A Pew survey has some interesting results. When asked what most influenced their morality, 57% of Catholics answered 'practical experience and common sense'. The poster at 'Gene Expression' concluded that 'right and wrong is not about religion'. I beg to differ.
Firstly, someone's ignorance of right and wrong doesn't influence WHAT IS right and wrong.
Secondly, taking Catholics as an example, I would conclude that a person's ignorance of right and wrong is greatly influenced by their environment. Isn't that where we gain our 'practical experience and common sense'?
Badly formed Catholics have different ideas of what 'morality' even means, whether 'truth' even exists. and what it even means to be human. Those brought up in faithful, Christ centered homes have a totally different 'practical experience' from those brought up in dissident parishes with failing or non-existent Catholic schools. Its not surprising that a percentage of nominally Catholic people are secular humanists in reality, and base most of their choices, moral or not, on self-centered 'reasoning'.
Another factor which likely made an impact on the survey results, is the social attitude towards religion today, where 'common knowledge' tells us that religion is unreasonable. Asked whether religion or common sense guides our morality, some religious people may have opted for seeming reasonable, since the survey itself put religion in opposition to reason.
Also, if a Catholic person's 'practical experience' is a truly Catholic experience, and their 'common sense' is informed by their faithful Catholic upbringing, then religion IS influencing their morality!
What is the purpose of a survey? To make individual interpretation of 'not really facts' seem somewhat legitimate?
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
2/11/09
"The Cult Of Moloch"
Perspective on the world we live in.
California Catholic:
Was there ever a greater need for believers to get on their knees and implore the Patroness of the Americas to intercede?
To Our Lady Dark Yet Fair
O hail, thou Virgen de Guadalupe! Unfailing refuge, our solace in days of grief, Radiant Queen so kind, our Mother of sweet relief ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Lovely Maid, fairest star above the sea! Advocate e'er gracious of clemency and love, Deign to listen to our pleas, O mother above ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Yea, O Lady of Guadalupe; O meek and gentlest One, take heed to our groaning; For oft we stumble and raise to thee our moaning ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Golden gate of heav'n, thou radiant portal; Unstained by sin, blissful queen of heav'n and earth, Aid me that I may love Him whom you did give birth ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Daughter of God, thou queen of royalty, Ave Maria! With joyful hearts we hail thee! Look on us so kindly, O Blessed Virgin Mary! ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Unfailing refuge and sweetest Mother; Pearl of grace so fair, fail not thine children to care, E'er our sweetest Advocate who did God once bear ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
-- Jeong-Bo Shim
Jeong-Bo is a thirteen year old boy who lives with his family in Corvallis, Oregon. He is home-schooled and enjoys writing poetry. Last year, he was the state winner of the Junior Catholic Daughters of America poetry contest. He also plays the violin and has been invited to play a solo meditation at the Trappist Abbey of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Last year he won second place in the MTNA national competition. He enjoys playing soccer, basketball, tennis, and swimming as well as gardening. He received help on the first verse from Katheryn Atkinson of Tehachipi, California.
(Homeschooled...hmmmm!)
.
California Catholic:
....Abortion is our god and Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy are his prophets. His sacrifice is the life of infants and the souls of mothers. His priests are doctors who perform abortions. His church is Planned Parenthood and FOCA, (freedom of choice act). His covenant promises rights and freedom for women. It delivers death of infants, permanent damage to the souls of women, of men, of politicians.
Homosexual lust is our god and Obama, Bishop Gene Robinson, and democratic politicians are his prophets. The sacrifice is personal integrity and corruption of the body and spirit. Its priests and priestesses are men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW). Its church is the Human Rights Campaign and other activist organizations, Pride clubs and "gay" and "lesbian" centers. Its covenant offers false promises of equality with those who have normal sexual relations and inner peace. It delivers disease, prolonged adolescent immaturity, and oppression of the church and good people who live upright moral lives.
