http://us.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=1382689498&action=showLetter&umid=2_0_0_1_23478741_AMANw0MAAN29T9UgIwhRVRhxHMM&box=Inbox In these our times of stress, uncertainty and turmoil, this is an invitation to meditation and prayer with the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic church. The writer of this blog is a Lutheran but he has found that praying the Rosary is a powerful method of focused spiritual prayer.
Category: Religion
Belonging to an Organization on your own terms?
The Nuns agreed to belong to an organization ruled in a monarchial fashion by a top man and administered by his male agents. Their agreement to part of the Roman Catholic Church was not forced on them. It was part of their belief system. They trained not as Presbyterian or Lutheran Nuns but as Roman Catholic. They vowed faithfulness not to the magisterium of the Episcopal Church but to the Roman Catholic. That system has a very clearly defined and easily understood set of rules. These rules are not secret and they are not imposed on adherents by force. The key concept being that the Pope, his Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops are the teachers of the Roman Catholic church and that these persons are entrusted with the duty and responsibility to teach and to protect the universally accepted doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. When the Nuns and their leaders were accepted into the Order of the Church they willingly and publicly accepted this system, its procedures and the oversight of the Magisterial hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, in this last days, this magisterial hierarchy has examined the leadership of the Nuns and found it lacking. The Pope and his agents have conducted an open, transparent and public examination of the Leadership Conference and published its findings openly with a recommendation that the Leadership Conference accept a more direct management by a trio of bishops appointed by the President (Pope) of their organization. To this writer, the intention here is to right any wrongs and foster a more collegial decision-making process which by definition will be consonant with the Pope and the whole Church. In conclusion, this writer is not proposing that the Process, procedures or organizational structure of the Roman Catholic Church is the only right or good one. However, when a nun or any other person freely joins such an organization and additionally seeks to be a Nun- teacher of that organization then they should abide by the rules of oversight. Granted, that his Holiness and the bishops have invited a response, however, in the end, the nuns must decide if they will remain in the organization they love or chose to become members of one of the many Protestant organizations. However, it will be intellectually impossible to remain a Roman Catholic Nun in rebellion against the Church. Why? Because of their vows.
Roman Catholic Nuns May Not Want Jesus but They Want to Stay Roman Catholic !
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2012/may/04/tensions-building-between-liberal-nuns-vatican/?partner=yahoo_feeds The article cited here is the most recent indication of a societal opinion that does not make sense. The key paragraphs in the article are the following:
A pivotal moment came in 2007, when Dominican Sister Laurie Brink delivered the keynote address at a national LCWR assembly stating that it was time for some religious orders to enter an era of “sojourning” that would require “moving beyond the church, even beyond Jesus.”
With the emergence of the women’s movement and related forms of spirituality, many sisters would see “the divine within nature” and embrace an “emerging new cosmology” that would feed their souls, said Brink. For these sisters, the “Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative. … Jesus is not the only son of God.”
A year later, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith opened its investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.
My understanding the word “sojourn” is that it means the same as to journey or to travel. So Sister Brink is saying that a person can be a Roman Catholic Nun but without the Roman Catholic Church and she can also be a Christian without believing that Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity and the Savior promised to the world by the Holy Bible.
The problem with this position is that it is non sensical. If sister Brink wants to say that an individual can regard themselves to be Christian but without Jesus that’s fine but that is not what she says nor wants. She wants the individual to be able to declare themselves an official Nun of the Roman Catholic Church without the Church or its approval. To cut the argument short, I ask, can someone declare themselves to be my child but without biological birth from my wife and myself? Well, they can declare themselves to be that but just declaring it does not make it true or factual. A person may feel within themselves that are one of my progeny but they cannot therefore move into my house, eat my food, take my money or represent themselves in legal proceedings as being my child.
