the European market, where manufacturers voluntarily comply with a standard for meaningful UVA protection.

Risky vitamin A additives

Many sunscreen makers still use a form of vitamin A, called retinyl palmitate, ignoring recent scientific research by the federal Food and Drug Administration indicating the chemical may be photocarcinogenic – that it may heighten skin cancer risk when used on sun-exposed skin. While more definitive research is under way, EWG recommends that prudent consumers avoid vitamin A-laden sunscreens.

Which was a surprise to me, since I always figures vitamins are "natural" and "good". Here's some recommendations from their list of best beach and sport sunscreens.

Aveeno Baby Natural Protection Mineral Block Face Stick, SPF 50
Beyond Coastal Natural Clear, SPF 30
Earth's Best: Sunblock Mineral Based, SPF 30+
Novena Maternal Skin Care Organic Anti-Aging Mineral Sunblock, SPF 30 (gotta love a product with a name like that)
thinksport LIVESTRONG sunscreen , SPF 30+ (yes, Lance is everywhere)
Tropical Sands All Natural Sunscreen, SPF 50

These are just a random sampling of the hundred or so they recommend. EWG has obviously put in a lot of work to make this list. The hardest part, with so many products available with similar names, is finding the exact product in the store.

So check out the list and choose a sunscreen wisely this summer.

Solutions in Shrewsbury!

2011-05-29T00:04:00.000-04:00

I was angry earlier this week when I read about NARAL's efforts to shut down Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). You would think that an organization that supposedly wants women to make informed choices would want those women to make informed choices - to hear something other than the sales pitch of the abortionist. Of course, NARAL is not really interested in pushing choice, but rather pushing abortions.

The ironic thing is that the video claiming that CPCs spread lies is itself a lie. The information that they show as being false is true (such as the link between abortion and breast cancer risk, or the inference that CPCs have untrained personnel performing medical procedures). This tactic of the "Big Lie" is NARAL's standard technique, and has worked all too well in the past. Pro-aborts today are still quoting the lies NARAL put forth in the 1960s as you can see in the video here.

On the other hand, we have a new Crisis Pregnancy Center here in Shrewsbury. Solutions Pregnancy & Health Center is a licensed medical facility that provides free services to women. From MoreMonmouthMusings:

Shrewsbury, NJ, May 26, 2011 - Lorrie Erli, Executive Director of Solutions Pregnancy Center, is pleased to announce the grand opening of its Medical Clinic on Sunday, June 5 from 2 to 4 pm. Solutions is located at 837 Broad Street.

“As a licensed medical center, we are excited to offer clients comprehensive services that are not available at other health centers, such as emotional and spiritual support, which is desperately needed by women faced with unplanned pregnancies, and sexually transmitted infections.”

Solutions’ outstanding medical board of directors includes many local physicians: Dr. Margaret Lambert-Woolley serves as Medical Director and Chairwoman, Dr. Jane Neuman, Dr. John Taylor, and Dr. John Dalton as well as Linda Pascarella, RN and Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Director for Monmouth Medical Center. Dr. Lambert-Woolley volunteers her time examining and treating patients in Solutions’ medical clinic. Highly trained staff members provide a wide range of services.

“Solutions offers free pregnancy testing, ultrasound exams, and STD screening, among other services, all in a safe, confidential environment designed for multi-level support,” says Lambert-Woolley.

Solutions serves a broad population of women in Monmouth County, with many between the ages of 18-24. Generally, most of the centers’ clients are uninsured, underserved and lower-income. All of Solutions’ services are provided free of charge, but appointments are necessary.

To schedule an appointment, call Solutions toll free 24/7 help line at 1-888-595-TEST (8378).
For more information visit us at www.solutionsphc.com.

Take that, NARAL!!

YouCat

2011-05-27T19:58:00.000-04:00

Guess what I just got a copy of? I haven't read it yet, so I can't comment, but I've heard good things. If this is like the 100 other books on my reading list, it'll be a looong time before I can post a review, but The Curt jester has one.

Habemus Radio!

2011-05-24T21:07:00.000-04:00

For years I've been waiting for this! The bad news is that reception falls off north of exit 117 on the GSP, so I can't listen to it most of the way to work, but heck, some is better than none. If you live within range check it out on the air. If not, you can listen live on the internet at Domestic Church Media.

Domestic Church Media Announces A NEW CATHOLIC RADIO STATION IS ON THE AIR IN NEW JERSEY!

Trenton, NJ - May 18, 2011 - Last evening at 7:15 PM, Domestic Church Media President & CEO, Jim Manfredonia, interrupted "Catholic Answers LIVE" on WFJS 1260 AM (the organization's first full time Catholic radio station in New Jersey) and announced that he was launching their second station, WFJS 89.3 FM in Freehold.

To the strains of Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus", WFJS 89.3 FM was on the air bringing Catholic radio to Monmouth County as well as parts of northern Ocean and southern Middlesex Counties.

Between the two stations, Catholic radio can be heard from the Atlantic Highlands down to Point Pleasant and a wide band of coverage across the state into Bucks County and Northeast Philadelphia, PA.

THERE ARE NOW FREE APPS FOR WFJS!

I you nave a Blackberry or iPhone hand-held device, you can now download a FREE app for WFJS and listen to Catholic Radio anytime, anywhere 24/7!

Go to your App Store and search for "WFJS", download it and you'll have Catholic radio at your fingertips.

Or LISTEN LIVE ONLINE on our Web Site Domestic Church Media

What about pirated porn?

2011-05-12T07:57:00.000-04:00

I was struck by the juxtaposition of these two news stories the other day.
From TorrentFreak:

During the past 12 months the U.S. Government seized more than 100 domain names it claimed were promoting copyright infringement. But this was just the beginning. The domain seizures pale in comparison to a bill that’s about to be introduced by U.S. lawmakers.

Dubbed the PROTECT IP Act, the bill will introduce a wide-scale of censorship tools authorities and copyright holders can use to quash websites they claim are facilitating copyright infringement. It is basically a revamped and worsened version of the controversial COICA proposal which had to be resubmitted after its enaction failed last year.

You can read more about this at Techdirt. On the other hand is this article from Fox News:

New Yorkers can watch internet porn at the city's public libraries thanks to a policy of free speech protected by the First Amendment, the New York Post reported Monday.

"Customers can watch whatever they want on the computer," said Brooklyn Public Library spokeswoman Malika Granville, describing the anything-goes philosophy that is the rule at the city's 200-plus branches.

On the one hand, we are cracking down on those who would steal a $0.99 song. On the other, we are cracking down on libraries that restrict pornography viewing in public. I'm surely not advocating piracy, but let's get our priorities straight. Of course, this library policy is even more bizarre in the face of this article from Entertainment Weekly:

NewSouth Books’ upcoming edition of Mark Twain’s seminal novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn will remove all instances of the “n” word—I’ll give you a hint, it’s not nonesuch—present in the text and replace it with slave. The new book will also remove usage of the word Injun. The effort is spearheaded by Twain expert Alan Gribben, who says his PC-ified version is not an attempt to neuter the classic but rather to update it. “Race matters in these books,” Gribben told PW. “It’s a matter of how you express that in the 21st century.”

So we will censor sites that are accused of having copyrighted content shut down, but not those that exploit young men and women for sexual purposes. We can protect out kids from words like "injun", but we can't protect them from seeing and hearing pornography.

The question becomes, looking back in 1000 years, will this be the year that historians decide was the year the US jumped the shark?

I know, another video

2011-05-08T21:26:00.002-04:00

Still dealing with too much right now to be blogging much, but this is really good.

The case against

2011-05-02T21:22:00.000-04:00

I was hoping to post this earlier, but I had (and continue to have) problems with blogging that appear to be related to Firefox 4. I finally broke down and used another browser to try to catch the end of the Easter octave. So here goes...

In my last post "Who Cares?" I made the case for the Resurrection as a historic fact. Since this is sort of a courtroom dialogue, and having "accused" Christ of the Resurrection, I will now give the "defense" a chance to refute the arguments. These arguments have been proposed over the years to explain away the Resurrection, as described in the Catholic Encyclopedia and other places. Here they are:

The Wrong Tomb theory
This theory posits that the Disciples all forgot where Jesus was buried and went to the wrong tomb on Easter morning. The guards were still standing outside the tomb where Jesus lay, still dead.