Money is our god, and the wealthy and the welfare are its prophets. Its sacrifice is hard earned savings and retirement. Its priests are those taking obscene profits by defrauding investors, and those who choose government money over honest work. Its church is a non vigilant Securities and Exchange Commission and congress. Its covenant promises self reliance and security in wealth. It delivers collapse of the economy, unfair distribution of wealth, and a drain on the tax system.
Socialism is our god, and Obama is his prophet. Its sacrifice is personal freedom. Its priests are politicians and communist ideological organizations. Its church are legislatures and executive branches in government. Its covenant promises fairness and sameness for all. It delivers power and wealth those who already possess it and takes away opportunity for those out of power and destroys of the economy and future for others.
Liberalism is our god and the Democratic party is his prophet. Its sacrifice is freedom, integrity, opportunity, and wholeness. Its priests are the fascist elites in government, education, and bureaucracies, who wish to control others' thoughts and actions. Its churches are political parties, universities, and corrupt professional organizations. Its covenant promises unbridled freedom for perversion of the natural law and oppression for all who disagree with it. It delivers the breakdown of society, constitutional government, and true freedom for morally minded people, especially faithful Christians....
Was there ever a greater need for believers to get on their knees and implore the Patroness of the Americas to intercede?To Our Lady Dark Yet Fair
O hail, thou Virgen de Guadalupe! Unfailing refuge, our solace in days of grief, Radiant Queen so kind, our Mother of sweet relief ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Lovely Maid, fairest star above the sea! Advocate e'er gracious of clemency and love, Deign to listen to our pleas, O mother above ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Yea, O Lady of Guadalupe; O meek and gentlest One, take heed to our groaning; For oft we stumble and raise to thee our moaning ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Golden gate of heav'n, thou radiant portal; Unstained by sin, blissful queen of heav'n and earth, Aid me that I may love Him whom you did give birth ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Daughter of God, thou queen of royalty, Ave Maria! With joyful hearts we hail thee! Look on us so kindly, O Blessed Virgin Mary! ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Unfailing refuge and sweetest Mother; Pearl of grace so fair, fail not thine children to care, E'er our sweetest Advocate who did God once bear ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
-- Jeong-Bo Shim
Jeong-Bo is a thirteen year old boy who lives with his family in Corvallis, Oregon. He is home-schooled and enjoys writing poetry. Last year, he was the state winner of the Junior Catholic Daughters of America poetry contest. He also plays the violin and has been invited to play a solo meditation at the Trappist Abbey of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Last year he won second place in the MTNA national competition. He enjoys playing soccer, basketball, tennis, and swimming as well as gardening. He received help on the first verse from Katheryn Atkinson of Tehachipi, California.
(Homeschooled...hmmmm!)
.
2/1/09
"Obama and the Culture of Death"
Miguel Guanipa has posted an excellent article at American Thinker:
...With the magic stroke of his executive pen, Obama has declared his intentions that no ground will be given and no prisoners spared.
Yet he appears strangely confident that his decision will serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between two fiercely opposing sides.
But the fact that he expects only one side, namely pro-life advocates, to either stop voicing their resistance altogether, or assume sole responsibility for paving a viable forum for civil discourse with their adversaries, reflects the extreme contempt with which he regards those who do not hold to his worldview. His expectations of extinguishing any further debate on the issue by signing back into law a measure that literally forces the opposition to subsidize that which they have historically repudiated signals an appalling kind of arrogance from a man who presumably covets the mantle of unifier.
Obama's cavalier dismissal of the enduring national discussion on abortion as a trifling wedge issue that has only helped to create an interminable polemic between two irreconcilable extremes also reveals a glaring indifference and profound disrespect of those who stand for the protection of innocent human life. It may behoove him to remember that what he and his supporters view as a fundamental right of every woman often involves the arbitrary destruction of that which science has universally recognized as a human life. For those in the pro-life movement, it is recognition of the utter vulnerability and supreme innocence of that life which fuels and sustains their dedication to a perpetual stance in its defense.
