Break, Break, Break
by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Break, break, break
On thy cold grey stones, O Sea!
And I would that my tongue could utter
The thoughts that arise in me.
O well for the fisherman's boy,
That he shouts with his sister at play!
O well for the sailor lad,
That he sings in his boat on the bay!
And the stately ships go on
To their haven under the hill;
But O for the touch of a vanished hand,
And the sound of a voice that is still!
Break, break, break
At the foot of thy crags, O Sea!
But the tender grace of a day that is dead
Will never come back to me.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
The Kaleidoscope of Christianity
On his radio show on March 29, Hugh Hewitt spent some time reading and discussing the Boston Globe article on an Evangelical Christian family in Ohio. The liberal elites in the form of mainstream media, good old MSM, seem intent on finding a comfortable box in which to fit these strange creatures called Christians. If they could only define us within one simple common denominator—like, stupidity--life would be so much easier for them.
The difficulty lies within Christian diversity. Oh, that D word, usually so cherished by liberals, presents a frightening dilemma when applied to Christians. For we come in numerous varieties and shades of intensity that make us very difficult to pigeonhole.
Let’s start with the evangelicals, since MSM seems spellbound by them--especially since the 2004 election. This group is being held responsible for everything from America’s terrible international relations to imposing a “theocracy” upon the nation. Evangelicals are strict in their rules for living, fundamental in their interpretation of the Bible. The family in the Globe’s article, for example, doesn’t believe that someone like Ghandi could go to Heaven, since he didn’t accept Jesus. Jesus is the only way to Heaven in the fundamentalist creed.
It doesn’t seem to carry much weight with the liberals that Evangelicals don’t force their beliefs on anyone else. Their staunch Christian faith, in and of itself, seems to present the most outrageous affront to liberal sensibilities.
But there are so many Christian denominations, and not all are so stringent in their biblical interpretations. For example, I know a devout Episcopalian who’s unsure whether or not homosexual acts are truly a sin. St. Paul wrote his epistles “for his time,” this man tells me. “Our times are different.” The Episcopalian example is just as accepting of Jesus Christ as our Savior as any fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, but the two applications of the faith differ dramatically.
The more lenient Christians among us tend to believe that the Church must relax in order to grow and thrive, and that a merciful God will never lock Heaven's gate against a soul that had lived a good life on earth. The more stringent Christians believe that Hell exists, and it exists for the purpose of eternally punishing the unbelievers and persistent sinners.
One may find strict or lenient practicing Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and any number of other Christian denominations, all with their own reading of the story of Jesus. The Eastern Orthodox Church offers yet another wide facet of Christianity.
Roman Catholics present a whole host of headaches for the liberal label-makers. There are charismatic Catholics, who speak in tongues and mirror many of the fundamentalist themes. There are Catholics who believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and those who don’t—either position is acceptable to the Catholic Church. Although both homosexual acts and abortion are considered grave sins within the Catholic Church, there are support groups within the Church for gay Catholics and Catholic women who have had abortions. There is a splinter group of ultra-conservative Catholics who adhere to the Latin liturgy of pre-Vatican II days; Mel Gibson belongs to this group.
There are highly intellectual Christians, also uncomplicated ones. Some Christians are very tolerant, others are less so. Some are well educated, with advanced degrees; some are high school dropouts. Some have written books; some can’t read. Christians are all over the map, which is exactly what Christ intended when he instructed the Apostles to “go forth and teach all nations” (Matt 28:18-20). This is what is called Christ’s “Great Commission” to his followers.
There are so many of us, with such varied points of view and differences of doctrine. Some Christian voters can overlook the abortion issue at the ballot box, others can’t even consider a pro-choice candidate. Some Christians support the Iraq war, some don’t. Some are Republican, some are Democrat, others are Independents. Christians simply do not fit into any one-size-fits all category, regardless of strident efforts by MSM to generalize and stereotype us into irrelevance. What’s a liberal elite media to do as they try to snag-and-tag such a fast-moving target?
If it will help, allow me to offer that one common denominator in Christianity—and no, it’s not stupidity. It’s our faith in Jesus Christ and, because of that faith, our hope for the future.
The difficulty lies within Christian diversity. Oh, that D word, usually so cherished by liberals, presents a frightening dilemma when applied to Christians. For we come in numerous varieties and shades of intensity that make us very difficult to pigeonhole.
Let’s start with the evangelicals, since MSM seems spellbound by them--especially since the 2004 election. This group is being held responsible for everything from America’s terrible international relations to imposing a “theocracy” upon the nation. Evangelicals are strict in their rules for living, fundamental in their interpretation of the Bible. The family in the Globe’s article, for example, doesn’t believe that someone like Ghandi could go to Heaven, since he didn’t accept Jesus. Jesus is the only way to Heaven in the fundamentalist creed.
It doesn’t seem to carry much weight with the liberals that Evangelicals don’t force their beliefs on anyone else. Their staunch Christian faith, in and of itself, seems to present the most outrageous affront to liberal sensibilities.
But there are so many Christian denominations, and not all are so stringent in their biblical interpretations. For example, I know a devout Episcopalian who’s unsure whether or not homosexual acts are truly a sin. St. Paul wrote his epistles “for his time,” this man tells me. “Our times are different.” The Episcopalian example is just as accepting of Jesus Christ as our Savior as any fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, but the two applications of the faith differ dramatically.
The more lenient Christians among us tend to believe that the Church must relax in order to grow and thrive, and that a merciful God will never lock Heaven's gate against a soul that had lived a good life on earth. The more stringent Christians believe that Hell exists, and it exists for the purpose of eternally punishing the unbelievers and persistent sinners.
One may find strict or lenient practicing Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and any number of other Christian denominations, all with their own reading of the story of Jesus. The Eastern Orthodox Church offers yet another wide facet of Christianity.