While it must have been a stressful day for the Disciples, they can't have been that stupid. Nor does this theory explain the appearance of Jesus for the next 40 days, nor why the officials didn't immediately call them out and point them to the right tomb and the body of Christ.
I declare this theory

The Swoon theory
This theory, proposed by Paulus in 1842, supposes that Christ did not die, but only fainted on the cross, and woke up in the tomb on Easter morning. This supposes that the Gospels' description of the treatment of Jesus (scourging, crown of thorns, etc.) are wrong, since according to medical experts even without the crucifixion those torments would have eventually killed, or at least permanently crippled Jesus. Then we have the piercing of His side and the testimony of the Roman executioners, who no doubt had seen people faint before. Added to that is that nobody, even Jesus' enemies, attempted to deny that Jesus had died. Finally, when Jesus does appear, after three days of laying in a tomb, He is not described as a barely living cripple.
There are far too many contradictions in this theory, and so I declare it

The Imposition theory
Matthew 28:11-15 tells us.

While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened.
They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,
telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep.'
And if this gets to the ears of the governor, we will satisfy (him) and keep you out of trouble."

According to this theory the disciples really did steal Jesus' body. At first glance this sounds plausible. By some accounts the disciples themselves thought Jesus had been taken (John 20:1-2):

On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb.
So she ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don't know where they put him."

However, as I said in part one of this discussion, what is their motive? To spend the rest of their days traveling in poverty? To end their lives in torture and death? This theory also doesn't explain how Jesus appeared, to over 500 people, as St. Paul describes in 1 Corinthians, 15:6

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

We' have to add to the disciples' trickery a doppleganger who could teach and perform miracles for 40 days, then disappear as mysteriously as he appeared.
Nope, this one is

The Vision theory
This theory claims that the whole thing was just a vision by deluded people who desperately wanted someone to be resurrected. There are a number of problems with this theory.

The disciples were not looking for Christ to rise. They are reportedly amazed by it. Thomas doesn't even believe it at all, requiring Jesus Himself to appear to him personally.
Jesus does not appear as what would have been expected from a resurrection. He is neither the "same old Jesus" as they would have seen in the case of Lazarus and the little girl, not is He coming in heavenly glory as they would have expected in the resurrection at the end of the world. He is something totally unexpected.
It does not agree with the actions of the disciples following Easter. They are not running around spreading the good news (that happens after Pentecost, when Jesus has already ascended). Instead they are trying to understand what's going on and deliberating what to do about it.
Apparitions are typically a one time thing, or else permanent (insanity). Lasting 40 days is not consistent with any psychological phenomenon.
Likewise, the "vision" appeared in unusual places. One would expect them to happen in or around the tomb itself (ala a "ghost") or in Galilee (where Jesus was from).
The "vision" appeared to many people simultaneously. Despite the popularity of the term "mass hysteria" there is no such phenomenon as mass visions.

Because of these contradictions, this theory does not seem possible.

The Modernist view
This theory states that the Resurrection is a supernatural event, and can therefore not be known historically and nothing can be said about it. The accounts of the Resurrection were made up little by little over the centuries as a representation of the disciples' belief that Jesus was with God.

This view disagrees with what we know. Although the Resurrection is a supernatural event, we can and do know things about it historically. Although science cannot explain the cause of supernatural events, they can in fact be measured, and do take place at a particular place and time, historically. We know that Jesus was crucified and buried, and that the tomb was empty. We know this through the testimony of historians other than the Gospel authors. Furthermore, the disciples preached Jesus' Resurrection from that very first Easter morning. This was not an idea that came later.
So, I declare this also is

So, the best that can be done to deny the Resurrection is to ignore historical documents and evidence, and simply call on "blind faith" that it did not happen. In other words it is not irrational to believe in the Resurrection. It is, in fact, irrational not to believe in the Resurrection.

Who Cares?

2011-04-27T19:47:00.000-04:00

I gave an Easter greeting to a non-Christian friend, who replied along the lines of "the resurrection is good for those how believe in it." The statement (not just by implication but confirmed by the speaker) is that the Resurrection is irrelevant unless you believe.

And yet, that's not true. The Resurrection is the reason to believe in the first place. It doesn't become relevant because we believe, but we believe because it is relevant, to all mankind.

Either the Resurrection happened or it didn't. If it did, then the implications are that Christianity is the true faith, and everyone can choose salvation (or not). If the Resurrection did not happen then "we are the most pitiable people of all" (1Cor 15:19).

So to me, the Resurrection is not merely a matter of "I believe" but "did it happen?". Rather than arguing belief, let's argue evidence (or lack thereof). Can we prove that the Resurrection took place? Atheists (and surprisingly most Catholics) will tell you "no, there is no way to prove it - it must be taken on (blind) faith." In a sense, that's true. We have no video of the event (and even if we did, someone would claim it was faked). However, if we go the route of "scientific" proof ew find we live in a very narrow world indeed.

Consider how you "prove" George Washington was our first president. We have oral tradition and written documents, but they could all have been faked. There is no way to "prove" any historical event, and yet be accept that things happened. The "proof" that's accepted is like that which we would use in a court of law. We look at documents by different eyewitnesses, compare their testimony, look for physical evidence that supports or contradicts, even if circumstantial. We examine motive and opportunity, and the character of witnesses.

First on the list would be the Gospels. Some would immediately discount them because the authors were "believers". Yet anybody who witnessed Christ alive after His death would of course be a believer. Non-believers can't offer any eyewitness testimony, so discounting the Gospels on the basis of the author's religion is not reasonable. I find the same sort of nonsense when pro-choicers tell me that they won't believe life starts at conception because the people who wrote are pro-life (e.g. they believe life begins at conception). Well, why would someone advocate a position they don't believe in? The authors' beliefs don't affect the truth of the statement.

The authors' motives and character, however, are important. So let's examine the motives and character of the Gospel authors. Are they bad people? What records do we have of what they did in life? They were recognized as people who helped the poor and downtrodden, who cured the sick and lived in poverty, giving what they had to help others. Hardly the type of person one would expect to pull one of the greatest hoaxes of all time. Motives? There was nothing to be gained on Earth by believing in the Resurrection. It meant a hard life of suffering, and generally ended in prison, torture and execution.

From this any reasonable person would conclude that they honestly believed what they were saying. But they could have been deceived themselves, right? In order to do that we have to suppose there was some group with enough power and influence to get Roman guards to abandon their post at the tomb, roll the heavy stone away, and secretly remove the body of Christ. Then they had to remain and somehow convince the Disciples that they were an angel. After that they had to spend 40 days imitating Christ so perfectly that His closest friends would not know it was an imposter and figure out a way to fake an ascension into heaven.

Who had the motive, let alone the ability, to do that? Certainly not the Romans, who wanted nothing other than to get back to the status quo. The Jewish authorities were the ones who arrested Jesus in the first place. The last thing they would want is for Him to continue to exist. A secret sect among the Disciples? We already examined their motives.

On this alone I would say there was enough evidence to convict Jesus of the Resurrection in a court of law. However, there's more. There's the little matter of an empty tomb. For both the Romans and Jews knew where the tomb was. If it were not empty it would be trivial to point to it and laugh at the Disciples. The lack of anyone claiming that the tomb was not empty is a strong indicator that it was.

Then there are the guards. Pilate had ordered them placed by the tomb. They were known, and could easily have been called upon to refute the Apostles' story and squash the whole nuisance immediately. Even if they fell asleep or were drunk, we still have to suppose the powerful secret society mentioned above. And even if they were asleep or drunk, that testimony would have gone a long way toward destroying the Christians (and I'm sure the Pilate would forgive them their dereliction in exchange for good testimony). We don't know what happened to the guards, but we must assume they either fled and never were found or their testimony was not helpful to the Roman or Jewish cause. Either way makes a case that supports the Resurrection.

