This is an example of liberal hypocrisy I’ve encountered my entire life. The people who’ve built the modern liberal movement (and I blame the WWII generation just as much as the Baby Boomers, if not more–after all, they’re the ones who *gave* us _Roe v. Wade_ and the “Spirit of Vatican II”) based their ideology on a kind of watered-down Marxism. When they were young people in the 1940s-1970s, they were all about rejecting authority, changing the status quo, etc. Young people, they said, were the voice of the future, and the old had nothing to offer with their outmoded ways.
Now, as they say, the chickens have come home to roost. Since the early 1990s, young people have been following two courses which those idealistic young Socialists did not anticipate. Most are advocating the hedonism and anarchism that are the logical result of their parents’ and grandparents’ philosophy of youthful rebellion. Then there are thoes of us who have grown up seeing the horrible fruits of the 1960s and have rebelled against it, choosing to return to tradition.
To us, the aging liberals suddenly start saying, “Respect your elders.” I don’t know how many times I’ve received this very retort from 50+ liberals when I’ve challenged their beliefs.
Well, now Sr. Joan Chittister has written a book on that very topic.
But isn’t writing a form of patriarchy? I mean, oppresive white males invented the Roman lettering system and the English language?
Apparently, something called the Susan B. Anthony List has taken on two former Romney staff members among its leadership.
Someone on a blog site called Politico challenged the team-up, arguing that Romney isn’t really pro-life.
Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review, who also says you’re not really a conservative unless you support torture, is calling the Politico blog post divisive.
Pot, meet kettle.
In an interview with L’Osservatore Romano, Fr. Jose Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, said that the possibility of life on other worlds is not contradictory to Christianity:
“How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?” Funes said.
“Just as we consider earthly creatures as ‘a brother,’ and ‘sister,’ why should
we not talk about an ‘extraterrestrial brother’? It would still be part of
Of course, the salient issue is whether such life would actually be sentient. We know that there is *life* on other worlds–that has already been proven.
The issue that bothers people is that, if there is *sentient* life on other worlds, that would seem to contradict the uniqueness of man according to Genesis.
C. S. Lewis wrote about this issue several times. Skeptics have proposed two euqal and opposite arguments from the known vastness of the universe:
1. There is sentient life on other worlds, and, therefore, man
is not unique in being made “in God’s image and likeness”. Therefore, to
these people, the incarnation would be ridiculous: why would God, they ask,
single out humanitiety from all other sentient races?
2. There is *not* life on other worlds, and man is unique in the
universe. To this prospect, the atheists say, “Why would God make the
whole universe just for us to inhabit one planet?”
Of course, St. Paul has the answer to both objectinos: the wisdom of God is absurdity to the Gentiles. C. S. Lewis responds to both claims, saying that, ultimately, it doesn’t matter.
But the more important laim is the one cconcerning the existence fo alien life.
Genesis says that God created tehw hole universe for us, so it’s not much of a leap to say the same thing, only that the universe is bigger than genesis suggests.
However, the existence of sentient life on other worlds *would* pose a problem. Lewis wrote his fantasy stories to speculate about how the salvation history of other worlds may operate differently from ours, and how the incarnatino on earth might extend to other worlds through our possible correspondence. In either case, Lewis argues that, if God *did* create other beings with souls, andm put them on other worlds, then he would have done so to have a differnt relationship with them.