I had an absolutely wonderful Memorial Day camping trip, thank you for waiting. :-) Here is something to tide you over until I can do a real post: The Pope is reversing his decision to downgrade the office that handles interfaith relations with the Muslims. Quick analysis: Sounds good to me.
News Clips: May 2007 Archives
Yeah and 100% of people in Hell want icewater. Cretins.
I lost interest when I read the headline.
Funny I thought today twice of blogging about Jerry Falwell, so I'm putting them in one post. Ironically, they were coincidentally related.
I was listening to a Catholic Answers Live podcast when the thought occurred to me that should he be in purgatory, we should welcome the surprised reverend with some prayers, because his own followers aren't going to pray for him. :-) What an impression it must make on non-Catholics to enter purgatory and have so many people who don't know them from Adam praying for them.
The other thing I wanted to share about Falwell was an editorial cartoon in poor taste by Pat Oliphant. Not sure I can get a stable public image of it so I'll describe it, it's very simple. Falwell is in Hell, and with his Bible in one hand and the other hand raised in emphasis he says, "I'm Jerry Falwell and there appears to be some mistake." A small side balloon says "We get Pat Robertson next."
Now here is a perfect example of liberal self-righteousness. Convinced that he knows the state of Falwell's soul, he condemns him to Hell. I am not impressed.
I can't say I was a fan of Falwell but I can't judge his soul. I can pray for him however, and I urge you to do the same.
The stories just keep getting more bizarre. This one is about people who prefer relationships (yes, sometimes with sexual overtones) with objects rather than human beings. It's almost comic as people describe their relationships with objects like locomotives and World Trade Center replicas like other people speak of their wives.
It's hard to tell if this is a consequence of society and the way it glorifies possessions, or whether such people are just experiencing a form of mental illness. A lot of times such desires don't originally arise out of the will of the person; but of course, the desires can be cultivated and affirmed by the will, and that is typically how they reach full flowering. I'm sure all of us have experience oddball thoughts and desires here and there, but we reject them and don't entertain them. That is the right way to handle such thoughts.
It's also hard to know if the apparent increase in such cases is because there are genuinely more such people, or because people are more open about their paraphilias.
Well, of course you'd want to wear diapers, you can't leave your slot machine or someone else might get the payoff you invested so much money in.
Of course they probably fit discreetly under your clothes and you don't look like an oversized toddler.
The question is, where do the men put the Wet Ones?
Of course, it could be decidedly unromantic should you pick up a chick or guy. But if you're the type to wear diapers while gambling, you're probably not looking for romance.
A Chicago lawyer put up a billboard with a strategic view of a well-endowed woman and a buff bare-chested man and the words, "Life is short. Get a divorce" and her phone number.
The lawyer behind the ad, a woman the article describes as someone who could pass for a temptress, "scoffs at the notion that married people will glimpse the hot bodies in her ads and suddenly ditch their spouses." But this seems disingenuous; why are you posting the photos if you don't think they will spur calls and make people think about divorce? In fact, she's planning on using even more racy photos. Ok, so technically maybe they won't "suddenly ditch their spouses", maybe they'll consider it over a period of time, but in the end isn't it the same?
Fortunately the billboard is down now on a legal technicality (apparently they didn't get a necessary permit). But the lawyer is bent on putting this thing up.
I think that marriage is hard enough without people encouraging others to get a divorce (especially people who profit off of it). I should think even from a secular perspective one could see that this is wrong: To help destroy a relationship (perhaps one with children) for the sake of monetary gain; to tempt someone to betray their commitment. They will probably argue that the people who respond to the ad were predisposed to divorce anyway. Perhaps that is what she was hinting at when she scoffed about people "suddenly ditching their spouses": No one with a happy and satisfying marriage is going to divorce just because of the ad, so she would argue. While admittedly this would be rare, it wouldn't be impossible. It is also true that a handful of people who might have stayed in marriage might divorce as a result of thinking about what the ad says. And therein lies the crime, even if 99% of people who respond to the ad would have eventually divorced anyway.
What I think is especially egregious is tempting people with unrealistic images and hopes. I suppose the entire advertising industry is based on unrealistic images and hopes, but the stakes are a lot higher here.
Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket? ;-)
The court case that started 21 years ago where the National Organization of Women sought to silence pro-life protestors by applying the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act to them has definitively ended. Unfortunately what I don't understand about this is that it ended with a U.S. District Judge, not with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did in fact rule on this issue last year; why that did not end the case then, and why, if it didn't, there can be no appeal from this present decision, I don't know.
It is definitely a good thing for free speech when people aren't intimidated by the application of laws drafted with mobsters in mind. Imagine if someone couldn't protest a business's injustices simply because the business might — well, lose business!
