Well I’m not too surprised that the Texas courts are telling the Texas state government to start returning some of the children to the FLDS laboratory, where they are producing girls to be the multiple wives of the old men running the operation. Oh I guess they are really a group of religious people practicing their faith, which is that it supposedly pleases God when a man continually brings into the home a young woman to share in the household duties. I’m not surprised because government tends to do things badly. And it looks like they didn’t get all their legal ducks in a row. It remains to be seen if any of the children will be protected from this abusive group.

There are splits among conservatives on this issue, and ambivalence among many, even if they’ve staked out a position. We home school our children, and so naturally worry about government becoming emboldened to go after others. In California, a ruling basically makes home schooling illegal due to a court case against a religious family that was home schooling their children.

While I’m concerned about it, basically I decided that I will take my stand against the nutters. Polygamy is evil. If a group is left alone to practice polygamy, it is inevitable that child abuse will happen. Even if at first a strict policy is used against “marrying” a girl younger than 18, all girls of that age will be married off. The young men must wait their turn. But for how long? As there are more and more men without women to marry, they will look to younger girls. Or excuses will be made to push out the young men. This has already happened. There are groups that attempt to help the “lost boys” that have been forced out of these communities. They have been isolated in these communities and struggle to make it in normal society, and are thus prone to abuse.

It does not help the conservative cause to side with nutty people who, whether they are aware of it or not, are involved in evil. We should keep our eyes open and be prepared to stand against the government when they go after groups like homeschoolers, Boy Scouts, and after religious symbols in the public square, because they will do that. But sometimes there are worse things than government.

First they came after the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came after the homosexuals and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a homosexual. Then they came after the polygamists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a polygamist. Ok, I know they are coming after me, but at least we’re rid of the communists, homosexuals, and polygamists.

 

Now with the left coast state of California joining the ranks where same sex ‘marriage’ is recognized as just that, marriage, I worry that conservatives are getting worn down and tending toward accepting it as inevitable. Part of the problem I think was that people put too much hope in the Republican Party when they had control of congress, and they basically wimped out in so many areas. The Republican majority Senate couldn’t even get over 50% voting for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. It wouldn’t even have become law. 36 states would have had to ratify it.

So mostly for my own benefit, but also for anyone who reads this, I want to write down talking points as to why we must continue to fight against the redefinition of marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman.

First of all, it should be an outrage even to liberals who support same sex marriage, that even though 61% of Californians voted against same sex marriage several years ago, 4 judges decided to say to that majority, “screw you” we know what’s best and overrode their will and are commanding the elected representatives of California to create a legal definition of marriage for homosexual couples. Californians are fairly liberal. At some point they might have voted for legalization of same sex marriage. At least let it come into existence in that way.

Some however, will argue that it is right for the judges to override the will of the people. They will argue that it is the same as in the civil rights movement, with judges overriding majority white opinion and ruling against segregation and bans on interracial marriage. Well, not allowing for same sex marriage is not discriminatory. In all states except Massachusetts and California, no man of any race, nationality, or religion may marry another man. No woman of any race, nationality, or religion may marry another woman. The ‘ban’ applies to all equally. What the judges ruled was that the state must now bestow on a special group of people who have an unusual relationship, a legal recognition which will include benefits. All Californians are now forced to give recognition to these people and change their definition of what a marriage is. Court clerks and justices of the peace, must provide a recording of homosexual’s relationships upon request, and perform legal ceremonies for them.

Now some people, even conservatives, are reluctant to speak against homosexuality, and want to make other arguments against same sex marriage. I don’t have that reluctance and will discuss that below, but here are some things to say if you not wanting to be too politically incorrect. Even though there are marriages that end in divorce and even end tragically with some sort of violence, statistically, when you have a man and woman marry and have children, it provides the best environment for the children. Couples who have children and don’t marry, more often break up, you have the mother bringing in a boyfriend, there is a lack of attention to the children, sometimes abuse, and a host of problems for the children as they grow up to be teenagers. Two people of the same sex cannot have children, they may only adopt. In most cases they aren’t going to bond with the children to the degree a man and woman who bore them will, but even if the homosexual couple remain committed, the children don’t grow up seeing the interaction and loving relationship between a man and woman. Remember only 1 to 2 percent of people have homosexual inclinations. Or are homosexuals going to attempt to raise adopted children as homosexuals?

