FRC Vote Values Summit

UPDATE, 9/14, 5:30a: Yesterday afternoon I participated in an otherwise all boys bloggers panel (and bragged on my moderators!).

Left to right: Jill; Kevin McCullough of Musclehead Revolution; Ed Morrisey of Hot Air; Ross Douthat of The Atlantic; and Joe Carter of Liberty Wire and The Evangelical Outpost...

jill at bloggers panel with boys.JPG

Last night Daena and I attended a gala honoring Christian stalwart and Prison Fellowship Ministries founder Chuck Colson, where I met Bill Bennett, one of the speakers honoring him....

jill and bill.JPG
_______________


UPDATE, 1:50p: Just announced: Funding for the sequel to Chariots of Fire was secured yesterday. Here's the trailer from the 1968 1981 Oscar winning, spiritually themed, inspirational movie:

Off to participate in the blogger's panel....
_______________


Michael Medved.JPGUPDATE, 1:35p: Radio talk show host and film critic Michael Medved, right, spotted.

The luncheon speaker was Gary Bauer. Great line:

Have you noticed how even Obama is working for our vote - visiting churches, quoting Bible verses. He realizes that the people who go to church on Sunday and work on Monday vote on Tuesday.

Professor Michael New has released a new study, "The effect of parental involvement laws on the incidence of abortion among minors." It analyzes the effectiveness of parental notification laws vs. parental consent laws.

Overall, states enacting parental involvement laws see the minor abortion rate fall by ~13.6
%.

New found that laws requiring parental consent instead of parental notification reduce the minor abortion rate by ~19%.

In addition, laws mandating parental involvement of both parents instead of 1 parent reduce the minor abortion rate by ~31%.

One last statistic: the overall minor abortion rate in the U.S. fell by ~50% between 1985 and 1999, and New's study found parental involvement laws were an important factor.
_______________


UPDATE, 11:20a:

Jill meets Sean!

jill and seantalking.JPG

jill and sean.JPG

Jill speaking...

jill on stage 2.JPG
_______________


vvs.jpgHello for my 2nd annual live blogging from the Family Research Council's Vote Values Summit in DC!

This year I'm also a speaker, participating in a General Session panel today at 10:45a EST and a bloggers panel at 3:15p. See schedule here.

Yesterday the main session was broadcasted on C-SPAN. Not sure about today. Check the website.

Read this Reuters article on the event.

More later.


Comments:

test

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 13, 2008 9:21 AM


Jill, enjoy your weekend of Hannitization.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 13, 2008 11:34 AM


McCain versus o'bama

The Scotish take on the Irish in a no holds barred contest for the presidency of the United States. Is blood thicker than water when it comes to politics? Which candidate will the Irish REPUBLICAN Army support? Talk about a conundrum? Will o'bama publicly embrace his Irishness or continue to shun his shamrock brethren and prefer his African ancestry?

How else can o'bama explain his sudden jump from obscure community organizer to potential president? It has to be the luck of the Irish.

A source close to B O, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said one o'bama would never eat anything else for breakfast than, you guessed it, 'Lucky Charms'. (The resemblence to the leprechan is uncanny.) Does o'bama really see an pot of gold at the end of this rainbow?

Was it the Irish connection that compelled o'bama to lionize former president Ronald Reagan, another child of the Emerald Isles?

Posted by: kbhvac at September 13, 2008 11:55 AM


Insiders are now reporting that obama uses dye and wears contacts to hide his red hair and green eyes!

John Edwards says, 'Only his hairdresser know for sure.'

Posted by: kbhvac at September 13, 2008 12:05 PM


correction: There is a typo in the firs line of the previous post. BO's last name was spelled incorrectly. It should have been, o'bama.

We regret and apologize for any confusion, embarassment, or public humiliation this inadvertent error may have caused anyone, past, present or future. Particularly, the Irish. Some of our best friends are Irish. I would be perfectly comfortbale if my daughter told me she was going to marry and Irishman.

