Wednesday, February 18, 2004
I guess I knew that there were "Christians" like this out there, but I didn't really expect him to confirm every stereotype in one series of e-mails!
My father responded to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and following are his (well-written) e-mails, and the pathetically knee-jerk responses that he received back. "I can define Christianity however I want! Naa-naa-naa-naa-naa-na!"
[My father's e-mails are in bold; the journalist's in italics]
Mr. Connelly,
In your column of February 11, about the Gibson movie The
Passion of the Christ, you say near the end: ". . . as a believing Christian, I will resist -- steadfast in the faith -- the division of people into us-and-them, good-and-evil, and the notion that just one road leads to "salvation."
Whatever faith you are steadfast in, it is certainly not Christianity. God's simple truth is that "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." "It is the name of Jesus Christ of Nazereth." (Acts 4:12 and 10.) This is so foundational, so elemental, so essential to the truth of Christianity, that no one can truly or validly claim to be a Christian who does not also say that Jesus is the Son of God and the only way to salvation.
You say that "there are multiple paths to God," but that is decidedly NOT a Christian belief and you mislead non-Christians when you say that. You are, of course, entitled to believe what you want. But please do not try to pass off the idea that Christianity is other than an exclusive religion. It is, and we can thank God for that. "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6.)
Veritas odium parit [good quote!]
J. A. W.
[His replies are, strangely enough, shorter and more defensive]
What manner of hubris entitles you to pronounce on whether I am a Christian or not? Such absolutism makes it difficult for reasonable people of faith to explain the message of Christ.
[poor guy, we "fundamentalists" are making it too hard for him to water down the message of Christ]
jc
Well, I guess I couldn't really expect you to understand. I'll try just once more.
You see, the fact is, I am not the one who pronounces you not a Christian when you deny that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. It is GOD himself through his holy Word. Perhaps I should have mentioned that the references I used were from the Bible. You seem unfamiliar with that book.
God alone is able to be "absolute" about anything, because He is the creator of the universe. If Christianity were "reasonable" then it would be man-made. And if it were man-made then it would be as valuable as anything else dreamt up by men. What makes Christianity unique is that God has revealed Himself to us in his holy Word. No other religion makes that claim, other than Judaism, and Judaism is Christianity without Christ. Other religions may be superficially "reasonable" but that is their shortcoming. They are based upon the thinking, the reasonableness, of men,
without the everlasting absolutes that God alone can speak.
J. A. W.
No, you are putting yourself in the position of God, and pronouncing on the adequacy of my faith and that I am denying "the only way to heaven." Isn't that kind of pride considered a sin? Access to heaven will never be determined on narrow, sectarian
or fundamentalist grounds -- but by living in accordance with precepts best (but not exclusively) laid out in the Gospel of St. Matthew. I expect to find a great deal of diversity when I get there.
jc
[Darn! I always knew that God was a sectarian fundamentalist! Actually, sir, one does not get to heaven by "living in accordance with precepts," no matter where they are "laid out." I expect to find diversity as well, but the kind "laid out" in the Book of Revelation (people from every tribe and language). However, it says nothing there or anywhere else (including the Gospel of Matthew) about getting to heaven by any means other than Jesus Christ. (And, no, imperatives do not imply ability.)]
So far you have avoided addressing my first message.
Where is the diversity in: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." "It is the name of Jesus Christ of Nazereth." (Acts 4:12 and 10.)
And,
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6.)
The Gospel of Matthew is good, but we can't pick and choose when it comes to God's Word. [Come on, that's a little legalistic, isn't it?]
J.
Oh, stop lecturing me on faith and spouting Biblical passages at me. Do you want me to respond with Old Testament admonitions about eating shellfish?
jc
["You're not the boss of me!" It sounds like this guy only read one section of Leviticus.]
If this is the state of Christianity in America, I'm going to buy one of those bumper stickers, "God, save us from your followers."
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
My father responded to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and following are his (well-written) e-mails, and the pathetically knee-jerk responses that he received back. "I can define Christianity however I want! Naa-naa-naa-naa-naa-na!"
[My father's e-mails are in bold; the journalist's in italics]
Mr. Connelly,
In your column of February 11, about the Gibson movie The
Passion of the Christ, you say near the end: ". . . as a believing Christian, I will resist -- steadfast in the faith -- the division of people into us-and-them, good-and-evil, and the notion that just one road leads to "salvation."
Whatever faith you are steadfast in, it is certainly not Christianity. God's simple truth is that "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." "It is the name of Jesus Christ of Nazereth." (Acts 4:12 and 10.) This is so foundational, so elemental, so essential to the truth of Christianity, that no one can truly or validly claim to be a Christian who does not also say that Jesus is the Son of God and the only way to salvation.
You say that "there are multiple paths to God," but that is decidedly NOT a Christian belief and you mislead non-Christians when you say that. You are, of course, entitled to believe what you want. But please do not try to pass off the idea that Christianity is other than an exclusive religion. It is, and we can thank God for that. "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6.)
Veritas odium parit [good quote!]
J. A. W.
[His replies are, strangely enough, shorter and more defensive]
What manner of hubris entitles you to pronounce on whether I am a Christian or not? Such absolutism makes it difficult for reasonable people of faith to explain the message of Christ.
[poor guy, we "fundamentalists" are making it too hard for him to water down the message of Christ]
jc
Well, I guess I couldn't really expect you to understand. I'll try just once more.
You see, the fact is, I am not the one who pronounces you not a Christian when you deny that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. It is GOD himself through his holy Word. Perhaps I should have mentioned that the references I used were from the Bible. You seem unfamiliar with that book.