Then there are the extrabiblical accounts of Christ and the Resurrection. From Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

I could go on and on, but I think I'll continue this in another post as it's getting long and it's getting late. Next post will be examining the opposing cases. Can we find evidence that the Resurrection did not happen.

Church of the Holy Family

2011-04-20T22:43:00.001-04:00

As you may or may not know, I was in Minnesota last week, for my wife's Grandmother's funeral. We had visited her in January, and had a wonderful last visit with her, and so while this was a sad event, our memories of our last time with her and the fact that she was a deeply faithful Catholic made the funeral a celebration of life.

I have a friend on plurk, Adoro te Devote, who lives in the twin cities, and each time I visit I always wish I could meet her in person, but it has so far worked out that there is no time to do so. I still hope to meet her "the next time." This time she did, however, recommend that we attend mass at either the Church of the Holy Family or St. Charles Borromeo while we were in town. We wound up at the Church of the Holy Family in St Louis Park, since it was less out of the way on the way to the airport. Of course it didn't matter, since our flight was delayed and ultimately canceled, but that's another story, and we didn't know it at the time.

The church itself is a beautiful old brick building. I have no idea how old, as both the "history" and "architecture" sections of their web site say "Coming soon!" Behind the altar is a beautiful tabernacle with golden angels kneeling on either side and a light behind it to drawn your attention where it should be. The stained glass window behind the altar depicts the Holy Family, with Joseph and Jesus working with carpentry tools. At the chancel is a large hanging crucifix with Mary and John looking up at Jesus, which you can see in the photo above. I took that with my phone when we arrived. I didn't take any other pictures because we had to leave to get to the airport so we could wait seven hours for our flight to be canceled.

As for the mass, I would have to say wow! A herd (gaggle? exaltation?) of alter boys (not servers, boys) came out, followed by acolytes, a lector, deacon and two priests (one was the visiting diocesan director of vocations). It was hard, with all the moving about, to count them, but we eventually settled on twenty two (22!) altar boys. Just about every act involved incense, from the preparation of the gifts to the readings - my poor wife has a bit of an allergy to incense, and had a headache by the end of mass.

The sign of peace was given before mass began, which prevented the usual disruption to the liturgy, and gave everyone plenty of time to greet all those around them. The Kyrie Eleison was sung in Greek and the Gloria, Agnus Dei and some other parts were sung in Latin. It was beautiful, and despite what people say, I understood what was being said, despite not knowing Latin or Greek. The homily was by the vocations director, and was naturally about vocations, and how to seriously discern ones vocation.

Although parts of the mass looked more like a school play, with vast numbers of altar boys milling about with candles and incense, the entire mass was performed with intense reverence. The priest was careful to use the pall at all times (the square that covers the chalice to protect it from dust and stuff) and to treat the consecrated species with utmost care and respect. Communion was offered by intinction (where the priest dips the Host into the Precious Blood and places it on your tongue), which I had never seen before. Of course this meant that nearly everybody (except a few die hards) received on the tongue.

Announcements were after the mass (and as far as I could tell nobody left), and the one I recall most was an appeal for volunteers to help with the parish's Lenten program to make meals for Feed my Starving Children. They were looking for 340 or so volunteers! After the announcements a gentleman gave a talk about the upcoming changes to the liturgy, with handouts and examples of the new language and what the changes meant. After that, people began drifting out. A majority of the congregation remained in their pews and prayed.

I have to say it was wonderful to see so many people so devoted to their faith, and a Catholic community so active and alive. According to the web site, the parish has steadily grown by almost 100 families per year. I can see why.

Loaves and fishes

2011-04-19T18:50:00.000-04:00

A friend remarked to me the other day, regarding the miracle of the loaves and fishes, that she believes that what really happened was that when the people saw how some had food and some did not they shared the food they had brought, and that's how five loaves and two fishes "served" five thousand with twelve bushels of leftovers. The "miracle" was that Jesus caused their hearts to be softened, and they shared their existing food.

This is a "theory" I have heard many times, and I just can't abide it. First of all, it assumes people who followed Jesus just happened to carry around enormous amounts of food that they kept hidden from their fellow followers. It assumes that good people, interested in God's word and listening to the Messiah would not already be predisposed to sharing food with a hungry person - something that just about every Old Testament figure does without having to have Jesus "make" them do it (and something that people would do as a matter of culture in those times). It assumes that the sacred authors, who were familiar with scripture that distinguishes between God "hardening" or "softening" someone's heart and a true miracle, deliberately mislead us in this instance.

But even more than that, once we "explain away" miracles where do we stop? If we say "well, the sacred authors wrote that the five loaves and two fishes fed the five thousands, but I think it was just sharing" where do we stop? Do we say "well, the sacred authors wrote that Jesus cast out demons, but it was really just epilepsy?" Do we then say "well, the sacred authors wrote that Jesus raised the dead girl but she was just sleeping?" How about "well, the blind man wasn't really blind from birth?" Are we then to become the Pharisees? How about "Jesus wasn't really dead, just injured and he healed in three days." Perhaps Jesus didn't really do any miracles, but was a good talker. Well, perhaps then He didn't redeem us from sin.

If you can't believe that the one through whom the universe was created could create fish and bread when He wanted to, perhaps you just don't believe in the creator at all. If you're not going to believe that what was written is true (by authors who believed it to be true to the extent that they gave their very lives for it, by the way), just say "I don't believe" and be done with it. Stop trying to whittle away at the edges. As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.

Mark's Gospel Live!

2011-04-18T13:05:00.000-04:00

On Friday our church hosted a performance of Marks' Gospel Live! by Rev. Joseph Morris. From the site:

Mark's Gospel LIVE is a solo performance, and has enjoyed over 200 performances throughout the US, UK, and Canada. All of St. Mark's characters are portrayed as the story is narrated right from the Biblical text. There are no other actors. It is not a reading or a talk. It is the actual words of the Gospel memorized and performed like story telling.

The performance takes about two hours, with a fifteen minute intermission between the two halves. Act I consists of the Gospel from the beginning up through the Transfiguration and Act II continues through the end of the Gospel. For the most part, the words spoken are the actual words of the Gospel, with a few asides to explain terms or scenes and a couple of inclusive language changes thrown in. Some parts of it are sung.

Rev. Morris told us it took him about four months to memorize the 15,000 words of the Gospel of Mark, which is the shortest, and also his favorite Gospel. The props he uses are minimal. A cloth becomes waves, a sail, a veil, a shawl, a burial shroud, etc. He is quite a skilled actor, playing multiple parts. His representation of the demoniac scared the heck out of most of the audience, and he had us all laughing with a description of the Pharisees.

There were several kids in the audience who seemed to enjoy it, although I think it was a bit dry and long for most kids to sit through. Ultimately, this is a one-man play in two acts. If you are in the frame of mind to enjoy that, the performance is wonderful. Several people came with expectations of something different (I'm not sure what, since the show was pretty accurately described) and said they thought it was too dramatic. For my part I enjoyed it, and would recommend it. My only complaint was that we sat somewhat off to the side, and since he is frequently running up and down the center aisle I spent most of the two hours craning my neck to the side.

The parable of the chores

2011-04-15T18:29:00.001-04:00

It was put to me that Christians are actually all self centered. The only reason why we do good works is because we want God to give us stuff, ultimately in heaven. Heaven and hell are constructs to make us think we're going to get something, and since we are selfish and want goodies and don't want to be punished we do it.

I think the claim says more about the speaker than about Christians, and so I offer this parable.

Once there was a man who had three sons. One day he called his sons to him. To the first, he said "Empty the dishwasher, for it is full of clean dishes. And when you have done this refill it with this morning's breakfast dishes." The first son nodded and headed towards the kitchen.

To the second son he said "Go forth into the backyard and collect all the sticks which are strewn about there. For it is written in the manual, 'do not run over large sticks with the lawnmower, lest the blades become dull and chipped'." The second son nodded and headed for the back door.

