A Disturbing Coincidence

A Libertarian Manifesto- part two

2005-08-29T19:40:00.000-07:00

Thanks to everyone for part one's great responses! I was having some trouble distinguishing between libertarians and conservatives, so I asked JB if he could clarify a few things:

In the first manifesto, I tried to outline, in very general terms, what the Libertarian Party is all about. As with many articles written in general terms, not all of the philosophical and practical differences with other parties were outlined to any great degree. The owner of this blog, being enlightened, has invited me to elaborate more about the actual differences between the parties. That is a large topic, and so in part two I wish to talk about Republicans. For discussion purposes I will fall back on our earlier precedent of using the neo-conservative tag to distinguish them from earlier types of Republicans.

There is a tendency by the modern conservative movement to try and 'swallow' the Libertarians as being a sort of long-lost cousin to themselves, or maybe just wayward stepchildren. Indeed, the question arose as to whether the Libertarians are just impractical Republicans. In other words, would a Libertarian regime devolve into a neo-con Republican Party once the practicalities of government were fully engaged?

In one sense it is easy to sit back and be an arm-chair quarterback. Because the Libertarians have not had, as yet, anything like a presence of numbers in the legislature or executive branch, we can just sit back and criticize the powers that be and say just about anything we want to say. To have this understanding of Libertarians is to misunderstand them by and large.

To avoid a very lengthy article, I will choose a comparison of platforms based upon the principle key of reducing the Federal Government. One of the ways that neo-cons try and absorb the Libertarians is to say that they, too, also have a platform of making government smaller. Regardless of who is saying that, when Libertarians hear a statement to that effect we would approve. Indeed, smaller government is a great credo. The follow-up to that statement is usually "that sounds great, so why do the Republicans do anything BUT make smaller government?" The simple answer is that they have no intentions of making smaller government. They are in the majority in the legislative branch and hold the executive branch, and the government is growing all the time. So, are they lying, or is it the reality of government that it MUST grow regardless of what your platform is?

I maintain that neither is the case. Neo-cons believe that the average citizen is not intelligent enough to avoid using drugs on their own. Therefore growing the Federal Government to maintain the disastrous War on Drugs is logical. It is not enough that local municipalities and States can maintain their own laws on usage, for all of us poor benighted souls would begin guzzling heroin by the gallon the second that Big Brother turned away his eyes. The Libertarian stance is that the citizen has the right to imbibe whatever he/she chooses as long as others are not harmed. There were not more alcoholics after prohibition was lifted because the number of people with addictive personalities is independent of what the Federal Government wants or does not want. The result is that the understanding of the role of Federal Government by neo-cons is in conflict with their platform of reduced government.

Neo-cons tend to believe that the internet should be heavily regulated to get rid of the scourge of pornography and hate speech. The average citizen is once more accused of being too stupid to control what they are interested in reading or showing their children. Again, growth of Federal power is the result. Libertarians maintain that the demands of the marketplace and the 1st amendment have precedence and that all communication mediums should be free of government regulation and interference. The internet is a dangerous place just like the local magazine stand. Parents should be wary of what they expose their children to, and do not need the Feds to tell them what they can see or say or expose their children to. That is the responsibility of the citizenry. Once again the Republicans are in conflict with their own platform.

The neo-cons are also in the habit of wanting to tell other countries how they should govern themselves and what other countries should believe. The Federal Government tries to bribe the international community with money from American taxpayers and then threaten them with it to get what they want. When that does not work, then they will sometimes try to install a government themselves and tell the rest of the world that they are being liberated. Libertarians maintain that if we were to truly live by the principles of freedom, and trade with all comers, eventually the populaces of other countries would want to emulate us. Revolutions cannot come to a people that do not understand or appreciate the values of representative government or a free marketplace. The business end of a gun will not help their understanding of these principles either. The growth of Government to maintain this methodology of bribery and force is obvious, and the burdens on the populace of the US are equally obvious. Where is the platform of smaller government?

The neo-cons will say "wait! We are against a national health care program!" That is valid and does agree with their platform of smaller government. What that does not address is that there is no national health care program, so there is nothing to reduce, but only avoid. There is an attempt at privatizing a small part of Social Security. That is a far cry from eventually totally phasing out Social Security altogether. We have had the occasional tax cut, but that is different from eliminating the graduated income tax and moving to a national sales tax. Federal control of education is also growing, along with ever increasing federal oversight of interstate trade.

Because representative government is based on compromise between conflicting points of view, it is not realistic to assume that electing Libertarians to office would immediately make all of these changes occur at once. (Unless we were able to suddenly take everything at one time, but I do not foresee that either.) Considering the nature of the current government, that would not even be a wise move. What it does mean is that if we were to have the majority, there would be a great deal of movement towards the ends that I have described above. In what would be a fair and judicious manner, the goal of stripping the Federal Government to at least 50% of its current size would be a key element to a Libertarian government.

A Libertarian Manifesto- part one

2005-08-11T15:31:00.000-07:00

In the interest of maintaining a good dialogue, I've decided to ask some guests to post their thoughts. For the first, I have asked JB to provide his take. JB's a Libertarian, and here he explains those ideas:

My good friend Joe has asked me to present, for dialogue purposes, an analysis of Libertarian thought. This is a double edged sword, as I have my own ideas, and those of other LIbertarians are sometimes at odds. The thing about organizing Libertarians is that is much akin to herding cats. How, exactly, does one go about organizing people that are very hard to organize?

That being said, I think that a basic platform is required. The Libertarians are seen as an offshoot of the communist party by the right, and the platform of Attila the Hun by the left. This is probably correct. The Libertarians maintain that the current and popular division of political thought as being left, right or centrist is basically an illusion. If you take a dictator from the far left, like, say, Mao Tse Tung, or one from the fascists, like Mussolini, you still have basically a government controlled economy, political system and public law system. What you have at the end is still a government controlled system that denies the rights and interests of the average individual. The current system wants you to believe that there is such a thing as a liberal party, a non-liberal party and those that wish to seek compromise. According to the National Libertarian Party:

"Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders."