God alone is able to be "absolute" about anything, because He is the creator of the universe. If Christianity were "reasonable" then it would be man-made. And if it were man-made then it would be as valuable as anything else dreamt up by men. What makes Christianity unique is that God has revealed Himself to us in his holy Word. No other religion makes that claim, other than Judaism, and Judaism is Christianity without Christ. Other religions may be superficially "reasonable" but that is their shortcoming. They are based upon the thinking, the reasonableness, of men,
without the everlasting absolutes that God alone can speak.
J. A. W.
No, you are putting yourself in the position of God, and pronouncing on the adequacy of my faith and that I am denying "the only way to heaven." Isn't that kind of pride considered a sin? Access to heaven will never be determined on narrow, sectarian
or fundamentalist grounds -- but by living in accordance with precepts best (but not exclusively) laid out in the Gospel of St. Matthew. I expect to find a great deal of diversity when I get there.
jc
[Darn! I always knew that God was a sectarian fundamentalist! Actually, sir, one does not get to heaven by "living in accordance with precepts," no matter where they are "laid out." I expect to find diversity as well, but the kind "laid out" in the Book of Revelation (people from every tribe and language). However, it says nothing there or anywhere else (including the Gospel of Matthew) about getting to heaven by any means other than Jesus Christ. (And, no, imperatives do not imply ability.)]
So far you have avoided addressing my first message.
Where is the diversity in: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." "It is the name of Jesus Christ of Nazereth." (Acts 4:12 and 10.)
And,
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6.)
The Gospel of Matthew is good, but we can't pick and choose when it comes to God's Word. [Come on, that's a little legalistic, isn't it?]
J.
Oh, stop lecturing me on faith and spouting Biblical passages at me. Do you want me to respond with Old Testament admonitions about eating shellfish?
jc
["You're not the boss of me!" It sounds like this guy only read one section of Leviticus.]
If this is the state of Christianity in America, I'm going to buy one of those bumper stickers, "God, save us from your followers."
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
New! Make a comment directly on the blog! Just click on the "bring it!" link and make your comment. (Or you can still just e-mail me.)
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Why can't they just say it? Why can't people who are criticizing Mel Gibson's movie just say what they are really thinking? They come close, but they...can't...quite....come out....and say it. The Bible is anti-Semitic and the Bible is too violent. I am dumbfounded at such anachronistic and simplistic understandings of Scripture. To be fair, maybe the critics have never read the Bible ("I don't need the book, I saw the movie"), but aren't journalists supposed to do something called research before they make claims and declarations? Yes, the Bible is violent. But does anyone know why the Bible might contain violent episodes? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I didn't think so. However, I have an answer. Perhaps (just stick with me) it has to do with sin. Now I know sin is almost as offensive as violence, but sin is the reason for violence in the Bible. Why should Israel wipe out the pagan nations that it conquered? Because they would lead Israel into apostasy. (Now, I know that's hard to understand in our oh so tolerant United States, but that's how it is; some religions are right and some are wrong.) Why did kings and leaders at times kill the prophets and those whom God sent? Because the prophets tended to talk too much about sin. Why did Jesus die a bloody, and, yes, violent death? Now you've got it! Because of sin. Mine and yours. And this should shut the mouths of any blasphemers who claim to know that there is more suffering in Africa or the Middle East than what Jesus underwent. They don't know the nature of sin and they don't know the nature of suffering. They are false prophets.
One such example is the highly-revered professor Martin Marty. I hesitate to criticize him, because I of few years should hesitate to criticize those of many more years. However, blasphemy is blasphemy is blasphemy, whether it comes from the mouth of a "progressive" Episcopalian in San Francisco, or a "moderate" Lutheran in Chicago (remember, a moderate is just a liberal in slow motion).
He writes this in his Sightings column,
"Fifth, I don't take to depictions of gratuitous violence. It puzzles me that conservative Catholics and Evangelicals who oppose violence in films find it fine if Jesus is in one. (You've seen the "stills" that give an idea of The Passion.) If you get your kicks from the sight of blood and gore, this is a way to get them "sacredly."
Behind these intentionally flip remarks, I have a serious theological point. The previewers who like violence if it shows Jesus suffering, on the grounds that savagery moves people to appreciate his sacrifice, are measuring the wrong thing. In Holy Week I'll be listening to Bach's Passions, singing about "was there ever grief like Thine?" and meditating on the wounds of Christ, but not in the belief that the more blood and gore the holier, a la Gibson.
The humanistic and theological point: pain is pain, suffering is suffering, torture is torture, and horrible pain-suffering-torture is horrible, and I don't think there are grades and degrees of these. Today, all over the world, people are suffering physically as much as the crucified Jesus. The point now is not to accept grace because we saw gore. The issue is not, were his the worst wounds and pains ever, but, as the gospels show, the issue was, and is, who was suffering and to what end. Christians believe that Jesus was and is the Christ, the Anointed, and they are to find meaning in his sacrificial love and death, not to crawl in close to be sure they get the best sight of the worst physical suffering."
First, a preliminary comment: if there is a lot of blood and gore, does that automatically mean that Mel Gibson thinks that makes the Passion holier? Maybe, but why the denial of the extreme violence of the crucifixion? The only reason I can see is that people like this want a Nice God, a God Who Would Not Do Something Like This. "My God certainly wouldn't do something like this." As a professor of mine is fond of saying, "You're probably right about your god not doing something like this. But the real God did."