Now to deal with the approach of expressing a negative view toward homosexuality. I’m a Christian of the Catholic variety, and my Church’s position is that homosexuality is a disorder. It’s not a sin to have those inclinations, but it is a very grave sin to act on it, and engage in homosexual behavior. My Church does not express hatred toward people with homosexual inclinations, they are welcome in the Church, and if they refrain from involvement in that behavior, and are otherwise in good standing with the Church, receive communion.

If the government gives recognition to same sex marriage, the result will be a forcing on many people, that they must also recognize it against their will. I mentioned above, court clerks and justices of the peace who will have to perform a governmental duty they don’t believe in. But there will also be the teachers in schools, who when talking about parents and families, will have discuss homosexual relationships. Children’s books which describe traditional families will have to make way for books about children with two mommies, or two daddies. People who design forms or software that generates forms will have change the format to allow for same sex marriages. Tax benefits that currently only go to traditional families will go to homosexual couples.

The Catholic Church and most other Christian Churches, don’t attempt to explain why people become homosexual. I don’t propose to know, but I do know from life observation that many people get a thrill out of doing things that are “wrong”. There are people who shoplift even though they have plenty of money. There are people who take drugs even though they have had plenty of teaching and experience to know that it is dangerous. There are people who get a thrill out of walking around naked. I used to live near a nudist colony that was in the desert. One of their activities was horse back riding. It hurts to think about it. And imagine falling off the horse onto cactus. Anyway, I digress. There are men who dress up as women. And there are men who have sex with other men, and women who have sex with other women.

Homosexuality has been very destructive, especially for men. They engage in very harmful sexual practices, which spread the AIDS virus. I’ve heard homosexuals argue that their behavior is not a choice, they are born with it. I heard one of them cry, “no one would choose this lifestyle!” and describe the hard life they went through. First of all, there are people who inject heroin into their arms, or go bankrupt paying for some white powder to sniff up their nose. So here, there are two possible arguments to make. One way to go is to point out that it’s obvious that there are people who will choose a destructive life style. Or another is to note that there is evidence that some people are born with addictive personalities, and are inclined toward alcohol or drug abuse. So maybe homosexuals are born with their tendencies. But are we supposed to recognize and be happy for alcoholics and drug abusers? Just as there is nothing wrong with saying that addicts should work to stay away from alcohol or drugs, there is nothing wrong with saying that homosexuals should stay away from their destructive behavior.

So I don’t want my government to give legal recognition and benefits to a disordered and destructive relationship, that I also believe goes against God.

The Right to Life: Every Human’s Right

Final Paper

English Composition II

April 20, 2008

One of the most controversial political topics today is the issue of abortion. Both sides have been very vocal. The pro-choice side portrays itself as championing women’s rights and freeing women from the burden of unwanted pregnancies. The pro-life movement argues that it’s protecting the lives of innocent children. On the surface, both seem like worthy causes. Unfortunately, one can’t support both. They are intrinsically contradictory, but choosing the wrong side to support could mean choosing death for an innocent population of human beings. However, with careful study and consideration, one can see that the pro-life side has the most logical arguments.

An article on the NARAL Pro-Choice America website demonstrates the pro-choice view most clearly. The President of NARAL tells us how she believes that we should have the freedom to decide what we want to do. Women are fully able to make decisions concerning their reproductive health. The government has no right to interfere in someone’s privacy – politicians have no business interfering in a woman’s pregnancy. (Keenan, “About Us”) Proponents of choice usually believe that women should be in charge of their reproductive lives and that they should never be forced to carry a child they don’t want or don’t have time for.