I seem to remember this type of case happening before in the case of Father Hans Kung of Germany. He held the official chair of Roman Catholic theology at a German university. However, his teaching were not in consonance with the official teaching of that Church. When Pope John Paul removed him from his teaching position there was an outcry. Academics condemned Rome for suppressing freedom of speech. However, the Vatican was very clear. It said that Father Kung remained a priest of the Roman Catholic Church based upon the doctrine of “Character indelible” (A doctrine that declares when a priest is ordained he is ontologically differentiated and that differentiation cannot be undone by human action.) The Holy See also declared that Father Kung was allowed to write, speak and teach whatever he wanted, to whomever would listen and at any time and place. However, he was no longer regarded as a theologian of the Roman Catholic Church and his teaching should not be regarded as representing the official Roman Catholic theological position. Essentially this is analogous to President Obama dismissing his Press Secretary and saying that his views no longer represent the views of the Obama administration.
I will not labor the point of faith versus the Faith, except to declare that personal faith in “the divine within nature” and embracing an “emerging new cosmology” is most likely shared by thousands of Roman Catholic Christians, however such personally individual faith is not the same as the Faith and should not be deemed representative of Roman Catholic theology. Which is to say that persons can embrace such thinking, (whatever it means since it is very vague) but even as a lay catechist they cannot teach such. This is especially true in the light of the final quote in this report, namely, the “Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative. … Jesus is not the only son of God.”
Why, because Christianity is essentially about Jesus. The three great ecumenical creeds clearly affirm Jesus as the “only begotten of the Father” and “In Jesus His (God’s) only Son our Lord. conceived by the Hoy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.”
The Vatican is not declaring that the nuns are not people. It is not saying that their dedication to social work and community building is unworthy. It is not declaring that the personal private opinions of these woman is condemned. What the Vatican is saying is that if they want to be considered official representatives of the Roman Catholic Church then they are required to adhere to the teachings structures and procedures of that Church and that if they have issues with such items they can petition for redress of their complaints. However, they cannot unilaterally present their personal opinions, prejudices or stereotypes as being officially Roman Catholic. At least for this writer it is a no brainer.
How do you see the central issue? Are there other societal examples declaring something to be true which is obviously not true? What is the result when we accept that merely declaring something to be true makes it true? Has anyone read Animal Farm by George Orwell? Do the pigs practice “truth by definition?”. What does the horse think of it?
The reports never mention the opposition forces that seek the overthrow of Assad. Like with Libya, the Nato nations want to interfere and force the government to fall. However, if a group of anarchists, or any other political group sought to overthrow the Obama government by force, it would be deemed treason and it would be suppressed by force and the perpetrators would be liable to execution. So why is it different with Syria? Obviously, the Obama government is already involved in the overthrow of the legal government of Libya by outside force. In former days, the crime against Libya would have been condemned as criminal aggression and under Nuremberg rules it should be treated as a crime against humanity.
In the case of Libya, the Russian and Chinese were promised that UN resolution 1973 was merely to use NATO military force to protect so-called innocent civilians. Once approved by UN, the British and French attacked the legal armed forces of the Legal Libyan government. The excuse was that the army of the government “obviously” must be attacked in order to protect civilians. After the 212 cruise missile strikes and the first two hundred jet fighter attacks against military installations inside of Libya, Vladimir Putin objected. However, it was too late. The drum beats of war had begun and the French and Brits would never accept that they were acting illegally. So they increased their attacks with assistance from USA and the government of Belgium. (It is very noteworthy that all three governments have a dirty colonial history of racial imperialism and genocide. (Belgium in Central Africa under King Leopold) However, the Academic community and the mass audience to Internet and TV reporting allowed themselves to condone criminal and wonton aggression because the “horrible” Gaddafi bombed a civilian aircraft over Lockerbie. (Noteworthy here is that the Brits accepted the actual perpetrator of that crime to gain asylum in Europe.!)