Posted by: kbhvac at September 13, 2008 12:12 PM


Will Sean Hannity acknowledge o'bama as a fellow Irishman?

Posted by: kbhvac at September 13, 2008 12:14 PM


Has o'bama been secretly 'Hannitized'?

Posted by: kbhvac at September 13, 2008 12:15 PM


I

That middle shot is a fabulous picture of both of you!!

Hope your speech went well.

Posted by: Kel at September 13, 2008 12:23 PM


Ooops, looks like my phrase was deleted. LOL

It should have said I (heart) Sean Hannity! :D

Posted by: Kel at September 13, 2008 12:25 PM


yay! Love those stats. :D

Don't know if Carla is here today, but I promised a pic of me a la Palin not too long ago, and here it is:

I think I put a nice twist on it. :P

Posted by: xalisae at September 13, 2008 2:01 PM


Pretty snazy, X.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 13, 2008 2:10 PM


I was thinking about asking so-called "Catholic" Pro-Abortion Politicians (like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi)the following question in either through the mainstream media or a debate...

***Would You Encourage and Support All American Catholic's to Pray A Novena to Ask For "God's Will" to be Done in the Upcoming Election?***

What are your thoughts on this?

Posted by: Mike at September 13, 2008 2:10 PM


thanks, BB. heh

Posted by: xalisae at September 13, 2008 2:12 PM


Mike,

My prediction for a typical response:

"What's a novena?"

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 13, 2008 2:13 PM


Bobby,

Your Right. But let's explain it to them like we have to explain most things in the Catholic Catechism to them and see if they will support it and put the Novena on the home page of their website.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 13, 2008 2:25 PM


Great photos Jill! What cuties you are!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
One last statistic: the overal minor abortion rate in the U.S. fell by ~50% between 1985 and 1999, and New's study found parental involvement laws were an important factor.

Just curious, I wonder if New provides any information in his study about an increase of sex offenders being caught because of parental notification/consent.

Posted by: Janet at September 13, 2008 2:25 PM


Bobby @ 2:13,

Mike,
My prediction for a typical response:
"What's a novena?"

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Posted by: Janet at September 13, 2008 2:29 PM


I think CHARIOTS OF FIRE was originally released in 1981.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 13, 2008 2:31 PM


x,
Very nice picture! A little teasing in the back on top for a little more height, and...( just kidding - you look great!).

Posted by: Janet at September 13, 2008 2:31 PM


But to give you a more serious answer, Mike, I think they would somewhat dance around the question. The reason I say that is because you don't see those Catholics who dissent from magisterial teaching encouraging or participating in things like novenas, Eucharistic adoration, daily rosary, daily mass, etc. Sure, they'll throw up a "yes, pray for God's will" but I think something as specific as a novena would scare them. I've never really seen dissenters encourage real, serious forms of prayer or adoration. It would be interesting though. I would love to be proven wrong.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 13, 2008 2:37 PM


you bring up a really great point, Janet. Laws like these help bring an end to the silent victimization women have been enduring for too long, thanks in no small part to the gag of abortion.

and, my hair is kinda thin and tangles easily, so unless it's a particularly moist day, i don't usually get much volume. :(

Posted by: xalisae at September 13, 2008 2:45 PM


Bobby,

We could change the question a bit like...

***Would You Encourage and Support All American Catholic's to Pray The Rosary Daily for the intention to Ask For "God's Will" to be Done in the Upcoming Election?***

This puts them in a corner. If they say "no" then everyone should see they should no longer call themselves "Catholic".

If they say "Yes" it's a win situation because good things always happen with prayer.

I think it would be a great question.

A great follow up question would ask them to add it to their home page during the election cycle.

