Contraception and the Church

I'm reading about the history of the Catholic Church'sobjection to "artificial birth control." It blows me away that this 1950s issue has come to the fore again, what with 98% of Catholics admitting to using birth control!. But it has, due especially to strong support from Evangelical Christians.

Anyway, I came across a 1930 encyclical by Pius XI that's I'd never heard of, but which seems significant.

In what's gotta be the longest and most abstruse sentence I've ever read, the Pope states that "God has entrusted [the Church] with the defense of integrity and the purity of morals."

Yea, right.

"In response to the Church of England's approval of artificial birth control, Pope Pius XI issued his encyclical "Casti Connubii" on December 31, 1930, stating, 'Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such away that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.'"

Anyway, I hope the passage contributes to your deeper understanding of the Church's Medieval stand on contraception.

Why I Will Never Join the AARP

I will never join the AARP, the senior lobby. This is
not because I'm in denial about being a "senior." I'm 70 years-old. But because
they're selfish and think only of themselves, not the country that gave them so
much.

AARP's most recent TV ad exemplifies an attitude of
entitlement that is part of the
problem in our country today.

We "earned" our Social Security and Medicare, we "deserve" it,
the angry spokesman in the ad proclaims. AARP is clearly threatening to vote out of office any
politician who doesn't support their every demand. No hint of compromise here.
(See video link at bottom)

These are no doubt the same people who vote down school
spending because their kids are no longer in
school!

The fact that we seniors, on average, are getting
more benefit out of these
programs than we ever put is never mentioned in the commercial. It's all about,
"We earned it. We deserve it.".

Yes, you did, but you had a lot of help from a prosperous society, a society with political and legal stability, good affordable schools, established infrastructure, wealth, and lots of freedom. So knock off the "we deserve it" and "we earned it" bullshit. Time are different now. College graduates can't find job and our country faces an unprecedented fiscal challenge.

The commercial also doesn't mention that the "wealth
gap" between the young and old is the "highest ever,"
according to CNBC article that appeared yesterday, 11/7/11.

Here are the numbers: "The typical U.S. household
headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater (47 times!) than a household headed
by someone under 35," based on an analysis of census data.

"While people typically
accumulate assets as they age." the article continues, "this wealth gap is now
more than double what it was in 2005 and nearly five times the 10-to-1 disparity
a quarter-century ago, after adjusting for
inflation."

Read those numbers again, please and note how quickly the balance has shifted. Then vote for politicians who are
willing to stand up to the AARP and other special (and often selfish)
interests.

BTW, I'm also against "senior discounts" for movies and
transportation. We should pay more!

Jim Fleming

Here's the video link to the short
commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3yHa8brzNA

Here's the link to the CNBC article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45188794

Civil Rights

The other day I heard Sean Hannity railing on about the "hippies" at the Occupy Wall Street. demonstrations. I was struck by two things: 1) Guys like Hannity still think the 60s were a bad thing, not a good thing. And 2) If today's conservative ideology had the upper hand back in the 60s, we'd still have Jim Crow laws in the South, prejudice against blacks in the North, and women's rights would barely have progressed at all.

Atheists Against Abortion

I read awhile back that many atheists and agnostics resent the assumption that -- because they're non-believers -- they must therefore be pro-choice. The fact is, many atheists and agostics are against abortion -- but not on non-religious grounds. I’m one of them.

My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with God or religion. My reason is based on simple fairness and common sense. To me, it's scientifically obvious that life begins at conception. The pro-choicers like to deny this -- indeed they have to, because otherwise they're condoning murder. So they say a fetus is not a human, nothing more than a "blob of protoplasm" a mere collection of non-human cells – classic self-serving casuistry.

Some pro-choicers awkwardly argue that a fetus is not human "until it can survive outside the womb." This has to be the silliest rationalization of all. No newborn can survive -- on its own -- outside the womb either. Does that make it less than human?

A fetus is clearly human in the most important sense: It possesses a unique identity from the moment of conception. None like it has ever existed before. None like it will ever exist again. Its physical appearance as an infant and adult is not yet known, but it is already predestined. The essence of the fully-grown human it will become -- its personhood -- is established. So what right do we have, often in the name of nothing more than convenience, to snuff out this life? Who can say what his or her destiny might have been, or what he or she might have achieved? That's my objection to abortion.