What does this mean?

*It means that the role of the federal government must be limited to defending the nation, our property and our rights. No more, no less.

*It means that I oppose the war in Iraq. When we began killing people to instill a government there the conflict mutated from a war against people that had attacked the US, and became an effort to force them to live like we do. That makes it a war of intervention. The founders did not think that was a good idea at that time, and I maintain that it is not a good idea now. The continual abridgement of our liberties in the "name of safety" is also a very troubling area. Freedom is dangerous to a certain degree, but it is our birthright and is worth keeping. The very controlled and restricted citizenry of the UK is dealing with the terrorist threat, but their success has been no better than our own. Taking our freedoms does not mean that we are taking the freedoms of those that will act outside the law in any case.

*It means the "war on drugs" is just as bogus as well. Prohibition did not work in the 1920's and will not work now. We have now as many people in jail as China, and most of those are non-violent offenders guilty of what is are "victimless" crimes. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent building an infrastructure that has not affected the availability of drugs, but instead has made sure that the prices of these substances remain artificially high. As a result, our legal system is ensuring the success of organized crime. In that sense, big government and big crime are interdependent.

*It means that the massive beauracracies in Washington, such as the Department of Education, Treasury Department and others need to be totally eliminated or slashed back to the point that they make sense. Education, for example, has declined rapidly since in this country since the federal government took the place of local and state boards of education. "Leave No Child Behind" (republican) is arguably the greatest debacle to occur in education to date. Our children were well educated before the Dept. of Education was established (by the democrats). The Treasury Dept. has grown to the point that they have their own branch of law enforcement, and the instituted graduated income tax is bleeding our middle classes dry. The federal government is now claiming the power to regulate virtually every business in the United States, while at the same time spending billions of dollars a year bailing out corporations, banks and railroads that have failed on their own accord. We can do better with our money than that.

*It means that we must allow free trade to flourish in every avenue that it can. The best welfare program a country can have is to allow its citizens to make their own money, and then keep their own money. The fewer restrictions placed on an individual in this endeavor the better. This does not imply a lawless society; however, it does imply that most business regulations are imposed by the local citizenry based upon what they know to be their best interests. The federal government should have very little involvement with business and industry. It means that a national sales tax can pay for a government that has restricted itself to the principles listed above, as all industries and individuals would be paying taxes without the benefit of the huge loopholes in a graduated income tax system.

*It means that we empty our prisons of non-violent offenders (6 out of 10 currently) and we actually enforce our prison sentences on those that would take our property and our lives and our right to live without physical harm. We must demand that criminals be responsible for full restitution for their crimes. We must also demand that we concentrate on the rights of the victims of crimes. Prisons are currently colleges graduating full professionals because of a system that concentrates on the rights of the criminal. This also means that citizens have the right to self defense and the ownership of firearms. Violent criminal actions must be dealt with severely and with certainty.

*It means that the individual decides how and where to live with little interference. We oppose the "radical religious right" as much as the "radical non-religious left." Both are ideologies that wish to tell the individual how they should live their lives and what they should believe. For example, the Libertarian platform states: "Individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question."

This is a condensed version of what the Libertarians hold to be the role of the federal government. A truly Libertarian government would be, admittedly, a radical departure from the current model of government held by the two major parties. I am hoping that from this beginning, a discussion can ensue that will pull us away from bombastic rhetoric and really examine how the major parties are both interested in holding and then expanding the power of the federal government, to the detriment of our civil liberties and our financial well being. Dialogue is welcome on these points as well as those that I have overlooked. I want to thank the greatly enlightened host of this blog for my opportunity to write here, and wish him every success.

An Abuse of Power?

2005-08-02T14:10:00.000-07:00

While reading The Yellow Line yesterday, I came across an interesting article. To summarize, the author points out that President Bush's appointment of John Bolton is unconstitutional.

The relevant passage from the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, says that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." For all the originalists out there, we know that the framers intended this to solve the problem of a sudden vacancy in those posts that require the approval of the Senate. In those days, the senate met for less than half a year, and travel times were considerably longer. Thus, if an ambassador died, or otherwise left office, calling the Senate into session in order to fill the post was nearly impossible. Instead, the president was granted the power to make temporary appointments, with the understanding that the Senate would take up the matter when it next met.

The operative phrase here is "vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate." The UN Ambassador vacancy did not occur during a recess, most certainly not during the current recess. Therefore, according to an originalist reading of the Constitution, the President was obligated to follow the advice and consent of the Senate in naming his ambassador. He did so, and Bolton's nomination failed. If he were to follow the procedure outlined in Article II, President Bush would be required to make another nomination, and so on until the Senate approved.

Instead, Bush acted as if the vacancy occurred during a recess, when it clearly did not. Thus we may conclude that he acted to circumvent his Constitutional obligations. In other words, the Bolton appointment is unconstitutional, and an abuse of power.

Wrong

2005-08-02T13:54:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, President Bush endorsed the teaching of "intelligent design" along with the teaching of evolution. He says he favors teaching intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Wrong.

Perhaps next, to bring some balance, we could teach "crystal energy balancing" along with so-called "physics." Because, you know, physics is just a theory.

So Much for Baby Steps

2005-07-22T07:01:00.000-07:00

From the New York Times:

"The House voted Thursday to extend permanently virtually all the major antiterrorism provisions of the USA Patriot Act after beating back efforts by Democrats and some Republicans to impose new restrictions on the government's power to eavesdrop, conduct secret searches and demand library records."

Fourteen of the sixteen provisions of the Patriot Act were made permanent, meaning that there would be no need for Congress to reconsider them. The two remaining provisions, allowing the government to demand business and library records and conduct roving wiretaps, would be reconsidered in ten years.

Ten years. Are we to assume, then, that the War on Terrorism (tm) is to become a permanent state of affairs?

