Conflict and Violence

Evil Cannot Always Be

Shamed Into Submission...

Insanity Cannot Always Be

Reasoned Into Compliance...

It Isn't "Peace" That Stops Chaos

Peace, Is The Result Of What Happens When Chaos Is Contained

There Might Be Circumstances When A

Double Negative Is Necessary

And The Only Alternative By Which To Make A Positive

rsg 4/16/09

Fairness In The Media:

I would be very interested in reviewing any empirical evidence that many in the Liberal Media (I.e. Beaver County Times Editorial Board – "Terrorists Within" 4/8/09 & JD Prose 4/12/09) have with clearly linking Poplawski's horrible crimes to the influence from the "far right" (whatever that is exactly) talk radio and "faux news" outlets. Their opinion may well be singularly tragic and overt leap in logic that intentionally serves only to advance their own political ideology and agenda. Recall that there are MANY faithful and life-long liberals in Pittsburgh/Allegheny County who were fearful of what might happen to their Second Amendment rights, were Barak Obama to be elected. Indeed you will recall that Beaver and Washington County (solid historical Democratic Party bastions) were won by McCain in this last Presidential election.

Without evidence, their conjecture that it was the "hateful" speech from the "far-right" that goaded Poplawski might not be true at all. Could it be rather, that they might be capitalizing on that terrible event to advance their own Political bias? Unfortunately, I really cannot say for sure because I don't have any evidence, my comments I freely confess, are nothing more than "conjecture."

By Way of Example: With an astounding, almost apples to apples and oranges to oranges, macabre-sort-of-irony, these same Liberal Media Outlets refused to offer a similar critique of those supporters (ostensibly from the "Far-Left") of Lovelle Mixon. The supporters of Mixon openly paraded and celebrated in the streets - the deaths of three police officers and fourth one grievously wounded, by the hand of Mixon, in Oakland California, Saturday March 21, 2009. Mixon's weapons of choice were a handgun and an assault rifle. It is worth noting that Mixon was in violation of his parole, had an "extensive criminal history." His killing and wounding police officers is one thing, but for the Liberal Elite Media to offer virtually no commentary in response to those who celebrated his actions is truly appalling. Why were those "celebrants" who were arguably from the "Far-Left" not implicated at all? If the "Far-Right" is responsible for contributing to Poplawski's demonic actions, then can the same argument be made against the "Far-Left" with Mixon's? And if so, where is the balance within the Elite Media? Something to think about…

Rich Grassel

What Should The Individual Christian And Church’s Role Be Regarding Abortion? Thoughts? Comments Responses?

April 6, 2009
Notre Dame's betrayal of faith

By Selwyn Duke

When John the Baptist said to King Herod, "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife," the price he paid was his head on a platter. He had spoken Absolute Truth to power in a time when power was absolute. It was the bravest of acts, the kind only undertaken by those very rare men for all seasons.

Lying in stark contrast to this is catholic (note the small "c") Notre Dame University's genuflection before Barack Obama, a man embodying the very antithesis of Catholic teaching. As most are aware, the university extended an invitation to Obama to deliver a commencement address and, to make matters worse, will bestow upon him an honorary doctorate.

This is despite the fact that Obama has distinguished himself as the most militantly anti-life president in American history. In fact, his support of abortion extends to the point of infanticide, and I speak of his, at best, indifference to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In opposing the Illinois version of this legislation — thereby signaling his willingness to allow newborn babies to die in soiled store rooms — he showed his true colors. That is to say, it's not so much that the matter of when a baby gets human rights is above his pay grade; it's that he is morally degraded.

Adding to his impressive pro-death resume, Obama has rescinded the Mexico City Policy, thereby allowing our tax money to be used to promote abortion in foreign lands. He is also using tax dollars to fund the harvesting of stem cells from nascent human life. And he endeavors to establish a policy that would force health-care workers to either be party to abortion or risk losing their jobs ("Freedom of Choice" Act).

But it isn't just on life issues that Obama is found wanting. He also supports special rights for homosexuals (euphemistically called "gay rights"). Additionally, he apparently was a member of Chicago's socialist New Party in the 1990s, an association he has never adequately disowned. This is relevant because socialism seems incongruent with Catholic teaching. As Pope Pius XI said plainly in 1931, "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." (In fact, the Church has long condemned socialism — here and here, for instance).

Yet the inappropriateness of honoring Obama at Notre Dame doesn't have to be inferred from pronouncements from the past. Contemporary Church leaders have made their voices heard as well, with 13 bishops publicly criticizing the invitation. Among them is Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, who said,

"For President Obama to be honored by Notre Dame is more than a disappointment, it is a scandal."

Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark said,

"When we extend honors to people who do not share our respect and reverence for life in all stages, and give them a prominent stage in our parishes, schools and other institutions, we unfortunately create the perception that we endorse their public positions on these issues."

Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City wrote,

"Catholic institutions of higher learning must always be places where the Catholic values we hold so dearly will always be supported and promoted — not where the culture of death is allowed to be honored or valued."

And, in a letter to Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis called the invitation an "egregious decision" and said,

"It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician."

Now, here some will say that Jesus was also criticized for consorting with sinners and responded with that heavenly wisdom, "The healthy are in no need of a physician." Yet this isn't an analogous situation. More appropriate here is, "The unhealthy are in no need of a podium." I would have no problem with anyone offering Obama counsel — he could certainly use it. I myself would be happy to talk with him if he asked; maybe I could muster shades of John the Baptist. But what Notre Dame is doing is quite different: It is honoring Obama by bestowing a doctorate upon him. Additionally, it is not giving him an opportunity to receive counsel but a forum in which to dispense it — and to malleable young minds at that.

Then there are those, such as the writers of this silly Los Angeles Times editorial, who accuse those on my side of hypocrisy, saying we were silent when pro-death penalty George W. Bush spoke at Notre Dame in 2001. Well, let's examine this.

First, I think I speak for many when I say that Obama is objectionable not just because of his profound lack of respect for life. From his apparent socialism (and I believe communism) to his support of "age-appropriate" sex education for kindergarteners to his opposition to California's Proposition 8, he has served notice that he is pushing a hard-left agenda (which I documented here) that certainly violates the letter and spirit of Catholic teaching.

Second, there is no equivalency between abortion and the death penalty or, for that matter, what is supposedly President Bush's mortal sin, launching military campaigns. The Church teaches that while capital punishment is hardly ever necessary in modern societies, it nevertheless is the right of "legitimate temporal authorities" to determine when it is justifiable. The Church also promulgates something called "Just War Doctrine."

There is no Just Abortion Doctrine.

Unlike capital punishment and war, direct abortion is never morally licit under any circumstances.

Having said this, there is a deeper issue to address. We're all sinners, and we could probably pick any president and find ways in which he violated Catholic teaching. And what about academic freedom? As the L.A. Times opined, the issue at Notre Dame is "whether a distinguished university should ban a speaker with whom it disagrees or engage him . . ." and that all universities "sometimes need to be reminded of the importance of uninhibited debate."

But the university isn't "engaging" Obama; it is giving him a forum in which to speak unopposed. There will be no debate. Of course, I realize that when the editorialists speak of "uninhibited debate," they refer to a general climate of academic inquiry and give-and-take fostered over time by exposure to different ideas. But while this sounds good, it's nonsense.

While leftists can pontificate all they like about "academic freedom," they draw lines like anyone else. Would they hire a professor or schedule a speaker who would advocate the extermination of a minority? If not, why? I mean, whomever they chose will be a sinner, and do not judge lest ye be judged, right? And, would they entertain a debate about the reinstitution of slavery or whether or not germs really cause disease? How about trephination (drilling a hole in someone's head) as a solution to mental illness?

The point is that our gratuitous talk about "open-mindedness" is mere sloganeering, because we all consider certain issues to be settled. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." A child cannot advance in math if he won't accept simple truths such as two plus two equals four, and science would never have ascended from a childlike state of primitiveness had man not accepted and then built upon simple scientific truths. We might have debated Aristotle's geocentrism versus Copernicus' heliocentrism in 1600, but if we had still been wrangling over it in 1910, we would have been insane. Perpetual open-mindedness in all matters is not a virtue because it isn't "mindedness" at all; it is the trumping of the mind. The mind is there to find answers, not just ask questions.

And moral truths should be treated with at least the respect of scientific ones. Of course, "open-minded" secularists will be quick to point out that morality isn't science, and I'll be even quicker to say they're hypocrites. I reiterate that they draw their lines (slavery, racism, sexism, extermination of minorities, etc.), proving that their relativistic creed is mainly for use on other people's values. They have their dogma, just like everyone else.

But, leftists, here is a newsflash: This isn't about your dogma — it concerns Catholic dogma. You have your values — twisted and distorted though they may be — and you're very self-centered to believe they should prevail in a Catholic setting. Not everyone is as numb to morality as you are, and believing Catholics understand that many matters you're confused about are actually settled issues. We also understand that, as with science, man cannot progress morally unless he accepts known truths and builds upon them.

