Here’s a fellow with MS who crusades against ESCR

Star Wars Episode III & ESCR: "Kill the kids to save your wife!"

I bought the graphic novel of “Revenge of the Sith” back when it came out at the first of April, so I knew the basic plot points, since Ep. II had been such a special effects extravaganza that it was hard to follow in the theatre.
One of the principle motivations in Anakin’s change is that he has premonitions of his wife’s death, and wants to save her. Palpatine tells ANakin that the Dark Side has the power to preserve her life. Now, after he turns, and is officially dubbed “Darth Vader”, he must go and do what we knew he did all along: kill the Jedi.
And that, sadly and horribly, includes (in fact, begins with) the cute, trusting young jedi children.
And what does the Emperor say? “If you kill them, you will have the power to save your wife.”

In other words, kill as many babies as possible just to get the power (whether scientific or, in this case, magic) to achieve alleged “immortality” for those one loves (interestingly, the “loved one” in this case does *not* want her life saved at the expense of those children).
Isn’t that the Faustian bargain offered by the ESCR crowd?

Advertisement

Why won’t MoveOn.org move on?

Apparently, MoveOn.org has taken to direct attacks against the Catholic Church. Now, I think they could do a great service to conservatism, if people actually put two-and-two together. . . .
George Soros is a *billionaire*. I get so sick and tired of the Democrats claiming to be the party of the “little guy” and attacking the Republicans as the”party of the Rich,” when the Democrats are richer than the Republicans.
The Democrats have Hollywood, though they try to claim otherwise.
The Democrats have Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Ted Turner, etc.
Of the top ten richest politicians in the US, most are Democrats. Mark Warner is the wealthiest governor in the country. John Kerry is the richest politician of them all, and his net worth is 10 times that of President Bush (though the Bushes pay a far greater percentage of their income in taxes than the Kerrys).

The Democrats are nothing but a party of rich people who want to kill off the poor to ease their own consciences, and I’m sick of it. Don’t talk to me about “choice” when you’re going to kill a woman just for having what you claim is an “inferior” state of “mental capacity” or “quality of life,” whatever that means.

Don’t tell me you’re about choice when you say it’s “compassionate” to murder a disabled child and “cruel” to let that child live.

Don’t tell me you’re about choice when you refuse to present women with all the facts and options regarding that “choice”.

Don’t tell me you’re about choice when you refuse to let people practice their religions in public.

Don’t tell me you’re about choice when you suppress dissenting viewpoints in the media and the classroom.

Poll: Majority of Americans oppose federal funding of ESCR

On the other hand, why do they have to use the misleading headline “most”. A simple majority is good, but not “most.” “Most” implies 75% or more, not 52%.

This doesn’t make sense

Gist of article:
AIDS in Africa is making Christians more compassionate; Christians need to change their views of sexuality in light of AIDS.

“Messages like `AIDS is God’s punishment for sin,’ are still very much present,” said the Rev. Johannes Petrus Heath, a South African-based Anglican who operates a confidential network for African religious leaders infected by HIV.

“Messages like” presumably includes acknowledging that sin has practical consequences, sin disrupts the order of nature, etc. “Messages like” probably includes acknowledging that AIDS is spread by sinful behavior, and the best way to prevent AIDS is to behave oneself to begin with.

(The bugaboo of AIDS in the case of rape is an entirely different matter). . .

Anyway, shouldn’t the headline be, “AIDS Epidemic leads secularists to re-think views of sexuality?”

Cool, but so what? America trades one liberal editor for another

Ten years ago (wow!), our pastor in Sumter, SC, died suddenly of an aortic aneurysm. .. . The Oblates of Mary Immaculate were handing the parish over to the Jesuits the following year, so we got a couple temporary replacements. One was a young priest from Poland who was in the US working on his doctorate. He came to our house one evening for dinner. . . . “You wouldn’t believe the horrible magazine they receive at the rectory,” he said. “It’s called _America_, and it’s filled with nothing but articles that attack the Church!”
Dad said, “I’d believe it. _America_ magazine has been around a long time. . . .”