Roman Catholics present a whole host of headaches for the liberal label-makers. There are charismatic Catholics, who speak in tongues and mirror many of the fundamentalist themes. There are Catholics who believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and those who don’t—either position is acceptable to the Catholic Church. Although both homosexual acts and abortion are considered grave sins within the Catholic Church, there are support groups within the Church for gay Catholics and Catholic women who have had abortions. There is a splinter group of ultra-conservative Catholics who adhere to the Latin liturgy of pre-Vatican II days; Mel Gibson belongs to this group.
There are highly intellectual Christians, also uncomplicated ones. Some Christians are very tolerant, others are less so. Some are well educated, with advanced degrees; some are high school dropouts. Some have written books; some can’t read. Christians are all over the map, which is exactly what Christ intended when he instructed the Apostles to “go forth and teach all nations” (Matt 28:18-20). This is what is called Christ’s “Great Commission” to his followers.
There are so many of us, with such varied points of view and differences of doctrine. Some Christian voters can overlook the abortion issue at the ballot box, others can’t even consider a pro-choice candidate. Some Christians support the Iraq war, some don’t. Some are Republican, some are Democrat, others are Independents. Christians simply do not fit into any one-size-fits all category, regardless of strident efforts by MSM to generalize and stereotype us into irrelevance. What’s a liberal elite media to do as they try to snag-and-tag such a fast-moving target?
If it will help, allow me to offer that one common denominator in Christianity—and no, it’s not stupidity. It’s our faith in Jesus Christ and, because of that faith, our hope for the future.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Imponderable Questions
As the nation, and the world, continues to follow Terri Schiavo's path to death, there is nothing I can write here that would add anything to the intense debate raging on both sides of the issue. Emotions are so inflamed, both pro and con saving her life, that Terri herself has almost become a codicil to the philosophical and political arguments.
I have my stand on the issue; I'm sure you have yours. One of my dearest friends, an R.N. who spent a quarter century as a critical care nurse, has hers. Having participated in the disconnection of many feeding tubes over the years, my nurse friend's bottom line is this: What is best for Terri?
Here is the core of the many questions she posed to me during our discussion: What would Terri want? Would she want to be preserved indefinitely in her brain-damaged state? Or would she welcome the respite of death? Are her parents simply refusing to let go of her, long past the time they should have accepted the inevitable? Are they too controlling? Is Michael Schiavo entitled to take this step on Terri's behalf? Would we do the same for a loved one in such irreparable condition?
Isn't the inability to swallow food or water the signal that our lives are coming to their natural close? Hasn't modern medical technology taken us into realms of choice that were inconceivable to past generations, and has that technology forced us to make life-and-death decisions that we are unable to handle in our limited human wisdom?
Will God hold us responsible for abusing the technology He has gifted us with? Are we taking it beyond the boundaries intended to help humanity? Is Terri Shiavo's soul trapped and barred from sweet release because her family has insisted on keeping her here with them?
I don't pretend to know the answers to any of these questions. My friend, having extensive experience with dying patients and their family members, has much more profound insights and practical knowledge of the situation than I do. But nobody knows, for sure, what Terri would want if she could speak for herself--and as some maintain, she recently has.
I can not deny my own conscience. I don't believe that keeping the feeding tube inserted pending a new court review would have caused any harm. Isn't that the medical credo, according to the Hippocratic Oath? First, do no harm.
It's a shame that there isn't a Federal judge outside of Charles R. Wilson, either in Florida, the 11th Circuit, or on the Supreme Court, to be found who will step forward for that principle. Of all the tragic elements to this complex and very emotional case, the consistent judicial mercilessness is the most chilling to me.
I have my stand on the issue; I'm sure you have yours. One of my dearest friends, an R.N. who spent a quarter century as a critical care nurse, has hers. Having participated in the disconnection of many feeding tubes over the years, my nurse friend's bottom line is this: What is best for Terri?
Here is the core of the many questions she posed to me during our discussion: What would Terri want? Would she want to be preserved indefinitely in her brain-damaged state? Or would she welcome the respite of death? Are her parents simply refusing to let go of her, long past the time they should have accepted the inevitable? Are they too controlling? Is Michael Schiavo entitled to take this step on Terri's behalf? Would we do the same for a loved one in such irreparable condition?
Isn't the inability to swallow food or water the signal that our lives are coming to their natural close? Hasn't modern medical technology taken us into realms of choice that were inconceivable to past generations, and has that technology forced us to make life-and-death decisions that we are unable to handle in our limited human wisdom?
Will God hold us responsible for abusing the technology He has gifted us with? Are we taking it beyond the boundaries intended to help humanity? Is Terri Shiavo's soul trapped and barred from sweet release because her family has insisted on keeping her here with them?
I don't pretend to know the answers to any of these questions. My friend, having extensive experience with dying patients and their family members, has much more profound insights and practical knowledge of the situation than I do. But nobody knows, for sure, what Terri would want if she could speak for herself--and as some maintain, she recently has.
I can not deny my own conscience. I don't believe that keeping the feeding tube inserted pending a new court review would have caused any harm. Isn't that the medical credo, according to the Hippocratic Oath? First, do no harm.
It's a shame that there isn't a Federal judge outside of Charles R. Wilson, either in Florida, the 11th Circuit, or on the Supreme Court, to be found who will step forward for that principle. Of all the tragic elements to this complex and very emotional case, the consistent judicial mercilessness is the most chilling to me.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Judging The Constitution
If we are to be a nation of the people as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, we must have the ability, as citizens, to have our majority votes count. This means that laws must be changed or instituted using the voting booth and the legislature of our elected representatives in Congress.
When judges independently change the law or the intended outcome of a majority vote, the people lose. We lose our right to a representative government, our right to due process, our right to our freedom as guaranteed within the framework of our Constitution.