I'm telling you this question would really put them and their anti-Catholic, anti-Christian views in a corner.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 13, 2008 2:49 PM


I too think it's a great idea Mike, but the thing is, these guys are PROS at getting out of questions. I can all but guarantee after hearing their answer, you won't be able to say if they said yes or no. They're just so slick and cunning; that's how they got to where they are. My, when did I become so jaded?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 13, 2008 3:00 PM


X -- you do look great with the "Palin" look! :)

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 13, 2008 3:47 PM


@Mike & Bobby:
of course, there's always Catholicism for Dummies if they need to learn the terms....
You might just ask them to include Canada in those prayers too, as our election, although just called will happen before the US election.
We just don't dither around like you guys.....
:-D

Posted by: Patricia at September 13, 2008 3:59 PM


"there's always Catholicism for Dummies if they need to learn the terms"

That's a great book BTW. Fr Trigilio and Father Brighenti are very faithful to the Magesterium and really know their stuff.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 13, 2008 4:02 PM


Hey! I just gave "Catholicism for Dummies" to my husband's sister-in-law who felt that she wasn't properly catechized. She loves it and likes the humor they insert among the facts.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 13, 2008 4:06 PM


Bobby, Mike,

It would be interesting to see Raymond Arroyo at EWTN interview
Biden and Pelosi.

I don't get EWTN with my cable pkg. and don't take the time to listen online. Are they covering the election to a great degree?

While on the topic of Catholicism, Monday, Sept. 15 is the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows. It would be an especially appropriate day to say a special rosary or attend mass to pray for an end to abortion, and also a change of heart for PC'rs of the world. God bless you.

Posted by: Janet at September 13, 2008 4:12 PM


X, LOVE IT - you look great in the "Palin" as did Carla.

BMMG - you're right, 'Chariots of Fire' came out in the autumn of 1981. Awesome movie. Two guys that run to prove stuff to the world...

The 1968 Oscar winner was one of the remakes of 'Romeo and Juliet,' albeit a very good one by the great Franco Zeffirelli.

Posted by: Doug at September 13, 2008 4:28 PM


'God made me to preach the gospel. But HE also made me fast. I feel God's pleasure when I run.'

Eric Liddell

May we all experience what it means to 'feel God's pleasure' when we fulfill the unique God ordained purposes for each of our lives.

Posted by: kbhvac at September 13, 2008 5:19 PM


Jill,

neat! nice pic of you and Sean. Did you remind him that A.Colmes is lying about BAIPA. :)


X,

Cute pic :)


Posted by: Jasper at September 13, 2008 5:51 PM


"there's always Catholicism for Dummies if they need to learn the terms"

That's a great book BTW. Fr Trigilio and Father Brighenti are very faithful to the Magesterium and really know their stuff.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 13, 2008 4:02 PM

Believe it or not a young Canadian army chaplain told our parish about it during his homily. What a great priest he is! Please pray for him - he is a blessing to the Canadian church. Thanks for the confirmation Bobby!

Posted by: Patricia at September 13, 2008 6:37 PM


May we all experience what it means to 'feel God's pleasure' when we fulfill the unique God ordained purposes for each of our lives.


Posted by: kbhvac at September 13, 2008 5:19 PM

Amen to this!

Posted by: Patricia at September 13, 2008 6:39 PM


Jill!

Can I touch the hand that touched his?

Posted by: carder at September 13, 2008 7:18 PM


my brother in law joined the church shortly before his deployment to Iraq and he took Catholicism for Dummies with him. what a great place to sit back and read!

Posted by: becky at September 13, 2008 7:20 PM


my brother in law joined the church shortly before his deployment to Iraq and he took Catholicism for Dummies with him. what a great place to sit back and read!

Posted by: becky at September 13, 2008 7:21 PM


Becky,

please thank your brother for us.

God-bless him :)

Posted by: Jasper at September 13, 2008 9:05 PM


Jill!

Can I touch the hand that touched his?
Posted by: carder at September 13, 2008 7:18 PM
***************************************

LOL!! And I thought was bad!! :D Haha!