And there is not much hope that it will change much as it goes to the Senate next. While the Judiciary Committee wants to impose more restrictions, the Intelligence Committee and the Bush administration want even less:

"[A] competing bill passed last month by the intelligence committee would broaden the government's powers by allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to demand records in terrorism investigations without a judge's order and to have sole discretion in monitoring the mail of some terrorism suspects."

The amendment that limited the seizure of business and library records, which I noted earlier, was blocked in committee by Republican leaders. In its stead, Republicans passed their version of "limits":

"Among them was one requiring the F.B.I. director to personally approve demands for library and business records and another placing more limits on the bureau's use of what are called national security letters to demand records without a judge's approval. Under the amendment, anyone receiving such a letter could consult with a lawyer and seek to have a judge throw out the demand if compliance is deemed 'unnecessary or oppressive'."

In the words of the Fourth Amendment, this provision says that it is up to the FBI director- not a judge- to determine probable cause.

And anyone who receives a "national security letter" must seek to have a judge throw out the demand for records. This clearly places the burden of proof on the individual: so much for "innocent until proven guilty."

O)kay, so the Patriot Act disregards the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments (maybe the Seventh and Eighth, too). And yes, there's a War on Terror (tm) which requires that we take some extreme measures. And there are precedents- the Civil War and WWII come to mind- where civil rights have been infringed in the name of national security.

But, as I mentioned before, is there a need to make these changes permanent? Does the Bush Administration expect that its War on Terror (tm) will become a permanent state of being? It must figure that it will last for at least ten more years.

Of course, someone more cynical than I could see this as Republicans, being the party in power, taking advantage of the situation to grab even more power. Either way, the threat to our basic liberties is great, and begs the question: when, exactly, does the greater threat become our own government?

Not Much to Say About Roberts

2005-07-21T08:28:00.000-07:00

In an effort to appease JB, who apparently lives for this sort of thing, here's my somewhat premature take on the Roberts nomination:

First, from what I've read, Judge Roberts appears to be a competent jurist. He's a conservative, but an old-fashioned style conservative, not one of the talk-show conservatives to which JB so loves to listen. He doesn't really have enough of a record to parse, so it's hard to say where his judicial philosophy lies, although he almost certainly has originalist leanings a la Scalia, or Scalia's hand-puppet, Thomas.

The one question that nags me is, why such a lightweight? Of all the names that were floating around, I couldn't find one with less experience on the bench. The one consideration that does shine through Roberts' record is that he is unquestionably loyal, a party man through and through. Of course, his lack of a record may be part of the strategy: with his popularity at an all time low, and a majority of Americans now saying that the President doesn't have their interests at heart, it is doubtful that Bush could win a confirmation fight over someone more controversial. He may be hoping that the Democrats will raise too much of a ruckus.

My guess is that the nomination will go through, unless there is some scandalous revelation or he does himself in like Bork. I imagine he's smarter than that– although he may not have been vetted as thoroughly as the administration would like, given that he was rushed through to take some heat off Rove.

As for what this means for the future of the Court, it's probably anyone's guess. He may, as Bush hopes, be a Republican stalwart like Thomas, or he may be a suprise like Souter.

Hmmm....

2005-07-20T08:36:00.000-07:00

Well, there's a nominee. The President appears to have followed the "Ginsburg precedent" and consulted with Senate leaders from both parties. That's a start, at least, although we'll hear very soon how much "consultation" really went on.

I'm still trying to find out more about Judge Roberts, so I don't have much of an opinion for now. One thing does give me concern: he has only two years experience as a judge, which strikes me as not enough. Ginsburg, by comparison, had thirteen years experience when she was nominated. It's like promoting a file clerk to the Board of Directors.

Because Roberts has so little experience as a judge, the Senate will no doubt spend most of its time looking at his record as a lawyer, which does not bode well for the hearings.

It Takes Two Idiots to Mess Up a Child

2005-07-13T08:29:00.000-07:00

From The New York Post, an exciting taste of a really scary future:

"Santorum's new book, "It Takes a Family," slams Clinton's earlier tome, "It Takes a Village." He blames the former first lady for supposedly weakening the American family by calling in her book for a community to help raise a child.

"It takes a village, Rick, don't forget that," Clinton called out as the two passed in a narrow hallway. "It takes a family," he countered through a veiled smile.

"Of course, a family is part of a village!" she retorted.

Neither stopped moving their feet and the two senators continued walking in opposite directions."

Oooh, high drama. Two potential presidential candidates arguing about what it takes to raise a child. Which side to take? Hilary- whose idea of a village involves lots of nosey neighbors? Or Rick- who thinks that working moms are just being selfish, and that liberal Boston is to blame for pedophile priests?

Talk about a win-win situation...

Before it Gets Ugly

2005-07-11T13:08:00.000-07:00

Before the whole Supreme Court issue gets ugly, I thought I'd throw out a couple of clarifications. I've been watching a lot of news, and (unfortunately) listening to some radio shows on the subject, and it's clear that the Conservative Media Elite are running a full-court press (bad pun intended).

First, let's start with the so-called "Ginsburg Precedent." Right-wingers want to use Clinton's appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a precedent to say that Democrats who fight Bush's appointment would be hypocrites. After all, they claim, Ginsburg, in spite of having been president of the ACLU, sailed through her nomination process because the Republicans played nice. Democrats who fight Bush's nomination are therefore sore losers, or "partisan," or just plain mean. A couple of notes here:

1. Clinton sought the advice of Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican chair of the judicial committee) when looking for a nominee. Hatch suggested Ginsburg to Clinton. In other words, President Clinton worked with the opposition to find a suitable candidate, even going so far as to nominate someone suggested to him by the opposition.

2. While it is true that Gisnburg was president of the ACLU, it is also true that at the time, she had a solid 13-year career on the DC circuit court, and in fact, had sided more with Republican-appointed judges than with those appointed by Democrats. Rather than being the flaming liberal Karl Rove wants her to be, she appears to be a centrist, and this was borne out in her record.

In other words, Bush supporters can't use the "Ginsburg Precedent" unless a) he actively seeks the advice of Senate Democrats, and b) chooses a nominee with an agreeable record.