The Constitution begins "We the People of the United States." It says nothing about judges. The judiciary is covered in Article III, a healthy distance into the document. So how did the black robes end up running the country via their emperor-like thumbs up or down rulings? How did Thomas Jefferson's worst nightmare become our modern reality?
Consider Jefferson's statement below:
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.
Ask yourself, what voice does today's voter really have? Judges decide when murdering unborn babies and incapacitated women is constitutional. Judges dictate if and when we can use the words "God" or "Christmas" in public. Judges forbid the image of a cross on a town's police badge, a county shield, a city mountaintop. After the people have spoken to their legislators through the ballot box, judges alone decide if homosexual unions can be called marriage or if illegal aliens can use taxpayer services, completely ignoring the will of the majority of voters on Election Day.
Now ask yourself: Are we there yet? Are we under despotic rule of the judicial branch of government that Jefferson feared?
You be the judge.
When judges independently change the law or the intended outcome of a majority vote, the people lose. We lose our right to a representative government, our right to due process, our right to our freedom as guaranteed within the framework of our Constitution.
The Constitution begins "We the People of the United States." It says nothing about judges. The judiciary is covered in Article III, a healthy distance into the document. So how did the black robes end up running the country via their emperor-like thumbs up or down rulings? How did Thomas Jefferson's worst nightmare become our modern reality?
Consider Jefferson's statement below:
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.
Ask yourself, what voice does today's voter really have? Judges decide when murdering unborn babies and incapacitated women is constitutional. Judges dictate if and when we can use the words "God" or "Christmas" in public. Judges forbid the image of a cross on a town's police badge, a county shield, a city mountaintop. After the people have spoken to their legislators through the ballot box, judges alone decide if homosexual unions can be called marriage or if illegal aliens can use taxpayer services, completely ignoring the will of the majority of voters on Election Day.
Now ask yourself: Are we there yet? Are we under despotic rule of the judicial branch of government that Jefferson feared?
You be the judge.
Monday, March 21, 2005
An Excellent Question
Talk radio host Laura Ingraham posed an excellent question to her audience today while discussing the Terri Schiavo case in Florida. It pertained to the journalistic standards of MSM on the subject of ethical and moral issues.
It sounded better when Laura said it, but the gist of her question was this: "Why is putting panties on the head of an Abu Ghraib prisoner torture, but starving a helpless woman to death isn't torture?"
The New York Times chimed into the controversy with the assurance that a starvation death is "peaceful" and causes "little discomfort." As this Newsmax article suggests, perhaps we should try this "gentle" starvation technique on the Gitmo detainees. But applied in that case, I wonder how quickly the media would reverse its stand? Would starvation suddenly become torture?
You bet your sweet bias, it would.
It sounded better when Laura said it, but the gist of her question was this: "Why is putting panties on the head of an Abu Ghraib prisoner torture, but starving a helpless woman to death isn't torture?"
The New York Times chimed into the controversy with the assurance that a starvation death is "peaceful" and causes "little discomfort." As this Newsmax article suggests, perhaps we should try this "gentle" starvation technique on the Gitmo detainees. But applied in that case, I wonder how quickly the media would reverse its stand? Would starvation suddenly become torture?
You bet your sweet bias, it would.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Crossroads For San Diego
The fight to preserve the Mount Soledad cross continues in San Diego. After one week, as of March 19, 8,000 signatures had been received for a petition to keep the cross standing in its war memorial setting. Over 25,000 more signatures will be needed by April 6 before the City Council vote to remove the cross can be reversed.
There is something epic in the protracted struggle over this cross. Some supporters of its preservation consider the cross a part of the region's history, others view it as a symbol of religious hope. That one discontented atheist could cause 16 years of upheaval over a simple monument at the top of a hill is a tragic indicator of the sad state of common sense in this country.
"We the People of the United States..." begins our nation's Constitution. "We," not "I." If one atheist is offended, even a small number of atheists, I don't believe the majority of Americans should have to sit down and shut up. I think the Founders who signed the Declaration of Independence--a document that refers to God, the Creator, and Providence--would agree with me.
If 33,610 registered San Diego voters agree by April 6, will they have finally won the right to keep a symbol of their city in place? Or will the tyranny of one atheist triumph? San Diego now stands at a crossroads for religious freedom, common sense, and majority rule.
There is something epic in the protracted struggle over this cross. Some supporters of its preservation consider the cross a part of the region's history, others view it as a symbol of religious hope. That one discontented atheist could cause 16 years of upheaval over a simple monument at the top of a hill is a tragic indicator of the sad state of common sense in this country.
"We the People of the United States..." begins our nation's Constitution. "We," not "I." If one atheist is offended, even a small number of atheists, I don't believe the majority of Americans should have to sit down and shut up. I think the Founders who signed the Declaration of Independence--a document that refers to God, the Creator, and Providence--would agree with me.
If 33,610 registered San Diego voters agree by April 6, will they have finally won the right to keep a symbol of their city in place? Or will the tyranny of one atheist triumph? San Diego now stands at a crossroads for religious freedom, common sense, and majority rule.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
St. Patrick's Battalion
One of the fascinating things about history is that you can never know all of it. Here I am, an American of 100% Irish forebears, and I had not a clue that there had been a battalion of Irish immigrant soldiers who fought with Mexico during the Mexican-American war of 1846-1848.
Nor did I know that there is a group of Mexican bagpipers called the St. Patrick's Battalion Pipe Band, named in honor of Capt. John Riley's band of deserters from the U.S. Army who helped to defend Mexico.
"The Rogue's March: John Riley and the St. Patrick's Battalion in the Mexican-American War."by Peter F. Stevens is a book I'll have to check out. "No one wanted them here," Stevens said of the Irish soldiers. "It's a story of prejudice. The desertion was fueled by prejudice in the U.S. ranks."