The Pope is off to Brazil right now, aiming to stem the flow of converts to Evangelicalism and address certain moral issues, such as abortion, poverty, and crime.
I'm not sure how he plans to stem the flow of converts to Evangelicalism. I did see this quote: "The success of sects shows that there is a thirst for God, a thirst for religion and people want to be near to God. . . . Those of us in the Catholic Church want to be more missionary and more dynamic in offering answers to this thirst and to be aware that people want God to be near to their brothers. . . . We must help them to find just living conditions, economic and concrete solutions, and meet their need for justice."
I would say he has a start there. "Dynamic" was the word that came to mind as I was thinking about this prior to reading the article with the quote, and being "missionary" is definitely something the church does not do well outside of some religious orders in remote locations and a small handful of domestic orders. He is also right to point to being near their brothers: In my experience the biggest practical difference between Evangelicals and Catholics is that Evangelicals have a much stronger sense of living community. It's not just a thousand people who show up on Sunday morning but otherwise have no connection with anyone else, together with maybe fifty people (if that many) who are actually involved in the church the rest of the week, but who still don't have a well-developed sense of community. How many people in your parish can you readily say that you love— and not just in a "er, well, I'm obliged to have a sense of charity, so I suppose if push came to shove, I love them" sort of way. Yet of the early Christians it was said, How they love one another! How many of your closest friends are from your parish? How much do you rely on fellow parishioners in your life?
I won't even talk about the importance of helping people develop a personal faith in God and a sense of personal commitment to Christ.
So I think the Pope at least has an idea of what is going on. He has called a conference of bishops to discuss the problem, and it sounds like he's leaving the solution up to them.
(Thanks to Gary C.)
Don't know if you've heard of the controversy, but someone cracked the encryption on high definition DVD formats. This allows people to copy the content with impunity. The key (as it is called) — the magic number that constitutes the Achille's Heel of the formidable armor called Digital Rights Management — is a simple 32-digit number. It's the password that gets you all the goods. And people are posting it everywhere, not only blogs, but T-Shirts and buttons and — church sign boards. A photo of a Baptist church with a signboard that says "Jesus says ..." followed by the key is circulating the Internet. (I would have posted it here but technically it is illegal to do so.)
See, even divulging a part of the number subjects you to a cease and desist order from the RIAA (which represents the content owners), so people figure that if they post the number everywhere, they will frustrate the RIAA and make it all but impossible to enforce their rights.
Now I have to say, putting the key in Jesus's mouth is a real stretch. It's as if it's saying that Jesus would join in this riot. I rather doubt he would. The vast majority of the people who want to decrypt content want to pirate it. I believe there are a few acceptable uses for breaking DRM — for example, playing legitimately-purchased content on a Linux system — technically, at present in the United States, it is illegal to do so.
It's possible that Jesus overlooks someone who advocates distribution of this key for the right reason, but I doubt he'd be behind it. I suspect they just needed filler material for the key. :-)
Check out, on this page, the main article by Dinesh D'Sousa and the interview with Hitchens and his brother Peter. I have to say that my impression of this man is of a snarling vacuous parody of a man — and an exemplar of evil. He says, "I can't stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity, or who is a person of faith. I mean that to me is a horrible repulsive thing." I was going to say that it is almost like he's an anti-christ, but that's exactly what he is by his own admission.
The title of his new book is "god is not Great". How utterly blasphemous can you get? He blasphemes twice in one title: Both denying God's greatness and deliberately insulting Him by violating the customary English way of showing respect for Him with capitals. (The subtitle is "How Religion Poisons Everything." I'd argue his last book had a blasphemous title, a book about Blessed Teresa of Calcutta called "The Missionary Position".)
I would never say, no matter how deep my faith, "I can't stand anyone who doesn't believe in God, who refuses to invoke the divinity, or who is a non-believer. I mean that to me is a horrible repulsive thing." Such an attitude is itself horrible and repulsive to me.
I gave up many years ago thinking this was the End Times. But given this, the shockingly blatent violations of the First Amendment they are trying to jam through Congress right now, and all the other issues, I have to admit this morning was I tempted to revisit that question.
Without question we should pray for such people. Even Bernard Nathanson was converted after the prayers of many. Perhaps their bileous bitterness and manifest wickedness will wake people up and prompt them to believe.
"Also I threw the meth I bought away."
These famous statements may come to mind as you read about Deputy Secretary of State Randall L.. Tobias, 65, also director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and "AIDS czar". He was, until his recent resignation, in charge of combating prostitution. Except that he requested a "massage" from a firm under investigation for prostitution by his office. Nothing sexual happened, of course.
This all comes has the madame involved disgorges her address book as a legal tactic. This should ensure a number of other people go down.
As Tobias was an advocate of abstinence and fidelity, it will undoubtedly mar that cause.
