No family values

This cartoon by Nick Anderson ran today in the Washington Post:

puritan.gif

Two family values being mocked are teachings that sex is appropriate only within the confines of marriage, and abortion is wrong.

Meanwhile, alternatives that the no-family values crowd have promoted the last 30-40 years have wrought nothing but harm and despair. Can its proponents name one good thing that has arisen from the free love mentality?


Comments:

I don't understand how you get that from the cartoon.

Throw religion aside just for one second. (if you can) Is making love to someone you truly care about and love with all your heart wrong? If I make love to my boyfriend "going against family values" because I would disagree.

Posted by: JM at July 17, 2007 9:54 AM


"Can its proponents name one good thing that has arisen from the free love mentality?"

No

Posted by: jasper at July 17, 2007 9:58 AM


I don't think anyone is promoted the "free love" mentality... beyond a few retro hippies frequenting various DeadHead-ish venues. Few people are saying... "Hey... cohabitate before marriage."

Seriously Jill, grow-up and despense with the baseless alarmism... or provide us with a cadidate that's running on "no/less family values." It's a soft/non issue intended to be devisive and keep us squabling with each other while the plutocracy goes about getting the rich richer... sort of like getting tough on crime... who are these candidates saying we're too tough on crime?? The candidates/politicians advancing these soft/non issues are doing so because they haven't actually accomplished anything substantive.

Posted by: Cameron at July 17, 2007 10:40 AM


In the minds of radical feminists, men and women are engaged in one big power struggle. This notion originates from their Marxist heritage. Karl Marx, whose writings led to the disaster of communism, believed that society was dominated by a struggle between the bourgeoisie (owners of production) and the proletariat (workers). Although Marx says nothing about a struggle between men and women, the feminists adapted his revolutionary rhetoric to their own cause. Feminists believe that for women to win their struggle, they must have total control over child bearing and be able to kill their unborn babies on demand. Actually, there is no big power struggle between men and women. If an independent observer from Mars were to come to Earth to study the interactions between men and women, he would not find a state of ongoing war. He would not find roving bands of men forcing women to produce babies, they do not want. He would instead find that, in most cases, men and women get along very well together. The feminists have created this struggle myth to advance their political power. Unfortunately, they also created our American holocaust.

Posted by: jasper at July 17, 2007 11:45 AM


"Can its proponents name one good thing that has arisen from the free love mentality?"

Yes, much happier and fullfilling sex lives for many.

Posted by: Hal at July 17, 2007 11:58 AM


Besides continuing to end the sort of misogyny which, coincidentally, empowers an individual like Jill to ramble on about why she should be placed back into patriarchal servitude?


Nop!

Posted by: dan l at July 17, 2007 12:58 PM


What exactly is family values? I mean is there one set we're all supposed to follow? Or are they different depending on the family??

Posted by: midnite678 at July 17, 2007 2:14 PM


Well,

Midnite, I guess you'd have to start with a family. That would mean that when two people produce a child, they do everything in their power to keep that child safe and happy...and that's before it's born.

No children, kind of an empty family.

As for the phrase "family values", I believe it was coined by people like us to describe a household with one man and one woman, who are married, welcome any children that come their way.

But just like marriage has been hijacked and given a new definition, I'm sure it won't be long before the term "family values" is stolen and twisted (You know, what you accuse Jasper of doing) to mean any group of people who share a dwelling.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 17, 2007 3:59 PM


Quote of The Day;

"This is very important. This is not an implant. This is an extension of the body. These cells have the ability to work with and organize existing cells and tissue."

Now see, that's impressive! And nobody had to die...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 17, 2007 4:00 PM


"As for the phrase "family values", I believe it was coined by people like us to describe a household with one man and one woman, who are married, welcome any children that come their way."

I disagree, what about a mother whose husband dies? There is no longer and man and a women who are married.

What about a women who leaves her husband because he beats both her and the children? No man and women who are married there either.

Or what about the women or man who is unhappy, so they get a divorce. Yes divorce is sad but it happens.

In all these situations can't one parent make the child feel safe and happy?

Just because of these situations does not mean the child/children can't grow up with "family values"

Posted by: JM at July 17, 2007 5:19 PM


What's being mocked here are family-values proponents like Senator Vitter, who preach family values while patronizing prostitutes.

Posted by: SoMG at July 17, 2007 5:33 PM


What the proponents of the free love mentality have given us is moral freeloaders who think that a fulfilling sex life can be had through dating, casual sex, or hook-ups. All we had to give up was love, romance, childhood and family life. In return we got millions of fatherless children, babies killed in the womb, emotional stress and low self-esteem especially among girls who are usually more vulnerable, greater chance of divorce, infidelity, depression and suicide at an all time high and plenty of STDs to go around. Short term thinkers never do look beyond the moment or want to acknowledge the consequences of their actions. Why should they. Others are paying the price. Tell the millions of fatherless children and millions of aborted babies about your �much happier and fulfilling sex lives�.

Posted by: J.J. at July 17, 2007 6:03 PM


JM,

The woman whose husband died, if the marriage was good, created their children with "family values" in mind. Assuming that she speaks well of her deceased husband, and brings the children up to love and respect his memory, I don't see any conflict to the "family values" that I have described.

For the woman whose husband beats her? Well he wasn't living up to the standards that I put forth, and staying or leaving wouldn't make any difference. If the parents don't love each or abuse each other, then they aren't really "family" are they?

This is why the Catholic church grants annulments. They are conceding that no legitimate marriage took place to begin with. So in essence the couple was not really married at all...does not fit in with "family values".

As for the unhappy husband (or wife) who leaves his family...well that is the whole point of fixating on "family values"...these people don't value FAMILY. They value themselves and their own happiness. That is not what we are talking about at all.

When you marry you enter into a covenant. Not a contract. A covenant. If one person breaks that covenant, either by being abusive or leaving outright, they have not earned the right to be called a "family"...hence no family values. They might still be the childs parent, but this does not make a family. Or at best it makes a broken family, and that has not got much "value".

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 17, 2007 6:41 PM


Well MK- I guess we agree that we disagree. ;)

But nonetheless, i'll tell my friend who had a baby when she wasn't married that she isn't teaching her daughter family values.

Posted by: JM at July 17, 2007 8:22 PM


Now you see JM,

That's exactly what I said you would do. Highjack something that we created so you can accuse us of judging you.

The question was, what do we mean when use this term "Family Values" as it is used in the post. I simply defined the term. I've never even met your friend. I certainly am not going to judge her on what she is teaching her child.

She is not however reflecting "family values" as it was meant in this post...not judging, just clarifying a term...She might very well be teaching her little girl family values, just not "family values"...see?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 17, 2007 8:27 PM


JM, I hope you are adjusting to your move. Please refresh my memory. Are you pro choice or pro life. I forgot.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 17, 2007 8:36 PM


Heather,

We're posting our answers to the game on the NO NAME post...don't peak at anyone elses answers til you post your own.

If you don't know all the questions, email me, or you might accidentally see the others...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 17, 2007 9:12 PM


OK. I'll post tomorrow!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 17, 2007 9:24 PM


Since God designed the family He defines it.

It's simple: One man, one woman, for life who are to hold no one higher than God Himself.

If children are involved, they are to obey their parents.

JM,

Nothing is wrong with making love to your boyfriend as long as you are married to him. Those are God;s words not mine.

Posted by: HisMan at July 17, 2007 10:17 PM


The end of the black market in abortion services is a good outcome.

Posted by: SoMG at July 17, 2007 11:21 PM


Hisman, if I was married to my boyfriend I would call him a husband not a boyfriend. I don't really care what God thinks of me. I really don't want to get into the whole religious argument right now.


Heather4life, I am pro-choice, but don't think I'd ever have an abortion myself.

MK- I feel judged my Christians on a daily basis. I don't think someone needs to have a husband (or wife) to have "family values" We disagree and thats fine.

Posted by: JM at July 17, 2007 11:26 PM


JM: "I don't really care what God thinks of me."

Know this, He cares about you.

Posted by: HisMan at July 17, 2007 11:41 PM


THINGS LOST: I very much miss innocence and perceiving life as gift. replaced with: CONTROL & PRIDE

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 18, 2007 8:07 AM


Obama, Edwards, promise universal coverage for killing the unborn.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-dems18jul18,1,639458.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Posted by: jasper at July 18, 2007 8:28 AM


Jasper,

That just makes me sick! I mean these guys go on and on how they are personally opposed to it, but think the woman should have the choice. Then they expect us to pay for it.

It's one thing to say "we must leave it legal because the choice is up to the women" and another to say "okay, lets make sure every woman can get an abortion by paying for it". It's not enough to have abortion legal, now they want it to be free. Oh yeah, that'll keep it "rare"!

PHOOEY!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 18, 2007 8:35 AM


MK!! I posted my answers. I'm all excited. :)

Posted by: Lyssie at July 18, 2007 9:03 AM


Dan, 12:58p, said: "Besides continuing to end the sort of misogyny which, coincidentally, empowers an individual like Jill to ramble on about why she should be placed back into patriarchal servitude? Nop!"

Second, what do you mean by "patriarchal servitude"?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 18, 2007 9:41 AM


JM et. all-

"Family Values" can not be instilled by someone who does not value the family. My mother was never married to my father, thus she can not teach me about marriage.

It's really pretty simple. There are many things that one need not experience to understand, but marriage is not one of them. This is because a working marriage is something that evolves over time, and the wisdom gained after 20 years can not simply be imagined.

My mother taught me many things, but how to be a wife was not one of them.

Posted by: lauren at July 18, 2007 10:00 AM


Hi JM,
Just wondering why you wouldn't consider abortion for yourself.