Again Putin objected but to no avail and the military organization known as NATO ferociously attacked the Libyan government . And the world, its response was silence or cheering. Silence because no one really cared about the Libyan people and cheering because of hatred for Gaddafi. By the way, NATO was originally meant to protect against Russian aggression. Amazing double standard that now they are open, obvious and arrogant aggressors.
All of this brings us to the current impasse with Syria. The Russians and Chinese were betrayed with UN resolution 1973 and so far they have vowed not to let that happen again. The NATO nations spent billions to wage war against Libya. They have no taste for that kind of expense again. They have expended their war budgets. And the USA? Carney’s admission of “defeat” is precursor to the coming proposal that the world community again take up war in the region. And don’t forget the Iranians.
Obama is right not to arm the rebels. Our own civil war dealt with the problem of outside forces as the British tried to interfere on the side of the South. However, Carney does not mention if the Brits, French and Belgians are also refraining from funding, and arming the rebel insurrectionists. In the light of NATO’s duplicity in the case of Libya, this writer thinks that they are secretly arming, advising and funding the insurrectionists.
When President Kennedy got involved with the war in Vietnam he decided to back the insurrection against President Diem. The result was the murder of the President of South Vietnam in the back of a truck. Kennedy, a co religionist with Diem, (both were Roman Catholic) intensely regretted the regicide of Diem. Sadly, he was himself assassinated by those who have no respect for law or morality. So far, the Obama government is content with political assassination by drone. And although the Obama government is guilty of complicity to murder Gaddafi, they have not committed to regicide by drone against Syrian President Assad. If they did, the morality would dictate that political assassination of government leaders is righteous and therefore permissible, for anyone who thought the other guy was a so-called dictator and therefore illegitimate. In these times when we express our politics forcefully and opening, I am sure that many individuals regard the government with suspicion. Yet, we do not advocate violent overthrow. What is moral for us should be our guide in dealing with others.
Christians Helping Peace in Syria
» 03/16/2012 23:50 VATICAN – SYRIA Vatican Nunzio: For the Church in Syria it is time to go on the offensive and not stand and watch by Bernardo Cervellera In an interview with AsiaNews, Mgr. Mario Zenari, for the past three years nunzio in Damascus, described all the elements that make up the tangled skein of Syria. The deep division between Sunnis and Alawites (Shiites) and the growing hatred. The too fearful Christians must commit themselves to building a society where there is respect for man and his rights, equality for women, equality among all citizens, freedom of religion and of conscience. Being in Syria is a mission. At Homs a priest talks with the rebels and with the army to provide aid to the poor, to save the lives of the inhabitants, to bury the dead that nobody wants to touch. In a year of violence at least 800-900 children have been killed. The majority were shot in the streets by unknown snipers. Syria is changing and there’s no turning back.
Damascus (AsiaNews) – “This is the Christians’ hour”; there has begun “a new historical process in Syria” from which it will never turn back and “Christians cannot miss this rendezvous with history”: Msgr. Mario Zenari, for three years now the Vatican nuncio in Damascus, speaks almost excitedly as he recalls the Christians’ missionary efforts of Christians, which is to be “like sheep among wolves”, but with an identity and a task. Precisely because in Syria the gap between the different components of society is widening more and more, he sees an urgent need for Christians to come out into society and build bridges of reconciliation, defending the values typical of the Church’s social doctrine: human dignity, rejection of violence, equality between men and women, fundamental freedoms, freedom of conscience and religion, the separation between religion and state. “It is urgent”, he said, “to go out into the open, on the attack, and not to sit back and watch.” Mgr. Zenari, 66, tells stories of ordinary heroism of some priests who have remained in Homs during this months’ bombing and violence. While sharing in the mourning for the tragedy of the Belgian children killed in a car accident in Switzerland, he reminds us that in Syria 800-900 children have already been killed, mostly shot “in the head and the heart” by strangers: “Their murder is an atrocity” and it is necessary that the international community ensure “justice for these children.” Here is the full interview which Mgr. Zenari gave via telephone to AsiaNews.