Well, rather than simply putting the rag out of business, the Vatican has ordered the resignation of Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ, it’s editor for only the past 7 years. He will be replaced by Fr. Drew Christiansen, SJ, who has been a commentator on FOX News.

Now, I always object to FOX News’s reputation of conservatism. The network depicts conservatives as being obnoxious idiots like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, neither of whom has probably ever read a word of Russell Kirk. Certainly, Hannity makes no bones about his negative feelings towards people who read. In his mind, anyone who passed kindergarten is a liberal intellectual elitist, but that’s another issue.

Anyway, Rod Dreher noted a while back that even FOX News had orders from “high above” (or Deep Below, as CS Lewis might say), saying that they could not discuss homosexuality in relation to the scandal of homosexual priests molesting boys.

So much for “Fair and balanced.”
Anyway, Fr. Christiansen is a commentator on the “fair and balanced” network. On the morning of Mercy Sunday, we were watching the coverage of John Paul II’s death. A number of cool people were on–Janet Smith, for example–and when the FOX anchors would hit them with the “tough questions” on things like birth control and “women’s ordination”–and those good Catholics would answer like good Catholics should–the anchors would cut them off and go to the next person.

So for about an hour, I listened to a list of guests whose names would ring a bell to any EWTN afficionado, all on air for maybe fix minutes, max.

Then they went to Fr. Christiansen, who was so disgusting that I turned the TV off.
Ten minutes later, I went down to the breakfast room, which also had FOX News on. Fr. Christiansen was still yakking about the need for change in the Church. . . . A half hour later, when my wife got in the car to leave the hotel, having gotten one last cup of coffee, she said he was *still* on. . . .

One of the great things Vatican II has done, in giving a voice to the laity, is helping to shed the error of clericalism–an error often condemned by the Left–which is to never criticize a priest, etc., that a priest is a priest, and you should only bring your problems with a priest to God.
Thankfully, the examples of the Saints, and the teaching of Vatican II are a little more encouraging in this matter.

Fr. Christiansen, besides his attitude towards doctrine, has very obvious speech patterns and mannerisms that are generally accepted by society to be associated with a certain “inclination.” To be blunt, he sounds as gay as Elton John.

Now, I’ve known and known of some very devout priests who, at first glance, seem rather effeminate. Often, this is a result of their own personal piety and fasting. But one need only hear such priests speak for a few minutes to know they are far from sissies–and far from homosexual.
And if it so happens that they *do* have that inclination, and have successfully overcome it, praised be God!

But that is not the image Fr. Christiansen presents. So while the liberals lament that the new Pope means “no change” in the Church, I will express the much more significant lament that the new editor will signal “no change” at _America_ magazine.

A great column from Peggy Noonan

I posted the following reply:
Ms. Noonan, Perhaps the man at the wedding was letting you know off the bat, so you didn’t get the wrong idea? (“Don’t bother asking to dance with me; I’m gay”) Anyway, the turn of your column was rather interesting to me. I have a genetic disorder called Marfan syndrome, and I wear it on my sleeve (OK, my T-shirt, but I digress). I have *never* understood why medical matters are “private.” If someone doesn’t want to talk about something, that’s their business. Now, when someone just copmlains about their own problems and doesn’t really want to *share*, that’s one thing. That annoys me as much as the next guy. I don’t know how many times I’ve encountered elderly people who like to gripe about their own aches and pains, but if I mention, in sympathy, “Yeah, I have that too!” THey snap, “I don’t want to hear about your problems. Don’t complain.” Anyway, information, as you say, can save lives, in both directions. I am where I am today because my parents were big on awareness. THey were active in a variety of organizations in the 80s, including being members of the National Marfan Foundation from its inception and starting their own support group, Genetics Unlimited, where people effected in any way by a rare disorder could just get together and share. In those days when home computers were a mysterious luxury, my parents got their information from friends. A friend happened on an article about Johns Hopkins being the center for Marfan syndrome research, so my parents took me to Hopkins. . . . In 1996, when I wasn’t feeling well & my local cardiologist was dumbfounded, the South Carolina Marfan support group sent out a letter announcing its next speaker– aMarfan surgeon in Augusta, GA. So Mom called him, sent over my medicla records, and two months later, I was having heart surgery. . . . As much as I loved my local doc, if we’d stuck our heads in the sand, or just trusted the guy we had (as most of the population would do), I’d be dead now. When I was engaged, my brother said to me, on the phone, “John, it’s so glad to see you happy. I think Mom & Dad exaggerate your illness. You’ve always been so depressed. It’s all we’ve ever talked about.” “You’ve never talked about it with ME.” “OH, I guess you’re right.” I live every day in pain from some aspect of my disorder. I live every day knowing it may be my last. And to *not* say anything? To act like it’s nothing, like I”m no different than anyone else? WHat’s the point?

