May God help us and convert Carhart's heart to see his victims as precious images of God. It can take only one Big Fish to start many more on the conversion path away from abortion killing.
01 April 2011
Prolifers Across the Parking Lot from Carhart
(Dr) Leroy Carhart, the infamous late term abortionist now has his serial murdering business in Maryland (perhaps the most liberal state in the US). MD Coalition for Life is moving in across the parking lot from Carhart tomorrow at 2:30.
May God help us and convert Carhart's heart to see his victims as precious images of God. It can take only one Big Fish to start many more on the conversion path away from abortion killing.
May God help us and convert Carhart's heart to see his victims as precious images of God. It can take only one Big Fish to start many more on the conversion path away from abortion killing.
21 March 2011
Prolife Coexist Bumper Sticker MD Coexist I Stickervoice.com
They're at Stickervoice.com
(click on the images below for larger versions)
UPDATE 7/29/2011:
I have a Pro-life Coexist T-shirt. I'll have to take a picture of it soon. Below is a picture from the website:
(Click here for a PDF of the Pro-life Coexist T-shirt.)
Archbishop Dolan on 60 Minutes
I watched the (Roman Catholic) Archbishop of N.Y. Dolan on 60 Minutes last night. Of course, a great deal of the interview was about the sex abuse scandals. Another focus in the interview was about the image that the Church was a stern, old fashioned relic of the puritan past. It's all about world views as AB Dolan said:
He said in 1:41 to the end above, "The Catholic Church is all about one big ringing yes! It's an affirmation of all that is beautiful and noble and uplifting and exiting and liberating in the human drama."
This is opposed to the "double no" that he talks about later in the video above. When the world puts forth a no to the dignity of the human person, the Church says no, which tries to ultimately make the world better.
May God bless AB Dolan and my AB O'Brien. Two Irish AB's leading the Church at a tumultuous time in the US.
I'm in one world. You're in the other. I'm glad you're visitin'.This last focus reminded me of an interview of AB Dolan on wordonfire2 on Youtube.
He said in 1:41 to the end above, "The Catholic Church is all about one big ringing yes! It's an affirmation of all that is beautiful and noble and uplifting and exiting and liberating in the human drama."
This is opposed to the "double no" that he talks about later in the video above. When the world puts forth a no to the dignity of the human person, the Church says no, which tries to ultimately make the world better.
May God bless AB Dolan and my AB O'Brien. Two Irish AB's leading the Church at a tumultuous time in the US.
26 February 2011
Orthodoxy Review
Orthodoxy by G.K. ChestertonMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
The argumentation in many sections of this book seems to come out of right field (yes, that's right), but it oh so nicely lands on target on his point.
The references to Quakerism (The Inner Light) and Buddhism were very apropos as well as his pity of the moderns. To him, pre-modern civilization is justifiably seen as the reincarnation of pre-"Christendom" (he doesn't use "pre-modern", only "modern").
His treatise on original sin is more expounded upon than in his St. Francis of Assisi that digs out and deepens my understanding of the doctrine.
He really does lay down the case that Christian orthodoxy is more liberating than the modern notion of freedom.
As I have said before with Chesterton's St. Francis of Assisi, Chesterton is supposedly hard to read, but I found that this is not the case with this book either. It's too bad that people don't read Chesterton as much as CS Lewis (as I have seen) since Chesterton really hits his points with real panache.
View all my reviews
10 February 2011
Maryland SB 119 Reflection I
I thought it prudent that my reflections of MD SB 119, "Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act" should be broken up so that each post was short and focused on one or a few connected points. These reflections are points that came and still come to mind as I listened to and reflect(ed) on most of the oral testimony for and against the bill.
To start it off, it was interesting how the different religious people gave their points for or against the bill. The Unitarian gave valentines to the Committee Senators. The Black Protestant Ministers for and against sounded like Dr. King in how they started low and calm while ending up loud and energetic, while the Catholic Religious and Ordained were calm and collected.
The one thing that really bothered me was when a Catholic Sister in habit came up and defended the bill. The Religious read a statement from a Priest that couldn't make it. After looking around the internet, I wonder if it was Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND of New Ways Ministries (based in Mount Rainier, Maryland) of which I spoke before. She said that there was "debate" within the Catholic Lay Community about what to do regarding bills like this one.
