The 7-year itch

German politician Gabriele Pauli wants a marriage license to expire after 7 years, to be renewed by the couple if they so desire. The reasoning is more of the same “people cheat, people are in marriage only because they want to feel safe, or they want to be together for the children”, blah blah blah.

Of course, this has outraged her predominantly Catholic party. but it’s not a real shock. There’s no respect for the institution of marriage any more, and it primarily comes from a secular interpretation of marriage instead of a religious interpretation.

Marriage is a religious institution. It is a Christian belief that when people get married, they do so in a union with God, who blesses the couple and their union and the children that follow. Modern states have adopted the marriage model and the word marriage, although the marriage licenses have nothing to do with a Higher Power (unless you think the State is the Higher Power). Due to the removal of emphasis on what Marriage is really about (and why it’s a Sacrament in the Catholic and Anglican tradition), people get married for the wrong reasons and divorce is the inevitable result.

I’ve been a proponent of changing the terminology of a “civil marriage” to one of a “civil union”. If a state wants to allow people to join together as a couple, that’s great, but it’s not a Marriage. It’s simply a recognition of the state of the status of the couple. This goes for gay people as well as straight. Recognize it for what it is. The dissolution of a union isn’t that big of a deal– people break partnerships all the time in the secular world.

But for Marriage– that’s for life. It’s an oath, a vow, two people (a man and a woman) make before God. It’s a religious institution and it should be treated as such. People are taking Marriage far too lightly and there should be a push by all religious denominations to focus on Marriage, the family, and how the Sacramentality of Marriage unifies not just the man and the woman, but the children as well.

Angela Bonavoglia: How dare they!

PuffingTons Host contributor Angela Bonavolgia is all bent out of shape about the “mass excommunication” in the Lincoln Diocese. The excommunication is aimed at Catholics who are members of Call to Action, a “progressive” organization dedicated to “Church reform”.

First, you need a little background on the story. Bishop Bruskewitz said that membership in an organization like Call to Action (and that includes support of Planned Parenthood, Catholics for a Free Choice, the Hemlock society, among others) is anathema to the faith and shows a conflict of the soul– one cannot believe in abortion and that life starts at conception, for example. So he did what he’s supposed to do– excommunicate those who introduce dangerous views to Church teachings.

Your initial reaction might be, “Hey, that’s unfair! Those people were just expressing an opinion! The Church should listen to what they have to say….” After all, that’s Angela’s position.

I think it’s healthy to question your faith. However, I don’t think Call to Action is a healthy organization. Not so long ago, somebody else had an idea about changing the Church and he nailed 95 Theses to the door of his chapel.

Call to Action is similar in its contradiction of dogma. Angela highlights it in her piece, although she means to present it as some of the organization’s good points:

Independent of the church today, CTA supports a broad range of issues, many favored by the majority of U.S. Catholics, like ending clerical celibacy, ordaining women, greater lay power in church affairs, and lifting the illogical and indefensible ban on birth control.

Angela unwittingly highlights the major flaw in her thinking and the thinking of the leadership of CTA. “Independent of the church today…” starts her paragraph. Angela, if you want an organization that’s independent of the Church and supports married priests, women priests, homosexuals, birth control, and even abortion (because we know Angela’s big into “reproductive rights”), then here’s an idea: join the Anglicans. Don’t try and change the Church to suit your short-sighted social agenda.

Celibacy I understand. It’s not a big deal, and you can even find married Catholic Priests. I don’t think it’s what’s causing the excommunication. Female ordination? Again, another minor quibble. Same with “greater lay power”, although some laity think they can “exorcise” people. The last one is a huge deal-breaker. Ban on birth control? These people don’t understand the fundamentals of why the Church is opposed to birth control.

Let me explain it this way. Man and woman have sex and that creates a new life. Who’s the Creator? God. So if you and the missus decided to have a child, you have to involve the Creator. If you interfere with that process, you’re effectively thumbing your nose at God. It’s a crime of hubris and it’s a crime of lust, two of the Seven Deadly No-Nos.

If you want to know who’s backed by CTA, just look at their webpage. Guess who’s on the front? That’s right. Mama Moonbat herself, Cindy Sheehan. Divorced. Abandoned her children. Chillin‘ with Dictators Cindy freakin‘ Sheehan.

So, who are these people, you ask? Why is CTA getting singled out?