To the third son, the man said "Gather up all the garbage form all the wastebaskets in the household. Gather also the kitchen trash, for it emits a foul odor. Take all these and deposit them in the garbage can and take it to the end of the driveway, where it shall be taken away by the sanitation truck." The third son nodded and began to travel about, collecting trash.

In his mind the first son was thinking "If I don't empty the dishwasher my father shall be angry with me and perhaps even punish me." The second son was thinking "If I pick up all these sticks my father shall reward me richly, perhaps even unto the purchase of that new video game I covet." The third son thought "If I don't take out this trash my father will have to do it. Because I love him I will take this chore upon myself."

Which of these sons is doing his father's will?

I've Been tagged

2011-04-13T21:33:00.002-04:00

I’ve been tagged with a Lenten meme by Jeff Young at Catholic Foodie and Lisa at Franciscan Focus. I wonder if I need to tag 10 people, then?

The rules:
Those tagged will share 5 things they “love” about Jesus / Or why they love Jesus. Those tagged will tag 5 other bloggers. Those tagged will provide a link in the comments section here with their name so that others can read them.

He is my perfect role model, and my hero.
No matter what trails or tests I have, I know He has been there, and understands me perfectly.
He is the alpha and the omega.
He always forgives me, whether I deserve it or not.
He taught me to pray.

I tag
Christie at Garden of Holiness
Paul Sofranko at Catholic Preachy
Adoro Te Devote
Owen of Drawn to Catholicism
Nod of Wynken, Blynken and Nod

Dear Senator Lautenberg

2011-04-13T05:51:00.000-04:00

Dear Senator Lautenberg,

In your last communication with me you wrote "As you know, I am a strong supporter of reproductive choice." No, senator, you oppose reproductive choice. A choice implies that there is an alternative.

You not only voted to pay a million dollars a day to the nation's largest provider of abortions, you went out in the streets and publicly lobbied for that money. You have not spent, voted for or even proposed spending a dime for crisis pregnancy centers.

Suppose you said "I'll pay for your chicken dinner, beef is $25/plate." Could you reasonably say you were a strong supporter of "dinner choice?" No, you would be a strong supporter of chicken. Clearly you would want people to choose chicken, since you made it so much easier a choice than beef.

So call yourself what you are: a strong supporter of abortion. Anything else is patently absurd, and an insult to the intelligence of your constituents.

PepsiCo responds

2011-04-07T20:13:00.000-04:00

...with a canned email that shows they did not read what I sent them.

Thank you for contacting us to share your sincere concerns. Please know that we take very seriously the issues you raised. PepsiCo has a strong set of defined values we strive to live up to.

Unfortunately, there is some misinformation being circulated related to research techniques that have been used for decades by universities, hospitals, government agencies, and private companies around the world. These claims are meant to suggest that human fetal tissue is somehow used in our research. That is both inaccurate and something we would never do or even consider.

It also is inaccurate to suggest that tissue or cells somehow are being used as product ingredients. That’s dangerous, unethical and against the law. Every ingredient in every one of our products is reviewed and approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

We hope this information is helpful and reassuring. Thank you again for reaching out to us and allowing us to clarify the situation.

Note that they do not mention Senomyx nor their relationship with companies that do use fetal tissue. They merely claim they don't themselves use fetal tissue, which of course was not what I wrote them about. My reply to their email bounced, so I started the process again with another communication to the effect that their response was neither helpful nor reassuring. Let's see what they say...

Catholic butts

2011-04-05T12:00:00.000-04:00

To all the "pro-choice" "Catholics" out there (especially in government office - you know who you are) I offer this post. I hear you say "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but..." or "abortion is a tragic thing, but..." and then go on to justify the continuance or even expansion of abortions in this country and the world at large.

Why are you opposed to it? Why do you think it's a tragedy? Because abortion kills a human being? Because human life is a precious thing and we shouldn't destroy it? OK, good answer. Now about that "but"... how can you seriously say the rest of that sentence?

Let's take other things that you are "personally opposed to" and see if you can add the same "buts" to those sentences.

"I'm personally opposed to rape, but... who am I to tell men what to do with their bodies?"

"I'm personally opposed to child abuse, but... we have to consider the feelings of the parent."

"I'm personally opposed to kidnapping, but... sometimes it's the best choice in a tough situation."

"I'm personally opposed to pedophilia, but... if others believe it's OK, they should have the right to do it."

Healthcare economics and abortion

2011-04-04T20:33:00.000-04:00

Over the weekend I was listening to the Catholic Laboratory podcast. If you've never heard it, check it out on Facebook or iTunes. The host, Ian Maxfield, is in the middle of a great series of episodes on the science behind John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Great stuff!

The episode I was listening to was about IVF, a subject I've blogged about several times. Ian referenced studies by Professor William Ledger, from the University of Sheffield in the UK supporting government funded IVF treatments for women through age 42 as being "cost effective". I also found a study by Dutch scientists claiming government funded IVF was economically effective through age 44. From the (more recent) Dutch article (the UK numbers are consistent):

Evers, a fertility expert from the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, based his calculations on figures for Dutch patients, but said similar calculations could also be applied to other developed countries.

Based on an average Gross National Product of 24,320 euros ($31,120) per person per year and an average life expectancy of 76 years, Evers found that lifetime contribution of every person to the Dutch GNP is around 1.848 millions euros ($2.36 million).

He then took away the average costs to society of that person, including childcare and education (640,000 euros), social welfare and healthcare (550,000 euros), and retirement benefits (420,000 euros) and found that the average net contribution of each person to GNP was 238,000 euros ($304,500).

Set against IVF costs in the Netherlands -- which are around 28,000 euros at the age of 35 and 49,000 euros at the age of 40, but rise dramatically to almost 600,000 euros at the age of 45 -- Evers found the treatment paid for itself up to age 44.

"This work shows that society actually receives substantial benefits from each baby produced via IVF, and simply looking at the costs of IVF without looking at the benefits is a false economy," Evers said.

"In addition, we have the joy of the couple in having a child and the benefits of a human life, which you can't simply deal with through this type of calculation."

Think about that for a minute. According to the calculations, each child that comes into the world is a net gain for the economy of about $300,000. By that token how the heck does a government justify paying for abortion and contraception?

Let's work the numbers the other way. Assuming the costs and benefits are similar in America (and I'd expect the benefits to be higher since the government doesn't provide as many public services as the Netherlands', and because we are a rich nation). For each baby aborted in the US, we can take $300,000 out of the US economy that would have been there had that baby lived. Since 1973 we have lost over 50,000,000 children to abortion. That's $15,000,000,000,000 (fifteen trillion dollars)!

Furthermore, as Michael Voris points out in his film "The Cost of Abortion", some of those aborted babies would be having children of their own, which, using US birth figures, would account for another 6.4 million children, or another $1,920,000,000,000 (nearly two trillion collars)!

That's $17 trillion dollars net gain removed from the US economy, and our tax dollars are paying for it! Wanna pay for universal health care? Wanna pay down the US debt? Wanna lower taxes? Wanna have a market for US goods and services? Wanna find a buyer for your house? Want a job? Then we need to stop intentionally shrinking our economy.

Frankencows

2011-04-04T08:32:00.000-04:00

Straight from a Michael Chrichton novel, scientists in China are making transgenic human/cow chimeras. What the heck does that mean? A chimera in Greek mythology was a monster composed of parts of different animals. In the modern version, DNA from different species is combined to make a new creature of niether species. In this case, human DNA is inserted into cows to make an organism that has characteristics of both species. The goal is to make cows that produce human breast milk.

I can't begin to describe on how many levels this is just wrong (and I shouldn't need to). From a human rights standpoint this research is a violation of the dignity of the human person. From an animal cruelty standpoint, these animals are suffering (26 of the 43 animals created have died so far) and subject to various diseases and cancers because of messing around with their genetic makeup. While the goal of this research may sound good

The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.

the real reasons are more mercenary. The goal is not just to replace baby formula but to replace cow's milk in general.

“We aim to commercialize some research in this area in coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.”

China is now leading the way in research on genetically modified food and the rules on the technology are more relaxed than those in place in Europe.