Hey MK!
I wasn't part of the "lists", but peeked and it was really cool!

Hello Lauren,
Right on! If life isn't valued, how can family be valued? I know I've said this before, but why are some lives(aborted children)not worth as much as others?

Hiya Heather! You rock, girl!
Hey Hal! Missed ya!
What's up, Jasper and HisMan!
High Five to Jill! Thanks for not giving up on me!
Hi Mary! Don't think you've posted to this thread but just in case you check in, just wanted to say Hi!
Nice to "meet you" J.J. and Lyssie!

Sorry about all that, don't get to post often right now, want to make it count! :)

Posted by: Janet at July 18, 2007 10:46 AM


"Hi JM,
Just wondering why you wouldn't consider abortion for yourself."

I think I would regret it afterwords. Some women do have regrets and some do not, I feel I would be one that would regret it someday.

Posted by: JM at July 18, 2007 11:03 AM


JM,
Thanks for your honest post. I wish I had thought about the finality of abortion before having one. Are there any specific reasons you think you might regret an abortion?

Posted by: Janet at July 18, 2007 11:11 AM


Hi Janet,

It's nice to hear from you again..

Posted by: jasper at July 18, 2007 12:15 PM


Janet,

there's still time...just answer them on the previous post...I haven't posted the answers yet...

JM,

Are you sure you don't want to play?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 18, 2007 12:17 PM


Adding on to the "quote of the day" regarding Barack Obama, a true coward if there ever was one:

"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."

"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them.

http://www.gop.com/media/PDFs/062007Research.pdf

Posted by: jasper at July 18, 2007 12:52 PM


I met Brian "Head" Welch on Sunday night. Most young ones know he was the lead guitarist for Korn. If you guys are interested I can post a picture of Brian and me that was taken.

He was addicted to meth and nothing, no program, no doctor could help him break the addiction. The he found Jesus and was totally healed of addiction. He wrote a book that in 6 days went to the NY Times bestseller list. His testimony is mind boggling.

On page 56 he talks about how he used to be pro-abortion but now is pro-life. In fact he wanted his girlfriend, who he got pregnant, to get an abortion. She decided not to, had the baby and gave it up for adoption. He talks aboout the pain that caused.

Look for this guy to do awesome things for God. He going to pack stadiums witnessing for Christ.

Posted by: HisMan at July 18, 2007 1:24 PM


Let's see the pic!!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 18, 2007 1:55 PM


Good for Brian Welch! .. I never relly listened to Korn but I believe they were really good modern Heavy Metal band.

Posted by: jasper at July 18, 2007 2:11 PM


"He talks aboout the pain that caused."

Yes... adoption can haunt one for a life time. Waiting and wondering who's going to eventually track the other down.

Posted by: Cameron at July 18, 2007 2:48 PM


Actually Cameron,

A lot of adoptions are open now. There are also numerous registries (including state ones) where you can give permission to give your info. if anyone comes looking. The days of forgetting about your adopted child are long gone...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 18, 2007 2:58 PM


Wow, HisMan!
Very cool!

Posted by: Janet at July 18, 2007 3:06 PM


Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

Posted by: jasper at July 18, 2007 6:51 PM


Heather4Life:

Here's the link to photos of me and Brian Welch. He's a great guy and very open about his journey.

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z85/hisman_ixoye/IMG_2236.jpg

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z85/hisman_ixoye/IMG_2235.jpg


Cameron:

I wouldn't say what you said on this site with regard to the pain Brian Welch expericned as a result of his illicit lifestyle prior to Christ. I understand he had a very bad temper.

What is it with you? Anything for a laugh?

Posted by: HisMan at July 18, 2007 7:39 PM


Jasper,

I swear sometimes I just feel like throwin' in the towel and crying uncle!!!

What can this clown possibly be thinking?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 18, 2007 7:40 PM


MK- I'm sure I don't want to play but thanks for asking... maybe next time. :)

"JM,
Thanks for your honest post. I wish I had thought about the finality of abortion before having one. Are there any specific reasons you think you might regret an abortion?"

I'm not sure really, I guess I think a few things, One being what happens if later on I try to have kids and can't get pregnant... the other might be what if I marry the man that I became pregnant with then see our other child and know we could have had one more... does that make sense?

I also know my family would be very supportive and willing to help me out. Not everyone is as lucky as I am.

Posted by: JM at July 18, 2007 10:41 PM


MK and Jasper-
I think it might be a good idea to teach that young, or perhaps a little older about "okay touch" and "not okay touch" There are a lot little kids being sexually abused and don't say anything because they think its normal.

After skimming the article I also believe Mr. Obama's words may have been twisted a bit.

Posted by: JM at July 18, 2007 10:55 PM


Cameron,

The pain was caused when he realized what he had done and teh price he had to pay. He fell in love with the baby when she was born and then had to let her go.

That's the devious nature of sin my friend and you would do well to take heed.

Posted by: HisMan at July 18, 2007 11:31 PM


HisMan,

But that's what real love is...putting another before yourself...

The fact that he was willing to place her into hands that could give her all the things that he couldn't, even tho the pain would be great, is a testament to how much he loved her. Trust me. I'm one of those little babies. And I thank my birth mother everyday that she had the courage to commit this act of selfless love...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 19, 2007 1:33 AM


MK:

Agreed, 100 per cent, you are amazing and I am also personally glad of your mother's decision.

The sin was having sex outside of marriage which forced Brian and his girlfriend to have to make a decision. Our blessed Savior forgives all.

Thank God the girlfriend had enough courage not to give in to Brian's request to have an abortion. I think at this point in his life it would have been devastating to have to live with that. Brian is an amazingly sensitive man and very honest.

Yes, the decsion was totally unselfish and Brian talks about it, very maturely, in his book.

I think every young person and adult needs to read his new book. For the young person; to find a way out of the madness of today's society and for oldies like me; to realize what this precious generation is facing nowadays as a result of my generation's failure to keep the moral flame burning.

His promoter and I are board members of a ministry. I hope to get to know Brian much better.

Hey, where's the pictures link of me and Brian I posted a few hours ago?

Posted by: HisMan at July 19, 2007 2:08 AM


HisMan,

Sorry, posts with links must be approved. I just did. The guy still looks scary, although I know a book can't be judged.... But why is he still wearing such a t-shirt?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 19, 2007 5:58 AM


WOW, Love that pic! His Man, you ae nice looking. Anyone can change their ways.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 19, 2007 6:14 AM


Cameron, you are just soooo NOT funny anymore. As I have said before, your shock value has run it's course. Like "shock jock" Howard Stern's has. At first Howard shocked me, but now I'm like ..Well, that's just Howard being Howard. After hearing his 1000th comment on a woman's female anatomy, it just becomes washed up. Kind of like your stuff. Give it up.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 19, 2007 6:22 AM


"After skimming the article I also believe Mr. Obama's words may have been twisted a bit."

JM, watch the video of Obama within the link, he's talking before PP and says teaching abstinance could possibly cause death.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492

Posted by: jasper at July 19, 2007 8:40 AM


Jill,

I wondered about the shirt too with the skulls atc.

I didn't read what the shirt said, however, I bet is said something like, "This or heaven - your choice". If I can I'll find out.

Brian's a for real, 100% sold out to Christ, Christian.

Posted by: HisMan at July 19, 2007 11:18 AM


HisMan,

I couldn't help but think that if there's any movies about Jesus coming up, Brian Welch could play Him.

LOL.

Posted by: jasper at July 19, 2007 6:40 PM


Jasper,

But we'd have to chip in and buy him some new clothes!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 19, 2007 6:47 PM


Yes MK...LOL and probably have the tatoos removed!

Posted by: jasper at July 19, 2007 6:56 PM


Yeah, but then he'd have no arms left...maybe just long sleeves...He has beautiful eyes tho!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 19, 2007 7:58 PM


"JM, watch the video of Obama within the link, he's talking before PP and says teaching abstinence could possibly cause death."

I'm not in the mood to watch that right now. However what happens if we ONLY teach abstinence and some teenager decides "uh, I wanna have sex" They may have unprotected sex, get a deadly STD and die. I'm not against teaching abstinence to teenagers. I am against teaching abstinence ONLY.

Also, why haven't you or MK commented on my last post? Do you agree or disagree?

Posted by: JM at July 19, 2007 9:37 PM


Thats funny, I decided to watch the video clip, and what I said is exactly the point he was making.

Posted by: JM at July 19, 2007 9:45 PM


They may have unprotected sex, get a deadly STD and die.

Isn't this happening already, even despite comprehensive sex education?
Teenagers, even ones who know everything they possibly could need to know about birth control, still have unprotected sex, and still get STD's, and many are dying today. Why is this happening if more sex and birth control ed is the answer?

Posted by: Bethany at July 19, 2007 9:48 PM


"I think it might be a good idea to teach that young, or perhaps a little older about "okay touch" and "not okay touch" There are a lot little kids being sexually abused and don't say anything because they think its normal."

Yes JM, thats probably ok, but "sex education" involves more than that, one of the things it talks about is body parts (uterus, etc). They don't need to know about this when they are 5 yrs old, especially when PP is contributing to the agenda or "education" of it.

Posted by: jasper at July 19, 2007 9:55 PM


Hi Bethany-

I see where you are coming from, but some people do use what they learned in sex education, use condoms and other forms of birth control. Some choose abstinence. Some people learn about condoms and BC and still use nothing.

Let me ask everyone here a question: If you son or daughter chooses to have sex before marriage would you rather they were educated in what to use to prevent pregnancy and STD's? or not use anything at all? When I told my mother I was sexually active she was said the following, "Well I wish you would have waited, but at least I know you're being safe."

