Presidential Rat Race 2012: Ignorance, Sensationalism, and Agendas

Today over at CatholicThing Francis Beckwith offers an excellent column on a recent empty-headed piece on Michele Bachmann by Joshua Green, whose research skills appear to just barely surpass those of the stereotypical high school student.  Beckwith's column offers a refreshing rebuttal to Green's fallacious logic and his theological and historical ignorance.

Professor Beckwith writes:

The Atlantic has discovered the Reformation, albeit nearly five centuries too late.

Writer Joshua Green reports that the denomination in which presidential candidate Michele Bachmann was a member, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), believes that Martin Luther was right about the Catholic papacy. Imagine that. Lutherans who believe ideas espoused by Luther. Shocking, isn’t it? Perhaps next week the Atlantic will inform its readers that the pope is Catholic, that Methodists are enamored of John Wesley, or that the Great Schism put a damper on Catholic-Orthodox relations.

(Read the rest.)

Wisdom from Across the Pond

In a refreshing display of real tolerance, non-Christian religious leaders in the UK defend the right of Christians to celebrate Christmas as freely and openly as they themselves would wish to celebrate their own holidays.

"It's time to stop being daft about Christmas. It's fine to celebrate and it's fine for Christ to be star of the show," said Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

It's nice to see people with enough common sense to realize that a society that is willing to tell Christians to celebrate in the closet will probably be willing to harass people of other faiths as soon as it becomes fashionable or politically correct to do so. It is in everyone's best interest to defend religious freedom, even for people who do not share one's own beliefs.

Maybe Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) (FL), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and anyone who will still vote for them after recent events, should listen.

Hat Tips: Modern Commentaries, Pertinacious Papist

Why I won't see certain movies.

When I was taking a Chicano Studies class in college, our instructor frequently brought in guest speakers. One week he invited Josefina Lopez, the playwright who penned Real Women Have Curves.

I was repulsed by her talk. She spent most of her time crassly expounding the merits of artificial birth control ( proudly showing off her norplant), promiscuous sex, and vibrators. To say the least, her talk had little academic and no moral merit and was, in my opinion, a complete waste of every student's time. So repugnant did I find her talk, that when Real Women Have Curves came out on film in 2002, I refused to see it, knowing that I would be contributing to Lopez's career through the royalties she would get.

It's not that I have a problem with the overall concept behind Real Women Have Curves. I believe women should be able to feel beautiful even if they don't look like supermodels.

But we don't need promiscuity, norplant, or vibrators to help us do that.

And I won't contribute to the paycheck of a person who makes it her life's work to tell people the lie that we do need those things, however sincerely she may believe it.

Similarly, when a certain other film written by a certain anti-catholic (and generally anti-religious) person was released into the theaters, I resolved that I would never contribute a single red cent to the profits that would be made through it. Let's just say I have objections to supporting the career of a man who has publicly stated that he wishes to use his writing talents to lead unsuspecting children away from faith in God.

Here is a sampling of his statements (Emphasis mine):

I'm a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people - mainly from America's Bible Belt - who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven't got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God."

(Source: Meacham, Steve. "The Shed Where God Died". Sydney Morning Herald. 13 December 2003.)

"I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief..."

(Source: Wartofsky, Alona. The Last Word. Washington Post 19 February 2001)

Given the above, my objections remain, even if Harry Forbes and John Mulderig say that the film, taken by itself, may be O.K.

Even if that is true (and I haven't seen the film, so I can't confirm or refute that), two inconvenient problems remain.

The first is that if people of faith pay money to see this movie, they will be enriching a man who is willfully seeking to undermine the faith in which they are trying to raise their children.

The second problem is this: if Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Lord of the Rings are any indication, a well-made fantasy movie will generate interest in the book on which it is based, which means that the film cannot be taken by itself by forward-thinking parents and teachers.

And that, as Forrest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that.




__________________________
*Related: Reasons to avoid Birth Control Pills and other forms of artificial hormonal contraception.

Intelligence and Confusion

"Vanity working on a weak head, produces every sort of mischief."

Mr. Knightley, Jane Austen's Emma

I tell my students that asking questions when they are confused is a sign of intelligence.

Let me explain that.