Steve Jobs was adopted an infant. Look what we would have lost had his mother chosen abortion instead of adoption.

Outlawing abortion is the not answer. We tried that. The answers lie in education and making adoption easily available. Young people must be educated about sex, told that the fetus IS indeed a human being. And therefore that he or she (not “IT”) has a right to live. There are no excuses today for "unwanted pregnancy." Lack of education is the reason the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. in nine times Italy's rate.

The goal should be to make abortion a rare occurrence. This can be done through education, with an emphasis on taking responsibility. It’s not hard to show a teen, or anyone, how an unwanted pregnancy can complicate and jeopardize one's future. Few unmarried young people, if fully informed, would set out to create a pregnancy. Pregancny happens because of ignorance, carelessness, immaturity, and not taking responsibility.

When pregnancies do happen, then the woman must be counseled and provided with medical support. Do they want to keep the baby or give it up for adoption? In either case, they should be provided with medical care at public expense.

The fact that carrying a baby to term is uncomfortable, inconvenient or embarrassing for the mother is hardly justification for eliminating the human being growing inside her. That human being has every right to live.

Four Questions about God and Evil

The ancient Greek philospher Epicurus asked four questions about God and evil.

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able. Then he is not omnipotent.

2. Is He able, but not willing. Then He is malevolent.

3. Is He both able and willing? Then why doesn't He?

4. is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

Sharpton and Gingrich Partners?

Like many of you, I had almost given up on our country's ability to regain the world-class stature we once had in K-12 education. You all the know statistics -- or you should. How we compare with China and Singapore, for example, on math and science scores. It's no exaggeration that education in the country is in crisis, a crisis that affects our collective future perhaps more than any other.

Meet the Press this morning featured a discussion -- more than a discussion, a partnership actually -- between prominent conservative, Newt Gingrich, outspoken liberal, Al Sharpton; and Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education. I like what heard. I think you will, too.

After watching the segment, I am more encouraged than I have ever been that something CAN be done to transform American K-12 education.

The fact that two political extremes, on the left and right, can come together on this vital issue gives me great hope for America (at a time when I frankly don't find much to be optimistic about)

Just the fact that Gingrich and Sharpton can share the same mission, the same goals, on something so important gives me great hope. And for this to happen in partnership with an administration that demonstrates financial commitment and a willingness to stand up to the teachers unions (unusual for Democrats), makes me believe that we're finally taking steps in the right direction in a sustainable way

We've hardly started, but for the first time ever I think we can get there. (Until now, I never thought we could).

Please click on the link and watch it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/#33948109

Act of War vs. Criminal Offense

The controversy over whether a military tribunal or a civilian court is the appopriate way to try so-called "terrorists" seems to boil down to one main question: Was 9/11 an act of war, or was it a criminal offense. I think it's best defined as the latter, a criminal conspiracy, a crime, a homocide or even genocide. But not an "act of war."

I think that to treat these acts as criminal offenses diminishes their status. "Act of war" feeds into Jihad, makes them more important than they are. Treat 'em as the criminals there are. What was 9/11 but a criminal act by 19 suicide hijackers, directed by a small cadre of fanatics in Afghanstan?

Their act, despite its tragic consequences in terms of numbers and notoriety, was a criminal act.

We were right to go after these criminals in Afghanstan. and to a great extent we succeeded. The Taliban was virtually defeated in only four months. And then we attacked Iraq and took our eye off the ball. You know the rest of the story.

Belief

In the wake of the recent shooting at Fort Hood, I heard a Muslim Army Officer on the radio explaining that the Koran does not condone violence against innocent people. Fine, I've heard that before. But like the Bible, the Koran is so full of contractions that it seems to me that whatever one wants to do can be justified somewhere in the Koran.

But one thing he said sticks with me: "The Koran," he said without a hint of irony, "tells us what to believe."

Tells us what to believe! I can't imagine a more ridiculous statement. The idea that you, or anyone, can or should be told what to believe, strikes me as illogical and nonsensical. If the only reason you believe something is because you're were told to believe it, do you really really believe it? Or are you just stupid, or incurious, or gullible, or something else? I don't know.

We can entangle ourselves with semantics on this one, but it to me it just underscores the utter foolishness of religion at least, and, at worst, the danger of religion.