How many times are we going to do this? A lot....
In one of the weekend papers (I believe the Cincinnati Enquirer ) there was an article about a 27 year old man who went to D.C. to lobby for additional federal funding of ESCR. Of course, as we know, it didn't work, but still he's hoping for it, although he didn't seem all that bitter in the article. I forget the exact details, but I believe he has leukemia and then kidney problems, so he used cells from his sister and such to keep him alive. He has no idea when the cancer will come back, but it's a pretty certain guess that it will come back.
Like I said, I'm not totally heartless. We're really not, those of us that don't support ESCR. But can't we focus on adult funding, which has actually shown results? And doesn't have moral/ethical qualms attached to it? Why is this so hard? I would never, ever support ESCR, as we know. It goes against my moral beliefs, my religious beliefs, everything. I don't care how big the cells are, we were all exactly that size once. How quickly we forget.
Enough for now, b/c we've covered this other places. But it's amazing how often it just pops up.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
The Religious Left??? Um....
So here in Ohio we've got a Religious Left revival going on. A PAC called "We Believe Ohio," made up of left-leaning pastors and their ilk, is starting to get "energized," like the Religious Right, and get involved in political issues. Their big things? Anti-war and anti-poverty. There are just a few--a few, mind you--problems with their approach.
In no particular order:
1) Um, anti-war is great, but that's not something that the Bible condones. Yes, Jesus speaks about forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that we just get kicked around. The Bible, and a few denominations, Catholics included, believe in "Just War" theory. Yeah, war is, in the words of the CCC "the total absence of God's love." But sometimes the defense of innocent people justifies war. Where would these people have been during WWII? The Civil War? Hello? Most religious people in the past have been for war (see the Civil War and the abolitionist movement) once it is clear that it's the only way to go.
2) Anti-Poverty. Also great. I think we can all agree on that. But, um, aren't there more important things? Doesn't the bible (i.e, Paul's 2nd letter to the Thessalonians) speak of the "teach a man to fish" maxim? We can't just expect the government, or the church, or whoever, to constantly provide for people. That's not in the Bible and it's not approved by the Bible. Sure, we are to be charitable. But charitable doesn't mean handouts, handouts, handouts.
3) You cannot be really religious and be pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and all the other anti-life positions the Left takes. It is impossible. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a commandment , not a suggestion. We are not to take innocent life. (This is not contradicting point #1 because in war you try not to take innocent life, unless you're a terrorist, in which case you don't care.) How can we speak of protecting others if we don't protect babies? If we don't protect the elderly and the sick? Huh? If we don't value the life God has created?
I'm sorry, but as long as the Left holds positions that are clearly the antithesis of what the Bible and Christianity say, then the Religiou Left is about as credible as Elmo and Oscar the Grouch (and that's probably an insult to them.).
In no particular order:
1) Um, anti-war is great, but that's not something that the Bible condones. Yes, Jesus speaks about forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that we just get kicked around. The Bible, and a few denominations, Catholics included, believe in "Just War" theory. Yeah, war is, in the words of the CCC "the total absence of God's love." But sometimes the defense of innocent people justifies war. Where would these people have been during WWII? The Civil War? Hello? Most religious people in the past have been for war (see the Civil War and the abolitionist movement) once it is clear that it's the only way to go.
2) Anti-Poverty. Also great. I think we can all agree on that. But, um, aren't there more important things? Doesn't the bible (i.e, Paul's 2nd letter to the Thessalonians) speak of the "teach a man to fish" maxim? We can't just expect the government, or the church, or whoever, to constantly provide for people. That's not in the Bible and it's not approved by the Bible. Sure, we are to be charitable. But charitable doesn't mean handouts, handouts, handouts.
3) You cannot be really religious and be pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and all the other anti-life positions the Left takes. It is impossible. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a commandment , not a suggestion. We are not to take innocent life. (This is not contradicting point #1 because in war you try not to take innocent life, unless you're a terrorist, in which case you don't care.) How can we speak of protecting others if we don't protect babies? If we don't protect the elderly and the sick? Huh? If we don't value the life God has created?
I'm sorry, but as long as the Left holds positions that are clearly the antithesis of what the Bible and Christianity say, then the Religiou Left is about as credible as Elmo and Oscar the Grouch (and that's probably an insult to them.).
The Religious Left??? Um....
So here in Ohio we've got a Religious Left revival going on. A PAC called "We Believe Ohio," made up of left-leaning pastors and their ilk, is starting to get "energized," like the Religious Right, and get involved in political issues. Their big things? Anti-war and anti-poverty. There are just a few--a few, mind you--problems with their approach.
