Catholic bishops will fight Obama on abortion
By RACHEL ZOLL AP Religion Writer
BALTIMORE—The nation's Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.
In an impassioned discussion on Catholics in public life, several bishops said they would accept no compromise on abortion policy. Many condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back President-elect Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.
And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights.
"I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church," Martino said. The Obama-Biden press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
and from Catholic World News:
Bishop DiMarzio: ‘Faithful Citizenship’ misinterpreted
November 11, 2008
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn-- who oversaw the drafting of the US bishops’ 2007 statement on Catholics' political responsibilities, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,-- said yesterday that the document had been misinterpreted and misused. The statement, which initially won praise for emphasizing the centrality of the defense of human life and distinguishing instrinsic evils from more prudential political issues, was used as the basis for the Dallas and Fort Worth bishops’ October statement that ‘to vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or ‘abortion rights’ when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil-- and, therefore, morally impermissible.’ In recent weeks, however, the document has come under criticism from Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, and from Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, who says, ‘It didn’t and doesn’t work.’ Bishop DiMarzio also dismissed the notion that Catholics should simply seek to reduce abortion rather than work to make it to illegal. ‘Would it be OK if we just tried to reduce slavery?’ he asked.
This is quite true. I've spoken to people who vote for the infanticide-enabler Barack Obama based on the "Faithful Citizenship" document.
Rocco at Whispers in the Loggia has much more.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Border Pardon
I have sent this message to President Bush:
I ask that you pardon former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. These law enforcement agents have been in prison for more than 2 years.
Illegal alien Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was smuggling over 700 pounds of marijuana into the US when Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean attempted to stop him. A physical altercation ensued and Aldrete-Davila ran toward the border resulting in a foot pursuit and the pointing of an object at the agents by the fleeing suspect. Fearing they were about to be shot the agents protected themselves as they have been trained to do.
May this travesty of justice be reversed!
I ask that you pardon former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. These law enforcement agents have been in prison for more than 2 years.
Illegal alien Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was smuggling over 700 pounds of marijuana into the US when Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean attempted to stop him. A physical altercation ensued and Aldrete-Davila ran toward the border resulting in a foot pursuit and the pointing of an object at the agents by the fleeing suspect. Fearing they were about to be shot the agents protected themselves as they have been trained to do.
May this travesty of justice be reversed!
Gay Activists Shove Old Lady Around, Trample Cross
The little old lady is named Phyllis Burgess. She's pressing charges, as well she should. I love her:
"Despite the attack, Burgess plans to attend future gay marriage rallies. 'To get my remarks across at my city hall where I have lived for 30 years .... if it takes endangerment, should that stop me?' says Burgess with a smile."
And VirtueOnline comments on our mainstream totalitarian media:
"The worst example we've seen of TV reporting on Prop. 8 protests came from the local CBS station in Palm Springs, Calif. On the grounds of City Hall, furious "gay" protesters knocked a Christian cross out of an elderly woman's hands and stomped on it. The woman remained calm and collected. When reporter Kimberly Chang tried to interview her, protesters screamed and blocked the camera with their signs. Hilariously, the station identified the victimized woman as "Phyllis Burgess, Involved in Prop 8 Rally Altercation." That's like saying Poland was involved in a border altercation with Nazi Germany. In a masterpiece of moral equivalence, CBS anchor Kris Long told viewers, "There's a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."
h/t Mark Shea
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Gay Activists Disrupt Church Services
From "City Pulse" in Lansing, Michigan:
"A gay anarchist group infiltrated the Mt. Hope Church in Eaton County Sunday morning, disrupting a service by pulling a fire alarm, dropping leaflets and yelling at parishioners, a pastor said.
The group, Bash Back, was simultaneously picketing outside the church, beating on buckets and using a megaphone to shout “Jesus was a homo” and other slogans as confused churchgoers continued to enter the building."
More about the disruption here.
H/T Instapundit.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"A gay anarchist group infiltrated the Mt. Hope Church in Eaton County Sunday morning, disrupting a service by pulling a fire alarm, dropping leaflets and yelling at parishioners, a pastor said.
The group, Bash Back, was simultaneously picketing outside the church, beating on buckets and using a megaphone to shout “Jesus was a homo” and other slogans as confused churchgoers continued to enter the building."
More about the disruption here.