Second, "Advise and Consent" does not equal "up or down vote," regardless of how much Inept Doctor Frist wants it. The Senate is not required to vote at all: for the most recent Supreme Court precedent, see the Republican filibuster of Johnson's appointment Abe Fortas. For more recent lower court precedents, look at the sixty-some Clinton appointees who never made it out of committee.

Finally, there is no such thing, nor has there ever been such a thing, as a "strict constitutionalist." It's a right-wing shibboleth. Perhaps, if the US Constitution were much longer, there wouldn't be a need for as much interpretation as there has been. Unfortunately, it isn't, meaning that we'll always be stuck with plenty of gray areas requiring our attention.

The real question lies with Bush: given his tendency towards unilateral action, will he break with his own precedent and name someone such as Gonzales, who Democrats have admitted they don't mind, or will he spend capital he doesn't have and name another Bork or Thomas?

More Christian Nutbags

2005-06-17T10:31:00.000-07:00

Pastor Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, who were previously known for protesting at the funerals of AIDS victims, is now protesting at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq.

Apparently, God is killing these soldiers because someone bombed Phelps' church six years ago. Or, God is punishing America for its rampant immorality. Either way, here's a fantastic example of everything Christianity doesn't stand for.

Amen, Brother!

2005-06-17T09:14:00.000-07:00

Former senator John Danforth (R- Missouri) wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times that's worth a look. Just a few quotes:

"It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state."

"Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.

Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals."

It'd be hard to put it better than this. Church and state must be separate because, in a pluralist society, they are separate. Laws, if they are good, serve to bring order to society so that we may freely practice our rights. Religion is one of those rights, and it must be chosen freely or not at all.

Any decent theologian can tell you that it is impossible fully to know God's will; thus, any law we try to base on that claim can only be woefully incomplete, and most likely do more harm than good. Likewise, any Christian who puts some thought into it knows that we must combat moral evil with moral justice, not legislation. Laws, like human society, will never be perfect, and only a fool thinks that legislating morality will create a moral society.

Baby Steps

2005-06-16T08:14:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the House voted to limit the FBI's ability to seize library and bookstore records under the Patriot Act. One part of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to obtain those records without the usual due process of a search warrant from a judge or grand jury. Instead, the records can be grabbed on an order from a secret "surveillance court," where the standard of proof is much lower.

In essence, this provision allows the FBI to go on fishing expeditions- who needs probable cause? It's just one part of the massive government intrusion into our privacy that is known as the Patriot Act. While the House's action is by no means an end to the Patriot Act, at least it's a step in the right direction.

President Bush is threatening to veto the bill.

Activist Judges, Part II:

2005-06-01T21:36:00.000-07:00

I've been trying to look deeper into the matter of the previous post, but it's not been easy. Nevertheless, a few clarifications:

1. For those commenters who called for a ruling to read, there isn't one. The judge in question, Cale J. Bradford of the Marion Superior Court, merely allowed the decree to stand.

2. The Judge isn't commenting on the case, since it is under appeal.

3. About the order itself: it was written into the divorce decree by a court commissioner (not by the judge)who noted that the Wiccan parents send their son to a Catholic school. "Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon Archer as he ages," the report said. This confusion, apparently, is the reasoning behind the order.

4. The divorce decree said "the parents are directed to take such steps as are needed to shelter Archer from involvement and observation of these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." There is no definition of "mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

In other words, this is starting to look like an improper order, written by some bureaucrat, rather than a judge attempting to impose his version of religion. Either way, it shouldn't be there. Let's hope it gets thrown out, and quick.

Activist Judges...

2005-05-27T14:15:00.000-07:00

A judge in Indiana has ruled that a divorced couple, both of them Wiccans, cannot teach their beliefs to their child. Despite both parents' protests, the judge attached a provision to their divorce decree that they could not expose the child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." The order does not explain which religions are mainstream.

Okay, I suppose that such an order could be in the child's interest if the parents believed in something like drinking strychnine, or the sacrifice of first-born to Baal, but where's the harm in Wicca?

I'm not sure which is more troubling: the idea that only certain religions are legally "acceptable," or that the child cannot be counted on to grow up and decide for himself?

Update:

I've been trying to find out more about this ruling. Simply put, there isn't. Indiana law allows a court to make such provisions if there is potential emotional or physical harm to the child. In such cases, the court usually appoints a guardian while the claims are investigated. In this case, the court made no such attempt. In other words, the judge agreed to the provison even though no reason or support was given.

Most legal commentators agree that the decision will be overturned.

Somehow, Somewhere...

2005-05-24T16:17:00.000-07:00

... there's an asshat pretending to be a Christian who will bring shame on all that Christianity stands for.

Sez Pastor Butthead: "If we stand for what is right and for God's word and for Christianity then the world is going to condemn us and so right away when I got a complaint I said 'well somebody's mad, somebody's offended, so we must be doing something right.'" No doubt Christians are routinely persecuted in rural North Carolina, so we should view this statement as a bold stand in the face of evil. No doubt Christ himself would have held a Koran-flushing party.

Christianity: the official religion of pissing people off.

Betcha He Loses:

2005-05-18T20:59:00.000-07:00

After he maligned and misrepresented their curriculum, students at an Illinois high school challenged Rush Limbaugh to a debate on American History. My money's on the kids.

Unfortunately, even if the kids do prove to know more about history than Limbaugh, we can be sure that the conservative media elite (aka MSM) will spin it into a story on the terrible tragedy that has befallen America's youth. Blame, of course, must fall on the Democrats.

No Wedding For You!

2005-05-18T11:01:00.000-07:00

The Sundance channel is showing a documentary, "Forbidden Wedding," which describes a Brazilian couple whose marriage is not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. The groom, Hedir Antonio de Brito, is a parapalegic who is also impotent:

"De Brito was two weeks away from marrying Elzimar de Lourdes Serafim, a widow, in August 1996, when he received a shocking letter from the local bishop denying their application for a marriage certificate. According to canon law, any man or woman who is impotent and unable to have intercourse cannot get married."