Your Excellency, what is it like is to be in Syria at this moment?
My heart is sad. This is the fourth spring that I’ve lived in Damascus and this year I still haven’t seen spring arrive. They’re expecting the fruits of Kofi Annan’s mission, but there are fears that the parties will say “Yes, but …”, where the “but” is more important than the “yes”. Instead it is urgent that both parties make a tremendous effort. The distances between them have become huge and are widening every day. For this reason it’s necessary for both parties to jump through hoops to rebuild the dialogue. A reversal is necessary, a conversion… The climate is so deteriorated that a fair amount of heroism is needed, perhaps a bit more from one particular side. Hopefully the help of the international community will bear fruit, so it will make them make great gestures, but it’s a bit difficult.
Before, the international community accused only the regular army. Now Annan has called for an end to the violence from both sides; Britain hopes for a peaceful solution; France is doubtful about sending weapons to the rebels…
Yes, this is true. The request has to come from 360 degrees, from all sides. Maybe at the beginning the media exaggerated about only one of the sides. But both parties are called upon to make gestures of goodwill and put an end to violence. At first, perhaps driven by enthusiasm for the Arab spring in other regions, the riots were seen in a very idealistic manner; and then going forward, we saw many other aspects come into play. To date, Syria is a tangled skein, and there are many elements to watch.
Could you list these elements?
Initially there were demonstrations for more democracy, more respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, with peaceful demonstrations that were suppressed. But then so many factors were added: first, the fact that 75% of the society here is composed of Sunnis; then, that it is governed by 12% of the population who are the Alawites. This tension between Sunnis and Alawites today is decisive, without forgetting the other aspects. History will assess how the relationship between Sunnis and Shiites has gone (the Alawites are somehow linked to the Shiite world).
There is also an attempt to internationalize the conflict.
We are neighbors with Iraq, with Israel, with Lebanon; and we’re not far from Iran… and so in Syria ingredients come in from all sides and complicate the mess.
There is a risk that the international community use Syria as a chessboard for its interests: the West, Saudi Arabia and Qatar against Iran; Israel against Hezbollah; Turkey against Syria … But the needs of the Syrian people are forgotten.
There are various readings. There is the simplistic one of the regime which claims that a foreign conspiracy is present. It’s impossible to evaluate fully how much is true and how much is propaganda.
The Syrian Christians, 10% of the population, seem caught in the crossfire.
For me there is a place for Christians and they cannot afford to miss this appointment with this new historical process. There is no doubt that Syria is changing: a new process has begun and there’s no going back. Where should the Christians place themselves? I would answer based on the Psalms, a wisdom that is at least 2500 years old. And one Psalm says: Do not lean on a falling wall [Ps 61 (62), 4]. And neither should a man stand by, gazing out the window. Christians are in society and must roll up their sleeves. In the past there have been faithful who have made a glorious contribution in the field of culture, art, politics: one of the founders of the Baath Party was a Christian. Woe, therefore, if they miss this appointment. What’s more, Christians start off with an advantage. The Pope, a few months ago, at the Syrian ambassador’s presentation of credentials [June 9, 2011], pointed out that there are exemplary relations between Christians and Muslims. The Christians in Syria also have a good elite: cultural figures, academics, lawyers, presidents of hospitals… It’s time to live out our task and make our contribution, reclaiming our dignity and our identity, based on the Gospel and the social doctrine of the Church: human dignity, rejection of violence, equality between men and women, fundamental freedoms, freedom of conscience and religion, the separation between religion and state, etc… It is urgent to go out in the open, on the attack, and not to sit back and watch.
Three years ago I presented my credentials to President Assad. And I was impressed that for following 15 minutes during the personal interview, the president continued to speak of the importance that Christians have for Syrian society. He truly admired the Christian components in the country. In this phase of transformation, one cannot look back and think about some protection from the outside: we must work for a rule of law, in which all citizens are equal, have the same rights and duties.