X, nice Palin do! Very cute! (And i hear ya about the fine hair that doesn't like to do much. *sigh*)

Sounds like there were some awesome topics of discussion and great speeches given at the FRC. Wish I could've been there.
Jill, I am living vicariously through you at this moment. :D

Posted by: Kel at September 13, 2008 9:07 PM


Sorry, apparently my html tags aren't working... that's supposed to read, "And I thought I was bad!"

Posted by: Kel at September 13, 2008 9:08 PM


Sean and Jill: two "great Americans."

Posted by: Jerry at September 13, 2008 9:20 PM


Mike-

referring to Catholic politicians supporting abortion:

I've been reading lately (a wonderful yet dangerous thing :p) and I have to say, I'm beginning to think it is possible to be pro life in the Catholic faith while supporting pro-choice policy/law in our government. First off, because of the separation of church and state in this country (which benefits the church and the state, far more than anyone perhaps gives credit for) religious beliefs alone are not capable of creating a foundation for a law in this country because of the vast variety of religions, beliefs, etc. There needs to be some common ground among the people as a whole, some sort of general consensus among the citizens of this country, and for that reason alone supporting an all out abortion ban will not work in this country. Former NY governor Cuomo (a Catholic apparently) seemed to put it forward in the best way by debating with himself- would a law based on his own morality cause unity and harmony or would it cause division and weaken the way America's society of various peoples and cultures work? Many may find that putting a ban on abortion up to that test would fail, however, so would allowing abortion throughout the pregnancy for any reason, which therefore leaves the "moderate" view of allowing abortions at certain times and perhaps certain reasons, which, of course, leaves a large number of people unhappy but allows society to function better than perhaps going with either of the extremes of banning it all together or allowing it at all times. Politicians have one of the hardest jobs in the country, yes faith (their moral compass) should play a part in their decision making, however they also have to consider the country at large and those not members of their particular church, temple, group, etc. Therefore it leads to having to try and balance politics with religion, something I myself would not want to do (at least, not yet).

However, in the case of Catholics inparticular- they have about the same rate of aborting as the general population. Therefore, pressure put on Catholic politicians inparticular is unfair, because in a way the Church is asking those who hold political office to do the Magisterium's job, but with penalties in this world that apply not only to Catholics, but non-Catholics as well. In a way it is implying that the Church cannot stop its own members from commiting this sin alone, and therefore are calling for legislative action to force Catholics hands. Seems a bit ridiculous since in all reality, in the minds of Catholics anyway, the Church should hold all the true power, should it not?

Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2008 10:27 PM


Consider this perspective of mine.
The ethics of war, and government intervention into the affairs of other governments has been debated for a very long ,long time. Yet the common individual can not make a conclusive statement on the matter without other common individuals having slightly different conclusions and even more having passionately differing conclusions. Combine this with noted scholars and even more highly respected evangelicals and christian scholars and leaders not being able to align. It makes the issue so fragmented it becomes a non-determining factor in our elections. Eventually the only reason a majority will be able to find solidarity on the issue is because of the economics of the situation at hand, ie. the cost of money , security and the cost of lives to our land. So enough with the talk about just war or unjust war. It is an issue currently diverting our attention from a more important one. It really is. Majority will turn on a dime with the circumstances and majority rules in some fashion in this country.
With that debate out of the way and prayerfully in God's hands I do not have to pray or debate or ponder or of all things compromise on abortion. In fact I cannot pray for God to give me a personnel revelation on this because that would be tempting God. If I decide to ask God if it is right or wrong to abort an innocent life I am either ignorant of God's word or do not know God. Please don't refer to who is and who is not guilty of the taking of innocent life. We are all guilty yes we are. We are selfish people and God knows that if it were up to us in a tight spot and God said " I will look the other way , you go ahead and make the shot", you need to know, I need to know, we would be selfish. What is important is what I confess in my heart. The first works of faith is the confession and submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
So now in the matter of the importance of my vote. It is basically a non-prayer issue. Un- known to many there is a correct order of prioritization. The needs of others first and first of the first are the defenseless. And the most defenseless are the unborn. I already know that the " ya but " may be " the majority could turn on a dime on abortion". I say again, " who is the most innocent and defenseless". Another "ya but" is the defenseless pregnant woman killed in war. An abortion is intentional, specific, and purposeful aim every time, all the time. Now I think about all the other issues. Now I prioritize them. We should go and check our boxes now.
Respectfully, Roger Esch

