Amidst all the hysterical media posturing and vulgar slander directed at Miss California Carrie Prejean for daring to espouse a position contrary to the militant "gay rights" lobby on the issue of gay marriage, and the more recent media savaging of a generalized Christian segment of society - who may or may not even be aware of the existence of the FOX show American Idol - for allegedly voting in droves for the "All-American" Kris Allen just to deny the flamboyantly effeminate Adam Lambert his "rightful victory" on the show, the word homophobia has been passed around more often recently than special brownies at a Hollywood mixer. Given the left's penchant for hijacking and misappropriating terminology to suit their own agenda, I thought I'd take a closer look at this word that is so shamelessly used to marginalize anyone that dares to engage in logical discussion about the morality of the homosexual lifestyle or about whether or not a homosexual union can ever be considered as being on a par with marriage - which is by definition the union of a man and a woman.
Now, the mere use of the word homophobia in the context that it is currently used already betrays a lack of appreciation for semantics. The prefix homo derives from the Greek word for "same." It is used in many different contexts, and is not inextricably linked with same-sex attraction as the self-absorbed "gay rights" lobby would have us believe. The suffix phobia comes from the Greek phobos, meaning "fear." So while the word homophobia is nowadays used to refer to discrimination against those who hold attraction for members of the same sex, the word literally means "fear of the same."
Now, it is a common tactic of the militant "gay rights" lobby to portray so-called "gay bashers" as being repressed homosexuals themselves, so I do not doubt that there are those who understand what the word truly means and use it as such to blunt criticism of the gay lifestyle. They go out of their way to avoid facing the possibility that there are people out there who might actually be opposed to homosexual acts based on sound moral reasoning, preferring instead to fancy that all opposition to homosexual behavior must necessarily be based on some psychological defect on the part of those who oppose such behavior.
By labeling opposition to such behavior a phobia, "gay rights" activists create the impression that it is a given that opposition to homosexual behavior is a psychological disorder. Using the word with this intent makes all the more sense given the fact that, though the word was supposedly first coined in the mid 1950's, according to the Wikipedia article on homophobia the word first began to carry the connotation of being an irrational opposition to homosexual behavior in 1972. Not coincidentally, the very next year the "gay rights" lobby successfully prevailed upon the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of psychological disorders. So in the space of a single year, the secular culture went from regarding homosexuality as a psychological disorder to regarding opposition to homosexuality as a psychological disorder. So much for "gay rights" activists simply wanting to "live and let live."
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we do not look to the secular world to define truth.
With "gay rights" militants putting their loathing for both the democratic process and Christianity on full display after failing to get their desired result on California's Proposition 8 vote, the disgraceful treatment to which Carrie Prejean has been subjected for giving a straightforward answer to a highly inappropriate question for a beauty pageant, and the unjustifiable denunciation of Christians on no less flimsy a pretext than that an American Idol contestant - favored by the left precisely because he is a homosexual - failed to win the competition according to the left's desires, I can't help but think that it is more appropriate to refer to the militant "gay rights" lobby as heterophobes, rather than to refer to those who are morally opposed to the homosexual lifestyle as homophobes. After all, it is the heterophobes who have shown an irrational fear of allowing those who oppose their lifestyle to make their opinions known.
Now, I know there are those out there who have homosexual tendencies who do not express vitriol every time someone expresses disapproval of their actions. There are those who can befriend others even when they are aware of another's moral objection to homosexual behavior, because they know that that disapproval is not tantamount to a rejection of them as individuals. They may not be especially happy with the other person's views, any more than the other person would be happy with theirs; but there is a mutual understanding that those contrasting views are sincerely held. What I term heterophobia does not refer to such individuals (though I do continue to pray for a conversion of their hearts, that they may turn away from such behavior). Heterophobia refers, rather, to the mindset of those who demand unconditional and uncritical approval of their behavior, especially those who try to bully or otherwise intimidate their ideological opponents into forced silence or acceptance (for instance, a protester who slaps a cross out of an elderly woman's hand and then proceeds to physically and emotionally harass her, or a vulgar "shock jock" blogger who puts a 21 year old beauty pageant finalist in the awkward position of having to answer a highly inappropriate and agenda-driven question, and then calls her a dumb b***h because he's not man enough to handle her answer); for such individuals truly do fear those who are different from themselves. In any free society, their agenda is necessarily doomed to failure. May we continue to pray for a conversion of their hearts as well. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Showing posts with label Semantics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Semantics. Show all posts
Friday, May 22, 2009
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
On the Hierarchy of Values
It is no small source of frustration for me that I seem to get ideas for blog posts like these - where I could literally write for hours on end - just before my bedtime every night. As such, I rarely touch on all the subjects I want to address, and this is no exception.
I want to do this topic justice, so I'll start with a bit of an intro and hopefully develop the topic further in related posts in the coming days and weeks.
To begin simply, our sense of right and wrong is largely governed by the priority we assign to values. For instance, the devout Catholic places a great value on human life in all its stages, and regards the taking of human life at any stage as a great tragedy. The only thing the Catholic faith calls us to value more highly than the dignity of the human person and his right to live is the Triune God Himself. This explains why choosing martyrdom before denying God or the true faith by which we express our devotion to Him is considered an act of heroic virtue, while sacrificing one's life for the sake of something less valuable - like, say, a tree - is considered a waste of a human life.
Or take, for instance, the value we place on the safety and well-being of the people we love. Ordinarily, it would be wrong to cause harm to another human being; but when acting in the defense of a loved one who has come under assault, the use of force against the assailant can be justified, even if the force exerted harms the assailant in the process (taking care, of course, that the harm caused is not disproportionate to the harm intended or feared. It is not right to kill someone who was trying to slap your sister in the face, though it might be justifiable to use lethal force against someone who was trying to attack your sister with a knife, as the latter case clearly requires a greater use of force than the former case).