I understand that there can be debate within the Catholic Community. It has been said that young people "'believe that doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Mary as the mother of God, Christ's real presence in the Eucharist and the need to be concerned about the poor are more important than teachings such as the need to limit the priesthood to men, the need for priestly celibacy, the church's opposition to artificial birth control and its opposition to the death penalty.'" However, instead of it being either/or, why can't it be both/and (please, please have a listen here; a good doctor reveals both good and bad). Catholicism is a big YES! about freedom unless it is to say "no" to "another 'no' that negates the dignity of the human person" (see after 1:53 here).
Further, I know that we moderns hate more than anything else the concept of authority, including many if not the majority of Catholics (unfortunately). However, Catholic Tradition, Scripture, and Vatican II assert that the Catholic Faithful are to be in unity with the local Bishop. In Maryland, as far as I understand it, the Archbishop of Baltimore is for upholding the real meaning of marriage in law. However, groups like New Ways Ministries have confused the faithful and divided us away from our Shepherd Archbishop.
Those in power know groups like New Ways Ministries can scatter the Catholic Flock, the Body of Christ. If they can get the Catholic Church to be divided, they can get what they want (Sor*os, Gat*es, Roc*kefeller, For*d, etc.); they pour in money to "Catholic" organizations (and politicians/political parties).
For those in power, the only morals are those that make it possible to get what they want (read Saul Alinsky). However, I believe that the Catholic Church reveals the truth that is given by the Holy Spirit. The Bishop should unite all the faithful together for all that is right. The wolves come to destroy that unity.
May we pray, worship, and publicly act as Jesus has called us to do through the one True Gospel. Amen.
To start it off, it was interesting how the different religious people gave their points for or against the bill. The Unitarian gave valentines to the Committee Senators. The Black Protestant Ministers for and against sounded like Dr. King in how they started low and calm while ending up loud and energetic, while the Catholic Religious and Ordained were calm and collected.
The one thing that really bothered me was when a Catholic Sister in habit came up and defended the bill. The Religious read a statement from a Priest that couldn't make it. After looking around the internet, I wonder if it was Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND of New Ways Ministries (based in Mount Rainier, Maryland) of which I spoke before. She said that there was "debate" within the Catholic Lay Community about what to do regarding bills like this one.
I understand that there can be debate within the Catholic Community. It has been said that young people "'believe that doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Mary as the mother of God, Christ's real presence in the Eucharist and the need to be concerned about the poor are more important than teachings such as the need to limit the priesthood to men, the need for priestly celibacy, the church's opposition to artificial birth control and its opposition to the death penalty.'" However, instead of it being either/or, why can't it be both/and (please, please have a listen here; a good doctor reveals both good and bad). Catholicism is a big YES! about freedom unless it is to say "no" to "another 'no' that negates the dignity of the human person" (see after 1:53 here).
Further, I know that we moderns hate more than anything else the concept of authority, including many if not the majority of Catholics (unfortunately). However, Catholic Tradition, Scripture, and Vatican II assert that the Catholic Faithful are to be in unity with the local Bishop. In Maryland, as far as I understand it, the Archbishop of Baltimore is for upholding the real meaning of marriage in law. However, groups like New Ways Ministries have confused the faithful and divided us away from our Shepherd Archbishop.
Those in power know groups like New Ways Ministries can scatter the Catholic Flock, the Body of Christ. If they can get the Catholic Church to be divided, they can get what they want (Sor*os, Gat*es, Roc*kefeller, For*d, etc.); they pour in money to "Catholic" organizations (and politicians/political parties).
For those in power, the only morals are those that make it possible to get what they want (read Saul Alinsky). However, I believe that the Catholic Church reveals the truth that is given by the Holy Spirit. The Bishop should unite all the faithful together for all that is right. The wolves come to destroy that unity.
May we pray, worship, and publicly act as Jesus has called us to do through the one True Gospel. Amen.
09 February 2011
My Maryland Senate Bill 119 (SB 119) Testimony
Yesterday, I was planning to give oral testimony against MD SB 119, but I didn't get to speak. There was a finite amount of time allotted for testimony, and there were too many that wanted to testify to fit the time (it would've gone well into the night after starting at 1P). Thank goodness I submitted my oral arguments in writing.