            However, pro-choice advocates tend to vary as to whether or not the fetus is human. A perfect example can be seen on the National Abortion Federation website in the article “I’m pregnant, what are my options?” The website lists three options: abortion, parenthood, and adoption. (NAF, “I’m Pregnant”) The article on abortion describes this option as ending a pregnancy. (NAF, “Abortion”) However, a link leads to another website which lists a number of stories from parents who have lost their children. Some of the parents had abortions, others miscarriages; but as one story shows, the parents considered the fetus a child. Some even named their babies. (Luis’ Mum, “Our Lives Have Changed Forever”) Others however seem to gloss over the issue, never stating if they believe the fetus is a child or not.

The pro-life movement doesn’t see the fetus as just tissue or a potential human. In the pro-life view, it’s an actual, tiny human being. They have the potential to look, think, and act like humans because they are humans, not because they’re something else. (Pacholczyk, “Acorns and Embryos”) From my experience, this is the heart of the pro-life movement: embryos are human beings. Pro-lifers believe that unborn children have full rights, just like born children and adults. Unborn children are human beings, not masses of tissue. If they’re destroyed, it’s murder.

So, many pro-life and pro-choice advocates agree that the fetus is human, or at least something like a human. However, those same proponents of reproductive choice believe that abortion is a valid option, at least in some cases. Many people, especially politicians overcome this moral dilemma by saying something like this: I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t believe in imposing my views on others. This is seen as the easy way out – the politician agrees with the pro-life side, but will allow the pro-choice advocates to have their way. However, this does not fly morally. Most people are personally opposed to murder, slavery, and drunk driving. (ALL, “I’m Opposed to Abortion”)

             By the above argument, those of us who oppose these crimes shouldn’t impose their views on others. Obviously, however, one wouldn’t oppose something unless it is wrong. And if it’s wrong, why shouldn’t it be outlawed? (ALL, “I’m Opposed to Abortion”) The crux of the matter still is the “personhood” of the fetus. Is it a human? Is it a mass of tissue? Is it somehow in between – a potential human, an eventual person? If it is alive and if it is a human, it cannot be killed. Killing it would be murder.

            Before we can show that it’s a human, we must show that the fetus is alive. For this, we must turn to science. A living creature must meet certain requirements: according to one source, it must be organized, it must acquire energy and nutrients from an outside source, it must respond to and interact with its environment, it must reproduce and/or develop, and it must be capable of adapting to changes. (Mader, pgs. 2-5) A fetus is indeed organized according to the scientific definition. It’s made up of atoms, which build molecules, which build cells – the building blocks of living tissue. (Mader, pg. 58). A fetus also acquires energy and nutrients from its environment – its mother’s uterus. The placenta, an organ which is attached to the fetus by the umbilical cord, transfers nutrients from the mother’s blood to the fetus’s blood (American Pregnancy Association, The Fetal Life-Support System). The fetus also responds to its environment. It’s very unclear as to whether, or when, the fetus begins to feel pain, although most nerve endings and brain centers are in place by the time it is 26 weeks old. (Derbyshire, “Can Fetuses Feel Pain?”) (This article concludes that there is evidence that fetuses cannot feel pain; the author also “served as an unpaid consultant for Planned Parenthood of Virginia, USA, and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, USA, and for the Pro-Choice Forum, United Kingdom.”) However, the development of the fetus can be affected by factors in the mother’s diet, especially if the mother consumes alcohol during the pregnancy. One source suggests that only 20% of birth defects are hereditary. Lack of proper nutrition can cause spina bifida. If a pregnant woman has an X-ray, the fetus can develop other birth defects and leukemia. (Mader, pg. 812)

The fetus obviously reproduces and develops. It begins as a single cell, the combination of the father’s sperm and mother’s egg. By the end of the second week, the embryo has become a mass called the embryonic disk, complete with two layers of cells. (Mader, pg. 809) It continues to grow, and by the eighth week, it begins to look like a human, and all its organ systems are developed. (Mader, pg. 810) At the end of nine months of course, those little cells have become a baby. Lastly, the fetus certainly adapts to changes in its environment. After conception, it travels to the uterus. During the second week, it secretes enzymes that actually “digest” the membranes on the wall of the uterus so it can implant. (Mader, pg. 808) It’s also able to adapt to the shock of leaving its mother’s body, quickly beginning to breathe on its own.