The primary issue is, however, about suffering. Witnessing what it was probably like to watch Jesus suffer is not about "appreciating his sacrifice" so much as it is about appreciating the gravity of our sin. And what kind of theological nonsense is it to say that people around the world suffer as much as Christ, even if qualified with the adverb "physically"? How does one guage the suffering of Christ, unless one has experienced suffering under the weight of the sin of the whole world, and under the condemnation of Almighty God? Oh wait, only Christ did that.
A further problem is that, while Marty claims not to be talking about the art of film, he does, by exclusion, make a negative statement about the art of Mel Gibson. In other words, by saying that such physical suffering should not be depicted on the screen, Marty is making a judgment about how Gibson chooses to portray both the physical and spiritual suffering which Christ went through. How does one portray spiritual suffering? That is exactly the question, and I think the gruesome nature of the film (which, again, I have not seen), is one way to portray the extreme spiritual suffering of Christ on our behalf.
The crux (no pun intended) of this issue is really about offense: maybe those who are worried about the violence of the movie simply cannot handle the violence of our sin against God and His Christ. I will be seeing the movie, and I expect to be confronted not with blood and gore, but with the harsh and offensive reality of my sin. And that is what the violence is for.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
I didn't think so. However, I have an answer. Perhaps (just stick with me) it has to do with sin. Now I know sin is almost as offensive as violence, but sin is the reason for violence in the Bible. Why should Israel wipe out the pagan nations that it conquered? Because they would lead Israel into apostasy. (Now, I know that's hard to understand in our oh so tolerant United States, but that's how it is; some religions are right and some are wrong.) Why did kings and leaders at times kill the prophets and those whom God sent? Because the prophets tended to talk too much about sin. Why did Jesus die a bloody, and, yes, violent death? Now you've got it! Because of sin. Mine and yours. And this should shut the mouths of any blasphemers who claim to know that there is more suffering in Africa or the Middle East than what Jesus underwent. They don't know the nature of sin and they don't know the nature of suffering. They are false prophets.
One such example is the highly-revered professor Martin Marty. I hesitate to criticize him, because I of few years should hesitate to criticize those of many more years. However, blasphemy is blasphemy is blasphemy, whether it comes from the mouth of a "progressive" Episcopalian in San Francisco, or a "moderate" Lutheran in Chicago (remember, a moderate is just a liberal in slow motion).
He writes this in his Sightings column,
"Fifth, I don't take to depictions of gratuitous violence. It puzzles me that conservative Catholics and Evangelicals who oppose violence in films find it fine if Jesus is in one. (You've seen the "stills" that give an idea of The Passion.) If you get your kicks from the sight of blood and gore, this is a way to get them "sacredly."
Behind these intentionally flip remarks, I have a serious theological point. The previewers who like violence if it shows Jesus suffering, on the grounds that savagery moves people to appreciate his sacrifice, are measuring the wrong thing. In Holy Week I'll be listening to Bach's Passions, singing about "was there ever grief like Thine?" and meditating on the wounds of Christ, but not in the belief that the more blood and gore the holier, a la Gibson.
The humanistic and theological point: pain is pain, suffering is suffering, torture is torture, and horrible pain-suffering-torture is horrible, and I don't think there are grades and degrees of these. Today, all over the world, people are suffering physically as much as the crucified Jesus. The point now is not to accept grace because we saw gore. The issue is not, were his the worst wounds and pains ever, but, as the gospels show, the issue was, and is, who was suffering and to what end. Christians believe that Jesus was and is the Christ, the Anointed, and they are to find meaning in his sacrificial love and death, not to crawl in close to be sure they get the best sight of the worst physical suffering."
First, a preliminary comment: if there is a lot of blood and gore, does that automatically mean that Mel Gibson thinks that makes the Passion holier? Maybe, but why the denial of the extreme violence of the crucifixion? The only reason I can see is that people like this want a Nice God, a God Who Would Not Do Something Like This. "My God certainly wouldn't do something like this." As a professor of mine is fond of saying, "You're probably right about your god not doing something like this. But the real God did."
The primary issue is, however, about suffering. Witnessing what it was probably like to watch Jesus suffer is not about "appreciating his sacrifice" so much as it is about appreciating the gravity of our sin. And what kind of theological nonsense is it to say that people around the world suffer as much as Christ, even if qualified with the adverb "physically"? How does one guage the suffering of Christ, unless one has experienced suffering under the weight of the sin of the whole world, and under the condemnation of Almighty God? Oh wait, only Christ did that.
A further problem is that, while Marty claims not to be talking about the art of film, he does, by exclusion, make a negative statement about the art of Mel Gibson. In other words, by saying that such physical suffering should not be depicted on the screen, Marty is making a judgment about how Gibson chooses to portray both the physical and spiritual suffering which Christ went through. How does one portray spiritual suffering? That is exactly the question, and I think the gruesome nature of the film (which, again, I have not seen), is one way to portray the extreme spiritual suffering of Christ on our behalf.
The crux (no pun intended) of this issue is really about offense: maybe those who are worried about the violence of the movie simply cannot handle the violence of our sin against God and His Christ. I will be seeing the movie, and I expect to be confronted not with blood and gore, but with the harsh and offensive reality of my sin. And that is what the violence is for.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
If you think that "civil unions" will prevent homosexuals from destroying marriage, think again. Alan Hirsch and Andrew Sullivan say no.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
It is just a little funny (not ha-ha, but weird/strange) that homosexuals insist on making homosexual marriage an issue of "civil rights" while African-Americans (who should know a thing or two about civil rights) say it is not. Read a statement here.