In light of this unprovoked, but not wholly unexpected offensive, pro-life advocates should remain fiercely captive to their convictions. They should welcome this militant ploy to frustrate their honorable efforts as an opportunity to find renewed strength, and rekindle the flame of commitment to their cause. They should continue unabated in exposing the silent genocide that has been taking place for decades in this country against the most vulnerable members of society, as they also lay bare the myriad fabrications that have been advanced by those from the pro-death camp -- later exposed by even some of its own proponents -- in defense of their misguided cause.
They must, in short, make clear to President Barack Obama, that if he believes his decision will magically engender harmony between those who have never sought any compromise, and those who rightfully view the killing of innocent human life in any civilized society as an intolerable state of affairs, then he is in for a very rude awakening.
But above all, they must pray for success, since our very democracy hinges upon their unqualified victory in this epic struggle against the culture of death....
1/28/09
Rainbow Pop
(This would explain how the Obama/Pepsi logos are interchangeable. Obama-ade?)
Pepsico has put millions of dollars into groups that actively seek to promote homosexual lifestyle through legislation. The Westins will no longer be purchasing ANY Pepsico products because we don't want to support a company that is working against the welfare of our family and our society. They are actively working against marriage and family in US and Canada. I particularly resent their television ads which are propaganda for homosexual behaviour, and accessible to children whenever the television is on.
Sign Petition, read the details of Pepsico's social engineering attempts and see their despicable ads at "Boycott Pepsico".
"The Triumph Of Style Over Substance"
Mark Crutcher on what America finds acceptable today :
...I can assure you that there have always been people who wanted to be president whose morals were no better than those of Clinton or Obama. The difference was that, back when America was still a Christian nation, the voters had better morals than to knowingly elect these kind of people to public office...
...All across America, there are those who claim that it is possible for them to be pro-choice – or vote for a supporter of legalized abortion – without abandoning their Christian principles. They get away with this despite the fact that, from a theological standpoint, what they are saying is clearly demonstrable hogwash.
Two fundamental doctrines of Christianity are that God is the author of life and that He is incapable of making mistakes. Obviously, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from those concepts is that when life exists in the womb it is God’s will that it be there. Since the obvious goal of abortion is to deny that will, support for its legality is, by definition, incompatible with Christianity.
The fact is, when someone claims to be pro-choice they are asserting three things. The first is that life is not a right inherited from God but a privilege bestowed by human beings who can withhold it if they “choose” to do so. The second is that God is neutral on whether a child He created is brutally torn limb from limb. The third is that it is possible to reject the innocent new lives that God creates without rejecting God Himself. From a Christian perspective, all three of these views are absurd.
In the final analysis, Christians cannot be pro-choice about the intentional destruction of innocent human life any more than they can be pro-choice about rape, robbery, slavery, incest, child abuse, etc...
1/20/09
"Obama's No Lincoln"
Star Parker:
On the hardest moral dilemma of his day, Abraham Lincoln stepped up to the plate and took a stand -- unlike Obama, he did not say that it was above his pay grade
It's ironic that Barack Obama chooses to infuse these opening days of his presidency with the imagery of Abraham Lincoln.
I don't think there could be two more different men. Understanding why may help us think about what to expect in the days ahead.
Beyond his trademark "change we can believe in," Obama's defining theme has been unity and inclusiveness. "... There's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there's the United States of America ... We worship an awesome God in the Blue States ... and have gay friends in the Red States."
Obama, of course, does not suggest that we don't have differences. His point is that those differences are not critically important and they're getting in our way. Let's put differences aside, get practical, and solve our problems.
The inaugural ceremonies have pastors for everyone. A white evangelical that opposes same sex marriage, a white homosexual, a left wing black male and a left wing black female.