Posted by: HisMan at September 13, 2008 10:30 PM


"It would be interesting to see Raymond Arroyo at EWTN interview
Biden and Pelosi."

Might be fun to throw in someone real devilish like our pal Rudy. I'd like to see him answer those same questions XP

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 14, 2008 1:44 AM


bmmg39, 2:31p: Good eye. Will change. Thanks.

Jasper, 5:51p: I was surprised. The first thing Sean did was apologize for Colmes' remarks about me. I honestly hadn't thought twice about them. Get that stuff all the time. But they must have bothered Sean, which was kind.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 14, 2008 5:43 AM


Therefore, pressure put on Catholic politicians inparticular is unfair, because in a way the Church is asking those who hold political office to do the Magisterium's job, but with penalties in this world that apply not only to Catholics, but non-Catholics as well. In a way it is implying that the Church cannot stop its own members from commiting this sin alone, and therefore are calling for legislative action to force Catholics hands. Seems a bit ridiculous since in all reality, in the minds of Catholics anyway, the Church should hold all the true power, should it not?

Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2008 10:27 PM

There are a number of errors in this paragraph which I'd like to correct.

First of all, abortion is NOT a Catholic question, it is a human question. The answer that the Catholic Church proposes and indeed acts upon is that abortion is NEVER an acceptable action. It is murder, plain and simple and wholly against God.

Secondly, it places "burden" upon Catholic politicians to conform their actions to the teachings of the CC first and foremost out of concern for their immortal souls which will be held accountable for every action during their lifetime and because they are public figures who have brought forth and emphasized their Catholic "faith" but who apparently do not abide by it. Read scandal and leading other Catholics and nonCatholics to sin by their bad example. If their faith is so important that they stress it during their public tenure then they ought at the very least, to act in a manner that demonstrates this. Many do not.

Thirdly, it is true that the Catholic Church cannot "stop" it's members from committing abortion - each person has the use of his/her free will for which they will be held accountable to God for after death. However, it can work to instruct Catholics in the teaching of the CC on this matter and to explain why abortion is wrong. The Church can also work (through it's members and it's Bishops who are suppose to guide their flock) to ensure that our society is a just society. There is nothing just about abortion. Camille Paglia so much as admitted this recently when she remarked,"I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful." Surely, this IS an injustice.
It is the Catholic Church's duty and indeed the duty of every other Christian church to work toward eliminating this injustice.

BTW, Jill you look GREAT! Were you the only female blogger on the panel??

Posted by: Patricia at September 14, 2008 8:35 AM


Patricia-

This may be true, however as a public official it is the job of a politician to serve the public and uphold the values of the Constitution first and foremost. Religion/faith can certainly play a role in values/judgement calls, etc but it cannot be the sole foundation of any law for the simple reason that the public at large will look at you like you're crazy. You have such a vast number of religions/faiths in this country that basing laws on a sole religion is highly unlikely to fly with the public.

Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2008 9:13 AM


Dan,

you make a serious flaw in your argument: that the Catholic faith is just one of the many religious belief systems. If so, it is a catholic (small 'c') philosophy only. However, the Catholic religion is one in which people are immersed in God Himself and attempts to live the dictates of His Life. So there are presently two ways to be 'catholic' and both have an ethical perspective. The religious perspective is so superior to the philosophic one that it seems like daylight next to twilight.