Two possible things happen when people are confused: they recognize the confusion, or they do not. The ones who do not tend to forget whatever it was that confused them. So, for instance, a student may read the assigned chapter for homework, but he won't remember a thing---and he probably won't wonder why. He'll just assume he doesn't remember things he reads very well, when the real problem is that his reading comprehension skills are not at th level he needs to understand the text.

Those whose conscious minds do in fact register confusion tend to react to it in one of two ways. The most common response is to say something like, "That's dumb!" (Translation: I don't get it, and I don't feel like finding out why I don't get it, therefore the problem is with the concept, and not with me.)

The other (more intelligent, and generally more practical) response is to ask questions, listen openly, get clarification and *gasp!* resolve the confusion!

Now, speaking for myself as an educator, I have a great deal more respect for people who respond in the latter fashion. I have absolutely no respect for opinions formed based on needlessly ignorant filling in of the blanks, especially when ignorance can be easily fixed with a quick look at reliable publicly available documentation. I get even more annoyed when ignorant filling in of blanks is presented as "fact".


I once heard someone wisely point out that we have two ears and one mouth for a reason. Maybe it has something to do with keeping our feet out of that mouth.

So you can imagine my opinion of what went on recently at The View.

'nuff said.

Nod: Tito

Pushing an agenda through Sacrelige.

A certain "Family planning" institution has begun to distribute an idiotic advertisement featuring guardian angels distributing condoms (naturally to young unmarried couples engaging in meaningless sex). One of them, a flabby, unshaven fellow stuffing chips into his mouth says he "likes to watch". Goody goody.

Naturally, this latest bit of braindead advertising comes from the San Francisco chapter of Planned Parenthood. No surprise that this tripe would come out of the city that gives us the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (Pictured at the left), who make their statements by mocking women who have chosen to dedicate their lives to service, prayer, and celibacy.

Frankly, compared to much of the nonsense that comes from that city, this ad could be called fairly mild.

The Planned Parenthood press release says of the ad, "The ad can create a perfect starting place for a parent/teen conversation on responsible sexual decision-making."

Like maybe a conversation about how some people are so invested in their agendas they don't mind slamming someone's religion.

And maybe another conversation about the idiocy of cheapening things that are supposed to be sacred. Like angels. Or sex. (Yes, sex is sacred. I'd say that's a step above mindless "fun," wouldn't you?)

This would probably be followed by a discussion of the slippery slope of artificial birth control, of the proper place of sex and natural family planning within a marriage, and the merits of chastity, including avoidance of those maladies against which condoms do not protect, such as HPV and Herpes. A discussion of how abstinence and marital fidelity are the only "responsible" sexual decisions.

So yes, it is a starting place.

Read more and see the ad itself at Dawn Patrol.

Additional commentary from Curt Jester.
And more from Catholic Mom.

A Know-Nothing History Lesson

from OhioHistoryCentral.org:

The Know-Nothing Party originated in 1849. Its members strongly opposed immigrants and followers of the Catholic Church. The majority of white Americans followed Protestant faiths. Many of these people feared Catholics because members of this faith followed the teachings of the Pope. The Know-Nothings feared that the Catholics were more loyal to the Pope than to the United States. More radical members of the Know-Nothing Party believed that the Catholics intended to take over the United States of America. The Catholics would then place the nation under the Pope's rule. The Know-Nothing Party intended to prevent Catholics and immigrants from being elected to political offices. Its members also hoped to deny these people jobs in the private sector, arguing that the nation's business owners needed to employ true Americans. The majority of Know-Nothings came from middle and working-class backgrounds. These people feared competition for jobs from immigrants coming to the United States. Critics of this party named it the Know-Nothing Party because it was a secret organization. Its members would not reveal the party's doctrines to non-members. Know-Nothings were to respond to questions about their beliefs with, "I know nothing." The Know-Nothing Party adopted the American Party as its official name in 1854. More...


An infamous Anti-Catholic cartoon by Thomas Nast (1871):

Via Extreme Catholic.Click on the picture for a larger version.

Note that the invading bishops are drawn to resemble alligators, coming to prey on innocent children being shielded by a protestant minister.