I remember my grandmother telling me that when she first came to America as a teenager, there were signs posted in storefront windows that read "No Irish Need Apply." Imagine the fun today's ACLU would have with that one! But my grandmother went on to recite a little poem that helped assuage the hurt caused by those signs:
"Whoever this has written,
'Tis written very well,
For these same words are written
Upon the gates of hell."
Happy St. Patrick's Day to all.
Nor did I know that there is a group of Mexican bagpipers called the St. Patrick's Battalion Pipe Band, named in honor of Capt. John Riley's band of deserters from the U.S. Army who helped to defend Mexico.
"The Rogue's March: John Riley and the St. Patrick's Battalion in the Mexican-American War."by Peter F. Stevens is a book I'll have to check out. "No one wanted them here," Stevens said of the Irish soldiers. "It's a story of prejudice. The desertion was fueled by prejudice in the U.S. ranks."
I remember my grandmother telling me that when she first came to America as a teenager, there were signs posted in storefront windows that read "No Irish Need Apply." Imagine the fun today's ACLU would have with that one! But my grandmother went on to recite a little poem that helped assuage the hurt caused by those signs:
"Whoever this has written,
'Tis written very well,
For these same words are written
Upon the gates of hell."
Happy St. Patrick's Day to all.
Monday, March 14, 2005
The Power of a Symbol
There was no news to report from the San Diego newspaper about the ultimate fate of the Mount Soledad Cross today, but the title link shows that the blogosphere is not about to give up on the subject. I've decided to leave the whole issue to heaven for the moment. Events far away have absorbed my attention.
Beruit, Lebanon looks like Times Square on New Year's Eve, only on a much larger scale. Wow. I wonder what inspired all these people to take to the streets, waving hundreds of Lebanese flags?
The assassination last month of their former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri last month surely acted as part of the catalyst. But I suspect that those purple fingers in Iraq on January 30 may have made a significant contribution to this mass movement of the Lebanese people towards demanding their freedom and independence from Syria.
Symbols have the ability to inspire for good or to influence for evil. The swastika is the classic example of the latter. The galvanizing power behind inspiring symbols such as the cross, the flag, the red AIDS ribbons, and the yellow troop ribbons are emotional forces to be reckoned with.
If you asked the close to one million Lebanese demonstrators in Beirut, they might tell you that the purple index fingers of the Iraqi voters have pointed them in this direction.
Beruit, Lebanon looks like Times Square on New Year's Eve, only on a much larger scale. Wow. I wonder what inspired all these people to take to the streets, waving hundreds of Lebanese flags?
The assassination last month of their former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri last month surely acted as part of the catalyst. But I suspect that those purple fingers in Iraq on January 30 may have made a significant contribution to this mass movement of the Lebanese people towards demanding their freedom and independence from Syria.
Symbols have the ability to inspire for good or to influence for evil. The swastika is the classic example of the latter. The galvanizing power behind inspiring symbols such as the cross, the flag, the red AIDS ribbons, and the yellow troop ribbons are emotional forces to be reckoned with.
If you asked the close to one million Lebanese demonstrators in Beirut, they might tell you that the purple index fingers of the Iraqi voters have pointed them in this direction.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Continuing the Cross
The continuing saga of the Mount Soledad Cross has not yet officially ended. The cross has stood in the war memorial since 1952, not 1954, as I previously posted. I regret the error. As the title link explains, a cross in one form or another has stood on that mountaintop since 1913.
For nearly one hundred years, a cross has grace that site. In all that time, no one besides San Diego's one disgruntled atheist ever determined that it caused harm to any person or infringed on rights. There are signs that San Diego Congressmen Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) are not prepared to give up the fight even now.
The San Diego City Council vote notwithstanding, these two Congressmen continue to work towards protecting this beautiful landmark. There should be more news on Monday, and if there is, I will post it here.
For nearly one hundred years, a cross has grace that site. In all that time, no one besides San Diego's one disgruntled atheist ever determined that it caused harm to any person or infringed on rights. There are signs that San Diego Congressmen Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) are not prepared to give up the fight even now.
The San Diego City Council vote notwithstanding, these two Congressmen continue to work towards protecting this beautiful landmark. There should be more news on Monday, and if there is, I will post it here.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Our Cross To Bear
After a bitter legal fight that dragged on since 1989, the Mount Soledad Cross in San Diego is coming down.
The cross was erected in 1954, replacing another that had stood on the same site for decades. But one atheist in town decided that the cross offended his tender sensibilities. I refuse to publicize his name—it’s in the links if you’re interested in learning this colossal time-waster’s identity. The atheist fought to remove the cross for 16 years, and now he’s succeeded. The cross is coming down within 90 days.
San Diegans, weary of the expensive 16-year fight, voted by a margin of nearly 60% last November to oppose Proposition K, which would have authorized a new land sale to settle the constitutional question. The city council agreed to abide by the vote when the measure was placed on the ballot. The last minute attempt to save the beautiful cross atop Mount Soledad failed this week when the San Diego City Council voted 5-3 against keeping the cross. It may seem, at first glance, that the atheist has won.
He certainly believes he’s won something. But, what exactly has he won? He now has the right to look into blank air instead of a majestic and respectful tribute to America’s war dead. Congratulations. That’s a real accomplishment.
It’s astounding that so much time, energy, and money could be channeled into such a pointless battle. It’s even more astonishing that the atheist thinks he’s smarter than people who think the cross belongs on its time-honored hill. I wonder, what useful and productive pastimes might this industrious and dedicated atheist have found to fill his hours, if only the sight of a simple cross standing on a mountaintop, in the midst of a war memorial, did not enrage him so?