Jasper, I agree that 5 year old should be taught about that kind of stuff. Like I said, I believe his words were twisted. I watched the link, Obama said he believes in age appropriate education. I doubt he thinks teaching 5 year olds about uterus' is age appropriate...

I have an idea, how about this, the teacher can inform the parents about what will be taught in sex education and then the parents can decide if they want their kid to participate. As a future educator, although I won't be teaching sex ed just math, I know sex education would be a touchy subject, I would probably inform the parents of what we would be learning and that they have the option to opt out if they so choose. Of course this would have to be okay with administration, as these kids would need someplace to go during this time but I don't think they would have an issue. Parents also have the option to pull there kids out of school. (something a parent did on halloween when I was student teaching, because her son was a Jehovah's (sp?) witness, and they don't celebrate holidays.

Posted by: JM at July 19, 2007 10:22 PM


Oh and thank you jasper for answering my question. I appreciate it. :)

Posted by: JM at July 19, 2007 10:23 PM


"I doubt he thinks teaching 5 year olds about uterus' is age appropriate..."

Yes, he does JM. He explained in another interview that the schools should explain to 5 yr olds where babies come from.

"I have an idea, how about this, the teacher can inform the parents about what will be taught in sex education and then the parents can decide if they want their kid to participate."

This already happens JM, at least in Massachusetts.....

Posted by: jasper at July 19, 2007 10:57 PM


grrr this post annoys me, mainly because republicans are annoying the crap out of me. Doesn't help that last week was a little rough (I already blogged about it, that is okay :P)
Courtesty idrewthis:

Kevin Drum, here, discusses the fact that Republicans are, in essence, "filibustering" every piece of legislature they can, so they can then accuse the Democrats of running a "do-nothing Congress":

Republicans are basically filibustering everything they can get their hands on but aren't paying a price for it because filibusters are no longer filibusters. Thanks to a gentleman's agreement reached several decades ago, you no longer have to actually take to the Senate floor and talk until you drop. You just announce your intent to filibuster, the majority leader takes you at your word, and shortly thereafter schedules a cloture vote. No muss, no fuss. All you have to do is write a note and the bill in question suddenly requires 60 votes to pass, not 51. As a result, if the minority party feels like it, they can pretty easily force every bill to require 60 votes.

But this isn't a law, and if the majority leader wants to require actual filibusters, he can do so.


Two things strike me. One, remember the enormous fuss, back when the Repubs were in charge of the Congress, over the notion that Democrats might filibuster a few judicial nominees? The press made a big deal of the "controversy" surrounding whether or not this was appropriate behavior. Now, of course, the Republican minority is basically filibustering everything, and I imagine the average person has no idea, they just see that the Democrats are failing to get anything done.

But, because of this decades-old agreement, reached so that actual filibusters (which could go on for days) would not shut down other Senate business, Republicans basically just have to say "we're going to filibuster this" and all that happens is the bill suddenly needs 60 votes instead of 51 to pass, and since the Democrats don't have 60 votes, nothing ever passes.

The Republicans are clearly abusing this agreement, and, as political starategy and as political theater, I'm all in favor of the Dems actually forcing the Republicans to read the phone book into the Senate record and so forth.

I mean, via Digby, consider some of the stuff they've blocked using this method, this year:

1. January 17, Reid Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007: a bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process.
2. January 24, Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007: a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
3. February 5, A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq: disapproving of the troop escalation in Iraq.
4. February 17, A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq: disapproving of the troop escalation in Iraq (again).
5. April 17, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007: an original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
6. April 18, Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007: a bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for fair prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.
7. June 11, No confidence vote on Alberto Gonzales: a joint resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people.
8. June 21, Baucus Amendment to CLEAN Energy Act of 2007: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for energy advancement and investment, and for other purposes.
9. June 26, Employee Free Choice Act of 2007: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.
10. July 11, Webb Amendment to the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2008: to specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.


Harry Reid has the ability to start forcing the Republicans to actually shut the Senate down for days at a time to block what is, as you can see, some remarkably popular stuff. And, I'm sure genuine, Mr. Smith-style filibusters would get a lot of media attention--it'd be great TV. Are they actually willing to do that? It's time we found that out. Bring on the windbaggery.

EDIT: Apparently, almost at the moment I was writing this, Harry Reid pretty much did what I was calling for him to do. I like it when that happens. I get to pretend I have power! Grrrr.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 19, 2007 11:47 PM


Jasper:

His promotor and agent are my friends. I will tell them about your comment about him playing Jesus.

How about a truthful, "Jesus Christ Super Rock Star". He's a rock and created the stars.

PIP:

Pulling out of Iraq would be a major disaster. Harry Reid knows this and he should be tried and hanged for treason.

Heather4Life:

Thanks for your kinds words.

Posted by: HisMan at July 20, 2007 1:02 AM


JM,
First off I've been busy decipherin' roads and keys and cups. Second, I didn't realize you required a response, and thirdly Jasper did respond. He disagrees and think Obamama's words were not twisted.

Teaching about appropriate touching and inappropriate touching might be okay, but I'd put that in the same category as Stranger Danger and Fire Safety...not sex ed. After all, kindergartners don't know that the adults that "touch" them inappropriately are doing it to derive sexual pleasure. They only know it makes them uncomfortable. And it makes me uncomfortable to tell them otherwise.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 20, 2007 6:50 AM


Hi Bethany-
I see where you are coming from, but some people do use what they learned in sex education, use condoms and other forms of birth control. Some choose abstinence. Some people learn about condoms and BC and still use nothing.
Let me ask everyone here a question: If you son or daughter chooses to have sex before marriage would you rather they were educated in what to use to prevent pregnancy and STD's? or not use anything at all? When I told my mother I was sexually active she was said the following, "Well I wish you would have waited, but at least I know you're being safe."

Jm, try to see this question from our perspective. What you are asking is like asking us if we teach our child not to steal, then, if they do steal, we have been negligent because we didn't take precautions and tell them if they "did" happen to steal, despite what we taught them, they should at least learn how to do it in a safe, discreet manner, where they most likely will not get caught. Would this be the correct way to handle the situation? To protect them from the consequences, should they decide to steal?

The point is, my children will be taught that under no circumstances is it right to steal.... likely, they will be taught that under no circumstances is is okay to have sex before marriage, and they will know beforehand about STD's and everything else that can go with sex, when it is the appropriate time.

If they choose to steal...and they get caught and have to go to jail- it is not my fault. They made a bad decision and now have to live with the consequences.

It is similar with sex. They must live with the consequences of the choices they make.

The fact that I don't teach my children how to steal discreetly doesn't mean that I dont care about them if they still wanted to steal despite what I've taught them...and the fact that I don't teach my children how to use birth control doesn't mean that I don't care about them if they still decide to have sex despite what I've taught them.

Do you see what i am saying?

Posted by: Bethany at July 20, 2007 7:48 AM


Brilliant Bethany...simply brilliant!

We as parents, can't stop our children from making bad choices, we can only teach them that ALL actions have consequences...

The same rules would apply to drug use...don't do drugs but if you do, let me show you how to hold the pipe so you don't get burned. Or give you the name of a good drug dealer so you get safe drugs! Crazy talk!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 20, 2007 8:21 AM


His Man, what a stupid thing to say.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 20, 2007 10:00 AM


"The Republicans are clearly abusing this agreement, and, as political starategy and as political theater, I'm all in favor of the Dems actually forcing the Republicans to read the phone book into the Senate record and so forth."

Hey PIP,

if you look closely at some of these Democrat proposals... one of them, as John McCain described, is that US Soldiers could not shoot at Shites or Sunnis, only at members of Al-Queada.

Crazy! what are the supposed to do, tap them on the shoulder and ask them who they are before engaging in battle.

Posted by: jasper at July 20, 2007 10:13 AM


Bethany,

Oh come on, comparing sex to stealing? Can I go to jail if have sex before marriage? The two are totally different.

I also feel you are proving my point a bit... you said "they will know beforehand about STD's and everything else that can go with sex" (Now, I'm assuming you will teach them about safe sex). I feel this is what sex education does for most kids, informs them about their options and then they make the decision. Much like my parents did with me. Nonetheless, when is the appropriate age kids learn about sex and everything else that goes along with sex? When kids as young as 12, 13 and 14 and doing it?

Posted by: JM at July 20, 2007 11:38 AM


MK, no need to get all defensive.... geeezzz did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

and Jasper responded after I asked him to. And I appreciate his response.

Posted by: JM at July 20, 2007 11:41 AM


JM,

Didn't mean to come across grumpy...I'm not...I really have been focusing on the game post and not checking the other ones...so I didn't see yours til this morning...

You also sounded kind of demanding. Your tone seemed accusatory as in "HEY WHY AREN'T YOU ANSWERING ME!

As for comparing sex and stealing...to us there is not moral difference between premarital sex and theft. We don't care what the law says (as is evidenced by the fact that we are fighting "legal" abortion) and don't want our kids doing either one. We don't believe it is possible to have "safe" sex before marriage just as we don't believe it is possible to have justifiable theft.

When Bethany says her kids will know about STD's, I don't think she means she'll teach them how to protect themselves from them, but that she'll teach her children that they are one of the reasons NOT to have sex before marriage. I have taught my children why our family doesn't use birth control, why we are pro life and when sex is appropriate. We're not stupid. We know they might do drugs, steal and sleep with people outside of marriage...but that doesn't mean we have to teach them how to! We prefer to teach them not to!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 20, 2007 11:52 AM


MK-
I see where you are coming from and both you and Bethany bring up great points. I myself would just worry my children would have sex, not be protected and end up pregnant or have with an STD. This happened to a women I used to work with. She taught her daughter abstinence only and her daughter ended up pregnant. While my mother wished I had waited to have sex, she was happy that I was protected. I have a really close relationship with my mother and I think its because she has been honest with me from the beginning. I personally feel had she not been honest, I would not be able to share so many things with her that I do. I think I would I feel like I would been disappointing her.