Another thing I noticed is that at every level Christians serve as a bridge. In many mixed villages, Alawites and Christians live in peace, Sunnis and Christians the same, Druze and Christians live in harmony… In these times, with the conflict, sometimes there has been friction and confrontation, but until now, no church has ever suffered even a scratch. In any case, we Christians can have a function of reconciliation among all the groups living in the country. The idea is going around that the fate of Christians in Syria is likely to be similar to what happened in Iraq. But Syria is not Iraq, and it’s not even Egypt: it has its own characteristics, with a tradition of good tolerance.
The Gospel tells us: I send you out as sheep among wolves. And the wolves are not only in Damascus but also in Frankfurt, New York, London, Paris …. only somewhat more subtle and refined. Being in the midst of wolves is part of our mission and we need not fear. The Gospel also says: “Do not be afraid.”
I have continually before my eyes outstanding examples of this mission. In these days Homs is hell. Everyday I phone three priests who have remained there. As we speak, we hear gunfire because the Christian quarter is between in the crossfire. One of them is remarkable for what he is able to do: he talks to the rebels to halt the violence, asking them permission to let pass the trucks with food aid for the poor. On the other hand, from the other side, he asks the army not to shoot, in order not to hit the neighborhoods where there are still inhabitants, or sacred buildings. And he serves as a bridge, like a sheep among wolves. Several days ago there were the bodies of three soldiers in front of the cathedral. They had been there for 10 days. No one dared to recover them because there was the risk of being killed. So he went to the rebels and asked for clemency for these bodies. The rebels at first were angry, shouting: “What do we care for these pigs?” But he said: “No, after we are dead we are not pigs, we are all equal.” And he managed to get them to listen: they loaded the bodies onto a truck and dumped them onto a piece of road where it was easier for their fellow soldiers to recover them.
The Church can do a lot, on a practical, charitable level, and with our choices, focusing on the defense of the human person, above party lines. We must give attention to the hungry, the wounded, the dead… So many people have been killed and no one knows by whom. We must go out, denounce, give our testimony in favor of the human person.
These days the world has been impressed by the tragedy of that bus that crashed in a tunnel in Switzerland. 22 Belgian children died and the emotion that it aroused is understandable. Here in Syria, until 2 weeks ago, according to the UN there have been 7500 killed, but now we are up to 9500. Of these, at least 500 are children! This means that out of every 15 deaths, one was a child. Some of them died crushed by the rubble caused by bombs, but the majority died in the street and not because they stumbled or fell, no: they were shot in the heart or the head with bullets. I hope that the international community can do something to ensure justice for these children. It is good and fitting to be moved over 22 children, but here there are 800-900 who have died. It is urgent to denounce these crimes. Human life is sacred, that of those who wear the military uniform, like that of the rebels, but even more so that of children. Their murder is an atrocity.
The road Syria is on is long, difficult and painful, like that of a river: it may deviate, go right or left, but it reaches the sea. The Synod for the Middle East prompted the bishops and the faithful to witness to the faith and work together to build the city of man along with the others. The Church must speak its position, meet, comfort, clean up these disfigured faces. Being in this country is a mission.
What can we Catholics do in the rest of the world? The Custody of the Holy Land, for example, has launched a campaign to help the Christians of Syria…
We must begin by thanking you for your generosity and solidarity, which is much needed. I hope that with Caritas and other institutions we can alleviate all the suffering in the country. It is also necessary try to understand the situation of the Christians. It’s one thing is to reason at a table, and another thing to get carried away by sentiment. We must understand even the feelings and listen.
What worries me most is the growing hatred in society. For now it isn’t manifest, but it’s burning. The bullets that the two groups are exchanging are only the tip of the iceberg. We are walking on embers that can ignite at any time. For our part, we Christians witness to charity. It’s the Christians’ moment, we must act and go on the offensive in defense of the human person: it is important not to miss this historic moment.