Read a badly-written response here.
This is really about who gets to define "civil rights."
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Read a badly-written response here.
This is really about who gets to define "civil rights."
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Monday, February 16, 2004
When will academics learn how to define things in a way that is not leftist-biased?
See Mike S. Adams' column for more information.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
See Mike S. Adams' column for more information.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Saturday, February 14, 2004
After yesterday's uplifting quote from Chesterton, I'm sorry to give the link to a downing column by Hans Zeiger. Think twice before you enroll your daughters in Girl Scouts.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Friday, February 13, 2004
For Valentine's Day, a quote from G.K. Chesterton (From "Chesterton Day by Day"):
"FEBRUARY 14th
ST. VALENTINE'S DAY
THE revolt against vows has been carried in our day even to the extent of a revolt against the typical vow of marriage. It is most amusing to listen to the opponents of marriage on this subject. They appear to imagine that the ideal of constancy was a joke mysteriously imposed on mankind by the devil, instead of being as it is a yoke consistently imposed on all lovers by themselves. They have invented a phrase, a phrase that is a black v. white contradiction in two words -- 'free love' -- as if a lover ever had been or ever could be free. It is the nature of love to bind itself, and the institution of marriage merely paid the average man the compliment of taking him at his word. Modern sages offer to the lover with an ill-favoured grin the largest liberties and the fullest irresponsibility; but they do not respect him as the old Church respected him; they do not write his oath upon the heavens as the record of his highest moment. They give him every liberty except the liberty to sell his liberty, which is the only one that he wants.
'The Defendant.'"
Happy St. Valentine's Day,
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
"FEBRUARY 14th
ST. VALENTINE'S DAY
THE revolt against vows has been carried in our day even to the extent of a revolt against the typical vow of marriage. It is most amusing to listen to the opponents of marriage on this subject. They appear to imagine that the ideal of constancy was a joke mysteriously imposed on mankind by the devil, instead of being as it is a yoke consistently imposed on all lovers by themselves. They have invented a phrase, a phrase that is a black v. white contradiction in two words -- 'free love' -- as if a lover ever had been or ever could be free. It is the nature of love to bind itself, and the institution of marriage merely paid the average man the compliment of taking him at his word. Modern sages offer to the lover with an ill-favoured grin the largest liberties and the fullest irresponsibility; but they do not respect him as the old Church respected him; they do not write his oath upon the heavens as the record of his highest moment. They give him every liberty except the liberty to sell his liberty, which is the only one that he wants.
'The Defendant.'"
Happy St. Valentine's Day,
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Sometimes Catholics get it right (like the quote from de Lubac yesterday), and sometimes they get it very, very wrong. This primarily applies to Roman Catholic universities. Who can name a major Roman Catholic university where they do not have official recognition for "Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered" groups? Why do they continue to give in to the pressure from both within and without to recognize these groups? They are not public universities; why do they have to accommodate groups with which the Catholic Church is in total and absolute disagreement? They don't, and yet, they do accommodate them. Notre Dame is the latest to join the ranks of the fallen.
This can be illustrated very easily by looking at two articles, one from a blog to which I was directed by a Roman Catholic friend's blog (see Dana's blog here). That blog on Notre Dame's homosexual film festival is here. The official site for that festival is here--that is, if you care to look.
Read, on that site, the message from the "festival chair" Liam Dacey. On that page, you will find that Notre Dame has created a "Standing Committee on Gay and Lesbian Student Needs." What does this committee do? (I wonder if they can't sit down, though.) They "create programs" such as "Solidarity Sunday", where, according to the site, "on one Sunday a year, inclusion and acceptance of homosexuality is spoken in all masses on campus." Hmm, do you think that any priest has attempted to buck this forced propagandizing in favor of the homosexual agenda? And, if one did, what do you think would happen to him? (I assume they're all still "hims" at Notre Dame.) It is strikingly clear what the organizers intend to do to Notre Dame. They have "gay students speak about their homosexuality to selected groups of freshmen in dorms." Can someone say, "indoctrination"? They want to "normalize" homosexuality. Well, I guess we all want to normalize our own pet sins. That doesn't mean that we should, however. We subdue our "natural" (read: sinful) desires, we do not normalize them. St. Paul, anyone? The festival chair (I hesitate to say "chairman") closes with these words: "I hope that you will make the pilgrimage back to South Bend to take part in this historic moment, and to say once and for all that we are Notre Dame." Let all prospective students take heed: they are taking over, and, in fact, they believe they "are Notre Dame." I, as a Lutheran, ask orthodox Catholics to let their tuition money do the talking, and choose a different school. The only way they will reverse this decision is if it hits them where it hurts, in the pocketbook.
Links to the departments that are sponsoring this film festival:
Department of Anthropology
E-mail them here.
Department of Film, Television and Theater (notice they are also sponsoring the sexually explicit Vagina Monologues)
E-mail them here.
Department of English (which includes Gender Studies)
E-mail the Department of English here.
E-mail the director of Gender Studies here.
Contact the Office of the President at this address:
400C Main Building
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Phone: 574-631-3903
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
This can be illustrated very easily by looking at two articles, one from a blog to which I was directed by a Roman Catholic friend's blog (see Dana's blog here). That blog on Notre Dame's homosexual film festival is here. The official site for that festival is here--that is, if you care to look.