So, to all scientific intents and purposes, the fetus is alive from the time it’s conceived. Now we move to the question of its humanity. Some Greek philosopher long ago defined humans as featherless bipeds. By this definition, the fetus isn’t human until it develops two legs, but it would also make gorillas human, so this philosophical definition obviously isn’t specific enough. The human we see on the streets ranges from only about a foot high to over seven feet. Its skin can be many shades, as can its hair, which can be long, short, curly, straight, or even absent. The appearance of humans can be so varied; it’s not hard to suggest that humans can also look like the fetus. Science clinches the question by going to the DNA level. Humans have 46 chromosomes in every cell. Unborn fetuses also have 46 chromosomes in every cell. The tiny cell formed at the beginning of gestation will grow and become a human – never a chimpanzee, a goldfish, or a toucan. Perhaps the question should be, “If it’s not a human, what is it? It’s alive, it has the scientific characteristics of a human, so if it’s not a human, what is it?”

Many people believe that abortion should at least be legal in the case of rape or incest. At first glance, this argument seems reasonable. Why should a woman be forced to carry a child conceived in traumatic circumstances? Her pregnancy will be a daily reminder of a horrible crime. However, abortion after rape is an injustice to that living creature with those human characteristics in its mother’s womb. Let’s put it this way. Imagine that John Smith committed some horrible crime, such as rape. Imagine then that he went to trial, and the court declared that in punishment, his 15 year old daughter Janie Smith would be killed. Is that just or fair? The answer is no. What if Janie is only five? Is it just to kill her now? No. What if Janie is a newborn baby? The answer is still no. (Pacholczyk, “Sexual Assault and Abortion”) Obviously, John Smith’s crime is still horrible, and justice should be served. However, no one would consider it justice that an innocent child, even the rapist’s child, should be punished instead. That child conceived in rape is innocent. It didn’t ask to be conceived. Offering abortion to a woman victimized by rape may seem like a compassionate response, but it is unjust and unethical. (Pacholczyk, “Sexual Assault and Abortion”).

What about the mother? Isn’t it unjust that she would have to carry an unplanned child, conceived through assault, for nine months? According to a nine year study by the Elliot Institute and Fortress International, the majority of women who conceived through rape believed that abortion often led to further trauma. All the women in the study who carried their unborn children to term expressed no regret that they had not chosen abortion. (Pacholczyk, “Sexual Assault and Abortion”).

Proponents of choice also argue that it’s better to abort an unwanted child, or a child that the mother can’t afford. This is an example of committing an evil act for a good cause. In a perfect world, every family would be able to afford every child, and no baby would be unwanted. However, this will never happen, and it’s no excuse to end the life of these unwanted children. What would happen if a couple had a ten year old son, and because they lost their jobs, they couldn’t afford to feed him, care for him, or educate him, and they decided to kill him so he wouldn’t suffer from poverty? It’s unlikely that many people would support the parents. We don’t have the right to take the life from an innocent person. In the same way, it’s not fair to take the life of an unborn child simply because it might suffer poverty or neglect.

