Thinkin’bout Stuff

It’s a good start:

From The Seeker, Chicago Tribune June 3 - Cardinal Francis George today asked Rev. Michael Pfleger, the embattled pastor of St. Sabina Catholic Church, to take a temporary leave of absence and contemplate his controversial remarks from the pulpit that surfaced on the Internet this past week.

Perhaps the reprimand was private, as it should be.  Perhaps a brief leave of absence is a precursor to a reassignment.  I’m certain many in his parish will be upset with a decision to reassign Pfleger, but that is frankly irrelevant.  No priest in the Catholic Church is greater than the Church; from what I have read, it appears that the focal point over the years in this parish has become Pfleger instead of Jesus, and that is unacceptable.  Cardinal George is right to ask Pfleger to reflect on his recent actions:

“Fr. Pfleger does not believe this to be the right step at this time,” he continued. “While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the Church’s regulations for all Catholic priests. I hope that this period will also be a time away from the public spotlight and for rest and attention to family concerns.”

The fact that Pfleger does not see the wisdom and compassion of the Cardinal’s decision is evidence that he needs to reassess his role as a Catholic Priest and decide if he is wearing the collar to follow in Christ’s footsteps or to step into the footlights.

If he chooses to continue as a Catholic Priest, he still needs to be transferred away from temptation, away from the show, to some place that will allow him to humbly serve God and re-earn the title of Father. 

Update: I just jumped over to Bottom Line Up Front and learned that Pfleger (I’m sorry, I will not use his title) supports abortion… ummm.. he’s a Catholic priest, or plays one on TV anyway, I agree with Amy, he should already have been excommunicated.

Reverend Michael Louis Pfleger is an embarrassment to the Catholic Church, he should be publicly reprimanded for his most recent racist outburst and transferred immediately to another parish.  He has been the pastor of Saint Sabina Catholic Church since 1981, a long time in one place for a priest, and it is clearly time for him to be moved to an assignment where he can try to find his faith because it is clear he has lost his way. 

His behavior is not Christ-like in any way, denigrating Hillary Clinton, fanning the flames of racism, feeding off the negative energy of a crowd all too willing to set aside Jesus’ teachings in Jesus’ house and laugh and cheer as this supposed leader tossed the first stone and mocked Hillary Clinton from the altar. 

HOW DARE YOU!!!!   You, Michael Pfleger, are a disgrace, your behavior should be condemned by our Church leadership and you need to be moved to an assignment where you can do no further harm.

I don’t know what else to say… I am ashamed that you hold the title of “Father” and are so publicly representing my Church in such a non-Christian, evil way.

One has to wonder… how many of Obama’s friends are racists and are we to believe that he really had no clue?  Birds of a feather….

Wow!  What a temptation:

AP  2/5/2008 - …  The process aims to create healthy embryos for couples to avoid passing on genes carrying diseases.

The genes being replaced are the mitochondria, a cell’s energy source, which are contained outside the nucleus in a normal female egg. Mistakes in the mitochondria’s genetic code can result in serious diseases like muscular dystrophy, epilepsy, strokes and mental retardation.

Imagine… the potential to wipe out genetic disorders. This would be to our generation what vaccines and antibiotics were to prior generations.

There it is… right there… take it…

The temptation is incredible; maybe it really is the right thing to do.  But the method just doesn’t seem right:

British scientists say they have created human embryos containing DNA from two women and a man in a procedure that researchers hope might be used one day to produce embryos free of inherited diseases.

Though the preliminary research has raised concerns about the possibility of genetically modified babies, the scientists say that the embryos are still only primarily the product of one man and one woman.

“We are not trying to alter genes, we’re just trying to swap a small proportion of the bad ones for some good ones,” said Patrick Chinnery, a professor of neurogenetics at Newcastle University involved in the research.

This is a tough one.  We are “creating” babies that will be free of inherited diseases.  We are “creating” babies…  creating babies…  should we be creating babies? With DNA from two women mixed in a test tube with DNA from one man? Just don’t seem right… then again… a cure for genetic disorders?

What if the improvement to the genetic make-up of the embryo meant mixing DNA from one woman, one man, and a frog? Would that be OK?  Where’s the line?

Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should… but the temptation is incredible, it really is…

Today was somewhat surreal, starting off with me finding myself in the middle of a school lock-down, then taking a complete one-eighty when I stayed around to experience a performance by Jesse Manibusan.

The day started out pretty normal. Took a vacation day to help out the local church/school set up for a weekend with Jesse; loaded up the van with the PA, speakers, etc.; was half-way to the church/school when I received a call indicating the school was in lock-down because a vo-tech school two blocks away was being searched after an anonymous tip of a student with a gun.