Let’s look at their mission statement and history from their web page:

Then in 1971 Pope Paul VI emphasized that it is the laity who have received the primary “Call To Action” to create a more just world. That same year the international synod of the bishops issued an unusually brief and clear document. It declared that “action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world appears to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the gospel.” And, cautioned the synod, “The church recognizes that anyone who ventures to speak to people about justice must first be just in their eyes; hence, we must undertake an examination of the modes of action, of the possessions, and of the lifestyle found within the church itself.”

I don’t have a problem with a “more just” laity. Fine. More power to them. But where does priestly celibacy, female ordination, anti-birth control, and other such programs come into the important scope of justice? They don’t. But they are the major rallying cries for CTA, and that leads me to believe that CTA has been hijacked by people who want to impose their liberal beliefs upon the Church.

Look at the topics on the “ChurchWatch” portion of the CTA website. With such topics as “Speaking out against a dictatorial Vatican”, we can only surmise the leadership of the CTA is interested in imposing their own social views upon the Vatican, and they have taken a rather antagonistic stance towards the Vatican.

The major issue I have with Angela and her CTA buddies is that their social beliefs are driving their religious beliefs, not the other way around. Under particular assault is the sacrament of Marriage. CTA wants to allow divorce and remarriage in the Church. They also want to allow contraception. Many Catholic scholars have clearly explained why both of these practices would be devastating to the Church.

CTA is no longer an institution which seeks justice. It’s an organization which seeks change, unjust or just, but change which conforms to beliefs that are not rooted in Catholic dogma or Tradition. It’s no surprise that CTA members were excommunicated in Lincoln. IMHO, I think such an organization, especially one that’s lost its way like CTA, should be excommunicated, not just in Lincoln, but everywhere they attempt to imprint their wayward views upon centuries of solid Catholic teaching.

CBS Gets Email From People With Hair Afire

CBS’ “Couric & Co” has a new segment: posting questionable email!

In a nutshell, Benedict’s argument against fanaticism is such: Violence is the enemy of reason. Violence has no place in religion because to act against reason is to act against the nature of God. Reason is the line he draws in the sand; it creates and interesting fulcrum from which to juxtapose comparisons of faith, fanaticism, violence and the secular proclivities of modern religion.

It’s smouldering…

Christianity has a rich history of sectarian violence. The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Anglican cleansing of Catholic England, the burning of heretics in Lutheran Germany and the removal of the Huguenots from France are a few examples. Many of these persecuted sects found their way to our American shores. Here they establish a relatively harmonious Christian conglomerate. Lately we have witnessed a revolutionary evangelical fundamentalism in America; faith based incursions into the societal and political arenas often fall short of the measure of reason. While such fanaticism seems minimal compared to the murderous intent of Sunni/Shiite sectarianism the religious right’s interference in human and constitutional rights is obsessive and unreasonable. Make no mistake; Benedict is also addressing this sort of secularism.

You can smell the smoke.

The pope’s remarks rekindle an examination of whether spirituality and religiosity can stand on faith alone. If faith stands at odds with scientific and moral truth it must assert itself through coercive means. Life is reduced to confliction in which the most powerful and violent among us reign supreme. Righteousness absolves the faithful from moral clarity and human charity. At once Moqtada al-Sadr and Pat Robertson appear more similar than dissonant.

That’s a fire.

Benedict seeks an alliance with Islam and other monotheistic faiths to confront the larger danger of liberal secular humanism, hedonism and unbridled consumerism that he feels corrupts the moral core of Western society. Beware! Pope Benedict XVI wants the keys to your SUV and the remote to your plasma T.V.

Hair fully ablaze! The evolution of an Aquanet Moment!

You can find comments like this all over the internet, and it’s easy to pick a comment out and make fun of it. I’ve gotten them on this tiny lil’ blog of mine, and I’ve gotten some interesting email. There are other sites & comment boards I’ve cruised where the level of lunacy is 10 times that of this guy. And then there’s the Yahoo! message boards and the guys who insist Roger Moore has died each day (one day they’ll be right– then what will their lives amount to?). But it’s essentially pointless to blog about comments and pick apart the ramblings of some unhinged individual. But it’s a different story when CBS thinks an email has enough merit to post it on their website– especially one that works itself into a irrational lather that culminates in a dire warning to guard your plasma T.V. with your life.