Understanding the proper hierarchy of values plays a large role in understanding the basic principles of right and wrong in moral theology and philosophical ethics. This is a topic that has been in my heart of late because I have seen first hand how a relativistic mindset can severely warp how a person views right and wrong actions. The relativist is inclined to deny the concept of a hierarchy of values, believing in principle that all values are equal (even if the relativist does not truly believe this in practice). This warped view of the hierarchy of values explains, for instance, how a group like PETA can consider animals to have the same intrinsic worth as human beings. It also plays a large role in explaining how a pro-abortionist can argue that a "woman's right to choose" can take precedence over the life of the unborn child.
Just a snippet for starters. I really want to develop this topic more. In the meantime, feel free to comment or even to offer suggestions on how to get this started. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
I want to do this topic justice, so I'll start with a bit of an intro and hopefully develop the topic further in related posts in the coming days and weeks.
To begin simply, our sense of right and wrong is largely governed by the priority we assign to values. For instance, the devout Catholic places a great value on human life in all its stages, and regards the taking of human life at any stage as a great tragedy. The only thing the Catholic faith calls us to value more highly than the dignity of the human person and his right to live is the Triune God Himself. This explains why choosing martyrdom before denying God or the true faith by which we express our devotion to Him is considered an act of heroic virtue, while sacrificing one's life for the sake of something less valuable - like, say, a tree - is considered a waste of a human life.
Or take, for instance, the value we place on the safety and well-being of the people we love. Ordinarily, it would be wrong to cause harm to another human being; but when acting in the defense of a loved one who has come under assault, the use of force against the assailant can be justified, even if the force exerted harms the assailant in the process (taking care, of course, that the harm caused is not disproportionate to the harm intended or feared. It is not right to kill someone who was trying to slap your sister in the face, though it might be justifiable to use lethal force against someone who was trying to attack your sister with a knife, as the latter case clearly requires a greater use of force than the former case).
Understanding the proper hierarchy of values plays a large role in understanding the basic principles of right and wrong in moral theology and philosophical ethics. This is a topic that has been in my heart of late because I have seen first hand how a relativistic mindset can severely warp how a person views right and wrong actions. The relativist is inclined to deny the concept of a hierarchy of values, believing in principle that all values are equal (even if the relativist does not truly believe this in practice). This warped view of the hierarchy of values explains, for instance, how a group like PETA can consider animals to have the same intrinsic worth as human beings. It also plays a large role in explaining how a pro-abortionist can argue that a "woman's right to choose" can take precedence over the life of the unborn child.
Just a snippet for starters. I really want to develop this topic more. In the meantime, feel free to comment or even to offer suggestions on how to get this started. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Monday, June 9, 2008
The Semantics of "Choice"
A few months before I left Gainesville, FL for Steubenville back in 2003, the University of Florida chapter of NOW decided to stage a "protest" at the University plaza in support of "reproductive rights." They announced this several weeks in advance in order to increase their numbers, not realizing that all their hard-core supporters - who could be counted on the fingers of Major League Baseball pitcher Antonio Alfonseca's hands with digits to spare - had already joined the group and pledged to show up at the protest.
The day before, a friend of mine placed a handful of phone calls to some friends to see if anyone was interested in going to the plaza to peacefully counter-demonstrate. With that modest effort, he managed to round up more than twice as many people as the feminists could muster despite all their efforts.
When the feminists saw that their unwelcome detractors were attracting more attention from passersby than they were and that people were receiving greater exposure to the pro-life view as a result (in short, that their eagerly anticipated event had not only been a miserable failure, but counterproductive to boot), the main organizer of the pro-abort protest apparently forgot herself and began screaming, "What about my right to f**k?! What about my right to f**k?!"
To answer her question, it's not a right; it's a privilege, and it requires the consent of another person of legal age acting without compulsion (and a lot more besides in order to do more good than harm). But more on that another time.
One can't help but wonder, given the glaring inconsistencies in the pro-aborts' point of view, what exactly they mean when they say they support "a woman's right to choose." They insist that they are "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion," but I can't recall the last time they held rallies to support women who actually chose to keep their babies.
They claim women should have a right to choose what kind of life they want to lead, but scorn women who choose to embrace their roles as wives and mothers, saying that such women "set the women's liberation movement back."
They claim that government has no right to tell a woman "what to do with her body," but I can't recall the last time they denounced China's demonic one-child policy, by which the Chinese regime forces women to abort pregnancies of which they do not approve.
So while they claim to be "pro-choice," it really seems as though you have to make the "choice" they would make in order to win their approval.
Let's set that hypocrisy aside for a moment, though, along with the obvious fact that a genuine right to choose does not extend to taking the life of another human being for the sake of one's own convenience, and let's look at the semantics behind their application of the word "choice."
By "choice," of course, they ostensibly mean the choice of whether or not to have a child or to voluntary terminate a pregnancy. And this choice applies only to women. Men don't get pregnant, so the reasoning goes, so they don't get a say in the matter (this scornful view of the complementarity of the sexes in the act of parenting is yet another common bond the abortion rights movement shares with the gay rights movement, by the way).
But let's look at this matter a bit more closely. Is this really a choice? If a woman truly has the power to choose not to have children, then it would stand to reason that she would have the power not to become pregnant in the first place. Planned Parenthood exploited the lust for this type of power (itself inspired by a different kind of lust) beautifully, making artificial contraception its centerpiece in the decades prior to Roe v. Wade, and then using the (Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle) Griswold v. Connecticut decision - which made it illegal for the government to ban the sale of over-the-counter contraceptives and also created the previously non-existent right to privacy - as a stepping stone and legal precedent for the Roe v. Wade decision. Women who wanted absolute control over their fertility looked to artificial contraception as the means to prevent pregnancy while still being able to engage in sexual activity. Since that time, the "sex-without-consequences" mentality has been the calling card of the culture of death.