The bishop was correct in denying the marriage certificate, for Canon Law 1084 Section 1 states that "Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature."

Why?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that there are two ends to marriage: the unitive, which is the good of the spouses, and the procreative, i.e. the transmission of life. Therefore, for a marriage to be valid, as the encyclical Humanae Vitae states, "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life" (11). This is why contraception is not allowed in marriage- in effect, a married couple who use contrception are invalidating their own marriage.

If we look a little further into Canon Law, 1084 Section 2 states that "If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null." The difference is subtle- section 1 is about antecedent and perpetual impotence, i.e. knowledge beforehand that one of the partners is impotent, while section 2 is about doubt. In other words, because De Brito knew that he was impotent, he could never be married in the eyes of the church. If he had stated that he wasn't sure, the marriage certificate could have been issued.

Okay, so there's no question that the bishop was doing what he must. Nevertheless, I'm sure that many people, including myself, find this hard to swallow. And I'm sure that most Catholics, including many members of the clergy, would have just as much trouble with it.

Those who are familiar with theology, or, for that matter, any competent medievalist, will recognize the hand of Aquinas in this. By holding the "two ends that are inseperably connected" line, the church is holding on to an old Natural Law argument which, frankly, is outdated. Nor do the two ends seem to be equal: In claiming that all marriages must be open to procreation, the church dismisses the unitive function. It is not enough, says Canon Law, that two people wish to be united in love. They are denied the sacrament because one of them is unable to perform intercourse.

Thus the unitive power of marriage is given short shrift. Another, simpler way to look at it: if you can't have babies, you can't get married. I'm not certain that even Aquinas would go so far.

I have argued before that the real issue of sexual morality isn't about babies- it's about the power that comes from asserting authority. And because of that, I am hard pressed to imagine how it could change. Nevertheless, it needs to.

It's Official: Pat Buchanan Lives on Another Planet

2005-05-12T18:46:00.000-07:00

Just try to get through this with a straight face.

My apologies to anyone who knows any history.

I'm not sure which is my favorite line, but it must be one of these three:

"In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.

How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?"

"True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland."

"If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in."

Boy it's hard to choose. By the same token I suppose Pat's opposed to the war in Iraq. After all, the Iraqis voted Hussein in.

Fake Penises are a Threat to America!

2005-05-12T17:57:00.000-07:00

The makers of the whizzinator, a device that looks like a prosthetic penis and allows users to store urine in order to pass drug tests, probably thought they had a good idea. Good old American Know How!

Unfortunately, it seems that faking a drug test could be a threat to national security. Therefore, congress will hold hearings in order to get to the root of the problem. According to Republican Representative Ed Whitfield, "These companies seek through deception to make a buck by violating our trust and compromising our security."

And it's a darn good thing, too: for too long, lawmakers have ignored the obvious threat that drugs pose to national security. Terrorists have long been known to light up big fatties before flying planes into buildings, and Osama himself is rumored to have one of the largest bong collections known. Let's hope they nip this problem in the bud.

Awwww.

2005-05-10T22:33:00.000-07:00

The pastor who kicked the non-Bush supporters out of his church quit. I really wanted to see how he would justify those actions. Maybe he could have gone Pat Robertson on us, and achieved a completely separate reality. Instead, he's shown himself to be unfit for the coming war: no Rapture for you!

Welcome to the Ghetto

2005-05-07T21:10:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI explained his vision of the future as he was installed as Bishop of Rome, the final step in assuming the papacy. He said nothing terribly new or spectacular during his homily (that's a sermon for any non-Catholics out there), but indicated that he would continue John Paul II's hard line on dissent. Benedict stated that the pope is the "guarantor of the obedience toward Christ and his word." They key word in that phrase is "obedience," as seen in recent actions.

On Friday, it was announced that the editor of America was forced to resign due to pressure from Ratzinger's CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith- formerly known as the Office of the Inquisition). Note that the editor, Father Thomas Reese, was under pressure because the magazine discussed controversial issues such as contraception and AIDS, homosexual priests, and ironically, the increasing gap between the faithful and the Vatican.

This is not the first time that Ratzinger's CDF has silenced those who question Church teaching- especially within Catholic universities. But it is disturbing in that the target is what would be considered "mainstream." America has over 50,000 readers, who, until lately, most likely thought of themselves as Catholics in good standing. Now, however, as my doctor says before inflicting some pain, they may start "feeling a little pressure."

In his final editorial, written before Ratzinger became Pope, Reese wrote that "A church that cannot openly discuss issues is a church retreating into an intellectual ghetto." I take issue with his word choice, for historically, ghettos are where people live when they've been forced out of other places. Of course, as I mentioned in an earlier blog, Ratzinger has no trouble with the idea of a much smaller, but very obedient, church. In this sense, he's not the one who's moving into the ghetto; rather, it may well be the millions of the rest of us who thought it was okay to discuss questionable ideas.

Wow.

2005-05-06T21:01:00.000-07:00

A Baptist minister in North Carolina excommunicates church members because they don't support President Bush. He says he has to because it's "the word of God."

Reporters attempted to reach God for comment, but He was busy meeting with President Bush.

A Few More Things We Should Legislate

2005-05-05T19:42:00.000-07:00

Since the good folks in Kansas have decided to bring up their favorite dead horse, and here in Texas, the guardians of the public trust are safeguarding our delicate sensibilities, I thought I'd offer a couple of proposals that I've been mulling over:

1. Make Communism Mandatory in High School:

No, not the historical stuff, either. I'm talking about the theoretical stuff as an alternative to the so-called "theories" of capitalism, which are unproven. We should be sure that all our high schoolers are well-versed in the inevitable march of history towards a socialist paradise. Every senior should graduate with a firm awareness of his or her part in the universal class struggle.

2. All Hospitals Should Offer Specialists in Medieval Medicine:

Let's face it: these medical 'experts' don't know what they're doing. Every year, they tell us this or that can kill us, or another thing will cure us, and so on. But just a few years later, they always change their mind! To Hell with it- let's bring in some experts on the four humors of the body. Next time I'm in the emergency room, I want the option to have a barber ready to apply a poultice of mandrake root and horse dung to my broken leg.