Quick question MK, have your children...well perhaps this would be when they were young... I have a feeling your kids are older? correct me if I'm wrong... anyway, have your kids ever asked you about condoms and birth control? and if so what did you say? (not trying to sound mean or offensive here. I'm very curious)

Posted by: JM at July 20, 2007 12:22 PM


"I feel this is what sex education does for most kids, informs them about their options"

JM, some of us believe that condoms, pre-marital sex, etc should no be taught as "options".

JM, could you please explain why the abortion rate has doubled since the 1970's, I mean, we have all of this sex-ed today but are having twice as many abortions, std's, etc.

Posted by: jasper at July 20, 2007 12:34 PM


My oldest son got his wife pregnant before they were married. He came to me immediately. He knew that while I wouldn't like the circumstances that got him there, it wouldn't change my feelings for him (it didn't) he was much more disappointed in himself than I was! After the obligatory dirty look, I broke out into a grin and said well, it may not be the best of circumstances, but we've got ourselves a new life!!!! Then we cried and laughed and talked for hours about what he and sarah wanted to do. The point is that they came to me. It never occured to them not to. The way I talk to you guys on this site is exactly how I talk to my kids...(by the way, Charlotte is 17 months old now and the light of our lives)


My 21 year old came home from college this Easter. He was sitting on the kitchen counter one morning when I felt I needed to do my motherly duty. The conversation went something like this. "hey Mike. Glad you could give me a whole 2 minutes of your time. You know I gotta give you the "mom" speech, but as I'm pressed for time I'll make it quick...Quit smokin' pot. It makes you stupid. Trust me I know. Stop sleepin' with Tammy. Not sayin' that you are, and I love Tammy, but quit sleepin' with her or get her a ring. Oh and call your grandmother." Then I gave him a hug and told him it was nice to see him...Did he stop sleepin' with Tammy? Of course not. Did he stop smokin' pot? Who knows. But my views on the issue were clear. When he was seventeen I found a condom in his bedroom and left it on the kitchen table. He saw it, threw me a guilty look and that was that. When he was fifteen I caught him looking at pornography on the computer. I said "Oh Michael, that looks like fun. Lets look at it together" and promptly sat down and started commenting on the women's particulars. Then I told him that one day that might be his sister up there. Said all these girls were someones sister or daughter and by looking at them he was turning them into objects. Asked him if he was okay with that. Never saw pornography on the computer again. Did he stop lookin' at it? I don't know, but it probably never looked the same to him again.

My 17 year old and I had a conversation like this:
You know about sex? Yes. Want to ask any questions? No. I'm here if you do. Thanks. (murmer, stutter)...Kevin is a great kid. God gave me a break with him. He's just the kind of kid you don't have to worry about. He tells all of his friends that should they meet me and I ask them if they are pro-life to just say yes...no matter what they believe. It's a running joke. Many a teen that has entered my home has ended up with a computer screening on the evils of aboriton. All of my kids are pro-life. Wouldn't even occur to them to be otherewise. They don't just give it lip service. They complement me often. Call me their activist mother!

I gave my 10 year (the only girl) a talk about givin' away your candy bar. She got it. We talked about how it cheapens you when you pass around this most sacred, beautiful, precious gift we have been given. She knows that her brother got his wife pregnant before they were married and she saw that the world didn't end. I'm closer to that kid now than I've ever been...and she can see that far from driving us apart it brought us closer together.

My 25 year old, the one who can't be sold, called me when a friend of his got a girl pregnant and she was planning on getting an abortion. He asked me to help the friend. The friend came to see me and we talked for hours. Tried to call the girlfriend but it was too late. She'd already had the abortion. The friend cried in my arms. The point is my son turned to me for help. He knew that while I talk a good game, push comes to shove, I'm not gonna be judging anyone in the end. The important thing is the new life. Not the circumstances, not the "sin", but the new life that has been created.

They all understand that life is sacred and that sex is not something to be trifled with. Even the one that is sleeping with his girlfriend, has been dating her for 6 years. They are high school sweethearts. He knows I love her, and don't judge her, but frown on the behavior.

They've gotten the message. What they do with it is ultimately up to them. But they've also gotten the most important message...which is if they make choices that don't mesh with my beliefs, it won't change my love for them. And all new life, no matter the circumstances will always be welcome in my home.


Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 20, 2007 12:49 PM


MK- STOP! You are making me miss my mom right now.. hehe... ;) Those are great stories, that you so much for sharing them with me! Do you have any other grandchildren other than Charlotte?

Jasper, I'm not sure why the abortion rate as doubled, but I don't think teaching abstinence only will help the situation. Also lots of things have changed in the last 40 years.

Posted by: JM at July 20, 2007 1:01 PM


Charlottes mom and dad are expecting again in October. A boy this time...they've done very well with the no contraception thing, but I told Sarah I'd pay for a class in natural family planning. She was at my house one day and I told her that I thought she was pregnant again. She said no, she didn't think so. So I said let's take a pregnancy test. She looked at me like I was nuts! We took it and it came up positive...she started to cry and smile and cry and smile..and then she said "Is it okay to be happy?" I said "Sweetie, the bottom line is happy or not, once again there's a new life comin' into the world. Situation be damned, I'm thrilled!" They're poor and struggling and two kids so close together is kind of scary...but I held her and before you knew it, the fear left, and the joy found it's way home. She is more excited this time than with Charlotte! And don't tell anyone, but I'm pretty thrilled myself.

Obviously God has as much faith in me as I have in Him to trust me with these gifts...6 children, 2 grandchildren...It's been quite a birthday party! And I love everyone of my presents!

Now about this son...never mind!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 20, 2007 1:11 PM


I will be looking forward to October as well MK. I get to go home for a visit and see my boyfriend of two years. I needed to move to find a job and start my career. He's still in school and just bought a house. Not really in any condition to come with me. It is a true test of our relationship. I've been gone for only one week and I am missing him like crazy. I know it will be a challenge but if we can make it through this, we can make it through anything.

Congrats on the new expecting grandchild! My mom can't wait to be a grandma, but knows its pretty far off. I have an older sister who is getting married this year and an older brother who has been seeing the same girl for a little over a year and then me, whose been with Dan a little over two years. Can I ask your view on people dating who are different religions? or perhaps give me the catholic churchs view? (I used to be a practicing catholic)

Posted by: JM at July 20, 2007 1:32 PM


"(I used to be a practicing catholic)"

so many ex-catholics....it's sad. JM, what are you now?

Posted by: jasper at July 20, 2007 2:47 PM


PIP:

Not stupid, just to the point.

Harry Reid is a traitor to declare, solely for political reasons, in the midst of a war, that we lost the war when nothing could be futher from the truth. While holding high political office, he has emboldened the enemy who have stated they want to kill us.

That is a traitorus statement and he should be recalled, tried and executed for treason.

My son's and many other parents kids lives are on the line there and this arsehole makes these statements that put their lives at higher risk. You have no idea how that makes a parent feel.

No PIP, your statemetns are immature and are based on your persepctive which is a fantasy world. Take off the pink glasses and grow up.

Posted by: HisMan at July 20, 2007 4:12 PM


JM,

Good question. The church will "allow" a so-called mixed marriage as long as the party that is not Catholic will allow the other party to practice their faith (with all that entails...including birth control, etc>) and are willing to raise the children in the Catholic Faith. Like me, the church is not naive and realizes that many, many people that call themselves Catholic don't "practice" at being one. But we/they can't control all the wayward children. The rules are there. If you break them you're going to have to answer to a higher authority than the parish priest.

As to my own opinion? Well, Sarah is Jewish and Tammi is a sort-of-Christian. Charlotte was baptized and Sarah went through the RCIA (Rite of Catholic/Christian Initiation for Adults) even tho she had no intention of becoming a Catholic. But my son Tommy is a Catholic in good standing and it is important to him that the kids are raised in the faith. Sarah wanted to know what this "Catholic" thing she had agreed to raise her kids in was all about...Sarah is Jewish in name only. Tom and I have lots of long talks about how he hopes she'll come around to the faith. He's working on her mother right now. She lost her job a few months ago, and suffers from depression. He told her he would ask his family to pray for her, and then asked if she got the job she was hoping for would she be willing to open her mind up to the possibility of the faith. She hedged and hemmed and hawed...would only commit to being open to it...Tommy didn't take it too seriously, and either did she...but I prayed, my mother prayed, Tommy spent every day for a week in the adoration chapel and we had my father pray (my father is in a state very much like Terri Shciavo...but he knew he was going into it - vascular dementia- before hand and told us he would offer up the suffering for us...he's been this way for seven years now, and I'm tellin' you, when you put him on the job, the job gets done)...needless to say, she got the job.

Of course we don't really expect her to suddenly see the light. It doesn't work that way, but it was a small seed, and Sarah was watching.

I love that my granddaughter and grandson will be half Jewish and half Catholic because to me those are the two true faiths and in a way these two kids will be the culmination of both of them. What God intended from the beginning. It's kind of neat!

Does that answer your question?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 20, 2007 4:20 PM


MK- yes that does, thank you. I appreciate it. The reason I asked was because my brother is catholic, and his girlfriend is Jewish. It was hard for my mother to except at first, but she came around.

Jasper- I consider myself agnostic for the time being.

Posted by: JM at July 20, 2007 4:30 PM


JM

The question was directed to MK, but since this is the world wide web we're posting on here, may I pipe in and share a couple of cents?

