I WAS WRONG!!!!!!

Ya, I know some of my posts are a bit heavy. No one got the one on the "gift of hunger." But here I go again.

I have had the chance over the last 55 years to teach a lot of courses. One of my favorites was "Introduction to the Constitution." But I know now(thanks to Cheney/Bush) that I was wrong. Let me explain.

I taught that the "legal protections" in that document were there because they helped our system of justice find the truth. For example, facing your accusers, right to counsel, 5th Amendment, habeas corpus and the rest were aids in finding the truth. I thought these 'protections' were not there to aid criminals get away with what they did. But, you see, I was wrong! Cheney/Bush have made it clear that these 'protections' are NOT, repeat, are NOT, useful in finding the truth. They are just things that we Americans have to thwarth justice. They are not aids in finding the truth. How do I know this. Well Cheney/Bush clearly point out that the detainees can't use these 'protections.' Becuase if they use them, they are thwarting justice and hiding the truth. So for Americans, these legal 'protections' are just ways we have as Americans to commit crimes and not be punished for them. They have nothing to do with finding the truth. They are there to hide the truth. And that's why the detainees can not be allowed to use them.

Thank you Dick/George for setting me straight. Jack

Torture or Not. 'No 'Nuance.'

Differences in the political and religious area usually matters of nuance. You made like Obama's 'recovery' plan or, in general oppose it. But few could be found 100% in favor or 100% opposed. Seldom is a political or religious issue so simple as to say it has to be all one way or the other.

But today in the U.S. we have an issue that clearly and cleanly devides people into two camps, without any possible middle ground or nuance.

You either think torturing another human being is WRONG under all circumstances, or you think it is ACCEPTABLE under certain circumstances. There can be no subtlety nor hedging. To torture another human being is either right or wrong. There is no "middle" position.

Now the collective opinion of history, at least today, is that torture is wrong. Yes churches have used it in the past. Their goal was to save souls, to put the best face on such practices. But no church I know today thinks torture was moral. Protestant and Catholic alike, among Christian faiths 'apologize' for the use of torture in the past.

But now in the U.S. we are engaged in a debate which most clearly delineates only two groups. I believe that torture is wrong in ALL circumstances. But Dick Caney, Senator Chambliss and others say "there are some cases when it is okay, indeed, cases in which we must torture." Let me be blunt: I believe Chaney and those who agree with him are PERVERTS. Strong words, yes. But the deliberate infliction of pain on others, no matter what the motive, is a pervision of all standards that make us human.

And the churches? There silence on this matter removes them from any pretense of being taken seriously. If, and maybe this is an oversimplification, the defining issue in our country in 1860 was should others humans be held as slaves, then today, the defining issue is should human beings torture other humans. It's just that simple.

The Gift of Hunger

The hierarchy of the church never ceases to amaze me. The current way to defend a celibate clergy is to couch it in "the gift of celibacy." Sounds good, but what does it mean. Is it a special gift from God, not available, obviously to the married? Do we marrieds have the gift of sexual thoughts, desires, and action? But the church says sex is ONLY for procreation and "unity."

Now apparently the point is that those who have the "gift of celibacy" can devote more time to finding God. Okay, I might buy that to a degree. But what about the "gift of hunger?" Certainly most people spend more time eating and snaking than involved in sex. Does God give some men the "gift" of not being hungry, so those who get the "gift" can more fully contemplate God?

The New Party

I think it has now become clear that the Catholic Church and the Republican party, consciously, I think, are moving to reclaim the country. Both the Church and the Party have much to gain. If successful, the Republican party returns to power and the Church becomes the dominant religion in the U.S., able to change its beliefs into laws.

The current thinking from the "talking heads" of TV is that the Republicans are in the 'wilderness' and the Church hierarchy does not represent, fully, its flock. This is true, but both Church and Party do have a plan.

First, the bishops of the right wing of the Church must regain control of Catholics at the parish level. This they are mightidly trying to accomplish by concentrating on three issues which if they market them crudely, but persistently, may allow them to go a long way to regaining the upper hand. The three are, of course, abortion, stem cell research, and same sex marriage. The 'right' in the Church and the Repub. party caricature these issues, but believe they can sell them with persistence.

But where do the leaders of the Republican/Catholic future party find a majority.

So just a short list of positions Church and Party hope to pickup the majority, in addition to the three basics mentioned.

One. Attack on public education as being ineffective and corrupting the morals of the students.

Two. The promotion of private religious schools and home-schooling.

Three. The U.S. being the most primitive country among all industrialized countries as far as the populations' acceptance of science, a strong attack on science---in particular, evolution.

Four. Insistence that the doctrine of separation and state is a myth, and advancing the claim that the U.S. is a 'christian', not secular nation.

These are four beliefs of the new coalition. There are others. Just pushing these four beliefs will benefit both the Church and the Party.

I should note that some might deny the Church is anti-evolution. But a closer look will show, the Church, under recent popes, has taken a take it or leave it position on evolution. JP2 boldly.:) said Evolution might be acceptable. B16 allowed one of his science advisers to write in the New York Times an op-ed piece that basically was am emdorsement of "Intelligent Design." And one of the first acts of B16 was to meet with a group of "creationists." At best, the Church's position on Evolution is quite muddled, leaving plenty of room for I.D.

But enough for now.

Foreign Agents?

Apparently most people do not know that the Ku Klux Klan in the 19 teens was an anti-catholic organization as well as anti-black. The rational of the group was that catholics owe allegiance to a foreign power (the Vatican) and were thus unpatriotic and disloyal to our country. Now, of course, this was foolishness, but we see an echo of what caused these Klan beliefs in the U.S. today.

The idea that over 80 per cent of Americans favor murdering children, the accusation that our president supports murdering children and the support of such nonsense by a goodly number of catholic bishops, while the rest of the bishops fear to cross the fanatics, makes the old Klan idea surface at least to a remote possibility. For example, does Chaput take directions from the Church on political matters? Or does he represent a foreign state?

Maybe catholic priests and bishops should register as agents of a foreign nation. Just a thought.