Republican Anti Romneyism is Pathological not Ideological
“Yeah, I understand it. Everyone in the Republican establishment wants Romney and they’d like everyone else to go home,” Gingrich told ABC News’ Jon Karl in an interview Tuesday. “They’d like to have a coronation, but that’s not how this is done.”
There is weird thinking in the USA conservative movement that Governor Mitt Romney is not a true Conservative. This kind of thinking betrays a pathological bias more than an ideological divide between Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich.
The best way I can describe it is to make analogy with the Christian Church. Firstly, let me say clearly that this analogy is not anger toward or indiscreet criticism of the Christian Church. I love the Christian Church, warts and all. However, the analogy of Christian and indeed, Jewish and Moslem denominationalism fits the current Republican scene.
Christians, including Mormon Christians, proclaim that Jesus is the Christ. They adhere to the creedal formulations of the Church and they distinguish themselves from other faith religions. However, within Christianity, there are various labels for various Christian Churches. The two big ones are Roman Catholic and Orthodox. Then there are the many so-called Protestant groups, like Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Baptist.
All of these groups aka. “denominations”, profess Jesus as the Christ, that God is Trinity in character, and that a person is granted eternal life through a relationship with God through Christ in faith. That applies to 100% of the groups mentioned as being Christian. So what’s the difference? Why are there denominations? An adequate answer to both questions would require a treatise. However, a simplification would be to say that all the denominations are a result of social/economic/political and cultural differences between various people at the time of the inception of each denominational group. Not much help in understanding the core basis of denominationalism, is it? That’s because there is no simple answer, denominationalism is a phenomenon.
Today, the battle within the Republican party is between the so-called Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals. They are all part of the established Republican party which party is the only Republican party there is and the only one entitled to be listed on the ballot in fifty States as Republican! Like all the groups within Christianity are Christians, so all the groups within the Republican party are Republican. The names they call themselves, their denominators, are self-imposed qualifiers. Over time, these qualifiers have become nuanced so that a Conservative in 2012 is not the same as a Conservative of 1912.
It is this writer’s opinion that in other elections the nuances between the groups and even within the groups were allowed to blend. This blending producted hybrids known as Moderate Liberals and Moderate Conservatives. The adjective “moderate” allowed Republicans the flexibility to pull the right and the left toward the center of the Republican spectrum. However, the advent of Talk Show radio has introduced an element of rigidity into the party which denies that such moderation is allowed. Rather, Talk Show hosts insist upon a definition of Conservative which precludes the hybrid, Moderate-Conservative designator. And in the present context, Governor Mitt Romney is seen to be a hybrid and not purely Conservative.
From my seat along the sidelines of politics, it seems that Liberals and Moderates are still willing to allow flexible definitions of a person’s political philosophy. So, they allow that a person can be strictly Conservative in economic politics while being moderately Conservative in social politics and maybe, conservatively liberal regarding international politics. It is possible, there may be many so-called “pure” Conservatives who also will allow flexibility regarding Governor Romney because they feel that he has the best chance of winning against President Obama. Sadly, it is becoming evident that Talk Show hosts like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, (to name the best, biggest and most influential) are fundamentally opposed to any graduated designator.
In the title to this article I use the concept that this refusal to allow moderation of so-called “pure” Conservatism is pathological rather than ideological. I believe that an ideological difference can become nuanced when influenced by reasoned conversation. However, both Santorum and Gingrich and their promoters say that they are essentially anti Romney. Since they denominate themselves as the true Conservative in distinction to Romney’s Moderate Conservatism, then, I believe, their opposition to him is unreasoned, ingrained, emotional and I suggest, pathological.