His economic stimulus plan has large government expenditures to please Democrats and tax benefits to please Republicans.
Lincoln, too, sought unity. But Lincoln's notion of where national unity would lie was far different from Obama's.
He prophetically stated the challenge after accepting the Republican nomination for the senate in 1858.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure half slave and half free. I do not expect the union to be dissolved. I do not expect the House to fall. But I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
As historian Harry Jaffa points out, " For Lincoln, as for Jefferson and for all genuine supporters of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the distinction between right and wrong is antecedent to any form of government and is independent of any man's or any majority's will."
Lincoln knew that some principles are so fundamental they cannot be compromised. He knew that we couldn't ignore our key differences. Unity could only come from facing them and making the hard choices...
11/28/08
John Pacheco and Mark Bonocore at SoConwrite on the devastating effects the purposes of Communism have had on Western society, particularly the family and marriage:
....Frederic Engels wrote the Principles of Communism which become, arguably, the defining document for the communist movement. In that paper, in answering a question on the influence of communist society on the family, he prophetically wrote:
"It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage — the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents."(21)
Engels’ propaganda sought to separate the marital union from its divine conception in favour of a mere utilitarian ideal, devoid of any moral underpinnings. Indeed, his observation that Communism would reduce marriage into a “purely private matter” between citizens has been tragically accurate. Such a “purely private matter” has found its zenith with the legalization and widespread acceptance of same-sex “marriage”.....
11/4/08
"Father Elijah" Redux
From Michael O'Brien, author of "Father Elijah"
Dear Friends,
From just north of the border, we Canadians, like other people throughout
the world, are observing and praying for the coming federal election in the
United States of America. I would prefer to keep private my counsel about
political choices, because it is not my country. However, I am receiving
letters from American subscribers and visitors to my studio website asking
me some rather surprising questions about Barack Obama, related to one of my
novels.
During the past year I have read a number of his pronouncements, and saw the
smoke and mirrors beneath the rhetoric, but couldn't understand why everyone
south of the border (the other south of the border, the 49th parallel) was
getting so excited about him, both pro and con. Then a few weeks ago a
German friend called me immediately after Obama's speech in Berlin, to say
that the presidential candidate had mesmerized the crowds, and that a
commentator on German television had said: "We have just heard the next
President of the United States...and the future President of the World." My
friend felt that Obama bore an uncanny resemblance to the fictional
character of the President in my novel *Father Elijah*. I have received
several other letters saying the same thing and asking what I thought about
it.
From my own reading of Obama's declarations and stated positions, I knew he
was an ultra-liberal, a social revolutionary with visionary pretensions. But
the Antichrist? No, not possible, I thought. I felt that he was too shallow
a man to be the Son of Perdition, the Man of Sin, the Beast of the Book of
Revelation. And I still think so. Obama is a crowd-pleaser with just the
right ethos of idealistic crusader. That the crusade and the banners under
which it marches are evil does not automatically prove that he is the
Antichrist.
But now that I have seen the video of the Berlin speech I think there is
more here than meets the eye. He is indeed a powerful manipulator of crowds,
even as he appears ever so humble and wholesomely charming. I doubt that he
is the long-prophesied ruler of the world, but I also believe that he is a
carrier of a deadly moral virus, indeed a kind of anti-apostle spreading
concepts and agendas that are not only anti-Christ but anti-human as well.
In this sense he is of the spirit of Antichrist (perhaps without knowing
it), and probably is one of several key figures in the world who (knowingly
or unknowingly) will be instrumental in ushering in the time of great trial
for the Church under its last and worst persecution, amidst the numerous
other tribulations prophesied in the books of Daniel and Revelation, and
letters of St Paul, St. John, and St. Peter.
Of course the mystique that has grown up around him is endlessly reinforced
by the liberal media, which presents him to us as a high-minded humanist, a
kind of secular messiah (see the *Catechism of the Catholic Church*, n.