The call for Catholic politicians then is one to accede to a religious outlook/ethic our faith implies. Don't want to do so, then don't call yourself Catholic. And just going through our rituals doesn't make you 'of our religious faith'. Jesus said that he would spit such people out.

Perhaps folks should understand, that being a religious Catholic is a PRIVILEGE and not some kind of tag ... to be alive is a privilege (even though it may seem very hard, well it is - at times!) I cannot remove such a privilege through abortion. Jesus makes life a privilege and only He can make it otherwise.

This is another way of saying that only God renders humans as significant. I would love to find anyone's philosophy that attributes significance to humans and our activity, sans reference to God. Such systems are totally in the head, but a concrete significance is a religious perspective exclusively. Not only a Catholic perspective, but a religious perspective.

Posted by: John McDonell at September 14, 2008 9:28 AM


Dan,

"This may be true, however as a public official it is the job of a politician to serve the public and uphold the values of the Constitution first and foremost."

The Catholic's job first and foremost is to submit himself to the teaching authority of the Magesterium. And the Magesterium has made it abundantly clear in numerous documents that a Catholic politician can not support abortion. I mean, that's it. End of story. If a Catholic politician supports abortion, he's in rebellion against the Church. It's the same deal (for a Catholic) with not believing in the existence of purgatory or not believing you have to attend mass every Sunday. So if a politician wants to do that, they need to stop calling themselves Catholic. That's all. None of us would take a man who was running for public office who also claimed to be a faithful Jehovah's Witness seriously. In fact, it show how unfit he would be to lead. Here he is, claiming to be a faithful JW, yet he is running for office. What a liar. Denounce your JW faith or stop running for office. You can't have it both ways.

I assume you're reading a lot of this from that book you told me about, and unfortunately my library does not have it. I wish I could read it. Does the article that Cuomo wrote have a name? Maybe I could find it online. BTW Cuomo is the one who originally coined the whole "I'm personally opposed to abortion but I can't impose my personal beliefs on the public" phrase.

I also gotta tell you this, Dan; I would not stake my eternal soul on the arguments of Mario Cuomo. Here we have the entire teaching authority of the Church condemning something, a teaching authority that has 2000 years behind it of the most highly trained and scholarly theologians. On the other hand, we have a politician who clearly wants to appease all. The choice seems like a no brainer to me. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 14, 2008 9:43 AM


Bobby-

it's an excerpt from a speech he made at University of Notre Dame. Apparently a Catholic priest came to a similar conclusion- that forcing abortion law through based on Catholic doctrine alone would be akin to admitting papal decree/church doctrine was not enough. It was Fr. Robert Drinian (who also apparently ran for political office before JPII banned clergy from serving).

As a matter of interest however, the book I finished reading the other day is called "How the Republicans stole Christmas: The Republican Party's Declared Monopoly on Religion and What Democrats Can do to Take It Back" by Bill Press.

Now I think some of Press' arguments are fairly weak, but on the other hand he often makes some fairly good points. He makes use of both history, scripture, and arguments made by politicians on each side to reach his conclusions. I may not agree with some of what he says, but he makes a fairly interesting case for many of the so called "moral issues."

Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2008 9:58 AM


Bobby-

here's a link to Cuomo's speech, I'm currently reading it in it's entirety now.

http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=14

Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2008 10:07 AM


"How the Republicans stole Christmas"

It has been added to the amazon.com wishlist.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 14, 2008 10:07 AM


Bobby-

lol, how long is your wishlist now?

and in case you haven't yet checked your facebook this morning I'll copy and paste my wall post :

hey, so I've been doing some exploring and you wanted to keep me updated. I might be going to Mass for the first time in a long time tomorrow at a church in Boston, and perhaps take a look at their program for Catholics think... Read Moreing about returning. (They refer to it as "Landings," seems fairly interesting).