From personal experience: Dating a person who practices another religion ...depends much on your own sense of conviction. In other words, if your own faith is mild to lukewarm at best, then another religion isn't very earth-shattering. That mindset would view it as just another belief system, not much else. If, on the other hand, you're devout and your faith means everything to you, then another religion is going to be a MAJOR issue.

We might need to clarify here. Some folks will automatically think of different faith traditions within Christianity as "another religion", while others assume we're talking about Islam, Hinduism, or anything else that doesn't identify itself as Christian..I'm gathering you're speaking of the former (different Christian traditions).

So back to personal experience: When I dated my husband, I was (still) devout and can be called the church-going gal. We went through the marriage preparation and retreats and all that, but his not being a practicing Catholic wasn't a huge concern. Fast forward to today, I wish that I had been more discriminating. Not so much for my sake, but for the children's sake. Going to church with only the children, no dad, while I see so many families together in church, does tug at my heart a bit. I grew up with a father like that, so looking back it doesn't surprise me that I followed those same footsteps. The beauty of a family that prays together...

In short, my humble opinion is that if one can date a person that practices the same religion, it could possibly spare heartache later.


That's what I think. As for the Church, not much is said on dating a person, but as far as marrying a person, I'll quote from the Catechism:

"1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise fromt the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home....Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage..."

Then it goes on to describe the different permissions needed for mixed marriages and how such a union can actually prepare the spouse for the grace of conversion.

Posted by: carder at July 20, 2007 4:45 PM


And JM,
I hadn't read your post about the Jewish/Catholic relationship you're talking about, but As usual I second MK's opinion.

Posted by: carder at July 20, 2007 4:54 PM


JM.

Interesting comment you posted and I hope you don't mind if I take the liberty of asking a question. I know you would agree that there is no cause for alarm between two people with different views so long as it is without bitterness or hatred. I am very curious as to what you mean by "I used to be a practicing Catholic". In your opinion, what defines a "practicing" Catholic.

I ask this because it has been my experience that people who have told me they were "practicing" Catholics, usually means they were baptized, made their communion and went to Mass on Sunday, but are unable to answer some basic Catholic questions or have little knowledge of Catholicism.

Often, they will mention they don't agree with such and such Church doctrine like birth control. When I ask them "which one of the hundreds of reasons the Church gives, don't you agree with?" or "when was the last time you read Humanae Vitae?" they don't know the answer. The same goes for abortion, although there are plenty of reasons apart from religious ones to be against it.

I'm just curious, because faith is meant to be a challenge to our reason. It should incite us to think in ways we could not otherwise have realized.

carder:

I agree with you. Although I know of mixed marriages that have worked out, it was always difficult and both parties suffered heartache later.

Posted by: J.J. at July 20, 2007 5:56 PM


JJ,
I would be happy to answer these questions for you.
I went to catholic school up until 8th grade when I switched to public school because both to expensive and most that went to the school with me were MEAN... I used to go to church every sunday and youth group every sunday night. I helped the youth director plan youth event suchas regular meetings and weekend retreats. I was co director (planned the event and carried it out) of youth fast with two other members of my youth group. I also co-founded/co-directed a senior citizen prom for the senior members of the parish. (It was such a huge hit with the elderly at the parish, that it still goes on today six years later.) I was part of a program called YTM (youth theology and ministry)for two years (it was a two year program). I've been to NCYC twice and Cathoic youth day once. When I was 19 I worked for CYC (catholic youth camp). When I was 12-15 I was an alter girl for my parents church parish. When I was 15 I started cantoring.
Up until I was about 19 I would try to go to church weekly, but being in college I got busy.
Thats my history, so has you can see I was a practicing catholic and every devout.

I am now 23 and only go to church when I visiting my parents. I do it out of respect for them. I also know it makes them happy.

As for why I don't practice I will answer this in hopes people don't jump down my throat and get defensive. This is how I feel and my opinion. My intention is NOT to offend anyone.

Yes I disagree with much of what the church believes. Birth control is a minor one for me. Homosexuality is a big one for me. I feel like most Christians (not all), not just catholics are somewhat judgmental. I also feel that sometimes organized religion can be very brainwashed. Think this, believe that. If you don't believe this you're going to hell etc.

I hope I have answered your question.

Posted by: JM at July 20, 2007 6:41 PM


"if you look closely at some of these Democrat proposals... one of them, as John McCain described, is that US Soldiers could not shoot at Shites or Sunnis, only at members of Al-Queada."
Jasper, as you probably have noticed, this is beyond Iraq proposals. I can imagine that argument making sense if they blocked a few proposals, or even most Iraq proposals, but clearly this is not the case. And I agree that republicans are making this a double standard. So it's okay for them to filibuster but not democrats? Why not just give it an up or down vote like they advised dems to do when they had a majority?

"Not stupid, just to the point.

Harry Reid is a traitor to declare, solely for political reasons, in the midst of a war, that we lost the war when nothing could be futher from the truth. While holding high political office, he has emboldened the enemy who have stated they want to kill us.\
That is a traitorus statement and he should be recalled, tried and executed for treason."
Well then why don't we hang most of the country for treason too? (And actually it seems to me that Bush Jr. is emboldening the enemy...as you might have noticed, attacks have increased as well has hostility as time goes by there.) You are allowed to have your opinions, but to state that being against an unjust war, a war that the majority of Americans don't agree with, including religious figures, is a crime worthy of the death penalty, is actually quite horrifying. Perhaps you would like to live under a dictatorship, in which such things might actually happen?


"My son's and many other parents kids lives are on the line there and this arsehole makes these statements that put their lives at higher risk. You have no idea how that makes a parent feel."
I have never been a parent, no. But I know several families who have members that go overseas. I have recieved mixed opinions, but as I have stated previously, that's the beauty of being American. There are some soldiers over there who actually disagree with the war, you know. Maybe we should execute them, too.


"No PIP, your statemetns are immature and are based on your persepctive which is a fantasy world. Take off the pink glasses and grow up."
Look, I am not the one promoting the death penalty for someone with a different opinion. Perhaps you would like to take off those glasses yourself?

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 20, 2007 7:16 PM


@MK: My parents were a "mixed" religious marriage. My dad was raised Methodist and my mom was raised Catholic. They got married in a Catholic church so they had to take a bunch of these "marriage classes" or something and they had to sign an agreement before the priest would marry them saying that any child that they had would be raised Catholic. So of course, my brothers and I were raised Catholic. By this I mean we were baptized, given first reconciliation, first communion, went to Faith Formation classes every Wednesday and went to church ever Saturday or Sunday (depending on how busy we were on Sunday).

My dad never converted. He always came to church with us every Sunday/Saturday and sat with us. I think he would pray, but I'm not sure. I always asked my dad why he always went to church with us even though he wasn't Catholic and he never got communion with us. He always said he was not interested in converting, and that he never had any intention of doing so.

Both of my grandfathers converted. My mom's dad was raised Lutheran but converted to Catholicism when he married my grandma. My late grandfather on my dad's side was raised Dutch Refrom (hella scary strict stuff there...) but he immediately converted to Methodism when he married my grandmother. My uncle converted from Catholicism to Lutheranism. Most of my dad's siblings became agnostic or atheist though my dad's second oldest sister became fundamentalist Baptist. All of my mom's siblings except for my one uncle are still Catholic today.

Posted by: Rae at July 20, 2007 7:20 PM


Both my parents were Catholic when they got married and now neither of them are, and they are divorced. Guess they just weren't very serious about the faith. I had to get myself confirmed 2 and a half years ago, as did 500 other people my age (31) that were there at the time.

Posted by: Rosie at July 20, 2007 7:42 PM


PIP,

somting for you:
http://www.dantejoseph.com/HypocrisyExposed.html

Please stop listening to the MSM (they biased to left and are a mouthpiece for the Democrat party)

Posted by: jasper at July 20, 2007 8:27 PM


JM.
Thank you for your honest answer. I would make a suggestion to be very cautious in the use of the word judgmental. One could argue that you are being judgmental in your assessment of religious people. It works both ways. If your opinion differs, than so be it, but state your objections clearly and precisely. Calling Christians judgmental because their understanding of right and wrong differs from you, is no way to have dialogue, although I believe that your intent was not to offend. Nor is my intent to jump down your throat.

Neverthess, your catholic history sounds more like a social calendar, rather than a serious attempt to study the faith. Obedience to Church authority is not always simple and obvious. It is not intended as an attitude of abstaining from the use of personal intelligence and judgment. The Catholic ideal of obedience is not that the individual should regress from stages of growth but that there should be a serious intellectual, critical and personal effort to understand the goals, ideals, and traditions. Something that I believe you have not done. If you had, than your arguments would not be centered on using jargons like judgmental and brainwashed. Again, I mean no offense or disrespect.

The philosophy of unconstrained self-actualization has been significant and now underlines much of the many social changes, such as legal abortion, casual sex, radical redefinition of the family, etc. Be careful not to devote yourself to a 'religion' of self-centeredness which refuses to acknowledge reasonable limited and responsibilities by emphasizing the human capacity for change to the point of almost totally ignoring the idea that life has limits, and that knowledge of those limits is the basis of wisdom.

Peace

Posted by: J.J. at July 20, 2007 9:00 PM


Oh come on, comparing sex to stealing? Can I go to jail if have sex before marriage? The two are totally different.
I also feel you are proving my point a bit... you said "they will know beforehand about STD's and everything else that can go with sex" (Now, I'm assuming you will teach them about safe sex). I feel this is what sex education does for most kids, informs them about their options and then they make the decision. Much like my parents did with me. Nonetheless, when is the appropriate age kids learn about sex and everything else that goes along with sex? When kids as young as 12, 13 and 14 and doing it?

