A U.S. Theocracy? Hardly

Recent liberal scare tactics have included an ominous warning: If we continue to allow people to infuse their political and religious beliefs, the United States of America could become a theocracy. Now that you have stopped laughing or cursing, which ever way it makes you feel, lets see how absurd it is. First off, why are they making this accusation? This goes to the trend that many liberals see as causing their recent loss in the 2004 elections, the move of religious voters to a conservative stance. After the election, liberals were seen as out of touch with faith and many Americans want to elect God fearing people to govern them. Faith is something which a politician can't attack very easily in America without having his head given to him on a silver platter. In response, members such as Hillary Clinton made visible trips to church every Sunday to show they were religious also. This received the expected snickers and jokes. Seeing that America wasn't falling for such an obvious ploy, some frustrated members went even further. We're talking as far as France. Some have started to say that religious beliefs should be left off of capital hill.
A religious battle is one which liberals are losing and will continue to lose. The recent trend in America is toward a stricter, or as some would say, a fundamental faith. People are seeing that the "faith" of liberal megachurches is nothing but a large social club and a pastor driving a 2005 Cadillac, leather seats of course. After all, Jesus said his faith would be based not on a Sealy mattress, but a rock. The path would not be a paved 4 lane highway, but a narrow path with rocks to stub your toe and to trip you up. Faith is not a presidential suite where all your earthly cares are taken care of, but a trial of hardship and despair. True faith recognizes these facts of life. Hopefully liberals will get this message and truly see the light.
America won't become a theocracy for several reasons, mainly it isn't keeping with tradition and there is a great diversity in the US. The constitution plainly says government can't establish a religion. Secondly, the "religious right" is formed of Catholics, Baptist, Lutherans, Pentacostals, etc. These groups formed together to fight a common battle, but as history shows if the battle is ever won, the ties will separate. The clamor isn't for a theocracy, but a moral state, one which is safe for children, women, and men of all races. Democracy allowed advanced moral decay, now will those affected please stand in return?

Poll: Americans Approve Pope?

In a recent ABC Washington Post poll, 81% of polled Catholics were enthusiastic having Pope BenedictXVI. This is in stark contrast to the media giants giving those disappointed an unusually large amount of airtime. If one listened to them, the Church in America has forsaken its roots, with only a few stragglers clinging to their pasts. Granted, polls aren't an exact science, and the approval could be higher or lower than the numbers suggest, yet this must be a shock to news outlets. After days of stories documenting his "Hitler Youth" (which was required of all who lived in Germany) and position in the "Nazi" (not German) army, which he was drafted into (you try to tell Hitler or the SS you are a consciencious objector), they must be scratching their heads. Pope BenedictXVI, much like his predecessor John Paul II, are not "conservative" in their outlook. They are Catholic in their outlook. It is only our current political climate in America in which such views are conservative. But I suppose such views are too Politically Correct for liberals (after all, PC can only be used to their advantage). Those who wish to "modernize" the Church, I can only ask: Why not join a liberal church which already holds your views, or start your own church, along with the thousands already out there.

Follow Up: A Small Gain For Life

I am happy to report that the AP has reworked the article, removing the phrases I quoted as showing a strong liberal slant. The article is still available at the link listed in the original post. I am much happier with the tone of this news report. I hope that the AP thinks harder on its choice of language before posting an article again.

A Small Gain for Life

The House passed a bill (H.R. 748) making it illegal to circumvent parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines to receive an abortion. This bill still needs to be passed in the Senate, so look for it later this summer. All I can say is, it's about time. Parental consent laws are created for the protection of the child. Abortion is a dangerous and potentially deadly operation, one that, as told by numerous women, leaves a long lasting emotional scar. If a teenager has made a mistake, it is important that they don't rush into something which will affect them for decades afterwards. Some people object because there is a chance of incest within the family. HELLO?! The child needs to be removed from that surrounding immediately and the parents would have no bearing on the decision. Oh, and for the record, take a look at the associated press report released (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ABORTION?SITE=PASUN&SECTION=HOME). Notice the strong liberal slant in how the news is portrayed. This is "the latest effort to chip away at abortion rights after Republican gains in the November elections," after all. Notice also "critics" outlawed partial-birth abortion. And all gains from the bill will be over run by "health, abuse and legal problems that pregnant girls and their well-meaning confidants might suffer." The bill provides an exemption for life endangerment. If there is abuse, the child should consult with the proper authorities. The only legal ramifications come from breaking the law, which seems to be pretty much standard procedure throughout history. Or at least the history I read. It's hard telling what their liberal PC history says. Its weird how a little common sense solves their concerns.

Fairness Doctrine? The Ravings of Liberal Pussies

In case you aren't up to speed, the Fairness Doctrine (bill H.R.501) sponsored by New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, is a bill trying bring "fairness" to electronic media (mainly talk radio). In other words, liberals want government to step in (what a surprise!) and level the playing field so radio stations are forced to give equal time to voices on both sides of an issue. Sounds ok right? Maybe if you live in Russia. This "doctrine" has been brought up for years and was vetoed by Reagan. The problem comes into play when a radio station in a conservative area, plays the Rush Limbaugh show, which is three hours long, during the week. According to the "Fairness Doctrine" that station must now run an opposing show, such as the Al Franken show, for three hours. Is it fair to have government telling the small local AM station what shows they are to run, even if they are not supported by their market? It is, in a sense, economic suicide. If liberal radio was wanted by such a large group of people, then their ratings would be much higher than they currently are (see http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200504261400.asp) Some would say that conservatives should support this bill since we have been citing examples of gross liberal bias in the media. However, this bill would not touch newspapers, such as the darling New York Times and Washington Post, where the worst liberal biases are held. On television networks, news programs use one sided facts to proclaim their "subtle" bias. These polls and research papers are said to be unbiased, even though sometimes researchers refuse to allow others to see the questions they asked. Under this guise, the "Fairness Doctrine" would not work. It clearly targets talk radio. I doubt that this bill will do anything but be recycled into something useful, like toilet paper.

Habemus Papam!

I am very happy with the announcement of the new pope, Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. I view his approach to faith and orthodoxy as the pillar strengths of the Catholic Church. It was very good to see that the Cardinals are not bending to the liberal pressures put upon them. For if the Catholic Church is to assume the liberalized theology presented to it, it will cease to be the Church of Christ. Once there is a break in tradition and orthodoxy, the liberalization process floods through. Just look at the Anglican Church and the radical changes which it faces since allowing women reverends, including the damage of instating Rev. Gene Robinson, an openly gay bishop.
I was disheartened to hear the news media voice the opinions of so many misguided Catholics who have liberal views. In my student newspaper, the Indiana Student Daily, IU religious studies professor Mary Jo Weaver stated she was concerned about the Pope's position regarding homosexual mariages! She said "I think it's appalling, unjust and ridiculous." Someone of such supposed "knowledge" or "intellect" would know that no Pope could ever change marriage, because it is a Law of God in the view of Catholics (and most other Christian denominations). Homosexual activity is a sin and should be seen that way. Professor Weaver (and I use the term loosely) obviously knows little of what she is supposed to be teaching. Her ignorance and/or lack of professionalism (subjecting her feelings to students instead of unbiased facts) shows a clear favoring of a liberalising presence of the Church. Unfortunately, such ideas will not go away quickly for as Fr. Felix Salvany said in 1899, "Heresy is always sophistically obstinate, it clings to the least pretext, seeks every excuse to escape condemnation. Barricading itself behind ... technical defenses."