Here's a link to 2 video presentations they put together. I liked the long one better, had more of the info I was looking for, and actually included the short presentation:

http://www.paulist.org/boston/information/paulist/movie.htm

Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2008 10:20 AM


Dan,

few have done more damage to pro-life cause in the Democrat Party than Robert Drinan:

In l970 abortion had not yet become a partisan issue; there were many prominent pro-life Democrats. However, as the party moved toward an implacably pro-abortion position, and the number of pro-life Democrats steadily dwindled, Drinan's example was consistently cited as justification. How could any layman--especially one who was not a Catholic--be faulted for supporting abortion if the most prominent Catholic priest in public life did the same? Drinan bore heavy responsibility for making the Democratic Party the party of abortion. And he himself has come a long way down the same road, so that in 1996 he can dismiss opposition to late-term abortions--which he once characterized as homicide--as a merely partisan Republican trick.

Posted by: Jasper at September 14, 2008 10:24 AM


Dan,

"lol, how long is your wishlist now?"

44 pages (1096 items)

"and in case you haven't yet checked your facebook this morning I'll copy and paste my wall post :"

Yup, I just left a message on your wall, Dan. Did you end up going?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 14, 2008 10:28 AM


of course. I don't really make use of the wishlist feature, if I did I might be able to give you a run for your money ;)

Yeah, just noticed Bobby, my bad lol. I just responded to the message. But the short answer is not yet, the mass I'm attending is at 6pm and the landings program meets immediately afterwards.

Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2008 10:35 AM


Jill,

I wonder why they have somebody from The Alantic magazine on the panel. A very liberal magazne who just ran a hit piece on John McCain...

Posted by: Jasper at September 14, 2008 11:00 AM


Bobby you will need to clone yourself to read your wishlist.
I have recently come to the conclusion that I will NEVER read all the books I want to!! lol

This may be true, however as a public official it is the job of a politician to serve the public and uphold the values of the Constitution first and foremost. Religion/faith can certainly play a role in values/judgement calls, etc but it cannot be the sole foundation of any law for the simple reason that the public at large will look at you like you're crazy. You have such a vast number of religions/faiths in this country that basing laws on a sole religion is highly unlikely to fly with the public.

Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2008 9:13 AM

The case against abortion can be made without any reference to the Catholic religion.
This can be done by considering social and economic factors. It would seem self-evident that a society that destroys 1.5 million of it's own future citizens every year, cannot survive for very long a the world's premier economic power.

This is also a case were faith and reason work together, faith being at least a general belief in an all powerful God. Dan I would encourage you to read John Paul II's Faith and Reason encyclical.

Posted by: Patricia at September 14, 2008 12:56 PM


"you will need to clone yourself to read your wishlist."

Is that ethical? Hmmm, there may be a book or two on my wishlist that answers that...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 14, 2008 3:00 PM


I"m sure we can make an exception to clone, in your case Bobby!

Posted by: Patricia at September 14, 2008 3:10 PM


Ahh, Bill Bennett - better known as "The Gambler"

Posted by: Yo La Tango at September 14, 2008 11:17 PM


Jasper, 11a: Yes, he must be the token.

Yo La, 11:17p: Yes, he made a few jokes at his own expense the other night, as did a couple others. Christians recognize we're all fallible. But acknowledging sin, turning away from it, asking for and accepting forgiveness first from God then from fellow Christians, and then moving forward by God's grace is how we handle these sorry inevitabilities of life.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 15, 2008 4:29 AM


Neither McCain nor Palin bothered to show up. Since the religious right is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP, why take the time?

Posted by: LTL at September 15, 2008 11:54 AM


I just want to say what a fantastic pleasure it was to hear Jill at the Value Voters Summit. Keep up the wonderful work!

Posted by: Dianna Kish at September 15, 2008 12:35 PM


Oooh X,
You look awesome!! I love it!! :)

Posted by: Carla at September 15, 2008 1:37 PM


I love how Jill forgives conservative cronies as a matter of course, but every liberal who has even a tabloid nothing of an imperfection gets racked over the coals. Is it that God has two standards for people or that it is the regular course of business to expect conservatives to be hard gamblers (Bennett) and whore-mongers (David Vitter) and Flip-floppers ( Sarah Palin + John McCain). It's good to know that conservatives have not forgotten their gift of moral relativism.