So I did what any other guy would do when he heard the place he was heading towards was in lock-down because of a gun… I kept heading to the school. (yeah.. not too bright)

Upon arrival, I met with the principal and we agreed to move the concert from the church (with all it’s windows and doors) to the school gym (concrete walls, no windows, one exterior door)… seemed like the right move.

Well, it turned out to be a great move! We set up for Jesse at center court, just about 20 feet from the bleachers which were later filled with 9 grades of excited kids. Throughout the concert, Jesse called up groups of kids to help lead the singing, which I believe was much more effective in the gym than it would have been in church. 

About ten minutes before the show started, the lock-down was cancelled. Thankfully no gun had been found, but that did not change the fact that, for about 3 hours, this little school of about 300 students was operating under a cloud of concern (I didn’t sense fear) as they waited to hear if there was a gunman in the area.

Originally I planned to help set up, make sure the sound was set, then leave because I had an appointment at the vet for my dog, but I couldn’t leave. Not because of a lock down… that was over.

Seeing these children praising the Lord with this teddy bear of a man, Jesse Mannibusan, leading them down a path of Faith through music, prayer and laughter… perhaps it was the acoustics in that gym, but these 300 children were singing and cheering and clapping so loud it sounded like we were in a major concert arena filled to capacity with 50,000 screaming fans. All in spite of the lock-down which could have easily sapped the life out of this event, especially after the tragedy of V-Tech just a few days ago. This was a truly moving, inspirational experience.

If you EVER have an opportunity to see this man in person, jump at the chance. You will be glad you did.

Well, it is certainly refreshing to learn that Senator Reid believes that we should factor in the words of Pope Benedict when forming US policy:

U.S. Newswire: “As we open the third work period of the year, Pope Benedict’s words weigh on my mind — and I hope that we will honor them as we continue to work in a bipartisan manner to address that suffering by moving America in a new direction at home and abroad.”

Reid was referring to Pope Benedict’s Easter comments:

“How many wounds — how much suffering there is in the world,” he said. “Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.”

The pope did not say the US was slaughtering; the pope did not say leaving Iraq to the thugs would solve the problem; the Pope said Iraq is torn apart by the continual slaughter. Reid’s convenient interpretation is that the pope wants the US out of Iraq.

Well senator, since you are so influenced by the pope’s words and so willing to form US policy based upon your interpretation of his words, her are a few more you should keep in mind:

LifeNews.com: “As far as abortion is concerned, it’s part of the fifth, not the sixth, commandment: ‘You shall not kill,” the pontiff explained.

“We have to presume this is obvious and always stress that the human person begins in the mother’s womb and remains a human person until his or her last breath,” he said.

Catholic News Service: Abortion is a crime of aggression not only against the unborn, but also against society, Pope Benedict XVI said.
“Children have the right to be born and to grow in the midst of a family founded on matrimony, where the parents are the first educators of children in the faith and where they can grow to full human and spiritual maturity,”

Moldova.org: Pope Benedict XVI has denounced terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons and has described hunger, abortion, experimentation on human embryos and euthanasia as “an attack on peace”.

The pope’s views are expressed in a message marking the Church’s January 1 World Day of Peace, which was published by the Vatican on Tuesday.
“The duty to respect the dignity of each human being, in whose nature the image of the Creator is reflected, means in consequence that the person can not be disposed of at will,” the pope writes.

“As far as the right to life is concerned, we must denounce its widespread violation in our society: alongside the victims of armed conflicts, terrorism and the different forms of violence, there are the silent deaths caused by hunger, abortion, experimentation on human embryos and euthanasia.

“How can we fail to see in all this an attack on peace? Abortion and embryonic experimentation constitute a direct denial of that attitude of acceptance of others which is indispensable for establishing lasting relationships of peace.”

There you go senator… now that we know how much you look to Pope Benedict for guidance, looking forward to your support in the fight to rescind Roe v. Wade, ensuring marriage is between a man and a woman, and preventing experimentation on human embryos.

By now you’ve likely read and/or heard about the issue of Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis refusing to accept passengers who have unopened bottles of alcohol in their possession.

This situation earned national media attention because Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is proposing significant penalties, including the possible suspension of airport taxi license, for offending cabbies.

From Yahoo/AP: “Our expectation is that if you’re going to be driving a taxi at the airport, you need to provide service to anybody who wants it,” commission spokesman Patrick Hogan said.

Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport. Airport officials say that in recent months, the problem of service refusals for religious reasons has grown. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim.

But Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the state, said asking Muslims to transport alcohol “is a violation of their faith. Muslims do not consume, carry, sell or buy alcohol, and Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean, he said.

But many Somali taxi drivers don’t have a problem transporting passengers with alcohol and are worried about a backlash, said Omar Jamal, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center. Jamal said he supports the tougher penalties.

“We tell the taxi drivers, if you don’t want to do this, change your job,” he said. “You are living in a country where alcohol is not viewed the way it is in your country.”

While the debate here is about religious rights of the cabbies vs. a requirement to not discriminate against any passenger (except where a potential threat or dangerous situation is involved), I believe there is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed:

• To what extent do we accommodate the religious “rights” of any group?

The answer that probably comes to mind right away is that each individual has a right to practice their faith and follow the tenets of their religion as long as there is no direct violation of a law (for example, human sacrifice would be a no-no).

But, what if exercising your rights infringes upon my rights? I like to view things in terms of concentric circles of authority and influence. The inner most circle represents those things fully within my control; the next circle represents those things over which I have direct influence; the next are the things I can indirectly influence, and anything outside of these circles is none of my damn business.

In terms of religion I would break it down as follows:

• Inner circle (control): I can choose to go to church on Sunday or stay home
• Next circle (direct influence): I can teach my children about their faith, initially drag them to church, hope something clicks and they keep going as adults
• Final circle (indirect influence): I can write here that I think you should go to church too… I have no control, no direct influence, but I’ve offered a suggestion based upon my opinion or belief that you may or may not act upon
• Outside the circles (none of my damn business): Whether you actually go to church or not.  Notice how indirect influence in this case comes very close to none of my damn business

The concern here is that some Muslims seem to feel they have a right to pull others into their circle of influence. At the extreme, if you do not convert, they chop off your head. In the case of the taxi drivers, they are exerting somewhere between direct and indirect influence. If you are forced to choose between ditching the alcohol (or your dog) or being forced to find some other means of transportation home from the airport, the cabbies rights have been given priority over your rights. This choice would not be necessary except for the apparent belief that their sphere of influence includes you.

Where does this end? How much accommodation is reasonable for any religion? A separate prayer room at the airport for Muslims because they will not worship next to a Jew or Christian perhaps? Muslims refusing to have their faces uncovered on photo licenses? Restricting the sale of alcoholic beverages within a defined radius of a mosque? How about restricting the placement of Planned Parenthood locations so that there is not a line of sight to any Catholic church?

Even in the narrow view of the issue, focusing specifically on the job of taxi driver, is it OK for a Christian cabbie to refuse to drive people to Planned Parenthood? What if Jewish cabbies decided that they will not drive people to non-Kosher restaurants? How long would these folks have jobs?

Maybe it would not be made an issue by customers because there would be other cabs available. But what if the majority of cabbies in a given town were anti-gay, claimed it was based upon their religious beliefs, and refused to pick up homosexuals? This would be a clear infringement on the rights of homosexuals, but what are we to do, we can’t force cabbies to pick up homosexuals if it violates their religious beliefs, can we?

Of course not, but we can point out the consequences of their decisions. You do not have to pick up fares that you feel are in conflict with your beliefs, but you also do not have to collect a paycheck for refusing to do your job.

If your religion requires you be home before dark, don’t apply for a job as a night watchman; and if your religion requires that you discriminate against certain customers, perhaps you shouldn’t be driving a cab.

But the bigger issue is that it appears that we are introducing a new concept into the interpretation of Religious rights and freedoms in this country: the expansion of the sphere of influence of a group to include those who do not share the same beliefs under the guise of an individual’s right to religious freedom. This is a dangerous precedent that could lead to preferential treatment of one religion over another based upon the assertion that anything that is in conflict with their belief violates their freedom sufficiently to require that your freedom be abridged.

Will this ever happen? Not likely… but I also never thought I’d hear about public school students being taught about the Koran after 9/11 in some schools while the Bible is forbidden.

The culture war that Bill O’Reilly discusses on Fox News and in his book “Culture Warrior”  (which I have yet to read… but will) has apparently claimed another victim:

Yahoo/AP: Man sets self aflame in Calif. protest — A man used flammable liquid to light himself on fire, apparently to protest a San Joaquin Valley school district’s decision to change the names of winter and spring breaks to Christmas and Easter vacation.

In all likelihood, this poor man was already mentally ill and the “protest” was more about him than it was about the school district’s decision.