The bottom line is that Catholic institutions (if they are to be authentic) have a responsibility to apply Catholic dogma, not the secular variety. They have an obligation to draw Catholic lines, not merely replicate those of the Los Angeles Times. They have a duty to instill students with Catholic teaching, not that of Berkeley. Thus, in such an eminently sane setting abortion isn't a debated issue. It's a settled issue. And Barack Obama isn't just another president. He is way over the line.

Really, this whole affair smacks just a bit of evangelist Billy Graham's obsequious behavior with respect to the Clintons. I'm referring to how he once called them a "great couple" and "wonderful friends," implied that Hillary Clinton might make a good president and once quipped that Bill Clinton "should be an evangelist" and "leave his wife to run the country." Ah, Rev. Graham, "if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way . . . ."

We should remember that since every age has its Herods, we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions. Would recognize one if we saw him? And, then, would we have the faith and strength to be a John the Baptist?

© Selwyn Duke

Reading, Studying and Community – An Online Conversation About Faith and Life

Searcher: Rich, Thanks for your comment on my blog! did you get my reply ?

Searcher: I am reading "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them" by Robert Wilken

Rich: Cool... I bet that is interesting... I love the cultural stuff! LOVE IT!!!

Searcher: That is certainly new territory for me. It is interesting. I haven't done much reading that has to do with strictly biblical stuff meanwhile I am reading through Acts also..I will see if the two complement each other.

Rich: Wonderful! My reading range tends to be Biblical, Anthropological, Sociological, Cultural and Theological as well. My teaching in the DCP also pushes me into Humanities, Leadership, Business and Communication as well... it really helps

Searcher: That sounds great... those are my interests as well..I am thinking of exploring philosophy more

Rich: That would be good as well... BUT, while you read all of those kinds of things, you gotta make sure you are grounded to your core

Searcher: yeah...that sounds responsible

Rich: All disciplines are inherently "evangelizing" and "polyannic."

Searcher: Right…

Rich: I know that you probably know all of this, sorry if I sound obvious

Searcher: no it's good to hear...I was talking about accountability

Rich: I just have had a few former students swerve off the path recently... makes me sad... maybe they'll swerve back!

Searcher: Yeah...sometimes I wonder if I am swerving

Rich: Why do you say that?

Searcher: Well...when we have these discussions about politics... especially with some of the stuff I wrote last time... I think to myself... I have formed these opinions just by reading the news by myself and then when I present these ideas a some people I respect disagree with me which is ok

Rich: Question: My sense is that you are still trying to find yourself... your true non-negotiable core... Given where you are... do you find yourself living in such a way that "greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world; or does the world make more significant inroads into who you really are? Who is affecting the other more in a healthy way?

Sent at 11:20 AM on Thursday

[The Following Comments Allude More To The Searcher's Comments In Their Blog]

Rich: Believe it or not, I have experienced the same here to a certain degree... The question for all of us is: Do we get what we get in a balanced fair fashion and how does what we get square with our core values about life and faith? Just so you know... I read or skim three Newspapers a day... all three would fall into the "liberal" category... Recently, I cancelled one and subscribed to a more conservative one. I also subscribed to Newsweek Mag. I watch (normally) the evening news, local and national and then I usually watch Fox - where I get both views... normally... Greta, Hannity and Combs (Combs can be formidable) Bill O'Reilly (he's Right of center) Shepherd Smith (I think he's one of the closest of the unbiased journalists that I have seen so far) whew!

Sent at 11:24 AM on Thursday

Rich: So, I try to get a fairly well rounded view. Again, so that you know... Politically... I grew up in a blue collar home... my father worked for the steel mill.. Earlier in my childhood we had to go on welfare for a short period of time.... I grew up on the bastion of blue collar, liberal of the USA... So all of these things have helped to inform me... Still learning though!

Searcher: Haha....I feel like have oscillated from Conservative...and have swung towards liberal...but I am still trying to find my spot I guess

Rich: One final thought... I have done inner city ministry in the following cities, many numerous times: Wash DC, Philadelphia (Campolo's EAPE Program), Pittsburgh, Chicago, The Bronx in New York City... I just don't want you to think that as a moderate conservative, I have not had some background and experience from the other side.

Searcher: Gotcha....Rich I know that you have the ability to see things from both sides...that is why I respect you...but it is interesting to hear that you have EXPERIENCED things from both sides

Rich: Re: your last post: Given your stage and place in life... and educational discipline... that experience would be normative. You are in a sense, testing what your real core values are and ought to be... which is excellent... If I may... just don't do it alone, in a vacuum or in some worldview socio/political ghetto... You are a wonderfully bright, sensitive person... with REAL ability...

Searcher: so you keep yourself grounded by [being] in a learning community?