Another Nast Masterpiece (also 1871):

2008 Presidential Rat Race: Tancredo & Catholics

A rumor reached me through a commenter that Tom Tancredo may be anti-Catholic. I thought this worth investigation. My conclusion? He is minimally guilty of stupidity and carelessness. I don't have enough evidence at this point to say for sure that he is anti-Catholic. This would require a pattern, and there's not enough data here for that.

The heart of this controversy, at least according to some of the other blogs out there is a brief conversation on the July 19 edition of "Today's Issues", a conservative Christian talk show on American Family Radio. Tancredo has been critical of statements from the American Catholic Bishops on immigration policy. The bishops have expressed disappointment with several of the proposed solutions to the question of illegal immigration. A caller suggested that their perspective is part of a sinister conspiracy for the Church to take over the country. Here's the section of the conversation that is generating discussions:


CALLER, "LORETTA FROM TENNESSEE": First off, there's a church that says to its judges, if you have to choose between the church and the Constitution, choose the church. Secondly, there is a document, it must be available because I got it. I think was written by Pope Leo the Twelfth, the Fifteenth. I can never get those roman numerals right. And the document is entitled 'Making America Catholic.' There is another thing, this is the first time in US history that we have had a majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court. And I think the immigration issue may be more of getting immigrants into this country to present a bloc of voters that are voting one way from that standpoint. It's just a thought. (...)

TANCREDO: The caller does bring up an interesting point in terms of the enormous power and prestige of the Catholic Church in this debate. They are very, very heavily involved in the open borders movement.

FEMALE CO-HOST: Really?

TANCREDO: Oh, yes m'am. The National Council of Bishops have written extensively on this. They have certainly attacked me and a lot of others who want to secure the borders. A lot of motives have been ascribed to them. I can't speak to it. I was raised a Catholic, spent 12 years in Catholic schools. I'm an evangelical Presbyterian today. So i can't really speak to the motivation of the church. But the lady does have a point about the church's involvement. Also, the Mormon Church is heavily involved in the issue. Heavily, heavily supportive of open borders.


The transcript doesn't show it, but before Tancredo responds, the provide an almost musical chorus of hmming and ooing and ahhing over the caller's interesting statements. (You can listen to the whole show by opening this link in windows media player, or another program that handles .wma files. The interview begins about 12 minutes into the show. Listener calls begin about 41 minutes into the show.)

Now, the idea that the Church uses immigration to take over the country is an old one, going back a long way the US's relatively short history. It is clear that the caller subscribes to this. Tancredo, in saying that she has a point is at the very least making a rather dangerous political error.

But, is he Anti-Catholic? I'm not ready to make up my mind yet. I'd certainly say he put his foot in it though.

I will say this though: If the Catholic Church is as powerful as the conspiracy theorists think, and if it is really determined to do an organized takeover of the U.S, it would have happened already.

Here is what the Bishops have said recently about immigration issues.

As to any documents by Pope Leo the THIRTEENTH, under the title the caller gives, I can find none. At least, not with google anyway. My search did reveal a lot of websites pointing to anti-catholic conspiracy theories such as that which the caller mentions. The Archives at the University of Notre Dame lists the title "Making America Catholic by Order of Pope Pius X - Roman Catholic Principles as defined by Popes, Prelates and Priests" in a list of anti-Catholic publications. Ironically, the caller also comments that this show has some of the most astute listeners she has ever heard, and then presents the existence of this supposed papal documents as FACT. Which means, Miss Loretta from Tennessee, you need to check the authenticity of your sources and facts before you make statements on national radio.


Hat Tips:
Max Blumenthal

BJU Spanish targets Spanish-Speaking Catholics

(Source)

This is not surprising, given the school's reputation for anti-Catholic bigotry and its history of racial prejudice, but still irritating.

The course description for Spanish II (Emphasis mine):

• "Begins with a thorough review of Spanish I with special attention to practical, original communication. Spanish II then continues with an in-depth study of other tenses, moods, and vocabulary with a strong emphasis on written and oral communication as well as oral and reading comprehension. A greater spiritual emphasis is added as students increase their ability to witness through a study of Catholicism and Spanish history. Special emphasis is placed on how to effectively use God’s Word in addressing false doctrine in the Catholic Church."