I would also like to point out one other interesting bit left by the Email Editor or Grab Bag Webguru or whatever he’s called over there:

A reader has some strong views about what Pope Benedict is up to in Turkey. Here’s part an e-mail we received this morning:

Part of an email? What was the rest of it? I’m dying to know. Actually, no. Nevermind. Let’s keep internet lunacy where it belongs– in the comments arena.

That Moralist is a Hypocrite! yells the amoral man

By now you’ve all heard about this genius, televangelist Ted Haggard, who smoked some meth while getting a massage from a gay male escort and may or may not have had sexual relations with said escort.

These sort of things aren’t new. Religious people engaging in practices which defy their preachings. It’s called sin. He’s head of a religious organization, and he got caught sinning in a HUGE way, so he’s got to go. If only the evangelicals had a confessional…

So, I would feel bad for the guy if he wasn’t filthy rich and deserved every ounce of criticism he’s going to get. Well, almost allcriticism.

Over at the PuffingTons Host, for example, Nathaniel Frank, Lyn Davis Lear, Martin Lewis, Martin Lewis again, Jill Sobule, and RJ Eskow are all jumping on the bandwagon to rail against Mr. Haggard’s “hypocrisy’. You know, practice what you preach and all of that jazz.

While I don’t want to rush to Mr. Haggard’s defense, I do want to illuminate the essential flaw in the liberal cry of hypocrisy.

First, what makes a hypocrite? Essentially it is somebody who says one thing and does another. In the Christian world, according to the talking heads on the left, it’s a preacher who tells you to do one thing while he does the other. See! Hypocrite. And they are right. Mr. Haggard is a hypocrite.

But we have to examine who is calling him a hypocrite. Christianity has come under attack as of late. Many people on the left are giddy with glee whenever a religious figure falls. Essentially, they remark that the silly notions of God are doing nothing but forcing people to live up to impossible standards. Even worse, they contend, believing in such an antiquated book (and they’ll rail against the Old Testament but say little about the New Testament) produces closed-minded hate-freaks who have done nothing but caused wars throughout the ages. This is a broad brush, but it accurately portrays a majority of people on the left (and those who are on the “right” with atheistic tendencies).

When you ask about their religious leanings, often you’ll get a “I was raised Catholic but…” or “I used to go to Church but…” or “I’m agnostic” or “I believe in the goodness of man” line. Nothing organized. Nothing concrete. Simply a feel-good “positive energy” kind of mentality that basically says, “Blest are you who do your own thing for whatever reason. That’s cool. Unless you’re a hatebot evangelical.” It’s no longer a religion as it’s more of a rationalization of their lazy beliefs into a set of guidelines which can be broken at will so long as the intent was proper. No divine retribution. No hell. No purgatory. No eternity. Just an idea that what we do on this planet is important, but that it ceases there.

Usually these folks are compassionate to a fault. They cry when Oprah interviews a woman who kills her own baby because she can’t deal with having a baby. They say, “Poor woman.” Or they “identify” with people who do horrible things, rationalizing the result. They think all war is bad, and that every bomb dropped targets a day care. They give to secular charities thinking that does good work. And they are against the death penalty, but see nothing wrong in embryonic stem cell research (hey, they were being discarded anyway, right?) Unfortunately, this mindset develops a meandering line between good and evil. Everything is perception and relative and there are no absolutes.

So when Ted Haggard screws up, these compassionate folks are the first to tear him down, which is odd, considering the compassion they show others. No rationalization of “wow, he’s under stress, he must have needed that meth.” No compassion. Just time to throw him under the bus. Why? Because he’s a moralist. And that’s an important distinction.

When people are confronted by someone who says their behavior is wrong for X, Y and Z, the person confronted usually gets upset. “How dare you!” Then they storm off. It’s a natural reaction. Nobody likes being told what to do or what their problem is. What really irritates people when confronted by a moralist is the possibility that the moralist is correct. And if you have been living your life incorrectly, and the compassion you thought you were dispensing was actually poison, that is truly a guilt bombshell. Rather than face an exposure like that, it’s best to ignore those questions. Even better, when a moralist actually exhibits moral failings, it’s hypocrisy! And if the moralist is a hypocrite, it invalidates their argument! (If only…)

The moralists, regardless of religion, are holding themselves to standards of perfection. It’s an impossible achievement, but does that mean striving for it is not worthwhile? Rather than abandoning the quest for perfection, the amoral strive for mediocrity– is what I do really that bad? If not, then I can live with it. There is no higher standard. There is no study of a situation. It’s a brief exploration of feeling which generates a convenient answer that has very little to do with the truth. On the other hand, a moralist studies behavior, logic, and prudence and comes to a realization that there is a good way to live. If he tells others how to live that way, and then is caught in a failing, he’s a hypocrite. But it is impossible to find the amoralist guilty in a similar way because their convictions are not based upon perfection but rather imperfect (human) perception. And you can’t call a human a hypocrite for being human.