The problem was, the pill did not give women nearly as much control over their fertility as its supporters promised (and dishonestly continue to promise). No matter how hard they tried, they simply could not stop conception at will. Herein lies the first fatal weakness in the "pregnancy is a choice" argument. If pregnancy were truly a choice, there would be no need for contraceptives. Likewise, there would be no need for abortion. Because women who did not want to become pregnant simply would not become pregnant.
By the same token, just as no sexually active fertile woman can prevent conception at will, neither can she choose to become pregnant at will. No amount of fertility methods can help a woman conceive at will; and even when such methods do work, women have no control over the number of children that are conceived. Just as it is not possible to prevent pregnancy, it is not possible to dictate when pregnancy is to occur. This is hardly a characteristic of something that can legitimately be called a choice.
So if pregnancy isn't a choice, then what is it? It is a possible outcome of a choice. It is a (here comes a word the abortion rights movement and hedonists in general have come to dread) consequence of a choice, and therefore not really something that women have control over. Unless, of course, women (and men, for that matter) choose not to engage in the activity that leads to the potential consequence of pregnancy. Again, we come to a word that strikes fear into the hearts of the hedonist culture of death: abstinence. The very notion that sexual activity is a choice is antithethical to those who have become slaves to their own passions. Because they can't (or won't) control their own impulses, they naturally assume that no one else can either (the parallels with the gay rights movement continue to pile up here). Therefore, they refuse to acknowledge that sexual activity is a choice, pretending instead that it is a biological necessity that no human being can do without and which no human being can choose to avoid (if that idea was followed to its logical extreme, we'd have to overturn every rape and child molestation conviction in our nation's history on the grounds that the perpetrators were only satisfying what was for them a biological necessity and were therefore not responsible for their actions). Hence the refusal to address what is truly a choice and the need to pretend that it is the consequence (or rather, whether or not to run away from the responsibility that the consequence entails) that is the real choice. Kinda puts the vulgar rant of the unhinged feminist at the beginning of this post into perspective, doesn't it?
You'll hear many pro-lifers say that the abortion rights movement is about the right to engage in sexual activity without consequences. To a large extent, they are correct. But they're only scratching part of the surface. It is, at its core, a movement obsessed with control. Control not only over the whole range of choices they make, but also complete control over the consequences of those choices and - lest anyone serve as a living reminder that what they are doing is morally wrong - control over how others perceive those choices (here we see more common ground with the gay rights movement). It is no coincidence that fraudulent "Catholic" groups such as Call to Action and the atrociously-named Catholics for a Free Choice embrace the views of the culture of death: their constant rantings about not being included in the decision making of the Church screams lust for power, as does the advocacy of such groups for women's ordination (when was the last time you heard an advocate of women's ordination talk about anything other than what kind of power access to the sacramental priesthood would bring? You certainly don't hear them talk about the humbling, self-sacrificial aspect of the priestly ministry, because they want no part of that aspect of the cloth).
Why this ravenous need for control? For the same reason that they are incapable of true Christian charity: namely, the fact that they reject the One who orders all things, the One at whose name every knee shall bend. To reject God is to reject the need to submit ourselves to the authority of One who is greater than ourselves. In the absence of such a One whose authority liberates us, the need for power and control over every aspects of one's own life becomes paramount.
All for the sake of a "right to choose." It hardly seems worth it. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
The day before, a friend of mine placed a handful of phone calls to some friends to see if anyone was interested in going to the plaza to peacefully counter-demonstrate. With that modest effort, he managed to round up more than twice as many people as the feminists could muster despite all their efforts.
When the feminists saw that their unwelcome detractors were attracting more attention from passersby than they were and that people were receiving greater exposure to the pro-life view as a result (in short, that their eagerly anticipated event had not only been a miserable failure, but counterproductive to boot), the main organizer of the pro-abort protest apparently forgot herself and began screaming, "What about my right to f**k?! What about my right to f**k?!"
To answer her question, it's not a right; it's a privilege, and it requires the consent of another person of legal age acting without compulsion (and a lot more besides in order to do more good than harm). But more on that another time.
One can't help but wonder, given the glaring inconsistencies in the pro-aborts' point of view, what exactly they mean when they say they support "a woman's right to choose." They insist that they are "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion," but I can't recall the last time they held rallies to support women who actually chose to keep their babies.
They claim women should have a right to choose what kind of life they want to lead, but scorn women who choose to embrace their roles as wives and mothers, saying that such women "set the women's liberation movement back."
They claim that government has no right to tell a woman "what to do with her body," but I can't recall the last time they denounced China's demonic one-child policy, by which the Chinese regime forces women to abort pregnancies of which they do not approve.
So while they claim to be "pro-choice," it really seems as though you have to make the "choice" they would make in order to win their approval.
Let's set that hypocrisy aside for a moment, though, along with the obvious fact that a genuine right to choose does not extend to taking the life of another human being for the sake of one's own convenience, and let's look at the semantics behind their application of the word "choice."
By "choice," of course, they ostensibly mean the choice of whether or not to have a child or to voluntary terminate a pregnancy. And this choice applies only to women. Men don't get pregnant, so the reasoning goes, so they don't get a say in the matter (this scornful view of the complementarity of the sexes in the act of parenting is yet another common bond the abortion rights movement shares with the gay rights movement, by the way).
But let's look at this matter a bit more closely. Is this really a choice? If a woman truly has the power to choose not to have children, then it would stand to reason that she would have the power not to become pregnant in the first place. Planned Parenthood exploited the lust for this type of power (itself inspired by a different kind of lust) beautifully, making artificial contraception its centerpiece in the decades prior to Roe v. Wade, and then using the (Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle) Griswold v. Connecticut decision - which made it illegal for the government to ban the sale of over-the-counter contraceptives and also created the previously non-existent right to privacy - as a stepping stone and legal precedent for the Roe v. Wade decision. Women who wanted absolute control over their fertility looked to artificial contraception as the means to prevent pregnancy while still being able to engage in sexual activity. Since that time, the "sex-without-consequences" mentality has been the calling card of the culture of death.
