A group I follow on facebook had this posted today.
Of the options, what is the greatest threat to religious freedom in the world today: atheistic communism, totalitarian secularism, Christian theocracy or radical Islam?
I think this is a great idea for our next blog event, but I'll change it a bit to these below. You would pick one of the three.
What is the greatest threat to religious freedom in the world today, or why is religious freedom not threatened in the world today, or last, religious freedom is an irrelevant issue.
What do you guys think?
--------------
Also, to the triumvirate, I have a confession. I have toyed in the past with starting another blog, independent of this one, wherein I can blog Catholic to Catholics without the same scrutiny I would face here.
I have now done this, though I've only posted twice so far, I intend to continue.
While I gain a tremendous amount of insight and personal growth from our discussions on here, I cannot delve deeply into some of the many issues I would like to dive into, because we cannot get that far.
We do not share the same assumptions and world views that allow me to discuss some things as I could with other Christians and more specifically with other Catholics. My purpose in this blog has become more clear.
My purpose in this blog here is to grow, learn, challenge and be challenged. And I appreciate it very much.
But I have another purpose I want to fulfill, and that is to spread the faith. I want to help re-evangelize Catholics and show the truth of the Church to my fellow Christians. That will be the purpose of my other blog, which you can find at this URL.
http://1fromthepews.blogspot.com/
I am willing to debate and discuss anything I put on either blog, but my purpose of One from the Pews is not the same as my purpose here.
Personally, I recommend you don't read it, but I don't want to appear to be hiding it, so I've given you the link. I won't stop anyone from commenting on it, but I ask for some restraint. You are not the intended audience of that blog, and hence, I will not be writing the same way I do here and I ask you to bear that in mind.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
What does he do this man you seek?
So there is no shortage of people ranting and yelling about how no one running for president is any damn good. I'm one of them.
I'm also bored, and I have about 15 minutes left on lunch. I wanted to write something about our coddling and tacit encouragement of the horrible behavior of Muslim countries (IE apologizing to them after the kill us, that sort of thing) but I don't have time to do it justice right now.
Instead, here listed is a wild speculation of how each republican candidate running for president in 2012 might end the world.
Ron Paul
This one is easy. Ron Paul wins the nomination, and narrowly defeats Obama. Immediately, he shuts down the federal reserve. Within a year, all American troops abroad are back on US soil. The resulting economic uncertainty and lack of global policing by us lead to a break down in world order. Europe bravely tries to step up, as does China. China succeeds where Europe fails. Unrelated to all this, North Korea starts nuking people, and is nuked back. Dogs and cats begin living together. Europe declares fealty to China, who is suffering from the radiation of a blown off the map North Korea. Zombies rise up in China, and a nation so populous has no chance of containing it, especially as it is now focused on foreign matters. The radioactive zombie illness spreads across the globe. President Paul shuts America's borders, maintaining us for a time. But eventually the radiation creeps across the planet, and the undead rule the world. President Paul and a rag tag band of survivors starring James Woods hold out for a time at a farm house run by a man named Herschel.
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich eats Ron Paul, gaining his strength and delegates. The resulting momentum, and threats to eat Rick Santorum, lead to his winning the nomination. He narrowly defeats President Obama in the Fourth of July hot dog eating contest to win national support (He eats 86, the president turns in a solid 72 and finishes third behind Newt and Kobayashi). This support leads to his election. He challenges the leaders of all America's enemies to a hot dog eating contest on the next fourth of July with world peace on the line. He is about to win when a latent heart defect causes a heart attack and a "reversal of fortune"which leads to his disqualification. Ahmadinejad, now Ayatollah of America, is offended when the a jewish bus boy at a White House dinner exposed the bottom of his shoe to him, prompting him to attack Israel. The bus boy is actually an alien, and reports this violence to the Representatives of Telah, who deem humans savage and destroy the planet.
Rick Santorum
God becomes angry with America for electing Rick Santorum, and with the rest of the world for not stopping America from doing so. God begins biblical apocalypse. Santorum is pleased. He's not the anti-Christ, mind you, just awful.