The written oral arguments that I submitted are below (except for my real name and other info removed). Note that the quotes below are linked to the source at the first (few) word(s) of the quote.
I'll be writing about some points that stood out for me tonight and tomorrow that hopefully will be published tomorrow here at WZE.
---
The written oral arguments that I submitted are below (except for my real name and other info removed). Note that the quotes below are linked to the source at the first (few) word(s) of the quote.
I'll be writing about some points that stood out for me tonight and tomorrow that hopefully will be published tomorrow here at WZE.
---
Testimony of [Gerry] for
SB 116, “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act”
Hello, I am [Gerry], a husband and father of three children who lives in [a], County, District [#]. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about why I think this Senate Bill should be voted down.
First, before I talk about the bill, let me very briefly talk about marriage. One way to contrast the original and proposed definitions of marriage is to think about the differences between two types of jewelry, (1) a friendship chain with one heart attached that is divided in half and (2) a charm bracelet with two or more charms. The former illustrates that marriage has to do with the complementary of the sexes (“two become one”), while the latter is an arrangement of two or more people. The former has a definite physical orientation while the latter can describes any loving relationship of two or more people (brother/sister, aunt/nephew, sister/sister (convent of sisters?), three or more of varying sexes).
“Non-marital friendships are characterized by a union of hearts and minds; but marriage, being a comprehensive union of persons, extends this unity to the bodily dimension. For our bodies are integral aspects of us as persons, not merely our extrinsic instruments. And in coitus, a man and woman’s bodies unite much as a heart and lungs unite within an individual—by coordinating together toward a single biological good (here, reproduction) of the whole (here, the whole couple).”
The original definition does not depend on the fertility of the couple. “[Just] as a person’s stomach action retains its orientation to nourishment even when nourishment doesn’t occur (e.g., because of intestinal problems), so a man and woman’s [consummation] is still coordination oriented to the single biological good of reproduction even when reproduction doesn’t occur (e.g., because of ovarian problems)." Plus, the state shouldn’t go around asking people if they are fertile.
Now, I turn to the bill. In the California Supreme Court case that dealt with Prop. 8, it was concluded that procreation was not a rational basis for barring same sex couples from marriage. Theodore Olson, who argued for the same sex couples said, “’It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state. The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation.’”
First of all, the right to marry has been tied to procreation. “[The] 2,300-year-old philosophical tradition, originating independently of such policy considerations (and of Judaeo-Christian influence), that similarly distinguished the uniquely comprehensive unions consummated by coitus [and tied to procreation] from all others. Indeed, the three great philosophers of antiquity—Socrates, Plato and Aristotle— [and others] defended this view amid highly homoerotic cultures.”
Secondly, the US constitutional freedom of association currently allows same sex couples to say that they are married. I know same sex couples who say that they are married and have not been arrested. The debate about this bill should not be about whether same sex couples can marry. It’s about state sanctification of and civil benefits for their relationship, while still excluding others.
At the end of the day, I believe that if the definition of marriage is legally rewritten in view of the US Constitutional Equal Protection Clause (as currently interpreted by SCOTUS) to simply include all freely associated relationships beyond this bill’s prohibitions, all associations will want the same sanctioned privileges. Marriage will become meaningless and could be dropped from state protection to make way for a sort of overall welfare state unless there is a clear limit to what marriage includes (while also reforming divorce laws).
Third, as one from [a] County, people know that children who are raised by their married natural parents have the best chance of making it in whatever positive ways they can, more reach adulthood, are most often the best citizens, more often stay out of poverty, and have fewer children out-of-wedlock than do children of other family arrangements. The State should protect these consummated marriages that have or may result in the creation of children.
(“[Gay marriage will] encourage marital instability and broken homes, and children growing up in these situations are more likely to exhibit a variety of antisocial behaviors.
“Children growing up in traditional homes, on the other hand, have these problems to a significantly diminished degree. They have better emotional health, engage in fewer risky behaviors, are less likely to engage in premarital sex, and do better educationally and economically. Finally, a recent Utah study found that divorce costs the federal, state, and local governments $33 billion per year. For all these reasons, the state has a vested interest in promoting stable traditional marriages.” From The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage).