The problem was, the pill did not give women nearly as much control over their fertility as its supporters promised (and dishonestly continue to promise). No matter how hard they tried, they simply could not stop conception at will. Herein lies the first fatal weakness in the "pregnancy is a choice" argument. If pregnancy were truly a choice, there would be no need for contraceptives. Likewise, there would be no need for abortion. Because women who did not want to become pregnant simply would not become pregnant.
By the same token, just as no sexually active fertile woman can prevent conception at will, neither can she choose to become pregnant at will. No amount of fertility methods can help a woman conceive at will; and even when such methods do work, women have no control over the number of children that are conceived. Just as it is not possible to prevent pregnancy, it is not possible to dictate when pregnancy is to occur. This is hardly a characteristic of something that can legitimately be called a choice.
So if pregnancy isn't a choice, then what is it? It is a possible outcome of a choice. It is a (here comes a word the abortion rights movement and hedonists in general have come to dread) consequence of a choice, and therefore not really something that women have control over. Unless, of course, women (and men, for that matter) choose not to engage in the activity that leads to the potential consequence of pregnancy. Again, we come to a word that strikes fear into the hearts of the hedonist culture of death: abstinence. The very notion that sexual activity is a choice is antithethical to those who have become slaves to their own passions. Because they can't (or won't) control their own impulses, they naturally assume that no one else can either (the parallels with the gay rights movement continue to pile up here). Therefore, they refuse to acknowledge that sexual activity is a choice, pretending instead that it is a biological necessity that no human being can do without and which no human being can choose to avoid (if that idea was followed to its logical extreme, we'd have to overturn every rape and child molestation conviction in our nation's history on the grounds that the perpetrators were only satisfying what was for them a biological necessity and were therefore not responsible for their actions). Hence the refusal to address what is truly a choice and the need to pretend that it is the consequence (or rather, whether or not to run away from the responsibility that the consequence entails) that is the real choice. Kinda puts the vulgar rant of the unhinged feminist at the beginning of this post into perspective, doesn't it?
You'll hear many pro-lifers say that the abortion rights movement is about the right to engage in sexual activity without consequences. To a large extent, they are correct. But they're only scratching part of the surface. It is, at its core, a movement obsessed with control. Control not only over the whole range of choices they make, but also complete control over the consequences of those choices and - lest anyone serve as a living reminder that what they are doing is morally wrong - control over how others perceive those choices (here we see more common ground with the gay rights movement). It is no coincidence that fraudulent "Catholic" groups such as Call to Action and the atrociously-named Catholics for a Free Choice embrace the views of the culture of death: their constant rantings about not being included in the decision making of the Church screams lust for power, as does the advocacy of such groups for women's ordination (when was the last time you heard an advocate of women's ordination talk about anything other than what kind of power access to the sacramental priesthood would bring? You certainly don't hear them talk about the humbling, self-sacrificial aspect of the priestly ministry, because they want no part of that aspect of the cloth).
Why this ravenous need for control? For the same reason that they are incapable of true Christian charity: namely, the fact that they reject the One who orders all things, the One at whose name every knee shall bend. To reject God is to reject the need to submit ourselves to the authority of One who is greater than ourselves. In the absence of such a One whose authority liberates us, the need for power and control over every aspects of one's own life becomes paramount.
All for the sake of a "right to choose." It hardly seems worth it. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Careful What Change You Hope For
Hello, my name is Gerald Lamb. I have absolutely no political or legal experience. I regard hope as a theological virtue that is a movement of the human appetite towards a difficult but not impossible to obtain good (chief among the things to be desired being reconciliation with God in the Beatific Vision). More generally, I regard hope as the expectation of obtaining something that is desired. I generally regard change as something that is good when something is broken and in genuine need of changing, and as something bad when the thing being changed doesn't really need fixing and the change is being sought for the sake of novelty. My qualifications for being President of the United States are close to nil. Nevertheless, today I announce that I want to be your next President of the United States.
Actually, I don't really want to be the next President of the United States. It seems to require more time than I'm ready to devote, and the number of temptations associated with the job have proven detrimental effects on the human soul. Despite these risks, I am still running for President of the United States.
Actually, I'm not really running for President of the United States. I'm only 31 years old (which according to the Constitution means I can't run for another 4 years). But hey, I just mentioned the words "hope" and "change," and I hereby mention the word "unity." I am now officially every bit as qualified to be President of the United States as Barack Obama.
Actually, that's not true either. Unlike Barack Obama, I have actually identified what is meant by hope and change. I acknowledge that a thing cannot really be hoped for unless it is known and desired (and what specific hope has Barack Obama offered in his campaign aside from the promise of four years' worth of flowery, empty platitudes and hints at the same tired leftist policies that have represented the Democrat party platform for the better part of 3 decades?), and that the pursuit of change for the sake of novelty is an unworthy pursuit. Already I have provided more substance for my ideas than Barack Obama has ever offered for his, and unless you know me personally you've only gotten the briefest of glimpses into my mindset (with more to follow). Nevertheless, in the space of a few short blog posts I have provided more context for my views and have offered a more substantial reason for being taken seriously as a Presidential contender than Barack Obama has done in the decade plus he has spent riding the color of his skin, his penchant for empty rhetoric, and the coattails of his chief benefactors to unimaginable heights. We now find ourselves with the prospect of electing to the most powerful position in the secular free world a man with no proven track record of leadership and a mountain of "off-limits" questions about his past buried under a sandhill jealously guarded by the media and the PC thought police. All he's really shown is that he will bring the same tired liberal ideas in bright, shiny new packaging.