Compare to the description of French II, and remember that France was historically another Catholic country:

• "Expands on the foundation laid in French I while strengthening the comprehension of the spoken and written language. The text includes a selection of French songs, with a Christian emphasis in each chapter. The oral and reading comprehension sections expose the student to French literature, as well as to the oral dialects of various areas of French-speaking lands throughout the world. Offered on BJ LINC."

You'd think at least their Latin II course would include ways to combat Catholicism, but I guess they have some reason they'd prefer not to debate Catholicism and scripture with people who study Latin. That course description as follows:

• Latin II Builds on vocabulary and grammatical elements taught in Latin I. Places an emphasis on translation skills. Introduces the subjunctive mood and case uses.

A quick search of the course catalog reveals that the Spanish II description is the only place in the entire document where the word "Catholic" appears at all.

Now you'd think they'd want to "minister" to Catholics in all language groups, but the writers of the curriculum must believe that Spanish Speaking Catholics are the easiest targets.

_______________________________________
The Bob Jones University course catalog can be found here.
Thanks to Marv Wood who noted this in his comment on Catholic and Enjoying It.

I was raised to be charming, not sincere!

Though Edwards is personally offended by the previous public actions of certain employees, he isn't going to do a thing about it. Either he has no spine, or no sincerity. Either way, not a good thing for his candidacy.

Some insight can be gained by going to his website and reading some of the comments posted by people who support his decision to continue employing them. The people who support him are just like the two he has hired. Surprise, surprise. But, he knows that isn't enough to get him elected, and so hopes to placate the rest of us with his "apology" while retaining his base.

On that note, check out this mock entry from "The Edwards Diaries"

Helloooo Handsome!

Oy, these meshuggina bloggers. Boy did they make the past few news cycles fercockt. Made me look weak. They made me look ridiculous. And a man in my position can’t afford to look ridiculous!

Oh, dear Diary, even quoting the Godfather movies can’t lift my spirits. Because of the hissy-fit those bloggers threw, I had to keep those girls and their crazy chazerei on the campaign bus for the time being. I’ll bide my time, but I can’t fool you. You know it stings. These girls aren’t reflective of what’s in my heart. I’m respectful, the son of a humble mill-worker. We didn’t have enough money to afford shoes, but we had values. We feared God, and we respected other people who feared God. That’s why I’m going to toss these harpies under the campaign bus at an appropriate time and then run them over. And then I’ll back the bus up over them. Rinse, lather and repeat as they say.

Which reminds me, my hair is looking outstanding today. It’s the small pleasures that keep you going when you’ve dedicated your life to serving your country.

Read the rest here. It's a riot.

For the origins of the title of this post, click here.

Double Standards in the Vanity Fair

So the Catholic League is upset at something controversial, though not surprising. John Leftwards has hired two women who express strong anti-catholic sentiments on their blogs. One claims she is not an anti-catholic bigot, saying she has a degree from a Catholic University, and voted for a Catholic in the last election. I hate to tell her that if his political standings are any indication, the candidate she voted for is Catholic in name only. Besides, isn't that what everyone says when trying to prove they aren't prejudiced? "Oh I have friends who are___________" (Fill in the blank with just about anything)

The trouble is, these women accuse Catholic teaching, especially on matters of homosexuality and contraception of being homophobic and misogynistic, on top of being antiquated and ignorant. Ladies, nobody appreciates being called ignorant and bigoted. You wouldn't take that lying down if we said it about you. (And we could, considering you obviously don't have a clue about where church teachings come from, despite your Loyola Degree). Don't expect us to either. The first amendment allows you to say whatever you want on your blog, in whatever manner. It also allows the Catholic League to voice its opinions to John Edwards. What he does with that is up to him, depending on how he wishes to present himself. That's his constitutional right to freedom of association, among other things.

These ladies and their supporters in the blogosphere are now accusing the "Catholic Right" of trying to suppress their speech. They can say whatever they want. But, if you hold an unpopular opinion, which you voice unashamedly in public, you can't expect a political candidate who seriously wants to get elected to keep you on his staff. When you work for a candidate, you represent him, you come under the same level of public scrutiny he does, and he wants us to think he will represent us, if elected.

Though, personally, I never expected him to do so in the first place.