Aside from concerns of what effects this milk will have on humans, there is the risk of the genes "escaping" into the wild population, as has happened with genetically modified crops in the US.

Harry Reid says

2011-04-02T22:34:00.000-04:00

Harry Reid (senate majority leader) says Republicans should give up trying to defund Planned Parenthood. He specifically says he will vote down any budget proposal that cuts their funding even if it shuts down the government of the United States.

So, what cause is Harry placing ahead of the welfare of the nation and the Constitution he is sworn to uphold? 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care.

Dear

2011-04-01T22:29:00.000-04:00

Remember my post Soylent Green? Well, I have more information. According to LifeSiteNews, the watchdog group Children of God for Life reports that the aborted fetal tissue is used to test artificial food flavorings used by several large companies. The company using the aborted fetal tissue, Senomyx, is partnered with Kraft, Nestlé and Pepsico. Two other food companies, Campbell Soup and Solae were also partnered with Senomyx, but have severed ties because of letters written by people like you and me asking them to stop.

And so I sent the following letters. Please join me. You can make a difference. You can copy these, or use your own words. You can send the letters online or on paper. Paper mail is probably more effective, but whether or not you send paper mail please take a minute to send it electronically. It just takes a minute and costs you nothing.

Dear ______,

I was shocked to find out that you are partnered with a company, Senomyx, that uses aborted fetal tissue to test its products. I am writing this letter to ask you to immediately sever all ties with Senomyx. My support for your company depends on it.

If you are unaware, Semnomyx is using HEK 293 – human embryonic kidney cells taken from an aborted baby - to produce their proprietary taste receptor-based assay system. They could have easily chosen COS (monkey) cells, Chinese Hamster Ovary cells, insect cells or other morally obtained human cells expressing the G protein for taste receptors to produce these assays, but instead chose to use cells obtained by the death of a child.

I urge you to drop all ties with Senomyx unless or until they change their methodology to an ethically sound one. I would appreciate a response.

Sincerely,
_________

The letters are for
Paul Bulcke, CEO
Nestlé USA
800 North Brand Boulevard
Glendale, CA 91203
Nestle 818 549-6000
Email form: http://www.nestle.com/Common/Peripherals/Pages/ContactUs.aspx?country=United States of America

Jamie Caulfield, Sr.VP
PepsiCo, Inc.
700 Anderson Hill Road
Purchase, NY 10577
(914) 253-2000
Email form: http://cr.pepsi.com/usen/pepsiusen.cfm

Irene Rosenfeld, CEO
Kraft Foods/Cadbury Chocolate
Three Lakes Drive
Northfield, IL 60093
847-646-2000
Email form: http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/Investor/investor-contacts/investor_contacts_form.aspx?ft=invest&subj=Investor+Center

While we're at it, let's thank Campbell and Solae

Dear ______,

I was pleased to learn that your company severed ties with Senomyx, a company that uses aborted fetal tissue to test its products. I am writing this letter to thank you for doing the right thing.

Sincerely,
_________

This one goes to

Edmund M. Carpenter, Chairman
Finance and Corporate Development
Campbell Soup
1 Campbell Place
Camden, NJ 08103-1701
1-800-257-8443
Feedback: http://campbellsoupcompany.com/Feedback.aspx

Mr. Torkel Rhenman Chief Executive Officer
Solae
4300 Duncan Avenue
St. Louis, Missouri 63110
Kraft Food:
800-325-7108
Email form: http://www.solae.com/About-Solae/Contact-Us

and the winner is...

2011-04-01T19:52:00.000-04:00

BroJer (not pictured at right). However, the actual animal in Paul's attic turned out to be a raccoon, just as he predicted. That'll teach me to second guess him. The poll results are below. Thank you all for voting, and be sure to check out Catholic Preachy (which needs a new post, guys - hint hint) if you haven't already.

Yes we have no mammograms

2011-03-30T22:34:00.000-04:00

Yes, I know, another video instead of a post, and you've probably seen it, but on the chance you haven't, you need to before Youtube pulls it.

So where do you think our $350,000,000 a year in tax dollars goes (aside from the $105,000,000 that Planned Parenthood kicked back to the campaigns of politicians who support it)?

End abortion fast

2011-03-30T07:59:00.001-04:00

Remember the TV show Kung Fu? I guess you're not an old fogey like me. It was about a Shaolin monk named Caine as he wanders around using kung fu. At the beginning of every episode they showed him training. The "graduation" consisted of him picking up an iron brazier filled with burning coals with his forearms. The heat branded symbols into his forearms. The point of the exercise was (presumably) to show how he was willing to suffer for his commitment to his kung fu.

Catholics are all about suffering. Not that we like it or anything, but we treat it differently from Caine or any other religion or philosophy. Suffering is not seen as something to be avoided but as a way of participating in the work Christ did. Thus, when we give things up for Lent it is not just a reminder of what Jesus did, or an issue of becoming holy by gaining self discipline (like Caine). We actually can help Christ save the world by uniting our puny penances with the infinite penance that God performed in becoming a man and dying on the cross for our sins.

My friend Christie is going a step beyond Lent and doing something courageous. She has written about it in her post "But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting". The title comes from the Gospel of Matthew 15:14-21.

When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. "I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him."

And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me." And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.

Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?"
And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."

Here we see Jesus affirm that evil can be fought through prayer and fasting. Sacrifice isn't just something to make us feel holy, or to demonstrate our commitment to a cause, it has an effect on the real world. Christie recognizes this, and is using it to help end the evil of abortion. In her words...

My dear friend, Rozanne, will be praying and fasting every Wednesday in order to open the hearts of these mothers to the alternatives to abortion. I will be praying and fasting every Thursday to help heal the women who got on that bus because they felt they had no other choice.

Check out the rest of her post. I think what she and her friend are doing is brave, and powerful. I am giving up lunch on Wednesdays and instead going to pray at an abortion clinic. Would you join us? Would you sacrifice something to end abortion?

Number 5 is pro-life!

2011-03-29T07:53:00.000-04:00

The new non-invasive genetic testing for down syndrome and other genetic anomalies are wonderful in that they can be performed with less risk to the child than current tests. However, some are rightfully worried that it will lead to aborting more down syndrome children, and lead to abortion for other "defects." Today a "defect" can be anything the parents don't desire, including various diseases, girls and even intelligence. Take this article, for example: "Oxford Ethicist says keep clever embryos, destroy the Rest".

Human embryos should be screened for their potential intelligence and only the smartest allowed to live, an Oxford University ethicist has argued.

In shocking remarks, Prof Julian Savulescu says embryos that do not pass the intelligence test should be destroyed for the good of society.

Shocking yes, but it is already routinely done in IVF procedures, where doctors choose which embryos will be implanted and which will be killed based on their genetic characteristics. It's only a short step from there to "the master race."

I had this on my mind the other night while I watched the movie "Short Circuit" with the kids. If you haven't seen it, it is the story of an experimental military robot named "Number 5" that gets struck by lightning, becomes alive, and goes out into the world to make its way. Its makers pursue Number 5 to destroy it before the "malfunction" can put the company in a bad light. I hadn't seen the movie in years (I was never a big fan, but my wife loves it), but as I watched it I realized it has a profound pro-life message. Yes, beneath all the kitsch, and shouting "no disassemble", Number 5 actually has something to say. He repeats the message over and over - "Life is not a malfunction."

I think it's something we all need to remember, especially in cases like down syndrome, Leigh syndrome, or any other "malfunction." Life is not a malfunction. Destroying it is not the cure.

My first poll

2011-03-28T08:59:00.001-04:00

Paul has an animal in his attic. He has not seen said animal. And so I have created my first poll ever. Please look over on the right sidebar, and vote for what kind of animal you think is up there. Voting ends Friday at noon. The winner(s) will win either the people's love and admiration forever, or have the appropriate animal installed in their own attic. While you're voting, check out Catholic Preachy and Sober Catholic.

Fukushima in perspective

2011-03-27T14:49:00.000-04:00

Worried about the claims that radiation levels are thousands or even millions of times normal at the Fukushima reactors? Do pray for the people of Japan (and not just those living by the reactors, but all those affected by the disaster), but don't be too alarmist. This XKCD chart shows the numbers in perspective. Click on the chart for a version you can actually read.