Read, on that site, the message from the "festival chair" Liam Dacey. On that page, you will find that Notre Dame has created a "Standing Committee on Gay and Lesbian Student Needs." What does this committee do? (I wonder if they can't sit down, though.) They "create programs" such as "Solidarity Sunday", where, according to the site, "on one Sunday a year, inclusion and acceptance of homosexuality is spoken in all masses on campus." Hmm, do you think that any priest has attempted to buck this forced propagandizing in favor of the homosexual agenda? And, if one did, what do you think would happen to him? (I assume they're all still "hims" at Notre Dame.) It is strikingly clear what the organizers intend to do to Notre Dame. They have "gay students speak about their homosexuality to selected groups of freshmen in dorms." Can someone say, "indoctrination"? They want to "normalize" homosexuality. Well, I guess we all want to normalize our own pet sins. That doesn't mean that we should, however. We subdue our "natural" (read: sinful) desires, we do not normalize them. St. Paul, anyone? The festival chair (I hesitate to say "chairman") closes with these words: "I hope that you will make the pilgrimage back to South Bend to take part in this historic moment, and to say once and for all that we are Notre Dame." Let all prospective students take heed: they are taking over, and, in fact, they believe they "are Notre Dame." I, as a Lutheran, ask orthodox Catholics to let their tuition money do the talking, and choose a different school. The only way they will reverse this decision is if it hits them where it hurts, in the pocketbook.
Links to the departments that are sponsoring this film festival:
Department of Anthropology
E-mail them here.
Department of Film, Television and Theater (notice they are also sponsoring the sexually explicit Vagina Monologues)
E-mail them here.
Department of English (which includes Gender Studies)
E-mail the Department of English here.
E-mail the director of Gender Studies here.
Contact the Office of the President at this address:
400C Main Building
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Phone: 574-631-3903
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Quote of the day by the Jesuit Henri de Lubac (quoted in the Feb. 2004 issue of First Things) "It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God. What is true is that, without God, he can only organize it against man."
A good example of society organized by man against man is the recent decision in Massachusetts. Read Dennis Prager's column on this issue.
The implications of this quote are enlightening. Even if people are not Christians, as long as they believe that there is a "higher" ordering principle or even "force", they will not do things that will almost certainly be harmful to society (which is really only a certain group of men--yes, people, but I'm using the grammar of the quote). But once natural law has been dispatched, what can possibly restrain the lowest animal impulses of the human creature? We all have the capacity to be monsters. (No, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Bundy are not any less human than you or me.) Callous apathy and outright hostility toward the family in the form of freely granted divorce, domestic abuse, promiscuous sexuality without the security for any children produced, homosexuals exchanging of natural behavior for unnatural, and the homocide of defenseless babies; these (along with any other perversion that can be found in the back of tabloid newspapers) are the results of human people unrestrained by any notions of natural law put in place by a supernatural law-giver. We are indeed governed only by our feelings, and this cannot be inhibited by rational argument. It must be inhibited by the laws of this country. When the laws of this country give in to the "needs" of depraved human beings (that includes every one of us), there is nothing left between morality and pure instinct.
This does not, of course, mean that I think humans can be ultimately saved by observing such laws; however, such laws will prevent the spread of anarchy. This is for the good of those who have been taken out of slavery to themselves and given the freedom of slavery to Another, as well as for the good of those who may yet repent. Those who remain in slavery to themselves cannot help but do what their selves desire. And what they desire for themselves is necessarily in conflict with what their neighbors desire for themselves. Thus, anarchy necessarily follows unless limits are imposed on the freedom to pursue purely selfish desires. It is true that limits remain in this society, such as those imposed upon murderers, thieves, and any other type of criminal who is incarcerated. However, the limits that were formerly imposed on eligibility for marriage, adoption, parenting are being slowly but inevitably (it seems) eroded. As those are eroded, it seems clear enough that no logical or meaningful argument can be advanced as to why certain marriages (man and two or more women, woman and two or more men, men and children, women and children, people and animals, etcetera, ad nauseam [literally]) are unacceptable. Who are you, courts, to say certain people cannot get married? What if they feel like it, and are "in love"? You yourselves have eroded the basis for any such argument to the contrary, and you yourselves will pay, as you make American society pay. May Christ mercifully return before we have to reap the fruits of what we have sown. I fear, though, that we will find out how literal His words were meant to be.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
A good example of society organized by man against man is the recent decision in Massachusetts. Read Dennis Prager's column on this issue.
The implications of this quote are enlightening. Even if people are not Christians, as long as they believe that there is a "higher" ordering principle or even "force", they will not do things that will almost certainly be harmful to society (which is really only a certain group of men--yes, people, but I'm using the grammar of the quote). But once natural law has been dispatched, what can possibly restrain the lowest animal impulses of the human creature? We all have the capacity to be monsters. (No, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Bundy are not any less human than you or me.) Callous apathy and outright hostility toward the family in the form of freely granted divorce, domestic abuse, promiscuous sexuality without the security for any children produced, homosexuals exchanging of natural behavior for unnatural, and the homocide of defenseless babies; these (along with any other perversion that can be found in the back of tabloid newspapers) are the results of human people unrestrained by any notions of natural law put in place by a supernatural law-giver. We are indeed governed only by our feelings, and this cannot be inhibited by rational argument. It must be inhibited by the laws of this country. When the laws of this country give in to the "needs" of depraved human beings (that includes every one of us), there is nothing left between morality and pure instinct.