Actually, the packaging isn't all that new, nor bright. There is nothing new under the sun, only what appears new to those with an attention span that rivals that of a goldfish. There are shades of JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and (believe it or not) Bill Clinton in the person of Barack Obama (go back and read histories of the 1992 presidential campaign, and tell me you don't see eerie similarities between the campaigns of "Clinton the new Democrat" and "Obama the new breed of politician"). And that's just within living memory. As far as bright, well...you'd think that would have been proven with a little substance to back up the rhetoric by now. But I'll give you shiny. He's definitely shiny. He relies on the glare to keep prying eyes at bay.
In 2002, when Bill McBride unsuccessfully opposed Jeb Bush's reelection bid as governor of Florida, I spoke with a gentleman who said he was voting for McBride for no other reason than that he disliked Bush. I then asked him for one concrete example of what Bill McBride stood for as a politician (other than the tiresome "decreased classroom sizes" amendment that served as the only major plank holding up his shaky campaign platform). The gentleman admitted he could think of none, but defended his support for McBride saying that McBride was the lesser of two evils. To which I replied: "How can you call one man the lesser of two evils when, by your own admission, you have absolutely no idea what level of evil that man could potentially represent?"
I now pose that same question to all the Obama supporters who can't explain their support for Obama beyond the assertion that he is the candidate of "change," "hope," and "unity."
The last time a major party Presidential candidate successfully sold himself as a candidate of change, we were rewarded for our gullibility with eight years of Bill Clinton (I'm telling you, the similarities are eerie). Judging by the way the Democrats treated Hillary this election cycle, I think it's safe to say that that was the kind of change they'd just as soon forget.
Careful what you wish for, folks. Your choice as it stands is between a stubborn question mark in Barack Obama and a proven commodity in John McCain.
Actually, I wouldn't call McCain a proven commodity...
Actually, I don't really want to be the next President of the United States. It seems to require more time than I'm ready to devote, and the number of temptations associated with the job have proven detrimental effects on the human soul. Despite these risks, I am still running for President of the United States.
Actually, I'm not really running for President of the United States. I'm only 31 years old (which according to the Constitution means I can't run for another 4 years). But hey, I just mentioned the words "hope" and "change," and I hereby mention the word "unity." I am now officially every bit as qualified to be President of the United States as Barack Obama.
Actually, that's not true either. Unlike Barack Obama, I have actually identified what is meant by hope and change. I acknowledge that a thing cannot really be hoped for unless it is known and desired (and what specific hope has Barack Obama offered in his campaign aside from the promise of four years' worth of flowery, empty platitudes and hints at the same tired leftist policies that have represented the Democrat party platform for the better part of 3 decades?), and that the pursuit of change for the sake of novelty is an unworthy pursuit. Already I have provided more substance for my ideas than Barack Obama has ever offered for his, and unless you know me personally you've only gotten the briefest of glimpses into my mindset (with more to follow). Nevertheless, in the space of a few short blog posts I have provided more context for my views and have offered a more substantial reason for being taken seriously as a Presidential contender than Barack Obama has done in the decade plus he has spent riding the color of his skin, his penchant for empty rhetoric, and the coattails of his chief benefactors to unimaginable heights. We now find ourselves with the prospect of electing to the most powerful position in the secular free world a man with no proven track record of leadership and a mountain of "off-limits" questions about his past buried under a sandhill jealously guarded by the media and the PC thought police. All he's really shown is that he will bring the same tired liberal ideas in bright, shiny new packaging.
Actually, the packaging isn't all that new, nor bright. There is nothing new under the sun, only what appears new to those with an attention span that rivals that of a goldfish. There are shades of JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and (believe it or not) Bill Clinton in the person of Barack Obama (go back and read histories of the 1992 presidential campaign, and tell me you don't see eerie similarities between the campaigns of "Clinton the new Democrat" and "Obama the new breed of politician"). And that's just within living memory. As far as bright, well...you'd think that would have been proven with a little substance to back up the rhetoric by now. But I'll give you shiny. He's definitely shiny. He relies on the glare to keep prying eyes at bay.
In 2002, when Bill McBride unsuccessfully opposed Jeb Bush's reelection bid as governor of Florida, I spoke with a gentleman who said he was voting for McBride for no other reason than that he disliked Bush. I then asked him for one concrete example of what Bill McBride stood for as a politician (other than the tiresome "decreased classroom sizes" amendment that served as the only major plank holding up his shaky campaign platform). The gentleman admitted he could think of none, but defended his support for McBride saying that McBride was the lesser of two evils. To which I replied: "How can you call one man the lesser of two evils when, by your own admission, you have absolutely no idea what level of evil that man could potentially represent?"
I now pose that same question to all the Obama supporters who can't explain their support for Obama beyond the assertion that he is the candidate of "change," "hope," and "unity."
The last time a major party Presidential candidate successfully sold himself as a candidate of change, we were rewarded for our gullibility with eight years of Bill Clinton (I'm telling you, the similarities are eerie). Judging by the way the Democrats treated Hillary this election cycle, I think it's safe to say that that was the kind of change they'd just as soon forget.
Careful what you wish for, folks. Your choice as it stands is between a stubborn question mark in Barack Obama and a proven commodity in John McCain.
Actually, I wouldn't call McCain a proven commodity...
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
On the True Meaning of Charity
"So faith, hope, charity abide, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
To what exactly does St. Paul refer in his famous discourse of 1 Corinthians 13 when he speaks of charity? In many translations the word love is substituted for charity, but one can get a mistaken notion of what the passage means without a proper understanding of the context. Paragraph 2093 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the Christian obligation to charity in the following manner:
"Faith in God's love encompasses the call and the obligation to respond with sincere love to divine charity. The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him."