So, you busy and devoted atheist, what’s next on your anti-religion crusade? Arlington National Cemetery? Now, there’s a lifetime vocation for such a fervent atheist. Why, that’s Federal land! And look, it’s literally covered in a sea of 32 government approved religious symbols! There are not only a dizzying variety of crosses, but also emblems of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism—in total, 32 religions. Oh yes, you kindly, tolerant San Diego atheist, you had best get busy.
Of course, the Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals will do all it can to assist, as it did in 2002 by ruling unconstitutional two attempted sales of the land on which the cross stands. Fortunately for America, Arlington National Cemetery is outside the Ninth Court’s jurisdiction.
San Diego’s conscientious atheist, who works so feverishly to erase the marks of our nation’s faith and heritage, is a cross to bear for all Americans who cherish religious freedom and “the free exercise thereof” guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe now that he has a bit more free time on his hands, San Diego’s devoted atheist will actually read that document.
Even better, perhaps the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will do the same.
The cross was erected in 1954, replacing another that had stood on the same site for decades. But one atheist in town decided that the cross offended his tender sensibilities. I refuse to publicize his name—it’s in the links if you’re interested in learning this colossal time-waster’s identity. The atheist fought to remove the cross for 16 years, and now he’s succeeded. The cross is coming down within 90 days.
San Diegans, weary of the expensive 16-year fight, voted by a margin of nearly 60% last November to oppose Proposition K, which would have authorized a new land sale to settle the constitutional question. The city council agreed to abide by the vote when the measure was placed on the ballot. The last minute attempt to save the beautiful cross atop Mount Soledad failed this week when the San Diego City Council voted 5-3 against keeping the cross. It may seem, at first glance, that the atheist has won.
He certainly believes he’s won something. But, what exactly has he won? He now has the right to look into blank air instead of a majestic and respectful tribute to America’s war dead. Congratulations. That’s a real accomplishment.
It’s astounding that so much time, energy, and money could be channeled into such a pointless battle. It’s even more astonishing that the atheist thinks he’s smarter than people who think the cross belongs on its time-honored hill. I wonder, what useful and productive pastimes might this industrious and dedicated atheist have found to fill his hours, if only the sight of a simple cross standing on a mountaintop, in the midst of a war memorial, did not enrage him so?
So, you busy and devoted atheist, what’s next on your anti-religion crusade? Arlington National Cemetery? Now, there’s a lifetime vocation for such a fervent atheist. Why, that’s Federal land! And look, it’s literally covered in a sea of 32 government approved religious symbols! There are not only a dizzying variety of crosses, but also emblems of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism—in total, 32 religions. Oh yes, you kindly, tolerant San Diego atheist, you had best get busy.
Of course, the Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals will do all it can to assist, as it did in 2002 by ruling unconstitutional two attempted sales of the land on which the cross stands. Fortunately for America, Arlington National Cemetery is outside the Ninth Court’s jurisdiction.
San Diego’s conscientious atheist, who works so feverishly to erase the marks of our nation’s faith and heritage, is a cross to bear for all Americans who cherish religious freedom and “the free exercise thereof” guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe now that he has a bit more free time on his hands, San Diego’s devoted atheist will actually read that document.
Even better, perhaps the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will do the same.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
A Theme of Passion
Since "The Passion Recut" is being released on Friday, March 11, I dedided to stay with this week's Mel Gibson theme for at least one more posting. The other news will keep for a day or two. And besides, it's Lent.
I hope this new release is successful enough to make "The Passion Recut" an annual event in local theatres. I also hope that those who shied away last year solely due to the violent content will be encouraged to go see the film. Of all the movies I've seen that really need to be viewed in a theatre, "The Passion" takes first place. The story comes alive in that darkened, larger-than-life setting.
When I saw it last year, I was startled that the film began immediately; there were no previews at all. Upon reflection, I realized that since Mel Gibson had financed the project completely by himself, without a penny of studio funds, there was no need for him to pay any piper with commericals for upcoming releases. It was quite fitting that, after the lights dimmed, the audience finds itself dropped abruptly into the darkened garden where Christ's agony began. From the first frame, you are transported to that terrible day. If ever a movie was meant to own the screen, it's this one.
For my readers who haven't yet seen the film, please consider going this year. The Passion and Resurrection of Christ has been called "the greatest story ever told." I've seen most of the films that have depicted it; some have been quite wondrous. But Gibson's film stands alone. The viewer can see that he loved making this movie. His creative intensity--his passion--shows in every scene.
I hope this new release is successful enough to make "The Passion Recut" an annual event in local theatres. I also hope that those who shied away last year solely due to the violent content will be encouraged to go see the film. Of all the movies I've seen that really need to be viewed in a theatre, "The Passion" takes first place. The story comes alive in that darkened, larger-than-life setting.
When I saw it last year, I was startled that the film began immediately; there were no previews at all. Upon reflection, I realized that since Mel Gibson had financed the project completely by himself, without a penny of studio funds, there was no need for him to pay any piper with commericals for upcoming releases. It was quite fitting that, after the lights dimmed, the audience finds itself dropped abruptly into the darkened garden where Christ's agony began. From the first frame, you are transported to that terrible day. If ever a movie was meant to own the screen, it's this one.
For my readers who haven't yet seen the film, please consider going this year. The Passion and Resurrection of Christ has been called "the greatest story ever told." I've seen most of the films that have depicted it; some have been quite wondrous. But Gibson's film stands alone. The viewer can see that he loved making this movie. His creative intensity--his passion--shows in every scene.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Wishful Blogging
I've been retooling my resume the past few days. I don't really want another administrative job in corporate America, but I'd love to be ready if a blogging job ever presented itself.
All I've ever wanted to do was to write for a living. In the blogosphere, that seems like it might be possible someday. Almost any project would be fun. Topic? The possibilities are limitless. Politics, religion, health, sports, kids, books, movies--it all sounds good to me. I would be totally open to suggestions, unless they involve supporting Hillary Clinton for president in '08.