H/T Instapundit.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Cardinal George on the Common Good
Francis Cardinal George, OMI, speaking at the Bishop's Conference:
"The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice. If the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that African Americans were other people’s property and somehow less than persons were still settled constitutional law, Mr. Obama would not be president of the United States. Today, as was the case a hundred and fifty years ago, common ground cannot be found by destroying the common good."
His Eminence's full address can be read here.
h/t The Catholic Key
"The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice. If the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that African Americans were other people’s property and somehow less than persons were still settled constitutional law, Mr. Obama would not be president of the United States. Today, as was the case a hundred and fifty years ago, common ground cannot be found by destroying the common good."
His Eminence's full address can be read here.
h/t The Catholic Key
Proposition 8: The State, Rights, and Duties.
An excellent and timely homily, given yesterday, by our friend Fr. Anselm Ramelow, O.P.
Fr. Anselm is a Dominican Priest and Professor of Philosophy at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology here in the Bay Area.
Homily on feast of St. Leo the Great
I.
As you are perfectly aware, the success of Prop. 8 caused a lot of rebellion in this city; yesterday a group was demonstrating in front of the Cathedral, shouting obscenities, today there are demonstrations in various parts of California. Opponents still claim that “gay marriage” is a matter of rights, and they try to override Proposition 8 again, against the majority vote.
Since you will not get the Catholic position from the San Francisco Chronicle (at most they will give you a report on Catholic dissent), let me try to say something tonight (St. Leo the Great would certainly approve of this message).
II.
The first thing is to let you know as Catholics about the teaching of the Church. Her perpetual teaching regarding homosexuality has not changed and indeed cannot and will not change. To give you one clear statement, I am quoting n. 2357 of the CCC:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The Catechism gives several scripture references; I will only quote the passage from the first chapter of Romans to you, which relates this topic to the idolatry of pagan Rome, i.e. to a darkened sense of who God is (be prepared for some strong language; this is the word of God, though, and we need to hear it):
20 Ever since the creation of the world, his (God’s) invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. 24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
What does this mean? It means that sexuality cannot be divorced from our view of God. As John Paul II has explained in his theology of the body, the family and the sexual complementarity of man and woman are an image of the Trinity itself. When God says: let us make man in our image and likeness and: male and female he made them, then we are invited to see divine and sacred things in sexual relations. In the New Testament, marriage can therefore be elevated to a sacrament, reflecting the fertile relationship between Christ and his bride the Church; the Eucharist itself is the marriage banquet that celebrates our salvation.
By contrast, if we follow St. Paul’s thought, then he is saying that homosexual relationships do not express this, but that they are rather proclaiming a totally different god, demon or idol.
While this is the understanding of the Catholic faith, it is not a matter of mere faith that we would impose on other people, but something that also follows from pure reason and the natural law: “gay marriage” in so far as it claims to be marriage, is about sexual acts. I.e., it is not about the love of friendship. That kind of love, the love of friendship, can, of course, exist in all sorts of relationships. Nobody denies that this will be a genuine good, but it is not marriage. The love of marriage on the other hand is of a different kind in that it integrates these aspects into a sexual relationship. It forms a bond of a very different kind than that between friends, or parents and children, or grandparents, or caretakers and those entrusted to them.
Sexual acts by their nature are designed to produce offspring. Homosexual acts cannot do that, even though they are using the organs of procreation. In other words, it is an improper use of these organs. It can certainly never represent their normal function and intended situation. This is obvious for anyone who believes that this world and our bodies and their organs were created purposefully by an intelligent and loving God.
But it is even obvious to those who deny this, i.e. those who say that everything is the outcome of random mutation and natural selection; even Darwinists would agree that sexual organs are made for procreation.
Now the state has neither right nor duty nor interest to be involved in marriage, except because marriage is the place where future generations and citizens originate. In other words: the state is involved in marriage, because marriage is procreative. “Gay marriage” by its nature does not do that; it therefore has no more claim to special political recognition than any other kind of partnership, as for example grandparents living with their grandchildren or caretakers – for these there is no marriage either, even though they might feel love and affection for each other as well.
III.