Note that the definition goes well beyond the mere act of being nice to others or engaging in corporal works of mercy. Behaving in a charitable manner presupposes that one's actions are motivated by and directed toward a love of God above all things and for His own sake. There are many implications to this definition of charity that are often lost on the modern-day secular world, which in its reductionism has sadly reduced the meaning of charity to the mere act described above.
The first and most obvious, not to mention the most dire, consequence of attempting to separate the meaning of charity from its proper context of loving God above all else is that the failure to love God leads to the failure to love those who are created in the image and likeness of God: namely, man. As mentioned in a previous post, it is no coincidence that the supporters of the culture of death are, without exception, comprised entirely of individuals who do not believe in God (despite frequent pretensions to the contrary on the part of many of them) or, as is more likely the case with those who engage in so-called "militant atheism," devout haters of the One who is Love. Jesus Himself directed us in the proper ordering of love when he gave us the greatest commandment - namely, to love the Lord our God with all of our heart and all of our soul - and the second greatest commandment, to love our neighbor as ourself. Without the former, it is not possible to properly perform the latter. Our modern society has largely decided to ignore the greatest commandment; the results, I think, speak for themselves.
A secondary consequence of the loss of the true meaning of charity is that acts of nicety and other good works lose their primary focus and moral efficacy. Without the desire to please God as their goal, such acts begin to be performed for ulterior motives, and more often than not become ordered towards the personal gain of those who perform the actions. When what appear to be good works are performed primarily for the benefit of the performer, these works are deprived of the selflessness without which charity cannot exist. A person who feels the need to announce his every good work or invite a cameraman along every time he wants to help others is not a charitable person, no matter how much the media chooses to fawn over him.
A loss of the true sense of charity also leads to the very modern notion of "tolerance" - namely, that we must not only be accepting of who others are, but also accepting of what they do. This, of course, means no worshiping One who overturned tables and lashed out at those who turned His Father's house into a den of thieves, for such a person is the very antithesis of what it means to be "tolerant." Modern "tolerance" is very much a product of the moral relativism that rejects truth and the One who came into the world to testify to the truth. G. K. Chesterton once wrote that tolerance was the virtue of the man who lacked convictions. And it is a fact that one who is convinced of nothing must necessarily be accepting of everything, whether the thing in question is good or evil. But the one who has not rejected Christ and understands the true meaning of charity will also understand what is truly called for when it comes to tolerance. In his essay, "The Limits of Dialogue," Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of the Diocese of Lincoln, NE describes it thus:
He goes on to say:
"If we truly love our neighbor we must be impatient with the evil, physical, moral, or intellectual, under which our neighbor suffers, and to the extent we are able or responsible, we are obliged to relieve the suffering that comes from this evil."
To what exactly does St. Paul refer in his famous discourse of 1 Corinthians 13 when he speaks of charity? In many translations the word love is substituted for charity, but one can get a mistaken notion of what the passage means without a proper understanding of the context. Paragraph 2093 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the Christian obligation to charity in the following manner:
"Faith in God's love encompasses the call and the obligation to respond with sincere love to divine charity. The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him."
Note that the definition goes well beyond the mere act of being nice to others or engaging in corporal works of mercy. Behaving in a charitable manner presupposes that one's actions are motivated by and directed toward a love of God above all things and for His own sake. There are many implications to this definition of charity that are often lost on the modern-day secular world, which in its reductionism has sadly reduced the meaning of charity to the mere act described above.
The first and most obvious, not to mention the most dire, consequence of attempting to separate the meaning of charity from its proper context of loving God above all else is that the failure to love God leads to the failure to love those who are created in the image and likeness of God: namely, man. As mentioned in a previous post, it is no coincidence that the supporters of the culture of death are, without exception, comprised entirely of individuals who do not believe in God (despite frequent pretensions to the contrary on the part of many of them) or, as is more likely the case with those who engage in so-called "militant atheism," devout haters of the One who is Love. Jesus Himself directed us in the proper ordering of love when he gave us the greatest commandment - namely, to love the Lord our God with all of our heart and all of our soul - and the second greatest commandment, to love our neighbor as ourself. Without the former, it is not possible to properly perform the latter. Our modern society has largely decided to ignore the greatest commandment; the results, I think, speak for themselves.
A secondary consequence of the loss of the true meaning of charity is that acts of nicety and other good works lose their primary focus and moral efficacy. Without the desire to please God as their goal, such acts begin to be performed for ulterior motives, and more often than not become ordered towards the personal gain of those who perform the actions. When what appear to be good works are performed primarily for the benefit of the performer, these works are deprived of the selflessness without which charity cannot exist. A person who feels the need to announce his every good work or invite a cameraman along every time he wants to help others is not a charitable person, no matter how much the media chooses to fawn over him.
A loss of the true sense of charity also leads to the very modern notion of "tolerance" - namely, that we must not only be accepting of who others are, but also accepting of what they do. This, of course, means no worshiping One who overturned tables and lashed out at those who turned His Father's house into a den of thieves, for such a person is the very antithesis of what it means to be "tolerant." Modern "tolerance" is very much a product of the moral relativism that rejects truth and the One who came into the world to testify to the truth. G. K. Chesterton once wrote that tolerance was the virtue of the man who lacked convictions. And it is a fact that one who is convinced of nothing must necessarily be accepting of everything, whether the thing in question is good or evil. But the one who has not rejected Christ and understands the true meaning of charity will also understand what is truly called for when it comes to tolerance. In his essay, "The Limits of Dialogue," Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of the Diocese of Lincoln, NE describes it thus:
"Speaking now about toleration. It is my view that this word, and this attitude and procedure must also be treated as desirable in some instances, but can be perilous in others. The scholastic definition of toleration is "Toleratio est permissio negativa mali." Literally, it means that tolerance is a negative permission of evil, a patient forbearance in the face of evil, either real or imaginary. Tolerance and toleration do not really concern human beings. We are not allowed to tolerate human beings; we are required by our religion to love all human beings. Also, we are not allowed to tolerate the good. That which is good must be approved, accepted, and promoted as well as fostered. Tolerance always refers to some kind of evil, physical, moral, intellectual, whether real or imagined."