Do you deserve freedom if you support slavery?

2011-03-26T10:25:00.000-04:00

My (and I'm ashamed to admit) senator, Frank Lautenberg this week disappointed me yet again. I already wrote about the stupidity of my other senator, Robert Menendez, and now it's Lautenberg's turn. But this is more than stupid, it's anti-life, anti-woman and anti-American. Watch the video and be outraged.

The outrage for me not just because he claims we don't deserve freedom, but "they'll give it to us anyway" but more because of what he's standing there fighting for my tax dollars to go support, which is in the following videos. You see, Frank Lautenberg wants to directly support, with my tax dollars, an organization that supports child rape and human trafficking, and they do it knowingly, and he supports them knowing that they do it.

If this bothers you, you can contact him here.

H/T Michelle Malkin and Proud Parents of Staten Island. Sorry for posting so many videos.

Misconceptions about pro-lifers

2011-03-23T20:01:00.000-04:00

If you read news stories or blogs outside the pro-life arena, you'll find that there are a lot of misconceptions about what the being pro-life means. I thought I'd set the record straight. Here for your enjoyment and edification are 10 myths about pro-lifers.

1. Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception.

No, we do not believe that; we know it begins at conception. two hundred years ago it was true that pro-lifers believed life began at conception. Since then, science has shown us, through technologies like DNA analysis and ultrasound that we were right. At conception (meaning fertilization) a new human life begins. Also check out this blog post for references. The thing we believe is that all human life is worthwhile.

2. Pro-lifers are against stem cell research.

We are in favor of stem cell research. We are against the methods used to obtain embryonic cells used for certain types of research because they destroy a human life (see #1). All other forms of stem cell research are just fine, and embryonic stem cell research would be fine too, if the cells could be obtained without costing lives.

3. Pro-lifers are against science.

We are in favor of science. Science proves our case for us (see #1 again).

4. Pro-lifers don't care about women, only about fetuses.

We care equally about both. If it sometimes appears we focus more on the unborn it's because fewer people are trying to kill adult women, and they can speak in their own defense. It is pro-lifers that support adoption agencies, pregnancy centers, and help women who have financial problem. We also help post-abortive women deal with problems the pro-choicers can't admit exist.

5. Pro-lifers are pro-death penalty.

While we agree that all innocent life should be protected, there is room for disagreement about whether or not one can forfeit one's life by committing a crime. Thus you will find that some pro-lifers are in favor of the death penalty while others are staunchly against it. The two issues are not necessarily related.

6. Pro-lifers are religious nuts.

There is no requirement to hold a particular religion or any religion at all. While the Catholic church and some other religious groups hold to the sanctity of life, one can come to a pro-life position through logical reasoning alone, without recourse to any religious beliefs.

7. Pro-lifers hate gays.

There is no official position in the pro-life movement on homosexuality. You can be gay and pro-life. There are no doubt some fringe groups who are anti-gay, as there are anti-anything people in a large enough segment of the population. Certainly the pro-lifers who follow Catholic doctrine are not anti-gay, as the Catholic church is not (despite claims of its detractors).

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s representative to U.N. addressed the Human Rights Council March 22, telling it that the Vatican affirms "the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings" and condemns "all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts or sexual behaviors."

8. Pro-lifers are violent.

While there may be nuts out there who resort to violence, there is no pro-life group that condones or permits its members to use violence. Despite pro-choicers' claims that George Tiller's murder was pro-life, there is no evidence linking him to any pro-life group and the killing was roundly denounced by every pro-life group out there. On the other hand, violence against pro-lifers goes unreported (ever hear of Jim Poullion?) and pro-choice groups are silent on the issue. The site abortion violence documents over 8,500 cases of violence by pro-choicers, including over 500 murders.

9. Pro-lifers want to restrict women's freedoms.

Quite the contrary. We want women to have the freedom to live, grow, speak and enjoy life as they please, including those women who are not yet born. It is pro-"choicers" who believe that rights can be taken away from some people, and in doing so wind up trampling the rights of women to choose life anyway, and fostering violence against women.

10. Pro-lifers are all bitter old people, and the movement is dying out with them.

There are pro-lifers of all ages. In fact, polls show a higher percentage of young people are pro-life than their parents' generation. As for the movement going away guess again. The Catholic church has been pro-life for 2,000 years. The pro-"choice" movement is the upstart, tracing its roots back to people like Margaret Sanger. If anything is transient, it is.

Spoiling the bunch

2011-03-22T18:21:00.000-04:00

I wrote several posts about Apple's censoring of the iPhone app for the Manhattan project. Now history is (possibly) repeating itself with the Exodus International app. Exodus International is a non-denominational Christian ministry to offer support and resources for people with same sex attraction who want to live chaste lives.

A gay group has started a petition and vowed to hold protests outside of Apple headquarters unless they remove the app. They have also flooded the app's entry in iTunes with hundreds of negative reviews along the lines of the following:

Be Aware! Dangerous Anti-Gay App - Feb 28,2011

This is hate-based initiative of the fanatical religious right intending to brainwash and emotionally destroy gay and lesbian people by coercing them to hate themselves based on their natural sexual orientation.

Their methods include kidnapping, discredited notions that being anything other than heterosexual is "unhealthy" and "harmful", extreme and out-dated social ideas that cause suicide and lasting psychological damage...

Note that this was posted the day the app became available. With reviews sorted by "helpfulness" (as measured by the reviewers) I had to wade through 10 pages of vitriol before I came to the first positive review of the app.

Just so I'm clear - Mar 20, 2011

So if a person experiences unwanted attraction to the same-sex, they don't have a right to seek help.

Funny, nothing about Exodus expressed hatred toward gays. It exists solely to help people who WANT TO BE HELPED.

How dare you people accuse this group of hatred. They are providing support and help TO THOSE WHO WANT IT. If you're gay and proud, fine! But don't force your ideology on someone who doesn't WANT to be gay. If they want help in overcoming same-sex attraction, they should be allowed a place to go.

That place is Exodus.

It was another 10 pages before I found a second positive review. On the very last page (page 93) of reviews is the following:

Wonderful Resource for those who are interested. - Mar 14, 2011

In all my experience with Exodus, I have never been demanded to live or think a certain way. That freedom of choice has always remained my own, and I have always been supported. My friends at Exodus wake up each day with one goal though their organization 0 and that is to offer support and love to other people, gay identified, struggling, or those who have chosen to walk away from that lifestyle, and to honor them through grace and love as God calls us all to live. There is no hidden agenda or harmful goal. This is an app that I am proud to have and thankful that it has been created, It will certainly be one that I recommend to others who I believe can benefit from it and find it useful.

I downloaded the app, to see what it was about (it is a free app), and found it to be mostly a statement of intent and wrappers for web pages served by the Exodus International site. There was nothing I could find that said anything disparaging about homosexuals or homosexuality.

Exodus responds

“In no way shape or form is our message about trying to cure or do we try to promote that type of methodology or message,” Jeff Buchanan, Exodus International’s Senior Director of Church Equipping & Student Ministries, told The Christian Post.

“This is a label (gay cure app) that has been put forth by opponents to the application to serve as propaganda in order to stigmatize and really label the application in a false way and provoking a response such as you are seeing with the application.”

and Forbes has an article which is rather interesting.

At the risk of putting myself at the center of a firestorm of disapproval, I have to say that what I viewed and read on the Exodus app was not hate speech but simply the expression of religious beliefs with which I, and many other people, disagree.

Exodus International appears to be a non-denominational religious organization that believes homosexuality is a sin. It also promotes the idea that this sin can be relieved by establishing a spiritual relationship with Jesus.

At this point, all we can do is wait and see how Apple will respond. Given their claim that the Manhattan Declaration was "hate speech" for affirming the sanctity of all human life, I don't have high hopes. I guess my next phone will be an android.

Land of the free

2011-03-21T23:23:00.000-04:00

Just a quick note - I was struck by the juxtaposition of these two articles.