Now I am perfectly aware that there is a growing number of countries in this world, in which I would be thrown into jail for saying this, i.e. for preaching the faith of the Church. Go and try saying this, for example, in Sweden, Canada or Colombia. Without Proposition 8, this might become an issue in California as well. Broadcasting licenses for Catholic radio stations, for example, would be revoked, if they would present this Catholic position. Also, conscientious objection to hosting gay events or marriages or renting space for such occasions, or even declining to be professional photographers at these events will be impossible. Already now courts have fined photographers and others for their conscientious objection.
What that means is: Proposition 8 is not about the rights of gay people, but about our rights of free speech and conscientious objection.
Teachers at public schools, for example, do already have to teach children about the equality of gay relationships (Senate Bill 777). But surely no Catholic teacher can comply with this; rather, today’s Gospel would speak to this situation:
“Things that cause sin will inevitably occur,but woe to the one through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neckand he be thrown into the seathan for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Be on your guard!"
Without Proposition 8, this situation would extend even to Catholic schools, which would otherwise lose their accreditation.
How about teaching your very own children? You cannot refrain from warning your children about false ideas about sexuality and the implied practices. Would you not scream, if you see your children running out on the street, into the moving traffic and being run over? Would you not defy anyone who tries to stop you from rescuing your child, just because it is not politically correct, or because others choose to claim as their right to run out into the moving traffic without looking?
IV.
Catholics do believe that there is that deathly traffic out there; and much worse than this, because that kind of traffic only kills the body. In other words: we do indeed believe that there is a hell and we do believe that homosexual acts would lead you there.
We therefore have not only the right but the duty to warn people about the danger they are putting themselves in. It should be a matter of charity and care to do so, not an act of hatred or homophobia. It is in fact the very teaching of the Church that rejects persecution of people with a homosexual orientation. Let me quote from the Catechism again:
2358. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them 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.
There are, by the way, many people with same-sex attraction trying to live in this way, with the help of support groups like “Courage”, to whom I am actually one of the chaplains. We might also want to think, what we would be saying to people who are making this effort, if we were to advocate gay marriage: are we telling them that they are actually fools for trying to live according to the Gospel?
We certainly do not want to do that, as little as we want to discriminate people for their sexual orientation. But notice that the Church can say this without therefore implying a “right to marriage”, which is by its nature impossible. Much of what gay people are seeking can already be taken care of by civil union as it is. Any step beyond this would make claims on the rights of other parties involved, not the least those of children.
In other words, we are not here to take away any genuine rights or to insult anyone. But we are here to defend our own rights:
1) the right to disagree, i.e. the right to believe otherwise and to say so;
2) the right to defend the salvation of our own souls through conscientious objection;
3) the right to warn those entrusted to us, the faithful in the Church and the children at home or in our schools, through the exercise of free speech;
4) and last, but by no means least, the right to be concerned for our brothers and sisters with same sex-attraction, who are endangering themselves, and whom we want to warn, so that they can be with us one day with God in heaven.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Fr. Anselm is a Dominican Priest and Professor of Philosophy at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology here in the Bay Area.
Homily on feast of St. Leo the Great
I.
As you are perfectly aware, the success of Prop. 8 caused a lot of rebellion in this city; yesterday a group was demonstrating in front of the Cathedral, shouting obscenities, today there are demonstrations in various parts of California. Opponents still claim that “gay marriage” is a matter of rights, and they try to override Proposition 8 again, against the majority vote.
Since you will not get the Catholic position from the San Francisco Chronicle (at most they will give you a report on Catholic dissent), let me try to say something tonight (St. Leo the Great would certainly approve of this message).
II.
The first thing is to let you know as Catholics about the teaching of the Church. Her perpetual teaching regarding homosexuality has not changed and indeed cannot and will not change. To give you one clear statement, I am quoting n. 2357 of the CCC:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The Catechism gives several scripture references; I will only quote the passage from the first chapter of Romans to you, which relates this topic to the idolatry of pagan Rome, i.e. to a darkened sense of who God is (be prepared for some strong language; this is the word of God, though, and we need to hear it):
20 Ever since the creation of the world, his (God’s) invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. 24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
What does this mean? It means that sexuality cannot be divorced from our view of God. As John Paul II has explained in his theology of the body, the family and the sexual complementarity of man and woman are an image of the Trinity itself. When God says: let us make man in our image and likeness and: male and female he made them, then we are invited to see divine and sacred things in sexual relations. In the New Testament, marriage can therefore be elevated to a sacrament, reflecting the fertile relationship between Christ and his bride the Church; the Eucharist itself is the marriage banquet that celebrates our salvation.
