June 21, 2012
The Southern Baptists tell it like it is. Not always and not perfectly but they understand the role of religion in a free society.
Fox News quotes from the Baptists’ findings on same sex “marriage.”
marriage is “the exclusive union of one man and one woman” and that “all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful.”
It acknowledges that gays and lesbians sometimes experience “unique struggles” but declares that they lack the “distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections.”
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
I’ll say this just so it gets said. God made all people. Some are attracted to people of the same-sex. (and some have disordered attractions to all manner of things). That is not bad or good; only acting on these disordered attractions is wrong. This doesn’t in anyway affect the Church’s – or any decent thinking person’s – love for them as God’s created handiwork. The Church uniformly tells us also to absolutely love these people.
April 30, 2012
We need to know what is legal that is popularly thought to be illegal. (False “Separation” of Church and State.) Here is a wonderful – if troubling – article by the Alliance Defense Fund.
- BY ALAN SEARS POSTED APR 3, 2012
It leads with:
The penalty for opposing the policies of El Paso mayor John Cook are getting stiffer – maybe as stiff as “sign a petition, go to jail.”
and later states:
“El Paso citizens should not live in fear of being arrested and jailed for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech,”
I made a reply to a comment by a person stating the (false) opinion that “Church’s (sic) can’t be political”
March 26, 2012
This is a religious argument in summary but it’s substantial and convincing.
The author says:
Why fight same-sex marriage? Even in America, where the outcome is not yet decided, there appear to be good reasons not to.
Can it really be worth fighting then?
The answer is yes, for reasons that become clear…
March 24, 2010
Eulogy to Karl Marx
by E. Christian Brugger, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in Ethics
In his eulogy for Karl Marx deceased on March 14, 1883, his friend and fellow revolutionary Friederich Engels wishfully prophesized that Marx’s name “will endure through the ages, and so also will his work.” Hardly could he have imagined that his friend’s social vision would suffuse common political dynamics in the United States a little over a century later; that the eminent Speaker of the House would play his handmaid and the powerful President his dupe. The disaster that played out last weekend set the high water mark of Marx’s influence on our great country. If we don’t see this we won’t understand recent events. His name wasn’t mentioned and his rhetoric wasn’t explicit. But his vision was alive: a reckless mendacity in the pursuit of goals; an almost savage disregard for democracy; a savioristic reliance on politics to transform the social order; and a forceful use of naked power as the principle of social change.
We witnessed the demonization of a class of people, the bourgeois in Marx’s scheme, the U.S. middle class, who from last summer have shouted a crescendoing “NO!” to a government health care revolution. They were called Nazis, bigots, obstacles to progress; they were bullied by thugs, characterized as stupid, and censored by the liberal media. Their reasons for opposing the revolution didn’t matter. The mere fact of it placed them on the wrong side in the dialectic of history, so they needed to be opposed. ‘What our fathers and our fathers’ fathers couldn’t do, we’ve accomplished against all odds.’ The ‘odds,’ of course, were the majority of honest Americans who naively still believed that their voices meant something in the political process. They weren’t opposed to the end of securing decent health care for all. They questioned the means that Liberal Democrats were proposing for achieving that end: an enormous extension of federal authority into a most delicate area of social concern, a massive surreptitious expansion of abortion liberties, fears of conscience violations, unjust rationing, the depersonalization of health care, offensive values from Washington D.C. filtering into Main Street America: “we’re just not sure we trust you, Government, with our health care; whatever you touch turns to gold—for you; but it complicates and disorders our lives.” Over their heads the Democrats shouted: “the people deserve healthcare, and you’re trying to prevent it!” In the Manifesto Marx writes: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, oppressor and oppressed, in constant opposition to one another.” Marx’s simplistic ‘class struggle’ paradigm was the operative model for the healthcare debate. The only reality is political; the only relevant question is who possesses and exercises power. The proletariat, the marginalized, are the voiceless uninsured, oppressed by intolerant, religious, self-satisfied Americans. Progressive change is necessary; neutrality in its regard is impossible. This polarization was nowhere more clear than at the President’s so-called “health care summit” on February 25: ‘side with the Democrats and so with the poor, or with the Republicans against the poor. Make your choice. Get on board, or we’re leaving without you.’
No amount of deception was too great. How many times in the past eight months did Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, Secretary Sebelius and President Obama look straight into the camera and proclaim: “The Hyde Amendment forbids federal funding for abortion. That status won’t change under our bill”? They knew the statement was false; how couldn’t they, after all, they were the bill’s authors? But they counted on the credulity of their audience stemming from ignorance as to the bill’s actual content. The sharpest screw was twisted last weekend with the fraudulent executive order meant to make people believe that Stupak’s pro-life demands had finally been conceded. Again, smoke and mirrors, but no substance. Kathleen Parker writes in today’s Washington Post: “The executive order … is utterly useless, and everybody knows it. First, the president can revoke it as quickly as he signs it. Second, an order cannot confer jurisdiction in the courts or establish any grounds for suing anybody in court… The order is therefore judicially unenforceable. Finally, an executive order cannot trump or change a federal statute.” Don’t ever doubt the utility of the Nietzchian will to power operationalized in the Marxist schema. It gets results. But it also sows resentment. Peace doesn’t follow. People only get mad. And people presently are very mad.
So what now? As in the wake of Roe, we must begin a rear guard offensive. After the President signed the bill into law on Tuesday, fourteen States attorneys general filed suit over the constitutionality of the legislation. Find out if your State is one of them and support the effort. Learn the provisions of the new law. You will be forced to purchase insurance. But at least one insurance carrier in each State exchange is required not to provide abortion coverage, which means the majority of carriers will. Do your homework; find that carrier and support it. Next, when your representatives come home for Spring break, tell them what’s on your mind. Finally, polish your pointing finger for the November elections.
quoted in full from: http://culture-of-life.org//content/view/628/1/
If you’re not mad you’re not paying attention.
November 30, 2009
Laura returns for this as guest essayist.
This one’s been simmering for several days now, and I wanted to give another, very sincere attempt at responding to the issue – not because I think Matt needs help (he certainly doesn’t!) but because maybe other people deal with these challenges.
For several years, I identified strongly with the Religious Society of Friends, the Quakers. They have an expression: “Speaking to That of God in every man,” which means, simply, that we make a deliberate effort to remember that our opponent is a soul created by God, for whom Christ died – or, as C.S. Lewis wrote, I think in <i>Prince Caspian</i>, to be a son of Adam or a daughter of Eve is enough dignity to raise the head of the lowliest beggar, and enough shame to bow the head of the loftiest king.
Our Lord Jesus Christ had another way of addressing this. We call it The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In short, when we engage in discussion with opponents on the abortion issue, or other issues, we have an obligation to treat them with courtesy, dignity, and a fundamental human respect that demonstrates, that models, the basic respect for human life of the unborn we would have them to embrace.
In fact, I believe we have a GREATER obligation to courtesy, good manners, and basic kindness – because we know better, because we have a higher Ideal to cling to.
November 25, 2009
The Culture of Life foundation is doing more good work. As their email header says they “aim to affect public policy by promoting and making available to the public scientific and other factual information relevant to debates about human life and dignity.”
Their latest posting is a book review of Embryo: a Defense of Human Life by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen
See Part I of the review at: http://culture-of-life.org//content/view/606/1/
and Part II at: http://culture-of-life.org//content/view/607/95/