In secularized, post-Christian Europe we have

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Italian public schools can continue to display crucifixes in classrooms, providing a final resolution to a case that had sparked concern about aggressive secularism on the continent.

...In a summary of the Grand Chamber's March 18 ruling, Court Registrar Erik Fribergh explained that the judges had found “nothing to suggest that the authorities were intolerant of pupils who believed in other religions, were non-believers or who held non-religious philosophical convictions.”

...and in the land of the free, we have

TOLEDO, Ohio - An architect is removing a design element from a new elementary school that looked liked the Christian cross.

"I actually have not noticed a cross," said Mona-Mae Mitchell. "Is that a light pole?"

Some have never noticed the design at the Toledo Public Schools' new Beverly Elementary School construction site at the corner of Glanzman Road and Detroit Avenue, the former location of old Bowsher High School.

Others say the designs look like Christian crosses.

..."I was also surprised to be honest with you that these looked like crosses," Gant added. "I appreciate the concern that was brought up and it does look that way and we need to be careful about that process of what we're doing. It's a legitimate concern, and it was not the intended design."

An open letter to my governor

2011-03-20T21:25:00.000-04:00

Here is a letter I just wrote to Governor Chris Christie. Please read the letter, follow the links, and consider writing your own letter. The governor can be contacted at http://www.nj.gov/governor/contact/

Dear Governor Christie,

It was with shock that I read this story, which happened here in New Jersey, at St. Barnabas Hospital. A mother was charged with abuse for not consenting to a C-section and her baby daughter was taken from her. Five years later, despite a NJ Superior court ruling last year in their favor, the child has yet to be returned to her parents.

Assuming this story is accurate, I am disgusted that such a thing could happen in our state. Please take whatever action is necessary to correct this injustice and reunite a family as soon as possible.

The stories mentioned can be found at

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/woman-loses-custody-of-child-for-five-years-for-refusing-c-section

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366791/Baby-girl-kept-away-mother-5-years-refusing-sign-C-section-form.html

Sincerely,
Mike

How's that Lent thing going for you?

2011-03-20T10:37:00.001-04:00

Lent is a time of fasting, prayer and almsgiving. Lent draws us closer to God and prepares us for the mysteries of Easter. And every year I look forward to Lent - it is one of my favorite times. Some years I have had fantastic spiritual experiences during Lent.

Not this year. Instead of being a time for slowing down and reflecting on my life, this year Lent has been marked by extra stress, extra work; broken commitments and missed opportunities. Instead of stepping up my commitment to life through 40 Days for Life, I have had various conflicts that have caused me to do less than ever. My prayer life has been rushed and hollow, when I haven't been too tired to pray at all.

In fact, the only thing that has gone "as planned" this Lent is the Great Adventure Bible Study I am taking, and although it's wonderful, and I highly recommend it, it's a minor part of my life, being 1.5 hours once a week. so for the most part I'd biding my time, trying to hang on until something changes.

So how is Lent going for you? I hope it's better than mine.

Are nukes safe?

2011-03-16T20:19:00.001-04:00

With the threat of nuclear "meltdown" adding to the troubles in Japan, and even more so adding to the worries of the US, I've been thinking about nuclear power. Darwin Catholic has a lot of good links and information on his site today. The question that people seem to be debating (and have been for a long time) is should we use nuclear power in light of its safety record.

I found a document (Comparative Assessment of Natural gas Risks) online about the safety of various means of energy production. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate the safety of natural gas vs. other power sources, so we should keep that in mind. However, it does present a rather complete analysis of data across a wide range of power sources. Here is a summary of some of the raw data, from 1969 through 2000. The data includes "severe" accidents that resulted in one or more of the following:

1) at least five fatalities or
2) at least ten injured or
3) at least 200 evacuees or
4) extensive ban on consumption of food or
5) releases of hydrocarbons exceeding 10’000 t or
6) enforced clean-up of land and water over an area of at least 25 km2 or
7) economic loss of at least five million USD(2000).

Whenever any one of the above criteria is satisfied, the accident is considered to be severe. Here are the numbers presented.

Technology	Accidents	Fatalities	Notes
Coal	1130	20,510	(a)
Oil	455	21,424
Natural Gas	159	2,273
LPG	124	4,436
Hydro	11	29,938	(b)
Nuclear	1	31	(c)

(a) Including China
(b) Banqiao and Shimantan dam failures together caused 26,000 fatalities
(c) Latent fatalities are treated separately.

By these criteria, nuclear is extremely safe. However, as noted the table does not include latent fatalities. Here's what they have to say about latent fatalities:

The presence of nuclear in these tables is primarily due to the Chernobyl accident, with a contribution from the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident to the economic losses and evacuation. Estimates of latent fatalities and latent cancers are only available for the nuclear chain for which they are of particular relevance. Delayed fatalities are likely to have occurred for the other chains with no records available; their significance per accident should, however, be incomparably smaller in comparison with the Chernobyl accident.

Later in the paper nuclear latent fatalities are given as 33,000. No figures for latent fatalities from other sources are given. This presents a dilemma. One can't compare the technologies' relative safety without all the data. Not including latent fatalities, nuclear is clearly the safest energy source there is. Including latent fatalities for only nuclear energy make nuclear look bad, but we don't know what the numbers would be for other technologies. For instance, how many people die of latent effects of chemical exposure in an oil accident?

Adding to the uncertainty is the assumption that these technologies do not result in deaths when they are working properly. For instance, should we include black lung deaths to be latent deaths from coal generation, even though they aren't associated with an accident?

In the case of nuclear, there are additional issues. The number of latent fatalities is itself a hotly disputed subject. Claims for deaths from Chernobyl range from 4,000 to 500,000. According to the IAEA's (International Atomic Energy Agency) publication "Ten Years After Chernobyl":

Compared with other nuclear events: The Chernobyl explosion put 400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima; atomic weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s all together are estimated to have put some 100 to 1,000 times more radioactive material into the atmosphere than the Chernobyl accident.

They also note that the design flaws of the Chernobyl reactor have been fixed in other reactors.

The most serious deficiencies in other operating RBMK reactors are being addressed through safety upgrades. Between 1987 and 1991, a first stage of upgrading was performed on all RBMK units to eliminate the design deficiencies which contributed to the Chernobyl accident, to improve shutdown mechanisms and heighten general safety awareness among staff. There are plans for further safety improvements.

So, should Chernobyl be counted? Nuclear reactors aren't designed and built that way anymore, and the ones that were built that way have been improved, so the failure that occurred there shouldn't in theory be possible anywhere else. On the other hand, it can be argued that all technologies improve over time and if we exclude that event we should exclude events from all technologies that were not up to the latest safety standards. That would leave us with virtually no data to work with, and that would be skewed by the current state of the art in that field.

So I worked the numbers both ways - with and without nuclear latent deaths, and using the estimates in the original article of 33,000 latent deaths from Chernobyl. Understand that the truth lies somewhere between the two sets of figures.

Lastly, there is disparity in the number of deaths because some technologies are more prevalent than others. The following table shows fatalities per GWeyr (fatalities per Gigawatt of electricity years). This is IMHO a more meaningful number than just fatality numbers, because it takes into account the fact that more electricity is generated by coal and oil than hydroelectric and nuclear.

	Fatalities per GWeyr
Technology	Immediate	Latent
Coal	1.762	--
Oil	1.032	--
Natural Gas	0.196	--
LPG	16.853	--
Hydro	10.288	--
Nuclear	0.048	48 (6.4-800)

For nuclear, 48 fatalities per GWeyr is the figure used in the document. Using the 4,000-500,000 numbers results in the range shown (6.4 to 800 fatalities/GWeyr).

So nuclear is the safest or the most dangerous power source, or something in between. If we consider all historical data, nuclear energy appears to be far less safe than other methods of electricity production (assuming latent deaths from other technologies are not significant). However, if we consider the Chernobyl accident an anomaly and consider only modern, properly designed reactors, nuclear becomes the safest method of electricity production by far. It all depends on one's assumptions. So, I'd have to say that the results are inconclusive. There are arguments to be made on either side.