No Obama Outrage over Islamic Stonings
http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-militia-stone-youths-death-emo-style-171115804.html Granted at the outset that this story deals with the sovereign state of Iraq. Also granted that essentially these murders are none of our business. Lastly, granted that the President of the USA cannot comment upon everything that happens in our world. Yet this story is very shocking because it comes out of Iraq. It is remembered that we lost the lives of several thousand of the best of USA youth in order to secure the freedom of this Moslem Nation. It is also remembered that ten thousand of USA youth were maimed in the war to “free” the Iraqi people. Therefore, to read that this type if Islamo/nazi radicalism is once again prominent in Iraq is disheartening.
Taking all of the above items into consideration, this writer is disappointed that the President of the USA displays a very pro Islamic orientation. He apologizes for an accidental burning of a mere book, namely the Quran. Hey, it is not our problem that Moslems cannot cope with the burning of their scripture. I am a Christian and my church discards dozens of holy Scriptures yearly. The printed books are worn, or weathered, or yellowed or their covers are destroyed. As a Christian, our holy Bible is a book. It is the content and the message of the content that is holy and not the pages on which the words are printed. And while I can accept the President’s statement that he apologized in order to save lives, nonetheless, I do not hear him protesting the incident here described nor do I hear him decrying the continued genocidal bombing by Moslems of Christian churches in Nigeria.
Why is this important? This writer believes that the job of the President of the USA is to uphold the Constitution, to defend the nation against its enemies, foreign and domestic and to extend the interests of the nation worldwide. However, President Obama seems more intent on apologizing for the nation, and taking a defensive position concerning the international interests of USA.
The National Reviewers are not Intellectual Giants Just Opinionated People
http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101434/what-about-the-democrats-rush-limbaughs I just went back to this article and read the comments of the people who cared to comment. I didn’t comment and do not have a subscription but I suggest that my readers go there, read this prejudiced article, and read the equally petty and unreasonable comments and it testifies to my premise that this is definitely not a magazine of intellectual greatness.
The New Republic is Disappointing
http://www.tnr.com/article/101532/home-news-letter-tnr-readers-chris-hughes Very nice letter about high ideas, and higher ideals, and the rule of civility and the need for in-depth journalism and the like. Sadly, I then looked at the article about “Where are the Democrat Rush Limbaughs” http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101434/what-about-the-democrats-rush-limbaughs and immediately the phony claims of TNR were uncovered as the author excused all the Democrat people he listed, all of them saying much more offensive things than Limbaugh. The claim the TNR uses in his article is phony because the author uses a flimsy excuse that all his cited Democrats were essentially “good” people who said very nasty things to people but the cited Democrats were not haters. Moreover, the author makes the patently invalid claim that Rush Limbaugh and his followers are an army of hate mongers who are so filled with vitriolic hatred that they attack poor innocent and defenseless private citizen Fluke. Then I looked at the Democrat ads, and the overwhelmingly favorable pro Democrat content. My conclusion, TNR is just an old paper publication proclaiming the pro Democrat, so-called Progressive and so-called Liberal agenda which is pilloried by the Conservatives. Its scholarship is not better, its investigative reporting is not better, its in-depth pro and con analysis of issues facing the national society is not better, and its prejudices and stereotypical name calling are disappointing. When I read the letter of the new owner and I read the letter of the founders, I had hope that finally there would actually be a publication able to have an intellectual discussion according to the rules of civil discourse. Sadly, TNR is not this. All the writers should read The Rev. Father (deceased) Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square. Maybe, if TNR could be renewed in that image, then it might be worth reading. Until then, I will continue to keep searching for the real thing.
Are Gay Couples the Same as Hetero
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9131683/Gay-actor-and-City-high-flier-fight-over-separation-payout.html This is a very interesting article out of United Kingdom (UK) about what happens when gay couples get divorced. It neatly presents a unique perspective that is one being debated in USA. Namely, are gay couples who get married the same as heterosexual couples who get married? Read the interesting arguments of both parties to this divorce suit. It is very informative to the continuing argument going on here in USA.
Progressive Politics 