By contrast, if we follow St. Paul’s thought, then he is saying that homosexual relationships do not express this, but that they are rather proclaiming a totally different god, demon or idol.
While this is the understanding of the Catholic faith, it is not a matter of mere faith that we would impose on other people, but something that also follows from pure reason and the natural law: “gay marriage” in so far as it claims to be marriage, is about sexual acts. I.e., it is not about the love of friendship. That kind of love, the love of friendship, can, of course, exist in all sorts of relationships. Nobody denies that this will be a genuine good, but it is not marriage. The love of marriage on the other hand is of a different kind in that it integrates these aspects into a sexual relationship. It forms a bond of a very different kind than that between friends, or parents and children, or grandparents, or caretakers and those entrusted to them.
Sexual acts by their nature are designed to produce offspring. Homosexual acts cannot do that, even though they are using the organs of procreation. In other words, it is an improper use of these organs. It can certainly never represent their normal function and intended situation. This is obvious for anyone who believes that this world and our bodies and their organs were created purposefully by an intelligent and loving God.
But it is even obvious to those who deny this, i.e. those who say that everything is the outcome of random mutation and natural selection; even Darwinists would agree that sexual organs are made for procreation.
Now the state has neither right nor duty nor interest to be involved in marriage, except because marriage is the place where future generations and citizens originate. In other words: the state is involved in marriage, because marriage is procreative. “Gay marriage” by its nature does not do that; it therefore has no more claim to special political recognition than any other kind of partnership, as for example grandparents living with their grandchildren or caretakers – for these there is no marriage either, even though they might feel love and affection for each other as well.
III.
Now I am perfectly aware that there is a growing number of countries in this world, in which I would be thrown into jail for saying this, i.e. for preaching the faith of the Church. Go and try saying this, for example, in Sweden, Canada or Colombia. Without Proposition 8, this might become an issue in California as well. Broadcasting licenses for Catholic radio stations, for example, would be revoked, if they would present this Catholic position. Also, conscientious objection to hosting gay events or marriages or renting space for such occasions, or even declining to be professional photographers at these events will be impossible. Already now courts have fined photographers and others for their conscientious objection.
What that means is: Proposition 8 is not about the rights of gay people, but about our rights of free speech and conscientious objection.
Teachers at public schools, for example, do already have to teach children about the equality of gay relationships (Senate Bill 777). But surely no Catholic teacher can comply with this; rather, today’s Gospel would speak to this situation:
“Things that cause sin will inevitably occur,but woe to the one through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neckand he be thrown into the seathan for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Be on your guard!"
Without Proposition 8, this situation would extend even to Catholic schools, which would otherwise lose their accreditation.
How about teaching your very own children? You cannot refrain from warning your children about false ideas about sexuality and the implied practices. Would you not scream, if you see your children running out on the street, into the moving traffic and being run over? Would you not defy anyone who tries to stop you from rescuing your child, just because it is not politically correct, or because others choose to claim as their right to run out into the moving traffic without looking?
IV.
Catholics do believe that there is that deathly traffic out there; and much worse than this, because that kind of traffic only kills the body. In other words: we do indeed believe that there is a hell and we do believe that homosexual acts would lead you there.
We therefore have not only the right but the duty to warn people about the danger they are putting themselves in. It should be a matter of charity and care to do so, not an act of hatred or homophobia. It is in fact the very teaching of the Church that rejects persecution of people with a homosexual orientation. Let me quote from the Catechism again:
2358. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them 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.
There are, by the way, many people with same-sex attraction trying to live in this way, with the help of support groups like “Courage”, to whom I am actually one of the chaplains. We might also want to think, what we would be saying to people who are making this effort, if we were to advocate gay marriage: are we telling them that they are actually fools for trying to live according to the Gospel?
We certainly do not want to do that, as little as we want to discriminate people for their sexual orientation. But notice that the Church can say this without therefore implying a “right to marriage”, which is by its nature impossible. Much of what gay people are seeking can already be taken care of by civil union as it is. Any step beyond this would make claims on the rights of other parties involved, not the least those of children.