Sometimes I feel like I'm living my life backwards. I'm working all day at the office, waiting to get home to blog at night. I'd much prefer to blog all day and check into the office for an hour at night. It just seems more symmetrical to my way of thinking.
Of course, my family is after me to start another book. Between a full time job and nightly blogging, another book seems impossible. But, I suppose I need to at least get started. Getting started isn't impossible. In fact, it's relatively easy--especially when it's your relatives nagging you. Getting finished is the hard part, the almost impossible part.
It's not a perfect world, but it's the best one we've got. I'll keep working with it.
All I've ever wanted to do was to write for a living. In the blogosphere, that seems like it might be possible someday. Almost any project would be fun. Topic? The possibilities are limitless. Politics, religion, health, sports, kids, books, movies--it all sounds good to me. I would be totally open to suggestions, unless they involve supporting Hillary Clinton for president in '08.
Sometimes I feel like I'm living my life backwards. I'm working all day at the office, waiting to get home to blog at night. I'd much prefer to blog all day and check into the office for an hour at night. It just seems more symmetrical to my way of thinking.
Of course, my family is after me to start another book. Between a full time job and nightly blogging, another book seems impossible. But, I suppose I need to at least get started. Getting started isn't impossible. In fact, it's relatively easy--especially when it's your relatives nagging you. Getting finished is the hard part, the almost impossible part.
It's not a perfect world, but it's the best one we've got. I'll keep working with it.
Monday, March 07, 2005
A Bit More on Mel Gibson
As I surfed the news websites tonight, trollling for a blog topic, I happened across the title link on NewsMax.com. It was interesting to learn that Mel Gibson concurs with my conclusion that the Third Secret has not yet been fulfilled. And it made me chuckle to read that he was tempted to ask, "So, what's the Third Secret?" when he met Sr. Lucia last year during his visit to her convent to show the sisters "The Passion of The Christ."
"The Passion Recut" is being released by Gibson on Friday, March 11, and I think that's a smart move. I saw the original movie in the theatre last year and thought it was a moving, gripping and intense experience--but there were fleeting scenes I just couldn't watch. Chunks of flesh being ripped off Jesus's back, closeups of nails being driven through his flesh were a bit too much for me to handle. I'm sure many parents kept their children away from "The Passion of The Christ" for fear of nightmares and emotional upset. In fact, I know many adults who avoided the film for the same reasons. Gibson is correct in thinking that his slightly-edited film will reach a wider audience with some of the more startling violence softened.
Mel Gibson is one of a kind. He has achieved secular success on the highest level and in the most expansive arena, Hollywood. Yet he has the perspective to realize the vanity of it all, and the good values to recognize his place in the Universe. He uses his wealth and influence to achieve good ends. Displaying a truly “brave heart,” Gibson gambled $25 million of his own cash to make “Passion” because no one in Hollywood would touch the project. The film grossed over $600 million worldwide.
Talk about having the courage of your convictions! If you believe in your dream, Mel Gibson shows us all how it’s done. Based on his proven track record, Gibson’s Fatima film promises to be yet another beautiful movie experience that people will be lining up to see. I can almost taste the popcorn already.
"The Passion Recut" is being released by Gibson on Friday, March 11, and I think that's a smart move. I saw the original movie in the theatre last year and thought it was a moving, gripping and intense experience--but there were fleeting scenes I just couldn't watch. Chunks of flesh being ripped off Jesus's back, closeups of nails being driven through his flesh were a bit too much for me to handle. I'm sure many parents kept their children away from "The Passion of The Christ" for fear of nightmares and emotional upset. In fact, I know many adults who avoided the film for the same reasons. Gibson is correct in thinking that his slightly-edited film will reach a wider audience with some of the more startling violence softened.
Mel Gibson is one of a kind. He has achieved secular success on the highest level and in the most expansive arena, Hollywood. Yet he has the perspective to realize the vanity of it all, and the good values to recognize his place in the Universe. He uses his wealth and influence to achieve good ends. Displaying a truly “brave heart,” Gibson gambled $25 million of his own cash to make “Passion” because no one in Hollywood would touch the project. The film grossed over $600 million worldwide.
Talk about having the courage of your convictions! If you believe in your dream, Mel Gibson shows us all how it’s done. Based on his proven track record, Gibson’s Fatima film promises to be yet another beautiful movie experience that people will be lining up to see. I can almost taste the popcorn already.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
The Third Secret
Actor, producer, and director Mel Gibson is planning to make a movie about the intriguing "Third Secret" of Fatima. If "The Passion of The Christ" is any indicator, he will have another blockbuster film to add to his credits.
The announcement of Gibson's upcoming Fatima movie followed within days of Sr. Lucia dos Santos death on February 13. To me, her date of death is a sign of her protection under Our Lady of Fatima, as all the Fatima visions occurred on the 13th day of the month.
What is the popular fascination with the Third Secret? As revealed by Pope John Paul II in 2000, the prophecy foretells a "Bishop dressed in white" struggling over countless bodies of martyrs to reach a "big Cross' on a mountain top. Some people, including John Paul II, believe that this secret was fulfilled by the 1981 assassination attempt on the Pope.
I don't happen to agree with that interpretation. I think another shoe will drop regarding the Third Secret of Fatima.
Why do I believe that there is more to come? I had a college professor, also a priest, who once discussed the secrets of Fatima in a class lecture. He explained that a guideline for judging the authenticity of a prophecy is its accurate fulfillment. "By their fruits, you shall know them."
The first secret foretold the early death of Lucia's two young cousins, her co-visionaries of Fatima. Both children were dead by 1920, carried off by the worldwide influenza pandemic.