Essentially, when you drop all pretense of perfection and put your faith in people, you will always be disappointed. So if you expect to be disappointed, there is no surprise in finding the failing of your neighbor. However, when someone chooses a moral path and preaches the benefits of that path, the goal is perfection, and that cannot be attained by a human course. So rather than commiserate with the failure of the moralist, it’s easier to call them a hypocrite and then laud the benefits of your worthless personal philosophy.

So Ted Haggard is a hypocrite, according to the amoral. It’s just another example that it’s easier to succumb to sin and grow comfortable with moral failing than it is purse a sinless course, admitting that there will be failings along the way.

We Are Nihilists, Lebowski!

Cartago Delenda Est, part of my weekly reading, has a great link to a post over at One Cosmos. The title of the piece:

The Psychophysics of Falling and the Dialectic of Nihilism

Sounds pretty pointy-headed. But trust me, it’s a fascinating read.

Deathmobile

Anyone who’s seen ‘Animal House’ knows what this is:

It’s the “Deathmobile”. It breaks free from a float on racial unity to terrorize the homecoming parade. Classic moment in comedy, back when comedies were funny.

Well, China’s taken that one step further:

Behold the “Deathwagon”. It is literally a portable execution platform where “doctors” can pull up outside of the guilty party’s house, barge in with the police escort, and then bring them to the bus and execute them. And harvest their organs.

It’s secular populism at its very best.

You should see the SkyNews report this comes from. Every once in a while we need to be reminded that there are societies out there in the world where freedom doesn’t exist, and the people live in constant fear.

Calling Out Michelle Malkin

You heard me Michelle. I’m calling you out. I want 10 zillion hits here, simply because I want to see Blogspot explode. But hey, if it can handle the Radio Equalizer, it can handle my blog. Hey, Brian’s calling you out, too! That way Blogspot has to handle twice the traffic! Ha, I’m an evil, bandwidth-wasting genius!

Seriously, though, Michelle should be proud she’s getting such attention after the publication of her last article. Especially in the form of this “photoshop” alterations. The truth of the matter is that the message of Michelle’s column isn’t being attacked, it’s the messenger.

This is typical of the progressive attack machine. By “exposing hypocrisy”, as they like to call it, they are forcing a change in topic. Nobody is talking about 9-year-olds wearing low-cut jeans and thong underwear. Instead we’re talking about whether Michelle Malkin looks good in a bikini. (I’m sure she does. She’s had a child and looks fantastic. Now everyone will be clamoring for a “Hot Air” segment from the beach.)

Essentially, Wonkette pays some lip service to the Malkin column, but in a passive manner. They say, “Well, yeah, I don’t want to see kids like that, BUT MICHELLE USED TO DRINK IN COLLEGE!” It’s like going to the doctor. The doctor comes in, says “You have to quit smoking or you’re going to die.” Then you say “Hey, you can’t tell ME what to do. You’re 20 pounds overweight, hypocrite!” Then you walk out of the office all high-and-mighty because you put that fat doctor in his place for not taking better care of his health. However, the major problem still remains– your smoking is killing you.

That’s what we see with the current attack on Michelle. Rather than get behind her and agree that yes, Bratz dolls are nothing but skank role models, the Wonkette and Is That Legal crew decide to use that moment to attack (possibly falsely) Michelle, yet do nothing to discourage Bratz dolls. Nor do they seem to complain about the lack of positive role models for young women. Instead they offer “Michelle’s a Slut!”

Michelle isn’t the first person they target this way. Any religious figure is eviscerated for any failing. Anyone who warns of moral corruption is, in turn, attacked for their own moral failings, although it does not invalidate the premise of their ideas.

I’m happy Michelle wrote her column. It needs to be said. And she should be proud that she’s being attacked in such a way. It means her message means something. Keep up the good fight, Michelle.