Rich: I was just talking with my students yesterday and said to them, that in as much as we "pursue, KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM AND UNDERSTAND" we imitate God. Biblical interpretation as well as "life" interpretation should always been done in "community."

Yes! And people like yourself, have kept me balanced the other way... [One of the functions of community] Because you articulate yourself well... I respect your ability to see "reality" and to represent it well. You are a thinker and I love and respect that about you. Duh... so many "respects" you'd think I could come up with other synonyms! :-)

Searcher: Haha..so I need you...we need each other...I must find people here also...to keep me grounded

Sent at 11:37 AM on Thursday

Rich: I think one of the key dynamics is: "What does truth (reality) look like; and what does love (compassionate implementation) of it look like in this world? How do we strike that balance and/or the dynamic interplay of those things in life? People, because of their wiring and experiences tend to fail on one side or the other... not the healthy tension that is necessary... Remember that the healthy tension, which is so hard, is counter to the Fall (dis-integration) and closer to Shalom (integration - life in its original balanced relationships of all things)...

Searcher: Wow... yeah

Rich: Sort like the Ying Yang thing... [Only in terms of the need for "balance" as a phenomena – NOT an equal balance between good and evil] A concept that our oriental friends devised through natural revelation

Searcher: Haha...I love it "common grace."

Rich: yep!

Searcher: Hahaha.......isn't "common grace" one of the essential teachings of Reformed thought? I mean i learned about common grace at Geneva....that idea is heresy in the fundamentalist places i came from originally?

Sent at 11:45 AM on Thursday

Rich: Sure it is... by I am not sure they would want to take it that far... McGrath would argue, I think, what he calls a kind of "cautious inclusivism" meaning: that JESUS [NOTE; If He Wanted To] works throughout the world, through: the image of God in us, the Law of God written upon our hearts and minds, whatever "truth" that is imbedded in their indigenous religion, Natural Revelation, and His omnipresence to bring people - independently apart from the church into a restorative relationship with Him. That is to say, we cannot know for sure all the ways and means that Christ works in this world to draw people into a saving relationship with Himself. Christ may, IF HE WANTED TO, use the things listed above to save those who have never heard of Him.

Searcher: gotcha

Rich: Some "Cautious Inclusivists" would argue: "Do we REALLY want to place the salvation of the entire world (60 billion historically) into the hands of the institution church? Given that, are we really prepared to say that in the 2,000 year history of the church (this is changing radically now south of the equator) that most of the Elect are from Europe, North America and a few million in South East Asia?

Searcher: I wrestled with this some while I was in Greece...this is what makes me liberal...when constructing a theology on things like this I always like to error on the side of love

Rich: To extend their argument... Historically, the Jacobs that he loved were mostly white Europeans... Hmnnn... and the Esau's that he hated were Africans, Indians, Chinese etc.. Does Jesus work to save them in some way? Without putting a number or percentage to it?

Searcher: I feel as though I must error on one side b/c I cannot know absolute truth [absolutely].

Rich: We encounter these problems when we privilege a single attribute of God over (and sometimes against) all of the other communicable attributes of God.

Searcher: again...tension...balance soverignty....love

Rich: We... We never know exactly how God works right? Yep... Think about it... God is like a Perfect Diamond, each facet representing an attribute of His. No one facet is greater, better, or more important. For the diamond to be perfect all the facets must be represented in some way... Denomination and faith traditions tend to privilege one facet over the others... See now I sound like a social scientist liberal! LOL!

God must be known and experienced by the fullness of who His is, not just one part... If that happens... they you have set the stage potentially for heresy... This does not mean that you won't experience, at times, one part more than another, it just means that the light that comes through the other facets are reflected through the one primarily experienced. [Edited In] The reason why certain facet(s) are privileged more than others by certain faith traditions is because: 1. They tend to resonate with certain personality types and 2. Strong leaders for whom a particular facet works well, tend to privilege that facet for their followers – resulting in those leaders developing a theological system. 3. Certain facet(s) may speak more powerfully during a time of historical need and crisis for the Body of Christ.

Searcher: Wow..this is great stuff so working out common grace takes a lot of experience being close experiencing God

Rich: I enjoyed talking with you... Maybe you are just being kind... sorry if I took too much time. I am going to have to go in a minute! I am supposed to be working on my sermon and thesis today. :-( Yes common grace is more than just a theorethcal proposition, that we give a nod to and then move on... it is work

Searcher: No rich I enjoy talking as well and you did not take to much time discussions like this take me out of the vacuum..and put me in community

Sent at 11:59 AM on Thursday

Searcher: Thanks, Rich. Take care. I will pray that God guides you as you prepare your message. Take care

Rich: Thanks man! Love you brother!