675). Yet when all the rhetoric is boiled down to its substance, the man is
advocating unlimited state-sanctioned murder, and compounds it by indulging
in habitual falsehood. He is well accustomed to playing loose with the truth
whenever it is expedient for him to do so; or else he is the victim of the
largest memory lapses in recorded history; or perhaps he is just not careful
about how he expresses things—a blurring or selectivity regarding facts for
the purpose of aggrandizing his public image. There is a controversy
currently raging in the (admittedly unreliable) forum of the internet,
prompted by an African-American talk show host in Los Angeles who listed 39
significant details that Barack Obama claimed were facts about himself, but
on fu! rther investigation were proved to be simply untrue. There has been
some wild-fire debunking of the debunking, and then more counter-debunking,
but it remains obvious that forthrightness and clarity are not major
concerns in the Obama camp.
What are we to make of a man who has appeared out of semi-obscurity and
become, nearly overnight, so very much an idol of the popular imagination?
That he intends to become the most effective advocate of murder of the
unborn ever seen in America should give us pause. Murder and lies are as old
as the lands east of Eden, of course, but when they are charmingly packaged,
proposed as reasonable and just policies (with a smile, a resonant voice,
and an appealing flash of the eyes), one begins to wonder just what is afoot
in the modern age. It brings to mind a passage from the first Act of
Shakespeare's *Hamlet*:
"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..."
The line is from a scene where prince Hamlet has just encountered the ghost
of his father, who informs his son that he was poisoned by his own brother
Claudius (the "smiling, damned villain"), who after murdering him, seized
the king's crown and his queen.
Barack Obama is an image-maker, creating his own myth as he goes along. This
would be a sad defect in any human being, but it takes on ominous
proportions in a person who may become, after November 4th, one of the most
powerful figures in the world. How is it possible that such a tragic turn of
events may come about, if indeed a majority of Americans choose to believe
the smile and the myth? Why is it that so many people have come to believe
that a mirage is reality, even destiny? Do pro-Obama voters hanker for a
world figure who would heal old divisions between races and religions, thus
heralding a new age for mankind? During this time of near intolerable
tensions, does he appear to be the one who can reconcile Islam and
Christianity, Africa and America, occident and orient, black and white, rich
and poor? Do they see his racial origins as a symbolic victory over the
history of racial oppression? Do they see in him the good-hearted
"under-dog", the gutsy street fi! ghter who agitates for the rights of the
"little guy," whose meteoric rise to a position of maximum influence
represents themselves enthroned at last in the high seat of power? Is this
why they ignore his every grave fault and hungrily consume his vague
idealist platitudes as if these were a kind of new gospel for the third
millennium? Our hero. Our visionary. Our Great Friend and spokesman in the
forum of the world?
Clearly, contemporary man needs heroes. But why not choose a genuine one,
why not look a little deeper and work a little harder to find a man of
courage *and *principle, and if it helps in the historical healing process,
why not a very different kind of black man, say a person like Alan Keyes, a
scholar, former ambassador, experienced in different levels of government,
and (it might be added) an African-American married to a woman from India.
Moreover, he is a devout Catholic who believes in moral absolutes and has
amply proved that he will stand firm to defend them regardless of the cost
to his own career. He knows that kings and presidents cannot usurp the
natural law, the moral order of the universe, without bringing down judgment
upon their nations. But it need not be Keyes. It might be any number of
other men and women of clear thought and clear principle. Surely there are
"Ten Just Men" still out there somewhere in America. So why Obama? And why
does he ! rise and rise as his mouth smiles and smiles, exuding sincerity as
he speaks lies and death?