I have two quick comments. First, it is true that there are same sex partners who adopt or artificially create children for themselves. However, these matters should be handled by adoption and surrogate laws but not marriage statues.
Lastly, even though a religious exception is included to protect “an official of a religious institution or body authorized to solemnize marriages”, who does that exactly include? Also, can a bed and breakfast (often someone’s private residence) or similar business be protected from lawsuits? How about protecting employees who don’t want to condone same sex marriages on the job?
Thank you.
Bibliography of sources
Beyond Gay Marriage
The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
Unitarians for Polyamory
Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage; http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324
The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
Incest and the Degradation of Our Vocabulary
Same-Sex Marriage and Formal Discrimination
Does Marriage, or Anything, Have Essential Properties?
New Jersey Senate Kills Gay “Marriage” Bill
---
The following were quotes that didn't make it to the testimony due to time constraints.
The following were quotes that didn't make it to the testimony due to time constraints.
(1) Prior to the vote [in the NJ Senate of S1967, the "Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act"], Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), criticized the comparison of homosexuality to racial issues.
"Contrary to Bond's statement equating skin color with homosexual behavior, major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate," said Griggs in a statement. "No replicated scientific study has found a gay gene, gay DNA, or gay center of the brain.
"Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Many African-Americans have come out of homosexuality, proving sexual orientation can change, but skin color does not."
(2) Accordingly, in 1999 they created an organization, Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA), with the avowed goal of making Unitarianism the first denomination to endorse polyamory.
(3) The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the reason for these [discriminatory interracial] laws was to enforce racial purity [of progeny from interracial marriage], an idea that begins its cultural ascendancy with the commencement of race-based slavery of Africans in early 17th-century America and eventually receives the imprimatur of “science” when the eugenics movement comes of age in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.6 In Loving, for example, the statue overturned, SB 219, The Racial Integrity Act of 1924, was the product of the eugenics movement.
(4) Spouses and same-sex "partners" are not taxed when one dies and the sisters have attempted to have the new laws interpreted to allow them to enjoy similar exemptions.
21 January 2011
“Ask Them What They Mean By ‘Choice’” Blog Day
Just one thing to add for those who think men have no room in the abortion debate: countless males are aborted too. Men certainly have a say in the choice to kill or support preborn males.
(This post was updated 21 January 2011 at 4:58 pm EST.)
10 December 2010
Interesting New Conservative Action Committee in Maryland
Since craigslist has supposedly changed its ways and is now off (one of) my boycott list(s), I went looking for and found one of those fire emergency ladders for my kids.
When I went to pick it up at the seller's house, I saw a Murphy sticker (for MD governor) on their front door. After paying for the ladder, I said, "Sorry about Murphy; I voted for him too."
Then they said something like, "Did you hear about the new conservative group that's forming to elect conservative, not just Republican candidates?"
"What, you mean not like Ehrlich?", I said.
Well, they gave me a flyer for registration for a MDCAN conference that's coming up.
From the flyer:
When I went to pick it up at the seller's house, I saw a Murphy sticker (for MD governor) on their front door. After paying for the ladder, I said, "Sorry about Murphy; I voted for him too."
Then they said something like, "Did you hear about the new conservative group that's forming to elect conservative, not just Republican candidates?"
"What, you mean not like Ehrlich?", I said.
Well, they gave me a flyer for registration for a MDCAN conference that's coming up.
From the flyer:
"Frustrated with last November’s election results in Maryland?"Definition of "conservative" from their website (and here):
"Weary of one-party rule that threatens our livelihoods?"
"Ready to re-build electoral politics from the grassroots up?"
"Then turn your frustration into ACTION, and join fellow conservatives in Annapolis to chart a new course for Maryland!"
"We are assuming that conservatives come in all stripes (and from all political parties) and are not just fiscal conservatives, but support the US Constitution including especially the second and tenth amendments, respect the sanctity of life and support traditional marriage, respect the law on the question of immigration, wish to reform our education system, and are ready and willing to defend our great Nation against any and all threats to our national security." (emphasis added)I hope this action committee works some good news!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)