This does not, of course, mean that I think humans can be ultimately saved by observing such laws; however, such laws will prevent the spread of anarchy. This is for the good of those who have been taken out of slavery to themselves and given the freedom of slavery to Another, as well as for the good of those who may yet repent. Those who remain in slavery to themselves cannot help but do what their selves desire. And what they desire for themselves is necessarily in conflict with what their neighbors desire for themselves. Thus, anarchy necessarily follows unless limits are imposed on the freedom to pursue purely selfish desires. It is true that limits remain in this society, such as those imposed upon murderers, thieves, and any other type of criminal who is incarcerated. However, the limits that were formerly imposed on eligibility for marriage, adoption, parenting are being slowly but inevitably (it seems) eroded. As those are eroded, it seems clear enough that no logical or meaningful argument can be advanced as to why certain marriages (man and two or more women, woman and two or more men, men and children, women and children, people and animals, etcetera, ad nauseam [literally]) are unacceptable. Who are you, courts, to say certain people cannot get married? What if they feel like it, and are "in love"? You yourselves have eroded the basis for any such argument to the contrary, and you yourselves will pay, as you make American society pay. May Christ mercifully return before we have to reap the fruits of what we have sown. I fear, though, that we will find out how literal His words were meant to be.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Monday, February 09, 2004
From Christianity Today Online:
"As long as we're redefining marriage …
Can someone who supports last week's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court majority opinion on gay marriage make a case on why Carroll Ferdinandsen, must be jailed for his incestuous "marriage" with his 30-year-old daughter?
Last May, the Mobile Register reports, the couple were married in Mobile County Probate Court and arrested in July on incest charges." In December, a Mobile County Circuit judge voided the marriage, and last month Circuit Judge John Lockett released them with orders that they maintain separate residences. But when the Ferdinandsens were caught at a motel last Tuesday, mere weeks after their release from jail, they were arrested and charged with violating the terms of their probation.
So where are the screams about the government invading the bedroom? The Mobile Register reports, "Incestuous relationships are banned in all states because of concerns about child abuse and genetic mutations." Indeed, the former seems to be a particular concern here, where the couple also served time for abusing their pets.
But the Massachusetts high court has specifically dismissed concerns about child-rearing, saying they don't trump "the dignity and equality of all individuals."
"While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage," the court said in its November decision.
So if defining marriage as between a man and a woman is "invidious discrimination" (as the Massachusetts court said Wednesday), and if one cannot justify it on the basis of what's healthy for children nor on the basis of whether "the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral," (the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas), then why can't the Ferdinandsens marry? Why the "prejudice" against G. Lee Cook and other polygamists?
Why was it, again, that Rick Santorum got slammed for drawing these kinds of comparisons?"
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
"As long as we're redefining marriage …
Can someone who supports last week's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court majority opinion on gay marriage make a case on why Carroll Ferdinandsen, must be jailed for his incestuous "marriage" with his 30-year-old daughter?
Last May, the Mobile Register reports, the couple were married in Mobile County Probate Court and arrested in July on incest charges." In December, a Mobile County Circuit judge voided the marriage, and last month Circuit Judge John Lockett released them with orders that they maintain separate residences. But when the Ferdinandsens were caught at a motel last Tuesday, mere weeks after their release from jail, they were arrested and charged with violating the terms of their probation.
So where are the screams about the government invading the bedroom? The Mobile Register reports, "Incestuous relationships are banned in all states because of concerns about child abuse and genetic mutations." Indeed, the former seems to be a particular concern here, where the couple also served time for abusing their pets.
But the Massachusetts high court has specifically dismissed concerns about child-rearing, saying they don't trump "the dignity and equality of all individuals."
"While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage," the court said in its November decision.
So if defining marriage as between a man and a woman is "invidious discrimination" (as the Massachusetts court said Wednesday), and if one cannot justify it on the basis of what's healthy for children nor on the basis of whether "the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral," (the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas), then why can't the Ferdinandsens marry? Why the "prejudice" against G. Lee Cook and other polygamists?
Why was it, again, that Rick Santorum got slammed for drawing these kinds of comparisons?"
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Friday, February 06, 2004
Don't you love it when unelected officials (meaning "not chosen by the people") tell elected officials (meaning "chosen by the people") what to do? This is essentially "not the people" telling "the people" what to do. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court passed down its ruling, I was not surprised, necessarily, but if these judges are not impeached and thrown out of the court system, along with the rest of the judicial activists in this country, no cherished value of the majority of Americans will be safe. Someone needs to stop this now (George Bush), or there will be no devaluing left to stop. I am with Fr. Richard John Neuhaus in the journal First Things: if we do not put something in the Constitution saying that marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman, the deconstructors will find homosexual marriage in the Constitution. Following that, we will be playing catch-up just like we have for the last thirty years with Roe v. Wade. (Has anybody found the words "women shall have the unlimited right to kill their unborn children" in the Constitution yet?) They do not care what the Constitution does or does not say. They believe it is a "living" Constitution that should be beholden to the whims of lobbyists and international sentiment. The Constitution means, to them, whatever they want it to mean, and that means it means nothing to them. (Do you know what I mean?) Anyone who is against a Constitutional amendment is, in my mind, naive about the fact that these people do not play by the rules! If conservatives expect the liberals to play by the rules of not finding nonexistent things in the Constitution, we will lose every time. Get ready for any kind of "discrimination" against anyone or anything to be "un-Constitutional" (see post immediately below).