3. History Classes Should Include a Southern Victory in the Civil War:

Don't bother with historical events: it's a viable alternative.

4. Muu-Muus For Females in Public:

Honestly, the way people dress these days. The short-pants that female children wear are far too revealing! And adult females, with outfits that reveal their long, curved legs, firm breasts, and ample lips- the way they walk about so suggestively should not be allowed in public! They could get Herpes, or worse!

The Failure of Liberalism

2005-05-04T14:06:00.000-07:00

Of all the virtues that liberals champion, the most troublesome surely must be tolerance. It is certainly difficult to assert an individual's right to self-expression and self-determination when that individual believes in something that is contrary to your own values. When the popular culture threatens to reduce people to their mere utility, it is even more damaging to be seen as someone who tolerates the process. Nevertheless, such tolerance is the one virtue that most clearly expresses the humanism upon which the country is founded.

My previous post discussed the frightening efficiency of the Republicans in framing the political debate. They have had astonishing success in recent years, particularly in establishing themselves as the party of moral virtues, of patriots and God-fearing defenders of the family. They have managed to turn "liberal" into a dirty word, and won several elections because of it. But this is not the conservatives' fault: blame must lie squarely on liberals' shoulders.

The conservatives' success has come largely from their attacks on the popular culture, and their ability to establish themselves as opposed to that culture. At the same time, liberals, because they value tolerance, have allowed themselves to be painted as the people who support cultural excesses. Take, for example, gay marriage: in the last election, conservatives successfully framed the issue as an "attack on family." It was no such thing- allowing gays to marry would in no way cause the end of traditional families. People aren't suddenly going to switch sexual affinity just because gay marriage is legal; children who watch Queer Eye are not going to view homosexuality as a career choice up there with fireman, veterinarian, or astronaut.

Nevertheless, homosexuality makes a lot of people nervous, and others are fearful- rightly so- that the culture validates it as a way of life. Republicans were able to channel that fear into an electoral victory by painting the supporters of gay marriage as "anti-family." Democrats, on the other hand, were unable to resist being pushed into that corner, largely because they called for tolerance and were thereby viewed as supporters of the "anti-family" culture.

Now, liberals are just as pro-family as conservatives; they are also active church-goers, patriots, and business owners. Liberals are just as concerned about their children's welfare, and they love their spouses just as deeply (interesting side-note: liberal Massachussetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country, according to the last census). Liberals are not anti-family, anti-religion, anti-business, or America-haters. But liberals are pro-tolerance, and therein lies the problem: a liberal will defend above all a person's right to be those things.

In effect, because the popular culture expresses ideas that are "anti-family," or "anti-religion," etc., and liberals believe in the freedom of that expression, they are thereby associated with those ideas. When your opponent hollers that you are against religion, it's not easy for you to explain that although you may disagree with that opinion, you believe in someone's right to express it. It's an idea that lies at the very heart of the secular vision upon which this country was founded; there is no liberty without it. Nevertheless, it's always been difficult to support, and time and again we find new circumstances that test it.

The failure of liberalism, then, is to make that crucial distinction. After all, liberals do not control the popular culture any more than they control the media. The popular culture is driven above all by consumerism: television and films merely respond to public demand; the same is true of our sensationalistic media. And while conservatives have made a living attacking the culture, there is room for liberals to do the same.

Liberals need to make the distinction between protecting someone's right to say something and disagreeing with the resulting opinion, and the popular culture is the first place they should do it. For the popular culture is consumerist, and it stands for values that neither liberals nor conservatives support. If anything, the culture represents a consistent devaluing of the individual: human beings are valued only for their utility. Gay or straight, athiest or Christian, the culture doesn't care: people are only worth as much as their economic, social, or sexual value.

Such a culture stands in opposition to the humanism in which liberals believe so strongly, and may be the most dangerous threat to the long-term survival of the secular vision of the founders. The conservatives will lose their battle against the culture: progress, and technology, will leave them in the dust. But this doesn't mean that liberals will win, for they have yet to join the battle.

The Virtues of Complexity

2005-04-30T13:08:00.000-07:00

I recently discovered Gothamimage, a fun blog whose author claims that Bush is much more intelligent than he seems, and that the "Good ol' Boy" image is carefully contrived to pull one over on the American people. Now, I'm not certain, and we'll probably never know, but it does seem plausible. And it would fit nicely with a concern that I have regarding Bush and his group of neocons.

If there is one thing that really scares me about today's Republicans, it is their efficiency. Love them or hate them, you have to admit that Republicans are excellent politicians. They know how to play the game. They have an agenda, and they know how to accomplish it.

I think the Republican Party owes much of its success to its ability to distill complex issues into overly simplistic dualities. Combine this with their strong appeal to "gut values" (fear, knee-jerk patriotism, and religion, among others), and you have a winning formula. Bush's perceived simplicity plays right into this: he is seen as a "regular guy" who is able to cut through the Gordian Knot of difficult issues.

Take, for example, the war in Iraq. Bush and co. have been able to frame the discussion into a referendum on patriotism: if you don't support the war, then you're not supporting the soldiers. Therefore, anyone who criticized the war was instantly "unpatriotic." As Kerry tried (with mixed success) to explain, it is possible to support our soldiers while opposing the war. But such a position is more complicated, and requires that people put a little more thought into it. And in the great shouting match that is politics, which side gets heard more clearly: the group shouting "Traitor!", or the group trying to say "Wait a minute, that's not true. Let me explain"?

Consider the ease with which the Patriot Act was passed. Although it was clearly the most dangerous threat to basic civil liberties in years, those who questioned it were "soft on terrorism." Even the clever act of naming it the "Patriot Act" was designed to shut down any kind of rational discussion: to oppose it was to be unpatriotic. It's hard to say "wait a minute, what about my right to privacy?" when the other side is yelling that you're not letting us protect the country.