The second secret was complex. It predicted the spread of communism. "Russia will spread her errors...", Our Lady told Lucia. Although the visions occurred in 1917, this second secret predated the Bolshevik Revolution by several months. The second secret went on to foretell a second great war that would begin during the papacy of Pius XI. Some critics dismiss this prophecy, because Hitler’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, occurred when Pius XII was pope. But Sr. Lucia always maintained that the second World War actually began during the reign of Pius XI with the invasion of Austria in March 1938. The annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, the forming Axis alliances, and Hitler’s decision to invade Poland marked the beginnings of the war, though war had not yet been officially declared. All of these events occurred during the pontificate of Pope Pius XI.
In addition, it was predicted that this great war would be presaged by "a sign in the heavens." A huge, very unusual aurora borealis appeared over all of Europe in 1938, three months before the aforementioned annexation of Austria and a year before Hitler invaded Poland and ignited the horror that we know as World War II.
If I apply my professor's criteria for accuracy to the Third Secret, I find that the details do not match the reality of the attempt upon Pope John Paul II's life. He survived, many believe miraculously--the shooting took place on May 13, which is the feast day of Our Lady of Fatima. The Holy Father has been outspoken in crediting Our Lady's intercession in saving his life. And there was nothing that can be interpreted as a struggle up a mountain towards a large cross, no correlation to the stretch of martyred Christians.
There is too much missing from the 1981 shooting to close the books on the Third Secret of Fatima. I wonder if the current strife in the world, and the evils we face in the War on Terror, will somehow connect to its ultimate fulfillment.
Time, and accuracy, will tell. In the meantime, I’ll keep saying my prayers and looking forward to Mel Gibson’s movie.
The announcement of Gibson's upcoming Fatima movie followed within days of Sr. Lucia dos Santos death on February 13. To me, her date of death is a sign of her protection under Our Lady of Fatima, as all the Fatima visions occurred on the 13th day of the month.
What is the popular fascination with the Third Secret? As revealed by Pope John Paul II in 2000, the prophecy foretells a "Bishop dressed in white" struggling over countless bodies of martyrs to reach a "big Cross' on a mountain top. Some people, including John Paul II, believe that this secret was fulfilled by the 1981 assassination attempt on the Pope.
I don't happen to agree with that interpretation. I think another shoe will drop regarding the Third Secret of Fatima.
Why do I believe that there is more to come? I had a college professor, also a priest, who once discussed the secrets of Fatima in a class lecture. He explained that a guideline for judging the authenticity of a prophecy is its accurate fulfillment. "By their fruits, you shall know them."
The first secret foretold the early death of Lucia's two young cousins, her co-visionaries of Fatima. Both children were dead by 1920, carried off by the worldwide influenza pandemic.
The second secret was complex. It predicted the spread of communism. "Russia will spread her errors...", Our Lady told Lucia. Although the visions occurred in 1917, this second secret predated the Bolshevik Revolution by several months. The second secret went on to foretell a second great war that would begin during the papacy of Pius XI. Some critics dismiss this prophecy, because Hitler’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, occurred when Pius XII was pope. But Sr. Lucia always maintained that the second World War actually began during the reign of Pius XI with the invasion of Austria in March 1938. The annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, the forming Axis alliances, and Hitler’s decision to invade Poland marked the beginnings of the war, though war had not yet been officially declared. All of these events occurred during the pontificate of Pope Pius XI.
In addition, it was predicted that this great war would be presaged by "a sign in the heavens." A huge, very unusual aurora borealis appeared over all of Europe in 1938, three months before the aforementioned annexation of Austria and a year before Hitler invaded Poland and ignited the horror that we know as World War II.
If I apply my professor's criteria for accuracy to the Third Secret, I find that the details do not match the reality of the attempt upon Pope John Paul II's life. He survived, many believe miraculously--the shooting took place on May 13, which is the feast day of Our Lady of Fatima. The Holy Father has been outspoken in crediting Our Lady's intercession in saving his life. And there was nothing that can be interpreted as a struggle up a mountain towards a large cross, no correlation to the stretch of martyred Christians.
There is too much missing from the 1981 shooting to close the books on the Third Secret of Fatima. I wonder if the current strife in the world, and the evils we face in the War on Terror, will somehow connect to its ultimate fulfillment.
Time, and accuracy, will tell. In the meantime, I’ll keep saying my prayers and looking forward to Mel Gibson’s movie.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Evil, All Dressed Up
There is a famous quotation stating that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Today’s Los Angeles Times insidiously sanitized front page review of life in North Korea, “N. Korea, Without the Rancor” gives evil a rapid assist towards victory. The very real danger in such writing lies in the fact that “the devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape.” If the Times can make North Korea sound just like America, only disadvantaged and discriminated against, then of course Americans must accept their need of nuclear weapons.
And no doubt those pesky problems with electricity are President Bush’s fault.
The North Korean “gentleman” being quoted in the Times story is insulted that Condoleezza Rice referred to his country as an “outpost of tyranny.”
“North Koreans are most sensitive when they hear that kind of remark."
Perhaps in deference to his tender sensitivities, the Times article makes no mention of the North Korean gulags, prison camps in which entire families are imprisoned, sometimes for generations, for any real or imagined slight against the government. It sounds more like the world capital of tyranny than a mere outpost.
I wonder how sensitive North Korean prisoners are to seeing their children tortured and murdered in front of their eyes?
LA Times editor John Carroll needs to apologize to his readers for insulting their intelligence by publishing such blatant pro-dictatorship garbage. He should print a factual account of the horrors that face the people of North Korea every day, contrasted with the freedom and comfort we are blessed with in the U.S. While he still has a semblance of readership, Carroll had better face the fact that the people in North Korea who are “just trying to live a normal life” are not parking their SUVs at Starbucks after dropping the kids at soccer practice. Trying to live a normal life in North Korea consists of constantly striving to avoid a mistake that will send you or your loved ones to prison or execution. Now that's a fact that deserves front page reporting.