And why, most horribly, most shamefully, are so many Christians of malformed
or unformed conscience supporting him? Is it because they have never been
clearly instructed in the truth, never understood the foundation upon which
the moral cosmos is built? Is morality for them merely another system of
abstract "values" in a crowded playing field of such systems, from which one
may pick and choose? In the case of Catholics, for example, have they been
blinded by a diet of theological nuances and deadly little loopholes offered
to them by the committees of national episcopal conferences — committees
that have absolutely no authority over Catholics, yet which are widely
revered as a kind of alternative Magisterium? Have they been deadened by a
habitual dismissing or dissembling of the solid teaching given to them by
the universal Church under Peter? Have they grown accustomed to listening to
opinion shapers who tell them that certain excellent apostolic Bishops in !
America who teach the truth without compromise are merely hidebound
reactionaries, moralistic extremists, contemporary manifestations of those
old boogymen who still haunt the American psyche — the Chillingworths and
Dimmesdales and the judges in *The Scarlet Letter*? And so it goes, this
over-reaction to Puritanism played out over centuries, an over-reaction that
breeds tragedies a thousand times worse than Salem's. Lies compounding on
lies, and it all floats on an ocean of spilled innocent blood. And who can
gaze at that ocean (or be splashed by it) without coming to a radical
choice: One either turns away into a deeper state of denial, or one turns
heart and mind toward the splendor of Truth, and changes one's life
accordingly.
Is this why many of our Catholic people have become impulse-driven
impressionists? Of course, the blindness is not due to the failure of
pastors alone. The Ministry of Disinformation (by which I mean most modern
media) has played a major role. There is also the erosion of truth in the
education systems, combined with the gradual confusion and weakening of
conscience through our addiction to the "soma" drugs supplied by the
entertainment industry. Other factors may be the war in Iraq, or Republican
economics, or the Bush administration, or the structure of Capitalism
itself, or any number of prudential questions in the sociopolitical order,
all of which are presently tangled nests of moral dilemma. But why do they
not see that these questions are secondary to the fundamental issue of life
itself? Why would they replace one reigning oligarchy with another kind of
oligarchy — moreover, one that would kill vast numbers of its own citizens?
"I call on heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before
you life or death, blessing or curse. Choose life, then, so that you and
your descendants may live...." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
May God bless and guide you,
in Jesus our Saviour,
with prayers and fasting,
Michael O'Brien
PS: For those interested in a concise examination of the moral parameters of
voting in the forthcoming election, I urge you to read an excellent article
by Dr. Mark Miravalle, professor of Theology at Franciscan University,
Steubenville.
Dear Friends,
From just north of the border, we Canadians, like other people throughout
the world, are observing and praying for the coming federal election in the
United States of America. I would prefer to keep private my counsel about
political choices, because it is not my country. However, I am receiving
letters from American subscribers and visitors to my studio website asking
me some rather surprising questions about Barack Obama, related to one of my
novels.
During the past year I have read a number of his pronouncements, and saw the
smoke and mirrors beneath the rhetoric, but couldn't understand why everyone
south of the border (the other south of the border, the 49th parallel) was
getting so excited about him, both pro and con. Then a few weeks ago a
German friend called me immediately after Obama's speech in Berlin, to say
that the presidential candidate had mesmerized the crowds, and that a
commentator on German television had said: "We have just heard the next
President of the United States...and the future President of the World." My
friend felt that Obama bore an uncanny resemblance to the fictional
character of the President in my novel *Father Elijah*. I have received
several other letters saying the same thing and asking what I thought about
it.
From my own reading of Obama's declarations and stated positions, I knew he
was an ultra-liberal, a social revolutionary with visionary pretensions. But
the Antichrist? No, not possible, I thought. I felt that he was too shallow
a man to be the Son of Perdition, the Man of Sin, the Beast of the Book of
Revelation. And I still think so. Obama is a crowd-pleaser with just the
right ethos of idealistic crusader. That the crusade and the banners under
which it marches are evil does not automatically prove that he is the
Antichrist.