More recently, there is the problem with Bush's judicial appointments. Once again, the Republicans have been able to frame the debate in their terms. First, we have the conservative shibboleth "judicial activism," which is code for "anti-family, anti-religion, etc." The main crime of "activist judges" appears to be that they regularly interpret and apply the law: they're the ones who throw out cases because the police violated someone's search and seizure rights, and they're the ones who won't let the state slap the Ten Commandments on every structure it can.

Second, these judges appear to be "soft on crime." For example, they seem to oppose mandatory sentencing, which means that they are clearly against the War on Drugs (tm), and quite possibly hurting the International War on Terrorism (tm) as well. After all, if a judge rules that the government cannot hold a suspected terrorist indefinitely and without counsel, that judge is clearly undermining our patriotic antiterrorist efforts. For, as we all know, the Constitution only applies to upright citizens.

Again, the Republicans have done a masterful job of framing the debate: anyone who supports "judicial activism" must be anti-family, anti-religion, and must have no concern for victim's rights. Compare that with the opposing argument, which is of necessity more nuanced, and must involve a discussion of the Bill of Rights and our basic civil rights. If we claim that we cannot violate a suspect's civil rights because to do so could cause us to lose our own rights, who's going to listen? They're letting terrorists go!

This is what bothers me about the current crop of Republicans: on these and many other issues, they have been incredibly efficient at phrasing the rhetoric on their own terms. Which means that they have been equally efficent at accomplishing their agenda and marginalizing (if not outright villainizing) their opponents.

The fact is that we face some very complicated issues, and simplistic solutions will not be adequate. They are more likely to be permanently damaging. Perhaps the fault is America's- we seem to have no patience for this sort of thing, which could very easily become our downfall. But is it possible to change the dialogue? Who will have the charisma, intelligence, and courage to meet the challenge?

Dumb.

2005-04-28T19:45:00.000-07:00

Trolling along the blogosphere, I come across this.

Rant:

How dumb is that? Does this individual actually think that the Pope is taking sides- and, for that matter, does he have the hubris to think that Benny's on his side? I am constantly astonished at such narrowminded, provincial thinking, but I guess I shouldn't be. After all, I graduated from the University of Dallas, where everyone knows that God is a registered Republican.

The Church transcends politics- as evidenced by its condemnation of both abortion and the war in Iraq. Why is it hard for people to comprehend that truly moral questions transcend simpleminded left/right dualities? Is it that some people don't want to see the world in a more complex light, or is it that they simply cannot think that hard?

end rant

I feel better now. But it's still dumb.

At Play in the Fields of Death

2005-04-28T17:48:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine is obsessed with reality shows. So, in order to keep up with him, I'll occasionally tune in to an episode of Survivor. This season's competition is set in Palau, formerly best known as one of the grueling island battlegrounds of World War II. Remnants from the war still haunt the island- occasionally one can see the rusted hulk of a tank, or the bones of an old warplane as the competitors scamper about the island. In fact, these old war relics are part of the shows atmosphere- they decorate the set at the "tribal council" part of the show, where people get voted off the island.

I mention this simply for the irony that these images reveal to me: to think that those marines fought and died so that we could be entertained by this faux drama (and sell Pringles). I know it's unintended, but there it is.

Why Contraception Isn't About Babies

2005-04-28T10:03:00.000-07:00

If we look at contraception and Catholicism from a wider perspective. it seems that the debate is over, and has been for some time. The fact is, Catholics have voted with their feet (or, more accurately, with other body parts): it is well-documented that an overwhelming majority of Catholics, regardless of nationality, neither agree with Church teaching on contraception nor follow its practice.

Nevertheless, there are those (including the last Pope, and probably the current one) who will claim that all of those Catholics have thereby excommunicated themselves. Technically, they're right: use of contraception, as well as premarital sex, homosexual sex, and masturbation, is a mortal sin, and those who continue to do such things in spite of Church teaching are thereby removing themselves from the Church. This means that about 80% of the world's Catholics are not truly Catholic.

Okay, so why doesn't the Church budge on this issue? There are other areas where Catholics disagree with Church teaching (it's a mortal sin not to attend Mass), or even dogma (think of Mary), but very little has been made of such issues. On the other hand, contraception (and homosexuality, and divorce) remains a hot button issue, even if everyone's made up their mind. While there are certainly those who believe wholeheartedly in the Natural Law argument on which Church teaching rests (I think I went to school with most of them), allow me to suggest that the real issue has more to do with questions of Church authority than with a "Culture of Death."

Consider Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document that lies at the heart of the argument. Humanae Vitae mentions that John XXIII had gathered a commission of clerical and lay advisors to discuss the ban on contraception. What it doesn't mention is that the committee came out against the ban, and Paul ignored their advice.

But Humanae Vitae was more than a reiteration of the ban. It was also a demand for obedience: "if men's peace of soul and the unity of the Christian people are to be preserved, then it is of the utmost importance that in moral as well as in dogmatic theology all should obey the magisterium of the Church and should speak as with one voice." In other words, "stop talking about it, and obey." Thereafter, when a member of the clergy or laity spoke in opposition to the ban, the full weight and fury of the CDF came down upon him or her. In fact, two-thirds of the aforementioned council criticized Humanae Vitae after its release, and a majority (forty-some out of sixty) either left the Church or were subsequently excommunicated.

Paul's successor, John Paul II, made contraception even more of an issue, and tied it inextricably to Papal authority. During his reign, Ratzinger's CDF came down hard on clergy and theologians who criticized Humanae Vitae; the most prominent example is Father Charles Curran, whose license was withdrawn by the CDF in 1986. Not long afterwards, the Vatican issued Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which requires all Catholic theologians to take an oath swearing their orthodoxy.

Curran claims that his criticism of Humanae Vitae is a dissent from a teaching (i.e., not infallible), not a dissent from dogma (i.e. infallible). Technically, he's right. Catholics have the right to question Church teaching (indeed, Vatican II encourages it) so long as it is not dogmatic: Humanae Vitae does not fulfill the requirements of infallible teaching.