Jm, I think you missed my point. Stealing, and premarital sex are moral issues...I'm not worried about the legalities of it. I want my children to learn what is morally right and what is not. When they are adults and they move out, they are free to do as they wish. However, as long as they are in my home, my job is to protect them and teach them right from wrong, so that they will be capable of making mature decisions and being prepared for the world when they go into it on their own.

Stealing, and premarital sex do not have the same legal consequences, here in America. But this has nothing to do with my point, which is that both DO have their own set of consequences - while different- they are still both consequences.

And besides all of this...you need to understand that not only are we concerned with their physical well being if they have premarital relations with someone they don't necessarily love, we are worried about their spiritual and emotional well being as well. Condoms and birth control pills do absolutely nothing to help a broken heart. They do nothing to mend the soul when it's been torn. They don't even necessarily prevent pregnancy or STD's.

As for teaching them about STD's, Mk is correct that I was speaking about teaching them the reasons why NOT to have sex before marriage. Not to teach them all the options they have if they desire to go ahead and have sex anyway.

Incidentally, I am speaking as one who knows it is possible to remain abstinent. My husband and I both were virgins when we met (at 15-16), and were friends for a year, then for 2 years (17-18) we were in a relationship and abstained until we were married. (kissing, hugging, and holding hands we enjoyed immensely!)

It is possible. Being able to know that you are your spouses only, and that he/she is yours only...that is truly a gift that I want my children to enjoy in the future.

Posted by: Bethany at July 20, 2007 9:15 PM


Applause for Carder!
Applause for JJ!
Applause for Bethany!

Rae,
You're dad may not be outright joining the church, but the love he shows your mother by attending mass all these years...well, that's really touching! And he ain't dead yet. Many a man has had a deathbed conversion...

Carder and JJ...it's nice to meet fellow Catholics...who love and understand their faith.

Sometimes tho, I think the church has to take some of the blame. That whole 70's thing...for awhile the church was actually trying to be "cool"...and She lost a lot of souls as a result. Even tho people say they hate the Catholic Church, I think they are actually disappointed in Her. Not for being too strict, but for not being strict enough...who want's to belong to a wishy washy church where every other authority figure tells you something different...That's changing, Thank You God!, and I'll bet you see more people coming home. I think people want the truth, but sensed that they weren't getting it anymore.

Bishop Sheen says...People don't really hate the Catholic Church, they hate what they think the Catholic Church is!

Anyway, welcome!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 20, 2007 9:37 PM


ditto MK

Posted by: jasper at July 20, 2007 9:54 PM


Hey PIP,

heres one for ya, breaking:

"Democrats pulled a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

In November 2006, six Islamic leaders were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in Minneapolis after they were observed acting suspiciously-including not sitting in their assigned seats, asking for seatbelt extenders although not needing them, and making anti-American statements. The men were questioned by authorities and then cleared. However, in March 2007, with the help of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the imams filed suit not only against the airline but against the heroic "John Doe" passengers who reported their suspicious behavior."

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/democrats-move-to-kill-john-doe-in.html
all "no" votes were from Democrats.
Obama was a "No vote", ...what courage!

Posted by: jasper at July 20, 2007 10:12 PM


@Jasper: Bah. I was reading that in the paper last fall...A) The airlines overreacted. B) The Imams overreacted and then kept trying to play "victim". Both sides were arse-hats in that incident.

Posted by: Rae at July 20, 2007 11:33 PM


Jasper--look at it this way.

I'm with a group of girls. They say this dude is bad because they all think they know he sells drugs. My best friend is the leader of our group, and after all of us put in our piece, she decides to take action. We get the police to investigate, and they did not find drugs on him. Furthermore, since then, the neighborhood crime has gone up!
Most of us would say we were wrong, and some of us might say that we had our suspicions then and still have them now, but at least he was investigated and cleared. Now he doesn't have any power for sure, because his power in the community, if he had one, is completely collapsed, regardless. Since nobody else has effectively lowered the crime rate despite all of our strategies, we, for the most part, think that it would be wise to leave after putting some people we trust in charge of it. But my best friend refuses to leave. She says that it is hypocritical to look back and say that we thought for sure that he was a drug dealer but later think he was not a threat after all. She calls liars those who say "I still had reserves or suspicions that he may not be." I know a friend that thinks that she is completely right, and that every dissenter should be executed for disloyalty.

Who is in the right and who is in the wrong in this situation? Perhaps it seems "cowardly" to express your support of shifting power to where it deserves in the middle east--you know, the leaders--even if you in the past thought it was a good idea to invade. I'm sure that even after knowing that he didn't have weapons it still was a good idea to get him out of power and that most politicians will agree with me. But the majority of Americans and many politicians agree that it should be in the hands of the people there where they want to lean and move toward politically. It is not for us to tell them how to do things after setting up a basic government. If the people don't want us there, why stay?
Furthermore, should we support people that changed their position based on this new evidence, or someone who refuses to even entertain such thoughts? Personally I'd rather vote for a politician that takes what happens into account than one who sticks to their guns no matter what. At least I would detect a sense of decency in such a person.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 21, 2007 2:23 AM


Jasper,
scratches behind the ears, tummy rub!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 21, 2007 5:49 AM


I understand that on the day of 9/11 there were suspicious passengers and airline personnel. How unfortunate they didn't act on their observations.
I've read more extensive accounts of the situation with the "flying Imams" and I'm not so certain I wouldn't have been highly suspicious myself. Its the suspicions and reporting of ordinary citizens that can save lives and stop terrorist acts.
Isn't this how police officers often solve crimes and nab criminals?

Posted by: Mary at July 21, 2007 8:01 AM


PIP, Rae,

It's disappointing that you would allow good citizens to get sued for reporting suspicious behavoir (especially by muslims in a post 9/11 world. Note: not all muslims are terroists, but 99.9% of terrorists are muslims). I believe this is political correctness at it's absolute worst and would discourage good citizens like Brian Morgenstern from reporting to authorities (Brian helped foil the Fort Dix plot by Islamic extremists to kill any many soldiers as possible) suspicious behavior.

ahh, what lenghts liberals will go to aviod offending muslims. It's silly and very dangerous as well.

Posted by: jasper at July 21, 2007 9:44 AM


My very elderly parents were detained and searched at our local airport because they had metal joints that sounded an alarm. My mother walks with a cane and my stepfather has mild dementia. They were flying from Wisconsin to Michigan. They hardly fit the image of terrorists.
Personally, I found it very reassuring that the security staff is this concientious and my parents, and I'm sure other passengers found the whole situation rather amusing. They most certainly did not take any offense. The security staff treated my parents with kindness and consideration, but they were thorough and did their jobs. No offense was taken by anyone.
I've had to empty my purse,(wouldn't you know I had a rather embarassing momento from a bachelorette party that I forgot was in my purse) practically undress, been patted down by a female deputy, and had my luggage searched on the spot. I hope security is this thorough everywhere and that we are all vigilant at all times for suspicious behavior.
I'm sure we've all had the experience sometime in our lives of being wrongly suspected or accused. Live with it.

Posted by: Mary at July 21, 2007 10:17 AM


Jasper,

Nice try. I said nothing about the post concerning the lawsuit you were talking about. Try responding to my posts first.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 21, 2007 12:25 PM


@Jasper: Nice. I never said any of those things. I think the Imams are overreacting to what happened, and that they should have perhaps paid a bit more attention to what they were doing and what not. Had they calmed down or just did as they were told by the flight attendants, I doubt this fiasco would have occurred.

Posted by: Rae at July 21, 2007 1:07 PM


JJ you do realize that going to a catholic school means that they teach the ideals and traditions correct? Do you also realize that at youth group and retreats I studied scripture and prayed?

Yes I am a little offended that you call my past faith a "social calender" because I know several people that would disagree with that statement. It was an important part of my life that has shaped me into the person I am today.

This is why I didn't want to share my opinion, my history and my view because people tend to twist them. I also stated I disagreed with the church's view on homosexuality and birth control. I also disagree with all the hullabaloo my cousin had to go through to get married in a catholic church. Also friends of my parents had to "get remarried" before one of them could be baptized because the church did not "recognize" their marriage as a true marriage. I could also argue that the catholic church support cannibalism because catholics believe that the bread and wine is the Body and Blood of Christ. Its not a symbol like the Lutherans believe. It is Jesus' flesh and blood. It also frustrates me that my male friend wore a skirt to church and the priest refused to give him communion. It is a personal choice weather or not one feels they can receive God and Christ. Not the priests. Anyway, I apologize if this comes off as mean and crappy. I am a little homesick right now, as I moved 1800 miles from my family, boyfriend and friends.

I am also not saying I am giving up on the church completely. But right now I am at a period in my life where I don't want it part of my life at the present time.

Bethany- you bring up great points. I see where you are coming from.

Posted by: JM at July 21, 2007 1:44 PM


PIP: "Furthermore, should we support people that changed their position based on this new evidence, or someone who refuses to even entertain such thoughts?"

The evidence was there that he had the capability to produce WMD, if it were't for the UN holding us back, we would've found the direct evidence earlier.

Many experts say that an all out civil war in the Iraq will break out if we leave before they have a stable police force/army, which will lead to major disruption in the middle east. They also say that genocide will happen as in Vietnam when communist Pol Pot executed ~2 million people after we left.

Thank-God we have a leader like GWB who will not concede defeat to the terrorists, he said it will not be much longer before Iraq can take care of itself, so, it's worth the wait to me.

HRC, Edwards and Obama, will do whats popular for votes. I believe they do not have what it takes to lead in a post 9/11 world. The stakes are to high.