For more, reasoned analysis than the New York Times or Boston Globe, see here. Also, see what Ohio is doing about it. And see what at least one Catholic authority is saying here.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
For more, reasoned analysis than the New York Times or Boston Globe, see here. Also, see what Ohio is doing about it. And see what at least one Catholic authority is saying here.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Ach, Gott! Where do newspaper editors get their right to speak on certain issues? Not, it seems, from actual understanding of the issues. The Capital Times, which bills itself as "Wisconsin's progressive newspaper" (what else?), apparently can read the motives of new St. Louis Archbishop Burke, as well as those of Robert Morlino, of the Madison diocese. They think he would "be wise to choose a different course" than that of Burke. Why? Primarily because they think that the whole issue is about "political posturing." They think it has to do with advancing the "anti-abortion rights cause in western Wisconsin" (I don't know what the rights of anti-abortion would be)! Could it possibly, just possibly, be that Burke and Morlino care about the teachings of their church? No, that couldn't be it! Could it....?
Do they actually think that Burke and Morlino care about advancing a "cause"? Have they considered that Burke and Morlino might actually think abortion is murder, and even if they are not able to advance the cause imposed on them by The Capital Times, they might want to speak out against an unconscionable crime? No, of course they haven't considered that.
The religiously incompetent (and, perhaps, incontinent) editors then write:
"Creating the sort of controversy that would follow an order to refuse Communion to Catholic officeholders in a region where support for abortion rights is widespread would do little to advance Catholic teachings, and much to isolate Morlino from the community he seeks to serve." Well folks, there you have it. Morlino should forsake his church's teaching because it might isolate him and it might not "advance Catholic teachings." Well, what would advance Catholic teaching, according to The Capital Times? Apparently, ignoring them. You see how stupid this is. Just imagine for a moment if The Capital Times had been around in Jesus' day:
"Jesus has been creating controversy in and around Jerusalem today by claiming to actually be the Son of God. This will do little to advance his sect's understanding of Christianity, and it will do much to isolate him from the Jewish community that believes he speaks blasphemy." Cease and desist Jesus, and you too Bishop Morlino.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Do they actually think that Burke and Morlino care about advancing a "cause"? Have they considered that Burke and Morlino might actually think abortion is murder, and even if they are not able to advance the cause imposed on them by The Capital Times, they might want to speak out against an unconscionable crime? No, of course they haven't considered that.
The religiously incompetent (and, perhaps, incontinent) editors then write:
"Creating the sort of controversy that would follow an order to refuse Communion to Catholic officeholders in a region where support for abortion rights is widespread would do little to advance Catholic teachings, and much to isolate Morlino from the community he seeks to serve." Well folks, there you have it. Morlino should forsake his church's teaching because it might isolate him and it might not "advance Catholic teachings." Well, what would advance Catholic teaching, according to The Capital Times? Apparently, ignoring them. You see how stupid this is. Just imagine for a moment if The Capital Times had been around in Jesus' day:
"Jesus has been creating controversy in and around Jerusalem today by claiming to actually be the Son of God. This will do little to advance his sect's understanding of Christianity, and it will do much to isolate him from the Jewish community that believes he speaks blasphemy." Cease and desist Jesus, and you too Bishop Morlino.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
The future of religious tolerance in America can be found at this Belgian link.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
I should stop reading comments and commentary on Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ. I can usually tell by where an article is published whether I will agree or not (the New York Times, for example).
But there are two issues that have bothered me recently. One is the issue of violence in the movie. This issue has led most critics to denounce it as "Hollywood violence" or it has caused people to suddenly become morons, like Mark Stanger (I can't comment on his previous state of idiocy or non-idiocy) when he says blasphemously that "people dying of AIDS in Africa suffered more than Jesus did." What evidence do these people have that Christ's crucifixion wasn't as bloody as they say it is in the film (I haven't seen it yet)? But because it is Mel Gibson, they cannot take him at his word that he did research and wants to make it as authentic as possible. Usually you have to have evidence in order to impugn peoples' motives; not here apparently.
Second is the supposed anti-Semitism latent in the film. Others have argued more ably than I can on this topic, but think about how offensive this is to Christians. For Christians, the Bible is the sole source and norm of Christian doctrine. If the Bible says that Jews were involved in the killing of Christ, then they were. However, anti-Semitism can clearly not be based on this, since Christ was a Jew. (I know, I should be careful about what I think is obvious.) The whole problem with this comparison is that people like Paula Fredriksen in her column actually validate the depraved rantings of a small minority of people who call themselves Christians. Unable to distinguish, apparently, between white supremacists and Nazis, on the one hand, and Christians on the other, they make anti-Semitism inherent to the Scriptures. If people have used the Bible for their own bigoted beliefs, does that suddenly invalidate the telling of the story? The whole argument is ludicrous. As to whether Mel Gibson's dad or the woman's diary he uses are anti-Semitic, what does that have to do with it either? Guilt by association is the order of the day with these critics.
These are the same people who cannot distinguish between religious hatred and ethnic hatred of the Jews. For example, the "connection" between Luther and Hitler. Luther did indeed go too far in calling for the burning of Jewish holy books and their synagogues, so it may be justifiably called hatred. However, he did not hate Jews because they were ethnically Jewish. He was against their religion, and he can only be called anti-Semitic in the same way he can be called anti-papal, anti-Muslim and anti-fanatic. There is no distinction between those categories for Luther. They were all un-Christian, and that was his problem with them, not ethnicity. This is a twentiety century construct, and completely foreign to Luther.
So much for the digression, but I think it illustrates the absolutely illogical arguments that these people will use because Mel Gibson's movie is not politically correct enough for them (and how could it be, it's the Bible).