Mitt Romney
I was torn between him, Rick and Obama as to who was the biblical anti-Christ in this scenario. Santorum isn't smooth enough. Obama might be sneaky and evil enough, but Romney has the funds for the job, and no one thinks he's dangerous. Total package really. I digress. Romney wins the nomination in a landslide. Narrowly wins election. Immediately he begins the well known Mormon practice of preparing for the apocalypse. The nation experiences a time of peace, and is well prepared for national disasters. All the other countries start saying that we're so nice and talented and they like hanging out with us, even though something about is makes them uncomfortable.
With such major focus on the apocalypse, we forget to keep an eye on the rest of the world, where in Russia a scientist clones a wooly mammoth. This seemingly innocent discovery leads to an outbreak of Mad Mammoth Disease, and we all go crazy and die. Mitt dies last and becomes God of his own planet. Other world leaders in the afterlife are confused as they thought Mormons were monotheistic Christians.
President Barrack Obama (Re-election)
The president continues his policies of utilizing executive orders on an unprecedented scale. He defeats the Church in court over the HHS mandate. This galvanizes Catholics who spend the next three years chipping away at the president's psyche. Finally in the final year as a Lame Duck he goes mad, and issues an order forcing all people to use contraceptives every time they have sex. Surprisingly, the nation loves this. His successor, republican President Christie doesn't want to upset chances at reelection and maintains the policy and is reelected. This continues for sometime, and America eventually is annexed by Mexico. Mexico, being incapable of ruling itself, can't rule America. Drug lords take control of our nukes and go to war with their Afghan opium providers. This leads to nukes hitting Pakistan, who says "Oh hell, nah," and blows up the planet.
----------
That didn't make any sense did it? Nope. Well really I just wanted a little creative writing exercise and there it was. Mahalo.
I'm also bored, and I have about 15 minutes left on lunch. I wanted to write something about our coddling and tacit encouragement of the horrible behavior of Muslim countries (IE apologizing to them after the kill us, that sort of thing) but I don't have time to do it justice right now.
Instead, here listed is a wild speculation of how each republican candidate running for president in 2012 might end the world.
Ron Paul
This one is easy. Ron Paul wins the nomination, and narrowly defeats Obama. Immediately, he shuts down the federal reserve. Within a year, all American troops abroad are back on US soil. The resulting economic uncertainty and lack of global policing by us lead to a break down in world order. Europe bravely tries to step up, as does China. China succeeds where Europe fails. Unrelated to all this, North Korea starts nuking people, and is nuked back. Dogs and cats begin living together. Europe declares fealty to China, who is suffering from the radiation of a blown off the map North Korea. Zombies rise up in China, and a nation so populous has no chance of containing it, especially as it is now focused on foreign matters. The radioactive zombie illness spreads across the globe. President Paul shuts America's borders, maintaining us for a time. But eventually the radiation creeps across the planet, and the undead rule the world. President Paul and a rag tag band of survivors starring James Woods hold out for a time at a farm house run by a man named Herschel.
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich eats Ron Paul, gaining his strength and delegates. The resulting momentum, and threats to eat Rick Santorum, lead to his winning the nomination. He narrowly defeats President Obama in the Fourth of July hot dog eating contest to win national support (He eats 86, the president turns in a solid 72 and finishes third behind Newt and Kobayashi). This support leads to his election. He challenges the leaders of all America's enemies to a hot dog eating contest on the next fourth of July with world peace on the line. He is about to win when a latent heart defect causes a heart attack and a "reversal of fortune"which leads to his disqualification. Ahmadinejad, now Ayatollah of America, is offended when the a jewish bus boy at a White House dinner exposed the bottom of his shoe to him, prompting him to attack Israel. The bus boy is actually an alien, and reports this violence to the Representatives of Telah, who deem humans savage and destroy the planet.
Rick Santorum
God becomes angry with America for electing Rick Santorum, and with the rest of the world for not stopping America from doing so. God begins biblical apocalypse. Santorum is pleased. He's not the anti-Christ, mind you, just awful.