He goes on to say:
"If we truly love our neighbor we must be impatient with the evil, physical, moral, or intellectual, under which our neighbor suffers, and to the extent we are able or responsible, we are obliged to relieve the suffering that comes from this evil."
We must, of course, be vigilant about understanding the extent of that responsibility, and must pray as Blessed Mother Teresa prayed (and continues to pray on our behalf) for the strength to endure that which we cannot change, the courage to change what we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
With God, all things are possible. Without God - or the love for Him that orders all good things - the only thing we can count on are the seeds of chaos sown by the evil one who, as the chief enemy of the One who is Love, is the source of that vice which is the greatest assault upon the virtue of charity. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
With God, all things are possible. Without God - or the love for Him that orders all good things - the only thing we can count on are the seeds of chaos sown by the evil one who, as the chief enemy of the One who is Love, is the source of that vice which is the greatest assault upon the virtue of charity. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
5 Questions Concerning So-called "Hate Crimes" Legislation
1) Is there such a thing as a "love crime"?
2) What is the definition of such a crime, if it exists?
3) Do such crimes, if they exist, deserve lighter penalties?
4) Can it be proven that such crimes, if they exist, are committed almost exclusively (or even predominantly) against white, heterosexual Christians?
5) Can any supporter of so-called "hate crimes" legislation who is incapable of answering the above questions in the affirmative (or, more disturbingly, if they can) be considered capable of rational discourse?
2) What is the definition of such a crime, if it exists?
3) Do such crimes, if they exist, deserve lighter penalties?
4) Can it be proven that such crimes, if they exist, are committed almost exclusively (or even predominantly) against white, heterosexual Christians?
5) Can any supporter of so-called "hate crimes" legislation who is incapable of answering the above questions in the affirmative (or, more disturbingly, if they can) be considered capable of rational discourse?
Sunday, June 1, 2008
"Being," "Doing," and the Intrinsic Worth of the Human Person
A common fallacy in modern ideologies is the tendency to associate the worth of a human being with his actions. In my experience, at least, this tendency has been particularly prevalent in two ideologies: the movement for so-called "gay rights" and the movement of eugenics.
In the case of gay rights activists, it becomes clear that their claims to being persecuted and devalued as human beings in today's society rests largely on the fact that most people still do not accept homosexual relations as moral, much less equal to heterosexual relations. To hear them tell the story, anyone who fails to throw a parade in their honor is an intolerant bigot. Of course, the Catholic Church views things differently. Paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states:
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
This is hardly a mandate to relegate those with homosexual inclinations to second-class status; and yet, the Pope is constantly derided as a persecutor of homosexuals and often compared to Hitler in his treatment of them.
Gay rights activists, in order to achieve their goal of forcing acceptance of their lifestyle upon the rest of society, must necessarily identify their being with their actions. By convincing others that their person is defined by their actions, they succeed in creating the impression that in order to love and accept them like genuine human beings, their chosen lifestyle must be likewise be accepted in its entirety as equal in validity and dignity to heterosexual behavior (that they do not reciprocate this acceptance towards those who do not subscribe to their view of things is irrelevant; political correctness is notorious for such blatant double standards).
This is wrong, of course. That we are referred to as human beings instead of humans doing is not a semantic accident. Our humanness, and our intrinsic and inestimable worth as human persons, is defined not by our words and actions, but by the fact that we are created in the image and likeness of God. Our actions may enhance or diminish the perception of that worth, but perception and reality are two very different creatures.
The movement of eugenics employs a similar "doing is being" approach in defining the worth of the person, albeit for a different though no less disturbing reason. The hallmark of eugenics is the belief that "less desirable" elements of human society (which has now been extended to include unborn children conceived by unwilling parents) should be systemically eliminated for the "greater good" of mankind. To speak of anyone as "less desirable" or "less valuable" is to inherently deny that man is created in the image and likeness of God, for in this created nature we are given equal value before God; and He equally desires each of us to be reconciled to Him (this desire to reconcile all things to Himself is why He exhorts us to "hate the sin but love the sinner," a sentiment beautifully exclaimed in regards to homosexual persons in CCC 2358, quoted above). The extent to which the eugenicist mindset has taken root in modern society has been made disturbingly clear to us in several ways, most notably in how organizations like Planned Parenthood have gained widespread acceptance and more recently in the shamefully callous and inhumane treatment of Terri Schiavo by her faithless husband and his unfeeling accomplices on the grounds that she was "no longer alive" despite clear and conclusive evidence to the contrary.
I was present as a pro-life witness during the so-called "March for Women's Lives" that occurred in Washington D.C. in April 2004. It came as no surprise to me that a large number of gay rights activists, already in town for a separate demonstration, joined their pro-abortion comrades in the march. It also came as no surprise that they employed remarkably similar anti-life and anti-Christian rhetoric (I will spare you from the worst of this, but I can say that in the four years since this event and in my twenty-seven years prior I never encountered more vulgar or more vitriolic language than what I and other peaceful pro-life demonstrators were subjected to that day). Because they so vehemently denied Christ, they denied that they or anyone else could be created in His image and likeness; and in so doing, they denied the very thing that gives a human being his true worth. It is no wonder that they campaigned so vehemently for the demise of those whose presence in this world presented such an inconvenience to them.