In other words, we are not here to take away any genuine rights or to insult anyone. But we are here to defend our own rights:
1) the right to disagree, i.e. the right to believe otherwise and to say so;
2) the right to defend the salvation of our own souls through conscientious objection;
3) the right to warn those entrusted to us, the faithful in the Church and the children at home or in our schools, through the exercise of free speech;
4) and last, but by no means least, the right to be concerned for our brothers and sisters with same sex-attraction, who are endangering themselves, and whom we want to warn, so that they can be with us one day with God in heaven.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The Party of Death Gets Down To It
Well, "Catholics" for Obama, you didn't have to wait long.
From today's Washington Post:
Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions
Stem Cell, Climate Rules Among Targets of President-Elect's Team
Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team...
Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's. (This statement attributed to unnamed "scientists" is utterly false. The biggest names in the field, such as Professor Ian Wilmot who cloned Dolly the sheep and James Thomson, who first isolated embryonic stem-cells. have abandoned embryonic stem-cell research because it's fruitless. They are now using other techniques which actually work).
But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama's final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.
The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.
"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."
It's no surprise that Planned Parenthood wants more abortions in the third world. It's a little surprising that a President-Elect of African descent would go along with it.
What is also rationally inexplicable is the push for more embryonic stem-cell research, when every single medical treatment and advance has been made using adult stem cells.
While not rationally explicable, the grandiose claims made by the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research can, however, be understood as an outlet for the terrible pressures felt by women who have had abortions and by the men and women who have enabled abortion. The desperate hope for some sort of transcendental "cures" derived from human embryos is needed as a psychological solace for the killing of the unborn child. The hope is that maybe if some terrible disease is cured using embryonic stem-cells, that will somehow justify the decision to kill the unborn child. That's why they continue to support ESCR instead of adult stem-cell research, despite the fact that all the cures come through adult stem-cells.
h/t Threshing Grain
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
From today's Washington Post:
Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions
Stem Cell, Climate Rules Among Targets of President-Elect's Team
Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team...
Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's. (This statement attributed to unnamed "scientists" is utterly false. The biggest names in the field, such as Professor Ian Wilmot who cloned Dolly the sheep and James Thomson, who first isolated embryonic stem-cells. have abandoned embryonic stem-cell research because it's fruitless. They are now using other techniques which actually work).
But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama's final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.
The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.
"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."
It's no surprise that Planned Parenthood wants more abortions in the third world. It's a little surprising that a President-Elect of African descent would go along with it.
What is also rationally inexplicable is the push for more embryonic stem-cell research, when every single medical treatment and advance has been made using adult stem cells.
While not rationally explicable, the grandiose claims made by the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research can, however, be understood as an outlet for the terrible pressures felt by women who have had abortions and by the men and women who have enabled abortion. The desperate hope for some sort of transcendental "cures" derived from human embryos is needed as a psychological solace for the killing of the unborn child. The hope is that maybe if some terrible disease is cured using embryonic stem-cells, that will somehow justify the decision to kill the unborn child. That's why they continue to support ESCR instead of adult stem-cell research, despite the fact that all the cures come through adult stem-cells.
h/t Threshing Grain
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Nice Work If You Can Get It!
One thing, the Obama presidency will apparently have it's funny aspects.
Many people have commented on the President-Elect's mandatory "Requirement" for college students to perform community service:
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
That was what Obama's webpage said until reactions to this rather fascistic program forced his disciples to change it. But what the proposal also says is those consripted students will get a tax credit of $4,000 for 100 hours of "community service"--$40 per hour! Nice work if you can get it! (I wonder what our troops earn?)
The whole issue, including the original proposal, the changed proposal removing the "required" clause, and the $40 per hour for "work" done by a cllege student is covered at "NewsBusters."
H/T "View From the Right"
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Many people have commented on the President-Elect's mandatory "Requirement" for college students to perform community service:
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
That was what Obama's webpage said until reactions to this rather fascistic program forced his disciples to change it. But what the proposal also says is those consripted students will get a tax credit of $4,000 for 100 hours of "community service"--$40 per hour! Nice work if you can get it! (I wonder what our troops earn?)
The whole issue, including the original proposal, the changed proposal removing the "required" clause, and the $40 per hour for "work" done by a cllege student is covered at "NewsBusters."
H/T "View From the Right"
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Pelosi to Voters: "You're Idiots"
From today's San Francisco Chronicle:
Pelosi says voters misunderstood Prop. 8
"Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," the San Francisco Democrat said. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."