But what if the unborn child is going to suffer terribly? What if it’s going to die a painful death from a birth defect? This is a very difficult question to answer, since it leads to a separate question – the morality of euthanasia. Many people believe that it’s an act of mercy to end the life of someone who’s suffering or appears to have a poor quality of life. This attitude carries over into the issue of abortion. Isn’t it merciful to prevent a child that’s going to suffer from coming into the world? However, everyone suffers to some degree in life. Who’s to decide how much suffering is too much? By American standards, many people in some Third World countries have a very poor quality of life. Would it be just to murder all those people simply because we have decided that they have no quality of life and would be better off dead? Of course not. The same principle applies to unborn children as well. If they are human beings, no one has a right to end their lives. We do have a duty to stand by them and care for them in their suffering. (Pacholczyk, “Feeding Our Loved Ones”)

Pro-choice advocates often bring up another difficult question: what if the pregnancy is endangering the mother’s health, even her life? For example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the embryo implants in the mother’s fallopian tubes instead of in the uterus. If left untreated, the tube will rupture, causing severe injury or even death to the mother. (APA, “Ectopic Pregnancy”) There are truly only two options: allow the mother to die or end the pregnancy, resulting in the death of the child.

However, there are several options for how to end the pregnancy. The drug methotrexate will cause all the tissues from the pregnancy (including the fetus) to be absorbed, surgery can remove the fetus, or the fallopian tube itself may be removed, along with the fetus. (APA, “Ectopic Pregnancy”) Each of these options should be analyzed as to its intention, the means, and the end. The intention is good – the doctor wants to save the mother’s life. The means, however, in two of the cases is unjust to the unborn child – its life is directly ended, as a way to save the mother. However, in one case, the fetus is not killed, but dies as a result of the fallopian tube being removed. The end result is the same (the mother is saved, the unborn child loses its life) but the child is not killed. (Howard, “The Moral Management of Ectopic Pregnancies”) An ectopic pregnancy is a terribly tragic event, but we can’t lose sight of the fact that there are two lives involved, not just one. In the end, someone loses a life, but even though that end is inevitable, we can’t just take the life of the child, anymore than we would murder the mother as she lies there in the hospital.

Lastly, there’s evidence that the pro-choice movement may have a more chilling motive than protecting women’s reproductive freedoms. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote a treatise on sterilization – the sterilization, that is, of those with so-called “objectionable” traits. While Planned Parenthood today may or may not believe in aborting those with the wrong genes, it’s disturbing to see that its founder believed in eugenics. (Richmond, “Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, and the Swastika”) Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., also decried Planned Parenthood as a racist organization and pointed out that while only African-Americans make up only 12% of the US population, they account for 37% of abortions. Planned Parenthood also locates 78% of its clinics in African-American neighborhoods. (Sheffrin, “Alveda King Calls Abortion ‘Racist’”)

            In the end, it’s only fair that every human being have equal rights to life. Yes, there are many difficult and even tragic situations. Most mothers who choose abortion aren’t cruel people; they are just women who believe they need to make this terrible choice because of assault, birth defects, shame, or poverty. But as Susan Rezzonico, director of Social Concerns and Public Policy for the diocese of Colorado Springs, points out, abortion always takes a life. We should do our best to discourage abortions by reminding society and individuals of this fact. Those mothers who are considering abortion should never be condemned; instead, we should help them to see the beauty of life and offer them any help that they need. Ms. Rezzonico also brought attention to the fact that abortion has hurt our society horribly. Not only have we lost our respect for all stages of human life, but we’ve lost so many family members. All those unborn children who were never given a chance could have been athletes, politicians, soldiers, Nobel prize winners, great scientists. One of those children could have found the cure for cancer. One of them might have saved someone’s life. Sadly, we’ll never know what we lost. (Personal/telephone communication; (719) 866 - 6441/srezzonico@ccharitiescs.org)

Abortion is a tragedy. It’s a terrible misfortune for the unborn child and for the entire human species. That’s why we can’t choose abortion. It means choosing death instead of life.