I must emphasize that I am absolutely no relation to LA Times editor John Carroll. If some genealogist goes back twelve centuries and finds a connection, I will have a new mission in life: to discredit it. I deeply regret that such an ignorant empty suit as Carroll bears my father’s first and last names.
If he were alive, how outraged my father would be to read such corrupt and dangerous trash published under his name. He hasn't enough sense or decency to realize it, but LA Times editor John Carroll should hang his head in shame.
Today’s Los Angeles Times insidiously sanitized front page review of life in North Korea, “N. Korea, Without the Rancor” gives evil a rapid assist towards victory. The very real danger in such writing lies in the fact that “the devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape.” If the Times can make North Korea sound just like America, only disadvantaged and discriminated against, then of course Americans must accept their need of nuclear weapons.
And no doubt those pesky problems with electricity are President Bush’s fault.
The North Korean “gentleman” being quoted in the Times story is insulted that Condoleezza Rice referred to his country as an “outpost of tyranny.”
“North Koreans are most sensitive when they hear that kind of remark."
Perhaps in deference to his tender sensitivities, the Times article makes no mention of the North Korean gulags, prison camps in which entire families are imprisoned, sometimes for generations, for any real or imagined slight against the government. It sounds more like the world capital of tyranny than a mere outpost.
I wonder how sensitive North Korean prisoners are to seeing their children tortured and murdered in front of their eyes?
LA Times editor John Carroll needs to apologize to his readers for insulting their intelligence by publishing such blatant pro-dictatorship garbage. He should print a factual account of the horrors that face the people of North Korea every day, contrasted with the freedom and comfort we are blessed with in the U.S. While he still has a semblance of readership, Carroll had better face the fact that the people in North Korea who are “just trying to live a normal life” are not parking their SUVs at Starbucks after dropping the kids at soccer practice. Trying to live a normal life in North Korea consists of constantly striving to avoid a mistake that will send you or your loved ones to prison or execution. Now that's a fact that deserves front page reporting.
I must emphasize that I am absolutely no relation to LA Times editor John Carroll. If some genealogist goes back twelve centuries and finds a connection, I will have a new mission in life: to discredit it. I deeply regret that such an ignorant empty suit as Carroll bears my father’s first and last names.
If he were alive, how outraged my father would be to read such corrupt and dangerous trash published under his name. He hasn't enough sense or decency to realize it, but LA Times editor John Carroll should hang his head in shame.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
The Rule of The Few
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty ushers in a frightening reinforcement of America's trend toward oligarchy.
Translated from the original Greek, oligarchy, or “rule by the few” is certainly now comfortably established in these United States, a place that was once a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Now we operate in a government reborn of the Supreme Court justices, by the justices, and for the justices.
As reported in the Washington Post article, linked above:
“For the Supreme Court itself, perhaps the most significant effect of yesterday's decision is to reaffirm the role of international law in constitutional interpretation.
The European Union, human right lawyers from the United Kingdom and a group of Nobel Peace laureates had urged the court in friend-of-the-court briefs to strike down the juvenile death penalty.”
Excuse me? Where does the U.S. Constitution stipulate a “role of international law in constitutional interpretation”? Since when is it appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court members to be soliciting feedback from their European chums before handing down United States decisions?
"In saying that this strong expression of international sentiment "provide[s] respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions," Kennedy lengthened the recent string of decisions in which the court has incorporated foreign views -- and decisively rejected the arguments of those on the court, led by Scalia, who say it should consider U.S. law exclusively."
Oh, no, of course America wouldn’t want to consider our own laws exclusively! How would that look to our good friends on the U.N. Security Council?
The “Robed Masters” of the highest court are settling far back on their thrones, and they have no intention of moving anytime soon. We, the U.S. citizens, must remain very vocal about this situation, calling and writing our representatives in Congress, and publicly speaking out--while free speech is still legal. That is not overstatement. The Supreme Court has evolved into the abusive power that Thomas Jefferson feared it might become.
We, the citizens of the United States of America, are going to become increasingly irrelevant to this black-robed government of the few.
If we allow that to happen to us, the black boots can not be far behind.
Translated from the original Greek, oligarchy, or “rule by the few” is certainly now comfortably established in these United States, a place that was once a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Now we operate in a government reborn of the Supreme Court justices, by the justices, and for the justices.
As reported in the Washington Post article, linked above:
“For the Supreme Court itself, perhaps the most significant effect of yesterday's decision is to reaffirm the role of international law in constitutional interpretation.
The European Union, human right lawyers from the United Kingdom and a group of Nobel Peace laureates had urged the court in friend-of-the-court briefs to strike down the juvenile death penalty.”
Excuse me? Where does the U.S. Constitution stipulate a “role of international law in constitutional interpretation”? Since when is it appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court members to be soliciting feedback from their European chums before handing down United States decisions?
"In saying that this strong expression of international sentiment "provide[s] respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions," Kennedy lengthened the recent string of decisions in which the court has incorporated foreign views -- and decisively rejected the arguments of those on the court, led by Scalia, who say it should consider U.S. law exclusively."
Oh, no, of course America wouldn’t want to consider our own laws exclusively! How would that look to our good friends on the U.N. Security Council?
The “Robed Masters” of the highest court are settling far back on their thrones, and they have no intention of moving anytime soon. We, the U.S. citizens, must remain very vocal about this situation, calling and writing our representatives in Congress, and publicly speaking out--while free speech is still legal. That is not overstatement. The Supreme Court has evolved into the abusive power that Thomas Jefferson feared it might become.
We, the citizens of the United States of America, are going to become increasingly irrelevant to this black-robed government of the few.
If we allow that to happen to us, the black boots can not be far behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)