Pelosi says voters misunderstood Prop. 8
"Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," the San Francisco Democrat said. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."
Yeah. It was so difficult to grasp:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
And of course nobody was aware that the California Supreme Court, by a 4-3 margin had redefined "marriage" so as to include same-sex couples. That wasn't in the news at all. Nor did anyone know that these "marriages" had actually taken place. Not a word about it in the press.
His Excellency Archbishop Niederauer still has an open invitation extended to Speaker Pelosi. He invited her to visit so that he could make sure she understood the Church's teaching on abortion, one of the Church's non-negotiable issue. Perhaps he could add the defense of natural marriage, which is another non-negotiable issue, to the agenda.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obamian "Nuance" & Media Enabling
We're redistributing an entire post from Carl Olsen over at Ignatius Insight:
Word of the Day
nuance: nu·ance (nōō'äns', nyōō'-, nōō-äns', nyōō-) : n. A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation. Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.
An example of usage, courtesy of the Associated Press, in a story titled, "Gay activists jarred by California marriage defeat" (Nov. 5, 2008):
Obama had a nuanced position on the issue, saying he opposes gay marriage while also speaking out against Proposition 8.
Granting that Proposition 8 is an incredibly complicated and lengthy initiative measure (5 whole sentences) and has lots of big words ("California," for example), I suppose it's possible to have a nuanced position regarding it. The proposition states:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
So...the president-elect is against gay (homosexual) marriage but also against defining marriage as between a man and woman (heterosexual marriage).
Hmmmm. Perhaps the reporters confused this word with "nuance."
On reading Carl's funny post, I noticed that The One's seemingly contradictory statements in the article cease to be contradictory if he opposes same-sex "marriage" but supports polygamy...
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Word of the Day
nuance: nu·ance (nōō'äns', nyōō'-, nōō-äns', nyōō-) : n. A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation. Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.
An example of usage, courtesy of the Associated Press, in a story titled, "Gay activists jarred by California marriage defeat" (Nov. 5, 2008):
Obama had a nuanced position on the issue, saying he opposes gay marriage while also speaking out against Proposition 8.
Granting that Proposition 8 is an incredibly complicated and lengthy initiative measure (5 whole sentences) and has lots of big words ("California," for example), I suppose it's possible to have a nuanced position regarding it. The proposition states:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
So...the president-elect is against gay (homosexual) marriage but also against defining marriage as between a man and woman (heterosexual marriage).
Hmmmm. Perhaps the reporters confused this word with "nuance."
On reading Carl's funny post, I noticed that The One's seemingly contradictory statements in the article cease to be contradictory if he opposes same-sex "marriage" but supports polygamy...
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
FIGHT the "Freedom of Choice Act"
President-Elect Obama has pledged, as his first act in office to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act."
This legislation, if passed would invalidate every law placing ANY restrictions on abortion. It would require you and me to pay for federal funding for abortion. The time to fight this is RIGHT NOW!
"Americans United for Life" has a new website set up for this purpose. Go to
http://www.fightfoca.com/
to sign their petition, learn more, and donate to this critical cause. We will have a link to the Fight Foca" website on our right sidebar until this battle is won.
This legislation, if passed would invalidate every law placing ANY restrictions on abortion. It would require you and me to pay for federal funding for abortion. The time to fight this is RIGHT NOW!
"Americans United for Life" has a new website set up for this purpose. Go to
http://www.fightfoca.com/
to sign their petition, learn more, and donate to this critical cause. We will have a link to the Fight Foca" website on our right sidebar until this battle is won.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Gay Activists Sue to Overturn Will of People
Once again same-sex "marriage" activists seek to thwart the will of the people. As we said this morning, they have maintained their perfect record: zero wins whenever the people have a chance to have they say. Now they are arguing that yesterday's resounding victory for marriage is irrelevant.
It's hardly newsworthy except inasmuch as it is another example of the narcissistic contempt they feel for the common good and for this funny comment by Andrew Pugno, the General Counsel for "Protect Marriage--Yes on 8":
"The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity."
It's hardly newsworthy except inasmuch as it is another example of the narcissistic contempt they feel for the common good and for this funny comment by Andrew Pugno, the General Counsel for "Protect Marriage--Yes on 8":
"The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
