Daily Archives: May 13, 2009

Thoughts from Chick-Fil-A

We went to the Chick-Fil-A on Bush River Rd. last night for kids’ night. The staff were exceptionally friendly for a fast food place.

The kids played for over an hour.

It struck me that watching the activity at the Chick-Fil-A playground was like a microcosm of the diversity of humanity. . . .

And other people’s kids were pretty interesting, too.

Carrie Prejean and Notre Dame: the Media’s Double Standard

What does the Miss California/Carrie Prejean media frenzy have to do with the Obama at Notre Dame frenzy?

Well, besides the fact that, as Donald Trump pointed out, Carrie Prejean and Barack Obama have identical stated views on gay marriage (“People should have the choice, but I’m personally against it”), they reflect a certain double standard in terms of what is considered “hateful” by “the Left,” and the “Main Stream Media.”

Carrie Prejean made a very mealy-mouthed statement on same sex marriage, having been taken aback by a question from a pageant judge who’s a gay activist. For that one statement, she has been villified in the MSM and definitely in the liberal media. Of course, she’s also become a media darling among conservatives: doing the talk show circuit, having a borderline flirty interview with Sean Hannity, having breakfast with Maggie Gallagher and recording an ad for the National Organization for Marriage, etc.

But Prejean has, nevertheless, become the object of absolute scorn and hatred from the Left, particularly gay rights activists. I’m not going to link any here; you need only do a Google search if you want verification. But they’ve been saying vile, horrible things about her. They call her horrible names.

As they do with any public, outspoken Christian, they have been trying to find, as Pharisees have always done, an Achilles’ heel to trip her up with: they have, they think, found it in some rather racy photographs. Set aside the question of whether the photographs in question constitute pornography or modeling or art. Set aside the question of how to balance modesty with honoring the beauty of the human body. . . . Apparently, Donald Trump decided they didn’t violated the pageant’s ethics rules (and, apparently, it was one of the sets of photos that got the attention of a pageant sponsor in the first place).

Let’s just take for granted, though, that, from a Christian perspective, she sinned. I don’t know how to think like an Evangelical in this respect. I am pretty sure that, whatever Catholics may debate such issues, Evangelicals are pretty strict in the modesty category. Yet again, Evangelicals tend to be “into” the pageant/modelling thing a lot more than Catholics. Anyone who’s lived in the South for more than a month or two can know that.

But let’s err on the side of sin here. OK, so she sinned. Evangelicals have no Sacrament of Reconciliation. Their idea is that you just say, “Jesus forgive me,” and recommit your life to Him. But forgiveness is not something the Left understands. Nor does the Left understand the concept that, in order to be forgiven, one must repent.

Now, what does this all have to do with Notre Dame (besides the fact that the staff of Notre Dame need to repent for quite a few things)?

If you look at the MSM and the blogosphere, it was Carrie Prejean, with her wishy-washy statement of personal belief, who was engaging in “hate speech.” No one is really talking about the vile things being said on homosexualist blogs. And *they* are in turn calling it “hate speech” if anyone *does* criticize them for their contempt-filled language.

Conversely, in the Notre Dame case, it is the activists and bloggers who are accused of being “angry” and “hateful.” Even, as we’ve seen previously, Archbishop Chaput has said “The right is meaner” than the Left. But nothing I’ve read on any Catholic blog concerning Notre Dame comes close to two minutes on a liberal blog discussing Miss California.

Most Catholic blogs will not even permit commentors to suggest eternal consequences for an actoin under consideration. But the worst you’ll see from the *average* Catholic blogger or combox poster (I know there are some true extremists out there) is “Their immortal souls are in danger” or “They’re not really a Catholic university” or “They should be excommunicated.”

But go to the other side’s blogs and you’ll see “Carrie Prejean is a wh@r$” “Carrie Prejean is a bigot.” “Carrie Prejean is a Christian Fascist.” And that’s the nicer of the language. (One website compares her advertisment for NOM to “phone sex”).

So, who’s engaging in hate speech?

A Challenge to Obama’s "Catholic" supporters

Would someone who voted for Obama and a) believes contraception is mortally sinful and b) believes contraceptoin should be outlawed please identify yourself?

Archbishop Burke: No Catholic Could Vote for Obama with a Clear Conscience

Apparently recovering from the Randall Terry snafu, Archbishop Raymond Burke has stated in an interview that, given President Barack Obama’s clear anti-life and anti-family positions, any Catholic who voted for him was participating in grave evil.

Norma McCorvey is Cool! No one has gone as far for the pro-life cause

I’ve been playing around with Facebook for a couple weeks now, and have accumulated a number of prominent pro-lifers and Catholic apologists among my “facebook friends.” One of these is Norma McCorvey, better known as “Jane Roe.”

As you probably know, Norma McCorvey is the “Jane Roe” behind Roe v. Wade (1973). She gave birth to a child out of wedlock (she apparently wanted an abortion but, due to the length of the court case, the verdict came from the Supreme Court after she gave birth). She says she was used as a tool by the two lawyers, who wanted to challenge Texas’s abortion laws.

Apparently, Norma suffered from gender identity disorder/same sex attraction earlier in her life, and lived with another woman for some time. She was also very active as a Planned Parenthood volunteer for many years, until she realized the pro-life movement was right.

In 1994, she converted to Christianity, being baptized by an Evangelical pro-life activist in a backyard pool. A year later, she adopted full-time pro-life activism. In 1998, she was received into the Catholic Church by Fr. Frank Pavone.

In the 2005 case, McCorvey v. Hill, McCorvey sued to have her own Roe v. Wade overturned on the grounds that a) she was the plaintiff, b) she changed her mind, and c) evidence showed that Roe was wrongly decided and legalized abortion hurts women. I chronicled that case here, and the Supreme Court refused to hear it. This was one of the only attempts in history to directly overturn Roe.

In the 2008 election, McCorvey endorsed the Hon. Mr. Ron Paul, M.D. (R-Texas) for his unwavering pro-life position in the House of Representatives (obvoiusly, some of us take issue with Dr. Paul for his legal positivism, but Antonin Scalia is a legal positivist, too).

Rep. Paul is also one of the few people who’ve taken direct action to try and overturn Roe, as he has on numerous occasions proposed a bill that would, per the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate federal courts, tell the federal courts that they are no longer permitted to hear cases involving abortion laws, and that abortion laws are to be left up to state governments.

I bring this up, because apparently Ms. McCorvey has been the subject of Internet trolls on Facebook who are questioning her pro-life credentials(!)

She says the conflict is resolved, and it’s tough, given the various methods of Facebook communication, to see where the exact discussion is that she’s been posting about.

But I just wanted to stand up and say that hardly anyone has gone to the extent to overturn Roe v. Wade than “Jane Roe” herself has done, and I dare anyone to show me someone who has offered a direct challenge to Roe the way that Norma McCorvey and Ron Paul have both done. Their actions show the innate folly of the “incrementalist” approach of NRLC–and, if more people had been behind their efforts, there would be no Roe v. Wade today.