Bibliography

Keenan, Nancy. (2008) “About Us” Retrieved April 4^th, 2008 from the NARAL Pro-Choice America website:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about-us/

National Abortion Federation (No Date) “I’m Pregnant. What Are My Options?” Retrieved April 15^th, 2008 from the National Abortion Federation website: http://www.prochoice.org/pregnant/options/index.html

National Abortion Federation (No Date) “Abortion” Retrieved April 15^th, 2008 from the National Abortion Federation website:

http://www.prochoice.org/pregnant/options/abortion.html

Luis’ Mum. (No Date, after 2006) “Our Lives Have Changed Forever” Retrieved April 18, 2008 from “A Heartbreaking Choice” website:

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/Luissb.html

Rev. Pacholczyk, Tadeusz, Ph. D (Published May 1, 2007) “Acorns and Embryos” Retrieved March 21^st, 2008 from the National Catholic Bioethics Center website: http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_23.asp

American Life League (ALL). (Published October 12^th, 2005) “I’m Opposed to Abortion” Retrieved April 19^th, 2008 from the American Life League website:

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10185&search=personally%20opposed

Mader, Sylvia S. (2007) “Biology” (9^th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Companies

“The Fetal Life-Support System: Placenta, Umbilical Cord, and Amniotic Sac” (Last updated July 2007) Retrieved April 11^th, 2008 from the American Pregnancy Association:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/fetallifesupportsystem.html

Derbyshire, Stuart W G. (2006) “Can Fetuses Feel Pain?” Retrieved April 11^th, 2008 from the BMJ website:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7546/909

Rev. Pacholczyk, Tadeusz, Ph. D (Published January 1, 2007) “Sexual Assault and Abortion” Retrieved April 12^th, 2008 from the National Catholic Bioethics Center website: http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_19.asp

Rev. Pacholczyk, Tadeusz, Ph. D (Published January 1, 2008) “Feeding Our Loved Ones: The Modern Anathema of Living with Brain Damage” Retrieved April 16^th, 2008 from the National Catholic Bioethics Center website: http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_31.asp

The American Pregnancy Association (Last updated 01/2007) “Ectopic Pregnancy” Retrieved April 19^th, 2008 from the American Pregnancy Association website: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/ectopicpregnancy.html

Fr. Joseph C. Howard, Jr., M. Div. (Published November 28^th, 2005) “The Moral Management of Ectopic Pregnancies” Retrieved April 19^th, 2008 from the American Life League website:

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10335

Richmond, Mike. (No Date) “Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, and the Swastika” Retrieved April 20^th, 2008 from the Ethical Spectacle website: http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html

Sheffrin, Alexander J. (Published April 15^th, 2008) “Alveda King Calls Abortion ‘Racist’” Retrieved April 20^th, 2008 from the Christian Post website:

http://christianpost.com/article/20080415/31951_Alveda_King_Calls_Abortion_%5C'Racist%5C'.htm

Another Black History month and the likely nomination of Barrack Obama as the Democratic Party nominee for President lead me to think about my past experience with racism. My pre-college school days occurred during the height of busing for integration and the strong emphasis by schools, Hollywood, and the Church to educate us on getting rid of our prejudices. In high school, I became a radical socialist and bought into the whole notion that America is a racist, oppressive society.

Now I know there have been, and still are white racists. However, what I’ve come to realize, is that people really don’t want to be told what to think. First off, there were a lot of whites who participated in civil rights marches. What I’m addressing, are the whites who weren’t hard core racists, but yet often reacted in a somewhat hostile way toward those who argued against prejudice. It gave rise to a liking for political incorrectness.

I remember when living in Arizona, one of the last states to adopt a Martin Luther King Day, there was a lot of resistance to adding a holiday for him.

My argument is that a push by some to effectively say, “you must embrace a Martin Luther King day, you must reach out and try to becomes friends with a Black person, you must never think badly of someone of another race, or otherwise you must be a racist” leads many to think like the Montgomery Gentry song, “I Don’t Give a Darn What Other People Think, What Do You Think About That?”.

When people saw hundreds of thousands of other people march against racism, for many their minds were changed. When people were told to change their minds, not so many did.

Ok First off, I realize that J. K. Rowling has sold a lot of books, plus movie rights to them, and so probably can do just about anything just shy of murder and it will do diddly squat to her career. However, if you’re in the business of selling something, and you have the opportunity to expand your market, then even if your market is pretty large already, why tell your new customers to shove off.