PIP,

Your hypothetical above doesn't apply, were talking about nutty muslims on planes acting strange, not a minor drug deal. Peoples lives are at stake. Also, you never said you for the John Doe law so assumed you were against it? I'm I wrong? yes or no?

Posted by: jasper at July 21, 2007 4:34 PM


JM, The Catholic Church is not about ice-your-own-cake world. It is not there to change and accommodate the current whims of society. I don't get to make the rules, and neither do you. To fool oneself into believing that whatever feels good must be permitted and expect the Church to bend to everyone's hankering is childish. Your comparison of the Eucharist to cannibalism is pure gobbledygook and reinforces my claim that your knowledge of the faith is extremely lacking. So far, all you have criticized is rules you don't like, but I have yet to hear an objective reason as to why, other than the 'Well, I just don't agree with it'.

I too went to a Catholic school, and guess what .. I learned very, very little. Many years later, I met the priest and told him so. I said, 'You taught me like I was a child'. He replied, 'You were!'

I'm glad to hear that you're not giving up on the Church completely, because she will never give up on you.

Posted by: J.J. at July 21, 2007 5:00 PM


JM,

JJ is right. Why don't you tell us specifically what you have a hard time with and why you disagree, and without pointing any fingers, we'll all give you the spiritual and theological reasons behind the Churches teachings...use it as a learning experience.

That goes for any of you that have gripes or questions or anything. But no bad mouthing (on either side) Questions are good...accusations? not so good.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 21, 2007 5:23 PM


MK,

You're right! I don't mean to come down so hard on JM. Actually, I like her .. she has lots of spirit ... even if I find it a bit misplaced at times. :):) I believe she has a keen mind and wants to learn.

OK ... so I'll change the word "childish" to "unreasonable". How's that for compromising and goodwill?

Posted by: J.J. at July 21, 2007 5:55 PM


Applause J.J.!!!!

That's the spirit! er, the Holy Spirit?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 21, 2007 7:01 PM


Jasper,
I generally dislike abuse of the legal system of any kind. So any kind of situation you want to throw at me doesn't really matter. What you are very good at doing is charactarizing liberals into a ridiculous figure and then disarming it. So I just refuse to address such arguments. I'd rather have at arguments that have basis in reality.

"The evidence was there that he had the capability to produce WMD, if it were't for the UN holding us back, we would've found the direct evidence earlier."
We came in, and he didn't WMD's. We removed him from power and helped the Iraqi people vote in and establish a government. Most Americans and politicians alike are sick of being in a war against an idea rather than a country, and sick of being in a war with no direction. You calling politicians "hypocrite" who see that the suspicians were ultimately proven to be false but now we actually have to do something about it is kind of stupid to me. On the Iraqi front and the rest of the nation, Bush has been an extremely disappointing president. I think about 70% of the nation agrees with me here.

"he said it will not be much longer before Iraq can take care of itself, so, it's worth the wait to me."
Yup he said that in 2004..2005...2006...2007..I think most of us are tired of hearing that excuse.

One thing we learned from Iraq, and hopefully won't repeat again: trying to build a government from the top down doesn't work. If the people don't want a democracy, and one is established, it won't work, and will lead to ultimate chaos.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 21, 2007 7:12 PM


I'm with PiP, democracies cannot be forced, they have to come from the people, "home-grown" so to speak. You can't just go in, topple over a dictator and say, "Look folks, you're all free, whooot for American-style democracy!" It doesn't work that way. Each form of democracy is going to be different from the other, as French and German democracies are different from British and Dutch democracies.

Posted by: Rae at July 21, 2007 7:26 PM


PIP, Rae,

OK, since you didn't answer the question on John Doe amendment, I will assume you're for it, which I thought in the first place (All's I can say is : WOW!).

as far as leadership goes, I'll take a GWB, Dick Cheney or John McCain over a HRC or B. Hussian Obama anyday. I will vote for a President who:

1. Is pro-Life
2. who is willing to kill, execute as many slimy terrorists as possible by any means (the twin towers falling is just to fresh in my mind.)

Osama Bin Laden/Isamist Extremist really like the division in our country, and they really count on Liberal Demorats! After all dems are against The Patriot act, International survalence, prisioners at Gitmo, Internation prisons for Terrorists, the list goes on and on, and now the John Doe amendment. All's the dems seem to care about is the phoney Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.

PIP, Rae,

you're both bright inteligent young woman but I'm sorry to say that I strongly disagree with you. Sooner or later your generation will have to address this threat, be happy that W Bush is doing it now. They're not going away.

Posted by: jasper at July 21, 2007 8:18 PM


typo ..*I will assume you're NOT for it *

Posted by: jasper at July 21, 2007 8:20 PM


We've had a lot of discussions about brains over the last few months. Terri Schiavo's wasn't up to snuff, so we put her out of her misery.

Babies brains aren't formed, so we can kill them.

Abnormal brains seem to be proof that life is not worth living...

Found this. Thought it was interesting. By a lot of your standards, this guy should be put out of his misery...

Man with tiny brain shocks doctors

Science � A man with an unusually tiny brain manages to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, which was caused by a fluid build-up in his skull. Scans of the 44-year-old man's brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue

Man With Tiny Brain Shocks Doctors
New Scientist ^ | 7-20-2007 | Lancet

Posted on 07/20/2007 3:05:49 PM PDT by blam

Man with tiny brain shocks doctors

12:17 20 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
New Scientist and Reuters

The large black space shows the fluid that replaced much of the patient�s brain (left). For comparison, the images (right) show a typical brain without any abnormalities (Images: Feuillet et al./The Lancet)

A man with an unusually tiny brain manages to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, which was caused by a fluid build-up in his skull.

Scans of the 44-year-old man's brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue.

�It is hard for me [to say] exactly the percentage of reduction of the brain, since we did not use software to measure its volume. But visually, it is more than a 50% to 75% reduction,� says Lionel Feuillet, a neurologist at the Mediterranean University in Marseille, France.

Feuillet and his colleagues describe the case of this patient in The Lancet. He is a married father of two children, and works as a civil servant.

Not retarded

The man went to a hospital after he had mild weakness in his left leg. When Feuillet's staff took his medical history, they learned that, as an infant, he had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus � water on the brain.

The shunt was removed when he was 14. But the researchers decided to check the condition of his brain using computed tomography (CT) scanning technology and another type of scan called magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). They were astonished to see "massive enlargement" of the lateral ventricles � usually tiny chambers that hold the cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain.

for pictures link here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1869230/posts

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 21, 2007 8:35 PM


*sigh*

Jasper, I never said I was for or against it. I don't really understand what exactly it is, so I can't say what side I'm on. So please don't assume Jasper...you know what it does to both you and me. :-p

I am against the Patriot Act, yes, because it just goes to show how little the government trusts its own citizens. I am not against Gitmo, though I do think they should try a little harder to determine who is innocent and who isn't because as of now, all they are doing is creating more radicalism.

It's a shame though Jasper, how you disrespect CIA agents by not giving a crap when their identities are leaked. That's compassionate. Though I do think that whole situation was totally blown out of proportion.

Posted by: Rae at July 21, 2007 9:06 PM


Rae,

I just gave up. I like the harry potter version:

"People are not divided into good people and death eaters (read: terrorists)."

It seems like Jasper is assuming that it is.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 21, 2007 10:02 PM


JM

I, too, wandered away from the Church during the college years. My excuse? I felt that everyone who went to church couldn't afford their own private shrink, so every Sunday was their chance to try figure life out and get the therapy for free!

Pathetic, I know. Thank God for His Mercy.

The discontentment you're feeling can be used in one of two ways: 1)Keep griping and don't do anything about it but leave and keep griping or 2)Use it as a catalyst for a deeper investigation into the why's and wherefore's of some of its *unreasonable* guidelines. Without a doubt one will find that the depth of theology behind these rules is just too profound for words.

To make it easy, a person could start by watching EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network)if book reading might be a bit tedious. Speaking for myself, I learned more about my catholic faith by watching that network than all of my years of catholic school and church-going combined. There's something for everybody on that channel...but if you've been active in your parish and such, chances are that you're already familiar with the network.


A word about the brainwashing...I can't say that I've ever felt that there was brainwashing going on, but I did have issues about what I percieved as their "rigidity". Later, when I read the works of the saints and catholic philosphers and such, I had to ask myself,"How can I, a neophyte of an individual, dare to think that I know it all in light of these GIANTS of the faith and human reason? What the heck am I thinking?" Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Therese of Lisieux, Thomas Aquinas, beautiful Maria Goretti, and on and on and on...those dear souls were far from brainwashed. On the contrary, I was the one being brainwashed by the world and its temptations. Sticking with the tenets of the Faith has kept me from going under.

"But right now I am at a period in my life where I don't want it part of my life at the present time."
Been there. My prayer is that the period won't last too long :)

There, I didn't jump down the proverbial throat, did I MK? ;P

Posted by: carder at July 21, 2007 10:08 PM


Carder,

On the contrary, I was the one being brainwashed by the world and its temptations.


This line was truly profound. I had a similar thought. When I hear people bashing the church and her rules, it's ALWAYS the same complaints and I often have the thought "Sheesh, who's been brainwashing you?

I just saw Father Corapi yesterday. That man is awesome. I turned to my son and said "Do you realize that you are in the presence of a Saint?"
It was like going back in time and listening to St. Paul preach or hearing Maximilian Kolbe give a talk.

In addition to EWTN I would recommend that anyone wanting to learn more about the faith, tune into Relevant Radio...You can listen in your car, or when you're making dinner...Many, many apologetics shows to answer all your questions. And you can call in (I always get through) and get a live person to answer ANY question you have.