But now that I have seen the video of the Berlin speech I think there is
more here than meets the eye. He is indeed a powerful manipulator of crowds,
even as he appears ever so humble and wholesomely charming. I doubt that he
is the long-prophesied ruler of the world, but I also believe that he is a
carrier of a deadly moral virus, indeed a kind of anti-apostle spreading
concepts and agendas that are not only anti-Christ but anti-human as well.
In this sense he is of the spirit of Antichrist (perhaps without knowing
it), and probably is one of several key figures in the world who (knowingly
or unknowingly) will be instrumental in ushering in the time of great trial
for the Church under its last and worst persecution, amidst the numerous
other tribulations prophesied in the books of Daniel and Revelation, and
letters of St Paul, St. John, and St. Peter.
Of course the mystique that has grown up around him is endlessly reinforced
by the liberal media, which presents him to us as a high-minded humanist, a
kind of secular messiah (see the *Catechism of the Catholic Church*, n.
675). Yet when all the rhetoric is boiled down to its substance, the man is
advocating unlimited state-sanctioned murder, and compounds it by indulging
in habitual falsehood. He is well accustomed to playing loose with the truth
whenever it is expedient for him to do so; or else he is the victim of the
largest memory lapses in recorded history; or perhaps he is just not careful
about how he expresses things—a blurring or selectivity regarding facts for
the purpose of aggrandizing his public image. There is a controversy
currently raging in the (admittedly unreliable) forum of the internet,
prompted by an African-American talk show host in Los Angeles who listed 39
significant details that Barack Obama claimed were facts about himself, but
on fu! rther investigation were proved to be simply untrue. There has been
some wild-fire debunking of the debunking, and then more counter-debunking,
but it remains obvious that forthrightness and clarity are not major
concerns in the Obama camp.
What are we to make of a man who has appeared out of semi-obscurity and
become, nearly overnight, so very much an idol of the popular imagination?
That he intends to become the most effective advocate of murder of the
unborn ever seen in America should give us pause. Murder and lies are as old
as the lands east of Eden, of course, but when they are charmingly packaged,
proposed as reasonable and just policies (with a smile, a resonant voice,
and an appealing flash of the eyes), one begins to wonder just what is afoot
in the modern age. It brings to mind a passage from the first Act of
Shakespeare's *Hamlet*:
"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..."
The line is from a scene where prince Hamlet has just encountered the ghost
of his father, who informs his son that he was poisoned by his own brother
Claudius (the "smiling, damned villain"), who after murdering him, seized
the king's crown and his queen.
Barack Obama is an image-maker, creating his own myth as he goes along. This
would be a sad defect in any human being, but it takes on ominous
proportions in a person who may become, after November 4th, one of the most
powerful figures in the world. How is it possible that such a tragic turn of
events may come about, if indeed a majority of Americans choose to believe
the smile and the myth? Why is it that so many people have come to believe
that a mirage is reality, even destiny? Do pro-Obama voters hanker for a
world figure who would heal old divisions between races and religions, thus
heralding a new age for mankind? During this time of near intolerable
tensions, does he appear to be the one who can reconcile Islam and
Christianity, Africa and America, occident and orient, black and white, rich
and poor? Do they see his racial origins as a symbolic victory over the
history of racial oppression? Do they see in him the good-hearted
"under-dog", the gutsy street fi! ghter who agitates for the rights of the
"little guy," whose meteoric rise to a position of maximum influence
represents themselves enthroned at last in the high seat of power? Is this
why they ignore his every grave fault and hungrily consume his vague
idealist platitudes as if these were a kind of new gospel for the third
millennium? Our hero. Our visionary. Our Great Friend and spokesman in the
forum of the world?
Clearly, contemporary man needs heroes. But why not choose a genuine one,
why not look a little deeper and work a little harder to find a man of
courage *and *principle, and if it helps in the historical healing process,
why not a very different kind of black man, say a person like Alan Keyes, a
scholar, former ambassador, experienced in different levels of government,
and (it might be added) an African-American married to a woman from India.