The headline & article would have us believe that he was so distraught over winter and spring breaks being renamed Christmas and Easter vacation that he was driven to light himself on fire to draw attention to this grave injustice, sacrificing himself for the good of mankind, saving us all from those who would violate freedoms afforded to us by the United States Constitution, blah, blah, blah…

Come on… do we really think this was a legitimate protest? The man is sick and needs help.  This isn’t like some poor soul using self-emulation to draw attention to genocide in Darfur… this is about naming winter and spring break after the holidays that, not coincidently, give us the reason for a winter and spring break.

Thankfully, this man appears to have been saved from himself, at least for the moment:

Flames were devouring a Christmas tree next to the Liberty Bell, where public events and demonstrations are common. Beside the tree the man stood with an American flag draped around his shoulders and a red gas can over his head.

Seeing the deputy, the man poured the liquid over his head. He quickly burst into flames when the fumes from the gas met the flames from the tree. The deputy ordered the man to drop to the ground as he and a parole agent sprayed him with fire extinguishers.

The man suffered first degree burns on his shoulders and arms, Milam said.

Hopefully he will get the help he needs, but the “war” goes on and the battle lines have become more defined as those of us who believe in freedom OF religion (as opposed to freedom FROM religion) have started to say “enough” and stand up for our rights.

Until now, this was a one-sided war of attrition; perhaps it would have continued along that path had it not been for some extreme radicals on the Left, with a great deal of arrogant condescension bolstered by a string of victories handed to them by a left-leaning activist judiciary cheered on by a left-leaning media, attacking the very root of beliefs held dear by the vast majority of Americans.

Just as 9/11 signaled the “start” of a war with Islamic Fascists that had actually been going on for years before we felt compelled to defend ourselves, so did these attacks on the Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas, and the Boy Scouts finally shine a spotlight on how far the original intent of the Constitution had been distorted to suit the needs of a group of anti-religious bigots, wrapping themselves in the American flag while cutting through the very roots of this great nation.

This distortion has gone on for so long, many Americans have just assumed that what they hear in the media is true: The 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects us from even a hint any government acknowledgement of religion. Once something is assumed to be true, once a belief, however wrong, becomes ubiquitous, it is nearly impossible to correct; but it is crucial that we reverse this erosion of our foundation or suffer the consequences.

Here is the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That’s it… that’s the whole thing, reprinted here in its entirety. Take some time and read through it, understand it, apply it to the ongoing debate…

Now, tell me where it says anything about preventing any and all references to religion in public settings.

Oh… we certainly hear a lot about “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion” with distorted interpretations telling us that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with that terribly inflammatory phrase “One Nation, Under God” is violating people’s rights under the 1st Amendment…. but it says no such thing, now does it.

What we rarely hear about these days is “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, which means that, no matter where I am, whether it be in a school, in a court room, on public land, or standing in the middle of a field, the US Congress can not stop me from free exercise of my religion, period.

Somehow all of this has been interpreted to mean that “holiday” displays can have a “Christmas Tree” (which of course has virtually nothing to do with Christmas), a Menorah, or any number of other symbols as long as there is no recognition of Christ in the display.  In other words, as long as you are not a Christian, you’re freedoms are protected by the 1st Amendment. The argument the Left makes is that we can exercise our religion on private property and the privacy of our own homes… is that what the 1st Amendment intended?

Many point to President Jefferson as a guide to interpreting the 1st Amendment, with the belief that his words help to define the original intent. In Newt Gingrich’s speech to the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications, he reminds us of the following:

We then take you to the Jefferson Memorial, Jefferson often being cited as the president who was the most interested in secularism, remember he wrote the Danbury Baptists and said: We need a wall of separation between Church and state.  What no one will tell you is what he meant by that is this should not be an official state religion.  He clearly did not mean that you could not have God in public because two days after he wrote that letter he went out front of the Whitehouse, got in a carriage, road up the hill to the Capitol, and went to church in the US House which served as a church until the 1860’s. He also loaned the treasury building every Sunday as a church.

And if you go to the Jefferson Memorial he says around the very top of it: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the minds of man”.  Now you can ask your secular friends what do you think Jefferson meant by “I have sworn upon the altar of God’, but it’s fairly difficult for them to explain that he meant large purple banana or some other deeply symbolic meaning.  It’s quite clear if you read Jefferson’s writings in total, they meant God.

Sounds to me like Jefferson believed religion and government were not mutually exclusive. 

Folks, it is time for us to return to the values and principles that this nation was built upon. The Constitution is just as relevant today as it was 200 years ago, and we must resist those who distort its meaning to thrust their own agenda upon us with the ultimate goal of molding us into a purely secular society.