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
But there are two issues that have bothered me recently. One is the issue of violence in the movie. This issue has led most critics to denounce it as "Hollywood violence" or it has caused people to suddenly become morons, like Mark Stanger (I can't comment on his previous state of idiocy or non-idiocy) when he says blasphemously that "people dying of AIDS in Africa suffered more than Jesus did." What evidence do these people have that Christ's crucifixion wasn't as bloody as they say it is in the film (I haven't seen it yet)? But because it is Mel Gibson, they cannot take him at his word that he did research and wants to make it as authentic as possible. Usually you have to have evidence in order to impugn peoples' motives; not here apparently.
Second is the supposed anti-Semitism latent in the film. Others have argued more ably than I can on this topic, but think about how offensive this is to Christians. For Christians, the Bible is the sole source and norm of Christian doctrine. If the Bible says that Jews were involved in the killing of Christ, then they were. However, anti-Semitism can clearly not be based on this, since Christ was a Jew. (I know, I should be careful about what I think is obvious.) The whole problem with this comparison is that people like Paula Fredriksen in her column actually validate the depraved rantings of a small minority of people who call themselves Christians. Unable to distinguish, apparently, between white supremacists and Nazis, on the one hand, and Christians on the other, they make anti-Semitism inherent to the Scriptures. If people have used the Bible for their own bigoted beliefs, does that suddenly invalidate the telling of the story? The whole argument is ludicrous. As to whether Mel Gibson's dad or the woman's diary he uses are anti-Semitic, what does that have to do with it either? Guilt by association is the order of the day with these critics.
These are the same people who cannot distinguish between religious hatred and ethnic hatred of the Jews. For example, the "connection" between Luther and Hitler. Luther did indeed go too far in calling for the burning of Jewish holy books and their synagogues, so it may be justifiably called hatred. However, he did not hate Jews because they were ethnically Jewish. He was against their religion, and he can only be called anti-Semitic in the same way he can be called anti-papal, anti-Muslim and anti-fanatic. There is no distinction between those categories for Luther. They were all un-Christian, and that was his problem with them, not ethnicity. This is a twentiety century construct, and completely foreign to Luther.
So much for the digression, but I think it illustrates the absolutely illogical arguments that these people will use because Mel Gibson's movie is not politically correct enough for them (and how could it be, it's the Bible).
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
If you have ever visited this page and tried to e-mail me from the link on the left, try again. I just realized it was broken. Thanks.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
To understand how deeply the Planned Parenthood mentality has penetrated our culture, take the case of Gretchen Voss, telling her story in the Boston Globe. I empathize with her emotional state at finding out that her child would likely not live long after birth. My wife and I just had our first ultrasound, and I cannot imagine what it would be like to find out that our child had a life-threatening defect. But here's the problem: she writes that she felt like she was going to meet her executioner. Well, she didn't meet her executioner, but her baby met his or hers.
I would never presume to say that her choice was not hard. She convinced me that it was. However, when, in the history of civilized peoples, has killing ever been considered an option for getting out of a hard choice? I'm sorry, but at this point, I lose my compassion--not for her, but for the choice she made. So the baby may die if she carries it to term; that's a reason for killing it now? The baby may require surgeries to correct some defects; that's a reason for getting out of those circumstances by means of killing your own baby? These types of hard cases really bring it home that all these people are doing is playing God. God is the one who decides which of us continues to live or which of us dies. If He were to remove His hand from any of us, we would cease to exist. Yet, we think that we know better than God. If God would have that child live, who are we to think that we should thwart His plan (not that it could ever really be thwarted)? What inconceivable hubris it must be in the sight of God, to arrogate divine authority to ourselves.
I can say without any doubt in my mind that I would never kill my child, regardless of who told me I could, even "my Catholic father and my Republican father-in-law," as if permission lessens the crime.
The final comment on this heart-breaking story is that it is clear whose agenda is being pushed: not the woman's or the baby's but Planned Parenthood. Lest anything interfere with the absolute, unlimited murder license granted to mothers in this country, they will do anything to prevent it--even if it means co-opting a mother's pain for their own profit.
People will probably call Ms. Voss brave. But brave is going against what every other person tells you, if they are wrong, and doing the right thing. That is brave, and Ms. Voss did not do that.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
I would never presume to say that her choice was not hard. She convinced me that it was. However, when, in the history of civilized peoples, has killing ever been considered an option for getting out of a hard choice? I'm sorry, but at this point, I lose my compassion--not for her, but for the choice she made. So the baby may die if she carries it to term; that's a reason for killing it now? The baby may require surgeries to correct some defects; that's a reason for getting out of those circumstances by means of killing your own baby? These types of hard cases really bring it home that all these people are doing is playing God. God is the one who decides which of us continues to live or which of us dies. If He were to remove His hand from any of us, we would cease to exist. Yet, we think that we know better than God. If God would have that child live, who are we to think that we should thwart His plan (not that it could ever really be thwarted)? What inconceivable hubris it must be in the sight of God, to arrogate divine authority to ourselves.
I can say without any doubt in my mind that I would never kill my child, regardless of who told me I could, even "my Catholic father and my Republican father-in-law," as if permission lessens the crime.
The final comment on this heart-breaking story is that it is clear whose agenda is being pushed: not the woman's or the baby's but Planned Parenthood. Lest anything interfere with the absolute, unlimited murder license granted to mothers in this country, they will do anything to prevent it--even if it means co-opting a mother's pain for their own profit.
People will probably call Ms. Voss brave. But brave is going against what every other person tells you, if they are wrong, and doing the right thing. That is brave, and Ms. Voss did not do that.
Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com
Countries I've visited:
create your own visited country map or write about it on the open travel guide States I've visited:
create your own personalized map of the USA or write about it on the open travel guide