What did surprise me in researching this was how dangerous hydroelectric power is. To be fair, 90% of those fatalities were due to two disasters in China, and if those are considered anomalies then the safety of hydro would be in line with oil. I didn't consider this data to be anomalous because it was not due to a flaw in the design, but a natural disaster, just as the current nuclear accident in Japan is due to a natural disaster. One can argue that a bad design, once fixed, is eliminated from future consideration, but a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake is not controllable by humans.

It's Catholic Media Promotion Day!

2011-03-15T07:04:00.001-04:00

As you may recall on my post for Catholic Media Promotion Day today is the day we are supposed to:

On March 15, 2011, everyone with a blog, podcast, or Facebook page should list their favorite 3 blogs, 3 podcasts, 3 other media, 3 random Catholic things online, and their own projects.

This presents a problem for me, as it is very hard to narrow the list down to three of each, but here goes. One of my goals here is to list things that I really like but that perhaps are not so mainstream as to have everybody list them.

Blogs

Redneck Reflections - This guy is the smartest redneck I've ever met. "It's not what you expect. It's what you fear."
Darwin Catholic - Is a great blog about science (and Catholicism). I like the tag line "...because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive."
Satan's blog - Yes, know thy enemy, by following his blog.

Podcasts

Catholic Answers Live - I started listening to this when I had no other podcasts to listen to. I've yet to find an episode where I didn't learn something new and interesting.
The Catholic Laboratory - Over 1000 years of Catholic science.
The Saintcast - A podcast about Catholic Saints.

Other Media

Catholic TV - A new Catholic broadband streamed TV network.
Pope2you - Did you know the Vatican has a Youtube Channel?
Ignatius Press - Old style printed media. Ignatius press is the official publisher of Pope Benedict, and carries his latest book Jesus of Nazareth - Holy Week

Other random Catholic things online

The Cukierski Family Apostolate - Purveyors of natural health products and all sorts of unusual Catholic sacramentals.
Drawn to Catholicism - Owen Swain is an online friend of mine who has this (almost) daily drawn blog.
Catholic Preachy - The brain child of two other online friends of mine - Jerry Kohlbrand and Paul Sofranko.

My projects

This blog.

You win a few

2011-03-14T18:09:00.001-04:00

Two pieces of good news today:

Baby Joseph, whom I blogged about earlier is now at SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, Mo. Kudos to Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life for working with authorities and health care providers in Canada and the US to help save this boy from being euthanized. The new hospital is willing to perform the tracheotomy that will allow baby Joseph to go home and be with his family.

In a similar story, the feeding tube has been restored for Rachel Nyirahabiyambere, a refugee to the US from Rwanda, who has been denied food and water by a US hospital for three weeks. Kudos here go to the Alliance Defense Fund and the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network for providing legal and other assistance to Mrs. Nyirahabiyambere and her family.

That makes two people in two countries that were going to be murdered by hospitals that now have a chance to live the remainder of their lives in peace. If you are looking for ways to perform your Lenten almsgiving, these three are worthy causes.

Happy Pi Day

2011-03-14T07:47:00.000-04:00

The bible tells me so

2011-03-13T19:08:00.001-04:00

When my kids were young we had this board book that played a number of songs when you opened it. One of them was Jesus Loves Me. And perhaps it is OK for small children, but I winced whenever it came on. For those unfamiliar, the theme of the song is I know Jesus loves me because the bible tells me so.

I can't abide by a faith that makes me abandon reason, and the way some people treat the bible has always been a sticking point for me. The argument goes something like "well, 'X' is true because hte bible says so."

"How do you know the bible is true?"

"Because it's the word of God."

"How do you know it's the word of God?"

"The bible says so."

This is what's known as circular reasoning. I could write a blog post that says it's the word of God, and that wouldn't make it the word of God.

At any rate, I've been thinking of a series of blog posts about how a belief in God is not only possible, but necessary by applying logic, and that Catholicism is not only plausible, but very likely true using reason. Of course faith is always required at some point, but faith and reason go hand in hand.

Catholic Media Promotion Day-March 15, 2011

2011-03-12T16:44:00.000-05:00

On March 15, 2011, everyone with a blog, podcast, or Facebook page should list their favorite 3 blogs, 3 podcasts, 3 other media, 3 random Catholic things online, and their own projects.

Then, post the link to your list here on March 15th.

Additionally, to help get the word out, press are asked to write articles and press releases for this day.

Lastly, on March 15th, go to iTunes and leave at least 3 positive written reviews for various Catholic podcasts and 3 positive written reviews for Catholic mobile applications.

Where to give help

2011-03-11T18:30:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you have heard of the earthquake near Japan. The Catholic News Service has posted a page on their blog listing where you can donate to help those affected by it. They are Catholic Relief Services, Caritas, and for those in the UK, CAFOD. I don't list these organization merely because they are Catholic. They are already "on the ground" and are helping. In addition, they have some of the best track records in getting the help to the people who need it, rather than funneling funds off to other purposes, diluting them, or delaying the use of funds they receive.

Why are people pro-choice (part 3)

2011-03-09T21:04:00.000-05:00

This is the third in an ongoing series of posts about the reasoning pro-choicers use to arrive at their point of view. In part 1 and part 2, we covered the back alley abortion argument and the when does life begin argument. Today's reason is:

Reason #3: It's my body, my choice.

This may actually mean one of two reasons. The first meaning is that the fetus is part of my body, and I have the right to do what I want with my body. An abortion is just like liposuction - taking away part of my body. Of course, this falls prey to the same logic we applied in part 2. Without regurgitating the whole thing I submit this one quote and direct you to read Part 2.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Note that this is a scientific fact. With technology like DNA analysis we can prove that the fetus is not part of the mother's body, but is a unique individual, from the moment of conception on.

But perhaps what the pro-choicer means is "I accept that it is a separate and unique life, but my right to control my body trumps the fetus' right to use it for warmth and nourishment. The two arguments that can be made are defense and privacy.

The defense argument goes something like "if an intruder entered my house and attacked me I would have the right to defend myself, even if I killed the attacker. Therefore I have the right to abort the baby that has entered my body." Mother Teresa was well aware of this argument when she said:

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. (Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable," Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14)

She saw at once the problem with this argument is that it purports the child to be an attacker. The child is not attacking the mother. It is not threatening her, and in fact is there naturally. In over 99% of abortions, the woman willfully chose the behavior that put that child in that position. Even in the case of rape, the child is not the one who attacked the mother. Rather than being the case of defending against an intruder, it's like inviting a neighbor for tea and then murdering them.

The privacy argument reasons that although I could not kick someone out of a public place, it is perfectly reasonable for me to kick them out of my own home, because it is my place. How much more so do I have the right to "kick out" the fetus, within my own body, which is more my domain than my home.

This falls to similar logic. Although you can kick someone out of your private house, you can't kill them because they are in your private house. Even more so if you invited them in in the first place. Human life trumps property rights in law (and in Asimov's three laws of robotics).

Suggestions for Lent

2011-03-08T21:50:00.000-05:00

If you're like me most years, you waited until Ash Wednesday and then try to think of something to give up. Beer? Chocolate? It should be something that makes you a better, healthier person, right? I have a suggestion for you.

Instead of giving up chocolate (again) how about saving someone's life? Last year I joined 40 Days for Life during Lent and it has changed my perspective on a lot of things. I go to an abortion clinic once or twice a week (or as often as I can make it) and pray. If you find it hard to get to a 40 Days site, you can still participate by fasting and/or praying along with their set of daily devotionals.

Another way to get involved this Lent is to spiritually adopt an unborn child. To do this, pick an unborn baby in danger of being aborted. It doesn't have to be anyone you know, just focus your intentions on a single child. You can give the child a name if that helps you to focus on him or her. Each day pray for this child. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen recommended the following prayer:

“Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I love you very much. I beg you to spare the life of the unborn baby that I have spiritually adopted who is in danger of abortion.”

Of course you can (and should) pray for the mother and father of that child as well. These things are simple enough to do, and yet they can save a human life, and change yours.