In no particular order:
1) Um, anti-war is great, but that's not something that the Bible condones. Yes, Jesus speaks about forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that we just get kicked around. The Bible, and a few denominations, Catholics included, believe in "Just War" theory. Yeah, war is, in the words of the CCC "the total absence of God's love." But sometimes the defense of innocent people justifies war. Where would these people have been during WWII? The Civil War? Hello? Most religious people in the past have been for war (see the Civil War and the abolitionist movement) once it is clear that it's the only way to go.
2) Anti-Poverty. Also great. I think we can all agree on that. But, um, aren't there more important things? Doesn't the bible (i.e, Paul's 2nd letter to the Thessalonians) speak of the "teach a man to fish" maxim? We can't just expect the government, or the church, or whoever, to constantly provide for people. That's not in the Bible and it's not approved by the Bible. Sure, we are to be charitable. But charitable doesn't mean handouts, handouts, handouts.
3) You cannot be really religious and be pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and all the other anti-life positions the Left takes. It is impossible. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a commandment , not a suggestion. We are not to take innocent life. (This is not contradicting point #1 because in war you try not to take innocent life, unless you're a terrorist, in which case you don't care.) How can we speak of protecting others if we don't protect babies? If we don't protect the elderly and the sick? Huh? If we don't value the life God has created?
I'm sorry, but as long as the Left holds positions that are clearly the antithesis of what the Bible and Christianity say, then the Religiou Left is about as credible as Elmo and Oscar the Grouch (and that's probably an insult to them.).
In no particular order:
1) Um, anti-war is great, but that's not something that the Bible condones. Yes, Jesus speaks about forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that we just get kicked around. The Bible, and a few denominations, Catholics included, believe in "Just War" theory. Yeah, war is, in the words of the CCC "the total absence of God's love." But sometimes the defense of innocent people justifies war. Where would these people have been during WWII? The Civil War? Hello? Most religious people in the past have been for war (see the Civil War and the abolitionist movement) once it is clear that it's the only way to go.
2) Anti-Poverty. Also great. I think we can all agree on that. But, um, aren't there more important things? Doesn't the bible (i.e, Paul's 2nd letter to the Thessalonians) speak of the "teach a man to fish" maxim? We can't just expect the government, or the church, or whoever, to constantly provide for people. That's not in the Bible and it's not approved by the Bible. Sure, we are to be charitable. But charitable doesn't mean handouts, handouts, handouts.
3) You cannot be really religious and be pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and all the other anti-life positions the Left takes. It is impossible. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a commandment , not a suggestion. We are not to take innocent life. (This is not contradicting point #1 because in war you try not to take innocent life, unless you're a terrorist, in which case you don't care.) How can we speak of protecting others if we don't protect babies? If we don't protect the elderly and the sick? Huh? If we don't value the life God has created?
I'm sorry, but as long as the Left holds positions that are clearly the antithesis of what the Bible and Christianity say, then the Religiou Left is about as credible as Elmo and Oscar the Grouch (and that's probably an insult to them.).
Happy Assumption!
Hope you all had an excellent HDOO today--great weather here in Ohio, perfect for the day. :)
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
we're back!
All right, the computer is fixed and we now resume regularly scheduled blogging...
So what's going on in the Catholic world of late? well, B XVI is calling for Peace in the Middle East, as has most every Pope before him since Israel was established in 1946. Let me tell you, I'm all about peace, but at the same time, the "peace" and "cease-fire" agreements we've had before don't really seem to be doing the trick. Is it ever just time to let the aggression out and see where we go? Do Israel's actions fall under "Just War" theory? (which, btw, I am so glad we have) I don't really know. Any thoughts would be appreciated...
More Catholic women "ordained" on a cruise ship in Pittsburgh. They always say that they're following the early church, but I gotta ask, what early church? The Early Church was extremely obedient to the apostles/disciples/bishops. This isn't exactly what I call being obedient. If you want to serve God in an official capacity as a woman, be a nun . But this is old hat, so we'll move on.
Not much else on the horizon of late, but I'm sure, with election season moving into high gear, there will be much, much more. And you'll be able to read all about it here...
So what's going on in the Catholic world of late? well, B XVI is calling for Peace in the Middle East, as has most every Pope before him since Israel was established in 1946. Let me tell you, I'm all about peace, but at the same time, the "peace" and "cease-fire" agreements we've had before don't really seem to be doing the trick. Is it ever just time to let the aggression out and see where we go? Do Israel's actions fall under "Just War" theory? (which, btw, I am so glad we have) I don't really know. Any thoughts would be appreciated...
More Catholic women "ordained" on a cruise ship in Pittsburgh. They always say that they're following the early church, but I gotta ask, what early church? The Early Church was extremely obedient to the apostles/disciples/bishops. This isn't exactly what I call being obedient. If you want to serve God in an official capacity as a woman, be a nun . But this is old hat, so we'll move on.
Not much else on the horizon of late, but I'm sure, with election season moving into high gear, there will be much, much more. And you'll be able to read all about it here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