Mitt Romney
I was torn between him, Rick and Obama as to who was the biblical anti-Christ in this scenario. Santorum isn't smooth enough. Obama might be sneaky and evil enough, but Romney has the funds for the job, and no one thinks he's dangerous. Total package really. I digress. Romney wins the nomination in a landslide. Narrowly wins election. Immediately he begins the well known Mormon practice of preparing for the apocalypse. The nation experiences a time of peace, and is well prepared for national disasters. All the other countries start saying that we're so nice and talented and they like hanging out with us, even though something about is makes them uncomfortable.
With such major focus on the apocalypse, we forget to keep an eye on the rest of the world, where in Russia a scientist clones a wooly mammoth. This seemingly innocent discovery leads to an outbreak of Mad Mammoth Disease, and we all go crazy and die. Mitt dies last and becomes God of his own planet. Other world leaders in the afterlife are confused as they thought Mormons were monotheistic Christians.
President Barrack Obama (Re-election)
The president continues his policies of utilizing executive orders on an unprecedented scale. He defeats the Church in court over the HHS mandate. This galvanizes Catholics who spend the next three years chipping away at the president's psyche. Finally in the final year as a Lame Duck he goes mad, and issues an order forcing all people to use contraceptives every time they have sex. Surprisingly, the nation loves this. His successor, republican President Christie doesn't want to upset chances at reelection and maintains the policy and is reelected. This continues for sometime, and America eventually is annexed by Mexico. Mexico, being incapable of ruling itself, can't rule America. Drug lords take control of our nukes and go to war with their Afghan opium providers. This leads to nukes hitting Pakistan, who says "Oh hell, nah," and blows up the planet.
----------
That didn't make any sense did it? Nope. Well really I just wanted a little creative writing exercise and there it was. Mahalo.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Defending the President....sort of
One of President Obama's administration's answers as to why it can hold Catholic hospitals and charities to secular standards when it comes to the HHS mandate, is that those organizations behave indistinguishably from secular versions of them.
And he's right.
He's not right about this mandate. But he's right about that first part. A Catholic hospital might employ a few nuns or priests, and there will be crucifixes and statues on the wall. But in most serviceable ways, ones experience there won't be any different from the secular hospital down the road.
Both will charge the same, both probably have financial assistance, both have decent doctors etc. I bet a secular hospital can even find you a chaplain if need be.
To qualify for the exemption under HHS, like Churches, "A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). 45 C.F.R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B)."
I'm not sure we can do much about conditions 3 and 4, but one and two should have been a no brainer. A Catholic ANYTHING should have as it's purpose the inculcation of Catholic views. We should be providing charity and care to as many people as we can, whether they're Catholic or not, but in the process, we should of course be teaching the faith and spreading the gospel. I mean, come on. Wasn't that the great commission?
As for employing mostly Catholics, can we legally do that? If we can, why the hell weren't we all along? We should want the best employees for everything sure, but all else being equal, if a Catholic group could use being Catholic as the tiebreaker, than they should have been doing so.
As to No. 3, primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets, well that's a stupid rule. Catholic health care and to a greater degree Catholic charities are trying to help as many people as they can, regardless of their faiths. This is an undue restriction, but that's on the administration, not the Catholic groups.
As for being a non-profit, I admit to almost no knowledge of how this works but I do think many Catholic charities probably fit that bill.
Anyway my point is this. While I don't think Catholic employers should be forced to violate their consciences by providing what is generally an elective pill/device etc., I also don't think they can sit back and play pure victim.
We need to remember who we are and live up to our own standards if we're going to ask people to recognize them.
And he's right.
He's not right about this mandate. But he's right about that first part. A Catholic hospital might employ a few nuns or priests, and there will be crucifixes and statues on the wall. But in most serviceable ways, ones experience there won't be any different from the secular hospital down the road.
Both will charge the same, both probably have financial assistance, both have decent doctors etc. I bet a secular hospital can even find you a chaplain if need be.
To qualify for the exemption under HHS, like Churches, "A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). 45 C.F.R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B)."