J. K. Rowling had a variation of a “Shut Up and Sing” moment (book by conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham) when she announced at a talk that one of the Harry Potter characters, Dumbledore, is gay. With that, she effectively shut off an emerging new market, conservative Christians.

I’m one of those conservative Christians who, upon reading emails from Catholic and evangelical groups that the Harry Potter books were promoting witchcraft, decided, along with my wife, to not buy the books for our young children. We even had my father return a Harry Potter book and give one of our children a different Christmas gift. I’m a little embarrassed to admit all this, and sensitive to the charge that I let other people do my thinking, but given that I’m not a speed reader, and have things to do like work, by the time I read the Harry Potter books and decided whether they were ok or not, my kids would be out of college.

However by now, with my kids approaching college age, it has become obvious to us that the Harry Potter books did not corrupt the children and bring society down (the Democrats are doing that). Many Christian families have allowed their children to read the books, and draw analogies with Biblical accounts.

And it’s not just me. Many Catholic and Christian publications such as Our Sunday Visitor, have written articles on the positive values in the Harry Potter series. Talk show host Hugh Hewitt has talked much about the books and how some Christian groups went way over the top in their condemnation of Rowling and her books.

I now have no concern about my children reading the Harry Potter books, and it’s very likely that many conservative Christians who previously withheld purchasing the books, or recommending them as gifts, were pretty much all set to give the go ahead and bring out those charge cards. But that new market may have just dried up on account of J. K. Rowling’s decision to ‘out’ one of her characters. Though I’ve never heard anyone say her books promote homosexuality, I’ve suddenly become somewhat disinclined to buy or recommend to anyone buying the books, as I’m sensitive to contributing to someone promoting an agenda I disagree with. I’m guessing many conservative Christians who also were re-considering Harry Potter, are now re-re-considering.

Like I said at the beginning, J. K. Rowling probably won’t notice this lack of potential sales, but for what it’s worth, if you’re selling a product, think before you open your mouth before your customers. Will what you say lose you customers, and if so, do you care?

Obviously I’m talking about the stand taken by some conservative Christians such as James Dobson and Tony Perkins (Family Research Council) to not support any candidate for the 2008 Presidential election unless he/she takes a strong stand for innocent human life. What this means is that they are encouraging conservative Christians to either not vote, or vote for a conservative pro-life third part candidate. This likely would be the case if Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican primary.

Now by extremist, I’m referring to a view toward voting. There are many who express a very cynical view, saying things like “all these candidates don’t care for the little man! They are all alike and just want to line their own pockets!” One with such a view, hardly if ever votes. Most conservatives believe in being responsible and educating oneself about the candidates and taking the time to vote. After all, it doesn’t take that much time out of one’s life to vote. This is one extremist view toward voting. There is another.

If you are passionate about some issue, such as defending innocent life or preserving traditional marriage, it stands to reason you will devote some time and/or money to some group that is promoting that agenda. You will also want to vote for candidates for public office who are most likely to advance that agenda. But it’s the former where the focus should be. Given that you can’t count on how other people are going to vote, and the ability of elected officials to be influenced by other interests, it’s perfectly reasonable to take a “give it your best shot” approach. The situation today is that it’s highly unlikely a third party candidate will win. If it happens anywhere, it’s usually just some local office. So if it’s going to be either a Democrat or a Republican, then unless you are a liberal, or seriously mis-informed about how beholden the Democratic Party is to the MoveOn.org leftists, it stands to reason that you vote Republican. At least you can vote in the primary and vote for someone a little more close to your views, but accept the winner. It doesn’t mean you are compromising your values just because your voting is only going to push the ball a little bit, because you still have the opportunity to be active in conservative, traditional values, activities.

In fact, one could say that refusing to vote unless it’s for someone who lines up a certain way on issues, is a form of idolatry. Are you putting your faith in some human being to solve the world’s problems?