As an aside, do not be fooled by the phenomenon of so-called "militant atheism." This phrase is inherently oxymoronic. The true unbeliever is apathetic to whether or not others choose to believe that which he rejects. It is only the person who hates God who seeks to erase all mention or memory of His existence from the world in which he lives. Such hatred can only come from one source, and that source prefers to remain anonymous.
I bid thee all a good night, and (whether or not you choose to believe) God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
In the case of gay rights activists, it becomes clear that their claims to being persecuted and devalued as human beings in today's society rests largely on the fact that most people still do not accept homosexual relations as moral, much less equal to heterosexual relations. To hear them tell the story, anyone who fails to throw a parade in their honor is an intolerant bigot. Of course, the Catholic Church views things differently. Paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states:
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
This is hardly a mandate to relegate those with homosexual inclinations to second-class status; and yet, the Pope is constantly derided as a persecutor of homosexuals and often compared to Hitler in his treatment of them.
Gay rights activists, in order to achieve their goal of forcing acceptance of their lifestyle upon the rest of society, must necessarily identify their being with their actions. By convincing others that their person is defined by their actions, they succeed in creating the impression that in order to love and accept them like genuine human beings, their chosen lifestyle must be likewise be accepted in its entirety as equal in validity and dignity to heterosexual behavior (that they do not reciprocate this acceptance towards those who do not subscribe to their view of things is irrelevant; political correctness is notorious for such blatant double standards).
This is wrong, of course. That we are referred to as human beings instead of humans doing is not a semantic accident. Our humanness, and our intrinsic and inestimable worth as human persons, is defined not by our words and actions, but by the fact that we are created in the image and likeness of God. Our actions may enhance or diminish the perception of that worth, but perception and reality are two very different creatures.
The movement of eugenics employs a similar "doing is being" approach in defining the worth of the person, albeit for a different though no less disturbing reason. The hallmark of eugenics is the belief that "less desirable" elements of human society (which has now been extended to include unborn children conceived by unwilling parents) should be systemically eliminated for the "greater good" of mankind. To speak of anyone as "less desirable" or "less valuable" is to inherently deny that man is created in the image and likeness of God, for in this created nature we are given equal value before God; and He equally desires each of us to be reconciled to Him (this desire to reconcile all things to Himself is why He exhorts us to "hate the sin but love the sinner," a sentiment beautifully exclaimed in regards to homosexual persons in CCC 2358, quoted above). The extent to which the eugenicist mindset has taken root in modern society has been made disturbingly clear to us in several ways, most notably in how organizations like Planned Parenthood have gained widespread acceptance and more recently in the shamefully callous and inhumane treatment of Terri Schiavo by her faithless husband and his unfeeling accomplices on the grounds that she was "no longer alive" despite clear and conclusive evidence to the contrary.
I was present as a pro-life witness during the so-called "March for Women's Lives" that occurred in Washington D.C. in April 2004. It came as no surprise to me that a large number of gay rights activists, already in town for a separate demonstration, joined their pro-abortion comrades in the march. It also came as no surprise that they employed remarkably similar anti-life and anti-Christian rhetoric (I will spare you from the worst of this, but I can say that in the four years since this event and in my twenty-seven years prior I never encountered more vulgar or more vitriolic language than what I and other peaceful pro-life demonstrators were subjected to that day). Because they so vehemently denied Christ, they denied that they or anyone else could be created in His image and likeness; and in so doing, they denied the very thing that gives a human being his true worth. It is no wonder that they campaigned so vehemently for the demise of those whose presence in this world presented such an inconvenience to them.
As an aside, do not be fooled by the phenomenon of so-called "militant atheism." This phrase is inherently oxymoronic. The true unbeliever is apathetic to whether or not others choose to believe that which he rejects. It is only the person who hates God who seeks to erase all mention or memory of His existence from the world in which he lives. Such hatred can only come from one source, and that source prefers to remain anonymous.
I bid thee all a good night, and (whether or not you choose to believe) God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Semantic Nonsense
One of the most infuriating aspects of political correctness is the tendency of its adherents to distort the meanings of words and then banter those words about as though they are the only ones who truly know what those words mean. If it stopped there, it wouldn't be such a big problem. Unfortunately, their virtual stranglehold on academia and television and print media allow them the opportunity to impress these distortions upon young and impressionable minds. After two generations of such impressment, we now find ourselves in a society where a disturbing number of our youth can barely pronounce the words they speak, to say nothing of understanding the meaning behind them. For instance, I overheard my teenage sister the other day speaking with one of her friends about "pimping" the appearance of her Myspace page. I don't know how much cannabis was involved in leading someone to conclude that it was a good idea to teach children that the word "pimp" could ever be used in a positive context, but I could only shake my head at the sheer horror on my sister's face when I explained to her what the word "pimp" really means.
I have had similar struggles trying to explain to some of my younger relatives the difference between what they "want" and what they "need." Ditto for my attempts to properly define the words "freedom," "tolerance," "dialogue," "equality," and "discrimination" in my debates with liberals. At the risk of sounding condescending, I think it is important to understand the distinctions between the real meanings and the politically correct meanings of these and countless other words before one can engage in an intelligent and fruitful discussion about their proper application.
Just some thoughts for starters. I plan to devote entire blog posts to exploring the meaning and proper application of a number of these words in due time. In the meantime, feel free to comment and share your thoughts. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
I have had similar struggles trying to explain to some of my younger relatives the difference between what they "want" and what they "need." Ditto for my attempts to properly define the words "freedom," "tolerance," "dialogue," "equality," and "discrimination" in my debates with liberals. At the risk of sounding condescending, I think it is important to understand the distinctions between the real meanings and the politically correct meanings of these and countless other words before one can engage in an intelligent and fruitful discussion about their proper application.
Just some thoughts for starters. I plan to devote entire blog posts to exploring the meaning and proper application of a number of these words in due time. In the meantime, feel free to comment and share your thoughts. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