I'm not sure we can do much about conditions 3 and 4, but one and two should have been a no brainer. A Catholic ANYTHING should have as it's purpose the inculcation of Catholic views. We should be providing charity and care to as many people as we can, whether they're Catholic or not, but in the process, we should of course be teaching the faith and spreading the gospel. I mean, come on. Wasn't that the great commission?
As for employing mostly Catholics, can we legally do that? If we can, why the hell weren't we all along? We should want the best employees for everything sure, but all else being equal, if a Catholic group could use being Catholic as the tiebreaker, than they should have been doing so.
As to No. 3, primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets, well that's a stupid rule. Catholic health care and to a greater degree Catholic charities are trying to help as many people as they can, regardless of their faiths. This is an undue restriction, but that's on the administration, not the Catholic groups.
As for being a non-profit, I admit to almost no knowledge of how this works but I do think many Catholic charities probably fit that bill.
Anyway my point is this. While I don't think Catholic employers should be forced to violate their consciences by providing what is generally an elective pill/device etc., I also don't think they can sit back and play pure victim.
We need to remember who we are and live up to our own standards if we're going to ask people to recognize them.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The elephant in the HHS debate room
The gist of the HHS debate is this. President Obama and his administration have determined that all health insurers should have to cover the costs of contraceptives and the morning after pill which can be an abortifacent (sic?) .
The Catholic Church in the U.S. opposes this, calling it a violation of conscience, because Catholic Hospitals and other Catholic organizations would have to provide health insurance that covers something morally objectionable to them.
But here's the story that the Catholic side of things isn't really talking about. I mean they will acknowledge this, but that's about it.
That is that some sources are saying 99 percent of American women have used birth control at some time in their lives. The more upsetting, though no less surprising stat, is that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used artificial birth control.
Now I don't support the HHS mandate, at all. Not even a little. But that's not what this blog is about. This blog is more of an open letter of sorts to my fellow Catholics.
See we have a problem with this HSS mandate yes. It will attempt to force the Church to act against it's beliefs. That's bad.
But we have a more serious, though not new, problem. And that is that despite the number of people in the pews, fewer and fewer are really catechized. And if they are well taught in our beliefs, they're ignoring it in massive numbers.
I am going to use social media to do my own little survey on Catholics and their beliefs and get back to you with what I find.
For now though, let me say this.
All sin is awful. Using contraceptive is as much a sin as looking at porn or saying GD. But the reason this sin has my attention, is that it's the first time I've heard of 98 percent of the Church, of it's women in this case, engaging almost collectively in the same sin.
This merits research. Until then, I urge all of my fellow Catholics, almost none of whom I know will read this, to pray and attempt to conform their wills to that of Rome's. And if you cannot, in all conscience, do that, I suggest you consider whether you are a Catholic or not.
The Catholic Church in the U.S. opposes this, calling it a violation of conscience, because Catholic Hospitals and other Catholic organizations would have to provide health insurance that covers something morally objectionable to them.
But here's the story that the Catholic side of things isn't really talking about. I mean they will acknowledge this, but that's about it.
That is that some sources are saying 99 percent of American women have used birth control at some time in their lives. The more upsetting, though no less surprising stat, is that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used artificial birth control.
Now I don't support the HHS mandate, at all. Not even a little. But that's not what this blog is about. This blog is more of an open letter of sorts to my fellow Catholics.
See we have a problem with this HSS mandate yes. It will attempt to force the Church to act against it's beliefs. That's bad.
But we have a more serious, though not new, problem. And that is that despite the number of people in the pews, fewer and fewer are really catechized. And if they are well taught in our beliefs, they're ignoring it in massive numbers.
I am going to use social media to do my own little survey on Catholics and their beliefs and get back to you with what I find.
For now though, let me say this.
All sin is awful. Using contraceptive is as much a sin as looking at porn or saying GD. But the reason this sin has my attention, is that it's the first time I've heard of 98 percent of the Church, of it's women in this case, engaging almost collectively in the same sin.
This merits research. Until then, I urge all of my fellow Catholics, almost none of whom I know will read this, to pray and attempt to conform their wills to that of Rome's. And if you cannot, in all conscience, do that, I suggest you consider whether you are a Catholic or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)