Nevertheless, John Paul wanted to make it clear that he considered the ban to be infallible. In 1993, his encyclical Veritatis Splendor reiterated that contraception was wrong in all circumstances. Moreover, he claims that "Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts," and that "Moral theologians are to set forth the Church's teaching and to give, in the exercise of their ministry, the example of a loyal assent, both internal and external, to the Magisterium's teaching in the areas of both dogma and morality." The case of Father Curran serves as an example for those who dare disagree.

In summary, Church teaching on sexuality has been linked to Papal authority to the extent that one cannot question one without doubting the other, and as a result, John Paul II painted himself and his successors into a corner.

There's More Than One Kind of Pluralism

2005-04-25T07:53:00.000-07:00

The second chapter of the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium declares that "the body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief and that "it manifests this unerring quality when 'from the bishops down to the last member of the laity' it shows universal agreement on matters of a faith and morals."

This is not a recipe for faith by show of hands; rather, the council states that the 'reception' of doctrine is crucial in establishing Church teaching. In other words, if a teaching is truly inspired. then the sensus fidelium will accept it. John Henry Newman spoke of an "echo" by which the whole of the faithful would endorse dogma or call it into question. In other words, Church teaching is the result of a discussion, and it is ultimately validated in the practice of the faithful.

After Vatican II, however, Popes have been less than cordial to this idea, often dismissing it as a form of 'relativism'. The most outstanding example is the ban on contraception as reiterated in Humanae Vitae. Even before its inception, the document was not accepted; in fact, Paul VI had convened a group of sixty-some clerics to study and advise him on the question. Two-thirds of them were opposed to reiterating the ban, but Paul wrote it anyway, perhaps to appease the conservative elements who were howling about the reforms of Vatican II.

The end result, of course, is the current gap between pope and faithful, or, to put it another way, between teaching and practice. In other words, the faithful have not 'received' the teaching, and it is doubtful they ever will.

Conservatives often deride this split as apostasy or heresy, as 'cafeteria' Catholicism or moral relativism. Pope John Paul II, for his part, only widened the gap, and effectively dismissed the idea of 'reception' as sinful defiance. His 1990 Donum Veritatis stated that "not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith," especially since people "can be swayed by a public opinion influenced by modern communications media." In other words, the sensus fidelium can be ignored as it is subject to demagoguery. John Paul II worked hard to preempt discussion on other matters as well, most notably the decree on women priests, which was delivered with the instruction that the question may not be discussed even among theologians.

Theologically, this has serious consequences, for the Holy Spirit is seen not to dwell in the whole Church, but within the Roman hierarchy. The effect is to broaden papal authority at the expense of the rest of the magisterium, so that faith becomes primarily a question of obedience, not of exploration.

The end result is that the Church may be headed for fragmentation: conservatives may prefer to "kick out the heretics" rather than engage in discussion, while progressives may decide to leave on their own, forming parallel churches. So where does this leave the rest of us, who do not wish to see a schism, but who also believe that the Holy Spirit works through all of the faithful?

What's in a name?

2005-04-25T06:14:00.000-07:00

In his installation mass yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of reaching out to Muslims and other religions in order to work for peace. Actually, he did more than talk about it- he held a private meeting with several Muslim leaders afterwards.

After that meeting, he talked to some pilgrims from his native Germany, where the Church has been in sharp decline. In fact, the choice of a German Pope may be a signal that the Church hierarchy is determined to address the issues that plague Catholicism throughout the West: a decliine in attendance, a shrinking (and rapidly aging) number of priests, and a growing schism between the faithful and Church teaching, especially on matters of sexuality. Although Benedict XVI claims he wants to be a "listener," his record as Cardinal and head of the CDF suggest that he will take a very conservative stance on these issues, even if it means the exclusion of huge numbers of people from the Church.

If these two issues- a time of war and a growing "threat" of pluralist thought- are the focus of Ratzinger's papacy, then it is fitting that he has chosen the name Benedict XVI, for his predecessor, Benedict XV, faced a similar situation. Benedict XV was pope from 1914 - 1922, and he faced two major issues: the First World War, and the "crisis" of Modernism.

Of these two, the major issue for Benedict XV was the war. He made several attempts at negotiating a peace, going so far as writing entire proposals for each side. Ultimately, of course, his attempts were fruitless.

At the same time, Benedict attempted to follow his predecessor Pius X's dealings with Modernism, although with a more moderate stance (i.e. he didn't burn them). The "crisis" of Modernism has several parallels to the issues facing Benedict XVI. The Church hierarchy viewed it as a form of relativism, and thus a threat to the universal truth of Church teaching. Modernism was also a form of pluralism, and was viewed as a threat to the Church's authority: in fact, the creation of papal infallibility in 1870 may be seen as a response to some aspects of this threat. Nevertheless, Modernism didn't go away, and its children ended up influencing Vatican II, especially in regards to collegiality and the inclusion of the laity.

Perhaps Ratzinger chose his name with his predecessor in mind; perhaps he, too, sees himself as a Pope who faces two major issues, a very real war and a creeping "relativism." But Benedict XV was not very successful on either account. It remains to be seen whether Benedict XVI will fare any better.

Two More Cents for Midas

2005-04-20T22:06:00.000-07:00

The most wonderful thing about the internet is that it gives a voice to all those people whom we would otherwise go to great lengths to ignore.

I guess this is not so bad, for when it comes to politics, religion, society, and most controversy in general, I subscribe to the "Italian family dinner" model. According to this model, the best way to handle our differences in opinion is to yell at each other as long and as loudly as possible, and then, when dinner is over, we all go back to the business of our lives.

The point is that we all have ideas, and we usually think that our ideas are better than other people's. While there's nothing wrong with this in principle, in practice it usually results in somebody getting clubbed, or worse. I think it's better that we get it out of our system, and then move on. In other words, save philosophy and other pointless pursuits for the dinner table, where it's all fun and games. In the meantime, let's get on with our lives.