This is a response I wrote to the opening editorial in the Sept. 23^rd    2007 Our Sunday Visitor (osv.com) by Greg Erlandson.

Whenever most of us conservative Catholics hear talk of “social justice” our eyes go in to unconditioned roll mode. I realize that most, if not all the time, the Bishops take a position on some sort of social justice issue, like minimum wage or family leave act, it is nuanced enough to allow disagreement. However that doesn’t really matter because the press reports it as “Catholic Church Takes Stand On ...” or some such headline.

I certainly don’t mind when the Church, by way of the Bishops or the Pope, take a stand against abortion or same sex marriage. But I feel compelled to declare opposition to other, usually politically liberal positions. Government is run by imperfect humans, and so we will not have perfect solutions to problems. It is completely ok for Catholics to support or oppose government actions even knowing that it will leave some people suffering. We can support actions that we believe will do the most good. I believe raising the minimum will hurt more people than it will help. The same is true for providing national health insurance. The war against terrorism, including in Iraq, is making the world a better and safer place. Having a death penalty saves more lives than it ends. Even if I’m wrong, as long as the motivation for my political positions is the betterment of my fellow man, or as one might say, “social justice”, then I’m in line with Catholic teaching.

 

 

 

There has been much discussion about a politicians religious views and whether they matter. It was an issue for President John F. Kennedy due to prejudice against Catholics at the time, and today for Mitt Romney, a Mormon, running in the Republican primary for President. My favorite talk show host, Hugh Hewitt, has strongly condemned as bigotry, a decision not to vote for Mitt Romney due to his membership with the LDS.

Being Catholic, I was angry toward Democratic Senators (and who wouldn’t be?) for suggesting that some of President Bush’s Judicial nominees weren’t fit for the job due to their Catholic beliefs. However, I’m angry that they’re liberal, and obstructing a vote for nomination, not that I think they are ‘bigoted’ against Catholics. I don’t agree with a blanket view that you should never consider a candidate’s religious beliefs. If someone was a Wicca, I would not even consider voting for him. In fact, if told that a particular candidate is Catholic, that would give me pause. Many Catholic politicians are very liberal tax and spend types who are anti-war and want to go easy on criminals. And worse, many such as Senator Ted Kennedy, stray from Catholic teaching and support abortion and same sex marriage. Now if the candidate is someone like former Senator Rick Santorum, that’s a different matter, as he has all the right (pun intended) views.

Now, back to Mitt Romney. Hugh Hewitt has written a book, A Mormon in the White House. Though I haven’t read it (sorry Hugh) I’m sure it’s a great book, offers a positive and accurate portrayal of Mitt Romney, and good reasons why conservatives should not be afraid to vote for him. Given that Mormons are generally conservative, and have strong family values, I think most conservative Christians should view Mormon politicians favorably. I don’t expect liberals to do so, unless the politician is Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, a liberal Mormon Democrat. I didn’t even know they made those kind.

The only hesitation I have for voting for a conservative Mormon is a concern regarding polygamy. I know the Mormon Church does not support members practicing polygamy, and will excommunicate any member who does so. However, the official Mormon view is that God does not condemn the practice, but is only for now telling them not to do so. Some polygamist break-offs from the Mormon church are taking advantage of court rulings establishing same sex marriage or civil unions and using those decisions to establish a right to practice polygamy. I fear that some mainstream Mormons might be thinking along the same lines and actually want liberal judges that will provide a free for all in regards to marriage.

Nevertheless, I don’t sense any groundswell of support among Mormons to bring back polygamy, and have no reason to believe that Mitt Romney does either, so I’m back to having an overall positive view toward voting for him in the primary. It’s starting to look like it’s either him, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani. It’s possible I might vote for Giuliani due to Romney being a Mormon, but not that I’m concerned about having a Mormon President. It’s that I fear enough other people might not want a Mormon President, and will vote for Hillary or Obama.