And of course a click of your mouse will bring you to Catholic Answers.

There is NOTHING that JM is questioning that hasn't been questioned before, and as you so wisely pointed out, by greater minds than ours!

The beauty of our faith, is that ALL of these questions have answers. ALL of them. Answers with reasoning behind them, that once understood, wlll change the way you look at everything...from confession to cannibalism!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 22, 2007 6:15 AM


Carder,

I can relate to everything you wrote and that is probably why I can relate to JM even more. I too drifted away from the Church during my college years and developed the idea that 'big bad Mother Church just wants to spoil all my fun'. I actually called the Church stupid and threw hissy fits because it wouldn't overturn 2000 years of teaching to accommodate me. It didn't dawn on me that I was the one being *unreasonable* and that maybe the Church was right. Could these terrible, stringent rules be there to protect me, spiritually, mentally and physically?

I guess those cctechism classes didn't go to waste after all because one day, I decided to listen with an open mind ... and the prodigal daughter came home. Today I am very happily married to a wonderful, loving, Catholic man, and we share the joy of four children. I hate to think of where my live would have gone if I hadn't turned around and given the Church a chance to explain her position.


Posted by: J.J. at July 22, 2007 8:34 AM


JJ and Carder,

Been there...I've posted my story on here before...but suffice it to say that promoscuity, drug abuse, paganism and pride were my good qualities...

I actually converted on a toilet...talk about humbling...

Mercy is a word that I carry around with me like a lifeline...

I know exactly where I'd be if I hadn't opened my mind...dead.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 22, 2007 8:42 AM


J.J., Sounds like me. I went through a phase where I decided to declare myself an agnostic. That didn't last long. Who could I call on for help? I needed healing in my life. I was having a relationship with someone I was engaged to. I figured that wearing the ring was enough. I was madly in love. He said he was too. The guy dumped me, and he sent me into a whirlwind of total despair. I was living MY way. I still struggle with faith, but I just keep praying.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 22, 2007 8:52 AM


*The guy dumped me*

That's his total loss Heather. I think you're a wonderful young lady and man who has you now is lucky.

Posted by: jasper at July 22, 2007 10:16 AM


"To make it easy, a person could start by watching EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network)"

Amen!

Those are great conversions, all.

JM,

give it a try, you won't regret it!

Posted by: jasper at July 22, 2007 10:58 AM


Heather4life,

Take it from me dear, the day will come when you will thank this guy for "dumping" you. To this day I continue to thank certain ladies for "stealing" a boyfriend from me. They did me the biggest favors of my life. The only thing I regret is that they didn't "steal" them sooner! I think it was Lyssie or Rae who said you have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince. How true.

Posted by: Mary at July 22, 2007 12:27 PM


John emailed me this as he was unsure if he should post it here...have no fear...I checked with Jill a long time ago, and she has no problem with Catholic Conversation...As long as her moderator (moi) doesn't go changing the title of her Website to "Jill Stanek - All things Catholic"!

So I'm posting it here. I especially like the part about God being so close that you can't see the forest for the trees!

Dont really know if I should be doing this here, but there have been any number of folks claiming to be ex-Catholics, fallen-away Catholics, regular Catholics returned (but-once-renegade) Catholics; and those non-Catholics fascinated by Catholic ritual.
I do some head-on-desk banging at times because of the many misunderstandings of our faith, even by faithful people. So here Ill give some of the background spiritual stuff, that many people (even most priests) do not realize. As one reading this there are a few things you should know up front. None of what is mentioned below is official if it helps fine, if not just drop it. The second thing to realize is that I use imagery to explain much because there just are NO words.
Here are a few ideas that most likely you have never thought of:
IDEA A: God calls us all to love, by which He does not mean sped-up-heart-palpitations but a becoming one read any of Johns gospel on the Last Supper.
This poses a few problems How anyone can be free yet tied to just one faith? A second problem arises for those religious folks, how can any person be one with the Divine yet survive and not be labeled just another Jesus-freak/Bible-thumper?
IMO because they had no artificial illumination light came from the sun and from fire. Much of the imagery wording in Johns gospel can be understood as a replacement of Son for sun in our lives. The solution to problem #1 has to do with an alteration of what freedom means. If somehow we can expand our powers for strength like Superman; a bear; a lion ; to be anywhere an soaring eagle; a butterfly. If we can become one, our being expands to nature (St. Francis; Jesus miracles) - in itself limited to corruption and ending. The expansion by becoming-one to another human is profound marriage; having babies even to just holding hands, kissing, hugging, sex, chatting on the phone, are all expressions of becoming-one (tying-the-knot) to another limited being. A married person (in love) is by nature freer than if single and because he/she can be anywhere yet still married, because their being has changed. Finally, there is extension of being to God. Because God is unlimited, such a movement is ultimately freeing. So leaving is a persuit in stagnation ... a choosing to be non-free. [God is a free Being Himself, so when He extends Himself to us, it is liberation. Ideas from Poustinea by Catherine Dougherty]
The second question might be answered by using a lit candle: The flame represents God and the candle portion us/human folks. It is to be noted that the CANDLE IS MADE FOR THE FLAME and that the candle lives by dying-to-the-flame. [A few like MKs Dad knows that eventually the flame consumes our faults and flaws too.]
Are there real problems with the Catholic church? Yes, but these are not those you suspect and this is highly present in the American Catholic community. This problem is the implied division between formality and informality. A very simple test: why do we call God/Jesus by His first name but His servants by formal titles like Father, especially when Christ Himself forbids it. (Some of the solutions to these difficulties are below.)
We should go next, I think, to the revelation of God in the Bible. Jesus did some wild stuff but this seems tame compared to what He might have done if you are a scientist looking at modern cosmetology, what He did looks like pretty tame stuff. This is good because we see power as ho-hum. For too many centuries we got fixated on the power bit and did not hear how we as one family are involved in saving as a fundamental aspect of living.
Jesus reveals for the very first time that God is our Abba. This word is often poorly translated into English as Father, whereas the word in Aramaic is Daddy/Dad. We assume the formality [and formality/seriousness of rituals] and assume that this is to His liking. This all stems from the word father.
The name Daddy has a family and uniqueness to it, even though it is used by almost every kid when speaking of/to Daddy. There is no sense of a type word. There are simple, profound consequences to this outlook: Mother Mary is Mom and the saints are not removed people, but people that live and care deeply. Access them by calling them by their first name. I call Theresa of Lisieu the Little Flower Tayrize (at least this is how it sounds in Quebequois-French) she is my soul-mate, my living soul-mate! Ralph Martin says pray to the people who composed the book in scripture that you are studying for insight. [It really helps the scripture come alive + you make a friend.]
Then there are spiritual alterations . Many people talk and talk about the Lord, but never believe that He is right there. Try as often as possible to drop the the or the thou and replace it with a familiar you. Practical examples: The Sign of the Cross: In Your name, Abba; and Yours, Jesus, and Yours, Holy Spirit .; the Hail Mary . make it as informal as possible; the Our Father Our Abba ..
Background: Gods Life (the flame as above) is not like our own even though we are created for this reason. Just a small aspect of the flame is that God transcends space and time. We normally do not think about this too much be love even in human experience often reveals these attributes . We say God is omnipresent. To people that run their life by feelings, this statement seems ludicrous and just nuts. It is especially this way for any kind of control-freak. Think about a parents love for their kids. I doubt very much that a kid with sick with a flu and diarrhea is at all pleasant and parental love vastly exceeds this. This kind of love is not at all determined by the recipient of this love, but as part of the giver. [This is one of the main reasons we need significance. We cannot control it nor like the foolish Napoleon place the wreath of Emperor on his own head. Significance comes from only One Source and its not ME.]
In a way, God is too close He is much closer than any of our feelings and much closer than the air we breath or even the heart-beat. Because He maintains my life and existence at all times. We do die, but we do not ever not-exist (suicide is foolishness), once He has created us. We have the power to kill, we do not have the power to end existence, nor to save.
Gods name is I AM . We call this the eternal now. The more we attempt to find God, always the more present we are: strange that our gift IS. I know some absolutely fabulous people some have unusual gifts one man I know almost makes my knees bend when around him. The sheer sense-of-peace that radiates from him has me desiring peace all the more. [It is so refreshing and invigorating and simple and joy-filled!]
We enter into God/heaven/Abbas-kingdom when we are BAPTISED and not when we die. All time is one the eternal now. We disciples of God do not somehow disenfranchise nor alter who God is by taking-ourselves out-of-the-picture. It is like: Until You do what-I-want Im gonna hold-my-breath! (read: shack-up; kill kids; leave-the-faith; ANSWER: Go ahead, when you begin to breath again (live), well continue the adventure together as One!

John


Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 22, 2007 1:35 PM


While we're on the topic,

Carder and J.J.,
This is a video I posted some time back...it's awesome. And very, very, very Catholic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cbGCQyP_uk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 22, 2007 1:42 PM


The young man, Eric Foster, who made that video, also made this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3db-9fV4YI

Perhaps it will help others to understand what it means to "defend the faith" and that the Catholics are not the persecutors, but the persecuted.

What so many of you take for granted, or deride, or brush off as myth, is for others a matter of life and death...

You should thank the God that you don't believe in everyday for the grace of living in a country where not only am I free to worship as I want, but you are free to ridicule me...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 22, 2007 1:59 PM


MK

Thank you for sharing. The videos were indeed awesome and I truly enjoyed John's letter.

Posted by: J.J. at July 23, 2007 2:39 PM


Thank you J.J..
While Catholics may be everywhere, the ones that truly know and love their faith are rare and precious. I'm glad we met.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 23, 2007 2:42 PM