Posted by: Yo La Tango at September 16, 2008 2:53 AM


to Yo La Tango, from Wikipedia (which isn't the best source, but isn't the worst, either):

In 2003 it became widely known that Bennett was a high-stakes gambler who reportedly had lost millions of dollars in Las Vegas. As a Catholic, Bennett was not prohibited from gambling, but some felt it conflicted with his public image as a leading voice for conservative morals. Criticism elevated in the wake of Bennett's publication, The Book of Virtues, in which he argued for self-discipline--an attribute often at odds with gambling. In the book, most selections are introduced by a short thematic note, e.g., "an honest heart will always find friend." For example, Bennett and Empower America, the organization he co-founded and headed at the time, opposed the extension of casino gambling in the states.

Bennett was never accused of, nor admitted to, having a "problem" with gambling and has maintained that his habit did not put himself or his family in any financial jeopardy. After Bennett's gambling became public, he said that he did not believe that his habit set a good example, that he had "done too much gambling" over the years, and that his "gambling days are over. "We are financially solvent," his wife Elayne told the USA Today. "All our bills are paid." She added that his gambling days are over. "He's never going again," she said.

Several months later, Bennett qualified his position, saying "So, in this case, the excessive gambling is over." He explained that "Since there will be people doing the micrometer on me, I just want to be clear: I do want to be able to bet the Buffalo Bills in the Super Bowl."

Posted by: Jon at September 16, 2008 10:52 PM


John M: Dan, you make a serious flaw in your argument: that the Catholic faith is just one of the many religious belief systems. If so, it is a catholic (small 'c') philosophy only. However, the Catholic religion is one in which people are immersed in God Himself and attempts to live the dictates of His Life. So there are presently two ways to be 'catholic' and both have an ethical perspective.

John, I think Dan's still correct though - basing laws on religion alone isn't going to fly with the public. It's been a while but a good bit of the reason for the existence of the US is that people wanted to get out from under that kind of thing.
.....


This is another way of saying that only God renders humans as significant. I would love to find anyone's philosophy that attributes significance to humans and our activity, sans reference to God. Such systems are totally in the head, but a concrete significance is a religious perspective exclusively. Not only a Catholic perspective, but a religious perspective.

You're talking about things which "are in the head" in the first place, whether one uses capital letters or not.

We have self-consciousness as a race and as individuals. We have desires - we're already feeling significant before we get to religious perspectives. Our consciousness is more "concrete" than the differing religions and faiths that Dan mentions.


Posted by: Doug at September 17, 2008 6:57 AM


Several months later, Bennett qualified his position, saying "So, in this case, the excessive gambling is over." He explained that "Since there will be people doing the micrometer on me, I just want to be clear: I do want to be able to bet the Buffalo Bills in the Super Bowl."

Jon, the joke was Bennett - who gambled away millions of Dollars - pretending to tell people about "self-control."

Anyway, the Buffalo Bills are long odds to win the Super Bowl, around 75 to 1 at this point.

Posted by: Doug at September 17, 2008 7:02 AM


Jon, the joke was Bennett - who gambled away millions of Dollars - pretending to tell people about "self-control."

Doug,

What's the harm in him admitting a mistake and moving on?
Tell me it's never happened to you. Why do you feel the need to belittle the man? Because he is a believer in God? If so, is it better to live irresponsibly and never change than take the road he has chosen? I just don't get it.

Posted by: Janet at September 17, 2008 12:26 PM


Janet, for the sake of his family I hope he has indeed "moved on."

It's still ludicrous to see Bennett pompously proclaiming what is in effect, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Posted by: Doug at September 18, 2008 7:26 AM