Moreover, he is a devout Catholic who believes in moral absolutes and has
amply proved that he will stand firm to defend them regardless of the cost
to his own career. He knows that kings and presidents cannot usurp the
natural law, the moral order of the universe, without bringing down judgment
upon their nations. But it need not be Keyes. It might be any number of
other men and women of clear thought and clear principle. Surely there are
"Ten Just Men" still out there somewhere in America. So why Obama? And why
does he ! rise and rise as his mouth smiles and smiles, exuding sincerity as
he speaks lies and death?
And why, most horribly, most shamefully, are so many Christians of malformed
or unformed conscience supporting him? Is it because they have never been
clearly instructed in the truth, never understood the foundation upon which
the moral cosmos is built? Is morality for them merely another system of
abstract "values" in a crowded playing field of such systems, from which one
may pick and choose? In the case of Catholics, for example, have they been
blinded by a diet of theological nuances and deadly little loopholes offered
to them by the committees of national episcopal conferences — committees
that have absolutely no authority over Catholics, yet which are widely
revered as a kind of alternative Magisterium? Have they been deadened by a
habitual dismissing or dissembling of the solid teaching given to them by
the universal Church under Peter? Have they grown accustomed to listening to
opinion shapers who tell them that certain excellent apostolic Bishops in !
America who teach the truth without compromise are merely hidebound
reactionaries, moralistic extremists, contemporary manifestations of those
old boogymen who still haunt the American psyche — the Chillingworths and
Dimmesdales and the judges in *The Scarlet Letter*? And so it goes, this
over-reaction to Puritanism played out over centuries, an over-reaction that
breeds tragedies a thousand times worse than Salem's. Lies compounding on
lies, and it all floats on an ocean of spilled innocent blood. And who can
gaze at that ocean (or be splashed by it) without coming to a radical
choice: One either turns away into a deeper state of denial, or one turns
heart and mind toward the splendor of Truth, and changes one's life
accordingly.
Is this why many of our Catholic people have become impulse-driven
impressionists? Of course, the blindness is not due to the failure of
pastors alone. The Ministry of Disinformation (by which I mean most modern
media) has played a major role. There is also the erosion of truth in the
education systems, combined with the gradual confusion and weakening of
conscience through our addiction to the "soma" drugs supplied by the
entertainment industry. Other factors may be the war in Iraq, or Republican
economics, or the Bush administration, or the structure of Capitalism
itself, or any number of prudential questions in the sociopolitical order,
all of which are presently tangled nests of moral dilemma. But why do they
not see that these questions are secondary to the fundamental issue of life
itself? Why would they replace one reigning oligarchy with another kind of
oligarchy — moreover, one that would kill vast numbers of its own citizens?
"I call on heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before
you life or death, blessing or curse. Choose life, then, so that you and
your descendants may live...." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
May God bless and guide you,
in Jesus our Saviour,
with prayers and fasting,
Michael O'Brien
PS: For those interested in a concise examination of the moral parameters of
voting in the forthcoming election, I urge you to read an excellent article
by Dr. Mark Miravalle, professor of Theology at Franciscan University,
Steubenville.
10/23/08
Morality Is Essential To Good Government
Matthew Warner:
(see Fallible Blogma for video)
...The freedom that we practice in the United States of America is not a prize won once and for all. It is more like the top of a hill that governments have attacked, taken, rushed, and fallen off of repeatedly throughout history. And often the force that gets us to the top of the hill is the same force that propels us off of the other side.
It must be carefully climbed, fortified, and actively defended. Our founders knew this. That is why they gave us a law that would keep us atop that hill. It is only within those limitations that we are truly free to roam around the top of the hill without fear of falling off.
Unfortunately, over time our government has reached far beyond those limitations. And while we still enjoy much of our freedom, we do so at a greater risk of slipping off...
(see Fallible Blogma for video)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)