Laura Ingraham’s Cancer and the Left’s "Compassion"

Laura Ingraham, of whom I’ve been a fan since 1996, has breast cancer. Laura is one of those people who, when I first heard her as a regular guest on CSPAN, I assumed she was Catholic. . . . She has always seemed to be a stronger voice on pro-life issues than most other mainstream conservative commentators. Well, her commentary on the Pope’s election had Mary & me hooting, and Mary asked, “Is she Catholic?” I said, “I don’t think so.” Turns out, she converted ca. 2003–she’s a Fr. McCloskey convert. . . . One thing that fascinates me is the number of conservative political thinkers who convert to Catholicism, from Orestes Brownson to Russell Kirk to the hoarde of converts that William F. Buckley has won through _National Review_.
You don’t hear too much of that on the Left. . . . I still question Jane Fonda’s reputed conversion to Christianity.
Anyway, this has created a side-controversy regarding the Left’s attitude. The hate-mongers on the Left are basically saying she deserves it, that it’s probably “caused by all that hate she carries”, and even tying in the ABC link, claiming it’s some kind of reverse justice against someone who promotes teh “lie” that abortion is linked to breast cancer.

Obviously, there are plenty of causes of breast cancer, just as there are more causses of lung cancer than just smoking. It is disgusting how the establishment says “We don’t know why breast cancer has risen over the past few decades,” then deny the numerous studies that show the links between abortion, contraception and breast cancer.
One poster on the Democrat Underground site even referred to the studies taht say breastfeeding decreases the risk of breast cancer–“Did she refuse to breastfeed?” asks this ignorant person, obviously unaware that Miss Ingraham is a miss.
Of course, she is a conservative woman, and the Left always accuses prominent conservative women of being whores. . . .

Anyway, it’s yet another example of the Compassion of the Left. The great, daunted “COMPASSION” of the Left, touted by Elizabeth Edwards in her calls that her allies have compassion for Laura Ingraham, even while disagreeing with her wrong views, is the #1 reason I’m conservative.

Let’s see the examples in recent memory:
1. If you disagree with them, politically, they wish you would die rather than express that disagreement.
2. Compassion for the Poor Nations of the World means killing them off with abortion and contraception. The Popes are to blame for poverty in the Third World, because they preach against birth control, while the birth controlled Liberals in the US enjoy their Big screen TVs, XBoxes and expensive cars made by former Axis powers.
3. Compassion for the sick and suffering means killing them.
4. Compassion for women in difficult pregnancies (what pregnancies aren’t difficult?) means killing their babies.

Lefties say, “Take your kids to see _Fahrenheit 9/11_; the violence is necessary to drive home the horrors of the war. But _The Passion of the Christ_, now that is a disgusting, voyeuristic attempt to arouse feelings of anti-Semitic violence.”
Let’s see. . . . Which movie has elicited more hatred and violence among its viewers in the past year???