Over the course of the last few weeks, the news has focused on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero.  Ground Zero, of course, possesses a tremendous amount of significance to Americans as the place where nineteen Muslim extremists conspired to kill thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001.  Such an act can never be forgotten.  Likewise, the building a mosque mere steps from the site of such a tremendous evil, conjures the prospect that it is being done for reasons that are less than pure.  I cannot say, from my vantage point what the motives are of those who wish to build a mosque in this location in a city that already contains so many hundreds of mosques.  But I can say without reservation that the appearance that it is calculated to reinforce and celebrate that act of terrorism is undeniable.  Consequently, I cannot personally support the building of a mosque on that property.

Furthermore, I cannot imagine that economically such an endeavor is wise.  I don’t know for sure how things are in New York, but in my hometown of Chicago, I know that such a project would require the cooperation of the unions.  I can’t believe things are much different in New York City.  Union members are patriotic Americans and their personal beliefs are sure to run contrary to the building of such a monument to anti-Americanism.  As advice to those who seek to build such a mosque, I can only imagine that the cost will exceed your estimates by at least six-fold, and the length of time you believe the mosque will take to erect will be multiplied by five.  There is little that the government can, or in most places will, do to sanction unions.  These calculations should be taken into account by those who wish to build such a mosque as it may prove a foolhardy project with little hope for relief from local government.

That said, there is nothing that government can do to obstruct the project.  The Constitution prohibits the federal government from interfering in the exercise of one’s religion. Our Supreme Court has extended that prohibition to the States.  The plans for the mosque are perfectly legal constitutionally and there is little that government can do to obstruct it.  All faiths are welcome in this country, which is part of what make America the greatest nation on earth.  We look forward to the day when Muslims, Christians, Jews, and all the religions of the world, worship side-by-side in perfect peace.  America is the only place on earth where that dream is obtainable.

God Bless America,

And good night.

Of course, concomitant with God’s overwhelming beneficence comes a reciprocal duty to recognize the import of such a gift. Our response to such an astounding gift can be no less than full acceptance and spreading of that Good News to anyone who will listen. If God makes the faithful more worthy through his Divine Condescension, we can do nothing short of respecting that quality in others. We do this by imitating Christ, the supreme example, and treating others with the respect that their station as co-heirs with Christ rightly entitles them. Our personal interactions, our familial interactions, our public interactions, and even our national interactions should be guided by that example.

A child was born in a manger a little over 2000 years ago to a family of humble means. And the world was changed. With that child came hope for every man, woman and child. With that birth, we were freed from the slavery to sin and given a great promise that we might share in Christ’s heritage. Rejoice and be glad for this is the day the Lord has made. And, in this day, we are to be called to God’s family through our Redeemer.

Merry Christmas to one and all.

27                As the boys grew up, Esau became a Democrat, a man who loved big government; whereas Jacob was a simple man, who kept to his tents.

28                The people loved Esau, because they were fond of largesse; but the founding fathers preferred Jacob.

29                Once, when Jacob was treating a wounded sheep, Esau came in from the open, with a hangnail.

30                He said to Jacob, “Give me some of that medical treatment, I am uncomfortable.” (That is why he was called America.)

31                But Jacob replied, “First give me your birthright in exchange for it.”

32                “Look,” said Esau, “I’m on the point of dying. What good will my freedoms and liberties do me?”

33                But Jacob insisted, “Swear to me first!” So he sold Jacob his birthright under oath.

34                Jacob then treated his hangnail, and Esau sighed in relief, got up, and went his way. Esau cared little for his birthright.

To quote the article linked above: “Some Catholics expressed sympathy for Cutie and said it was time to end the celibacy rule. Others said that, given the recent scandals involving U.S. priests sexually abusing young boys, and Irish priests raping, flogging and enslaving children in Catholic schools, they were relieved that Cutie had merely become involved with an adult woman.”

Indeed, thank God out priests feel comfortable to break the sacrament they took!  Never mind that whole commitment to God and Church thing.  What ever feels good, right?

Now, if we can just get ex-father Cutie (hilarious name I might add) to take the pedophiles with him… after all, sex is sex right?

A spokes-hole for the once Catholic institution said:

“In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage….  Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context.”

Outrageous!  I sure hope that Notre Dame is paying attention.  South Bend, are you listening?

We know that Obama is no fan of religion and this is nothing shocking.  But the fact that a university that claims to be Catholic would cover the name of Christ in order to appease an enemy of the faith is nothing short of depressing.  It is commonly known that Georgetown University does not represent the faith.  They (and many other Catholic schools) are, as others here have pointed out, CINO.

The neat picture of a branching tree is further blurred by a process called endosymbiosis. Early on in their evolution, eukaryotes are thought to have engulfed two free-living prokaryotes. One of these gave rise to the cellular power generators called mitochondria while the other was the precursor of the chloroplasts, in which photosynthesis takes place. These “endosymbionts” later transferred large chunks of their genomes into those of their eukaryote hosts, creating hybrid genomes. As if that weren’t complicated enough, some early eukaryotic lineages apparently swallowed one another and amalgamated their genomes, creating yet another layer of horizontal transfer (Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol, 23, p 268).

This is why I believe in God.

That’s an awful lot to swallow. Their theory seems like a Deus ex Deus ex Deus ex Deus ex machina to me. The coincidences seem to engulf one another and built upon one another until the whole concept taxes one’s credulity. I suppose you have to be a true believer when first you approach a theory like this if there is any hope of wholesale adoption.

The kicker, of course, is the final sentence of the article in which Eric Bapteste, a scientist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, says, “The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it’s time to move on.”

It was helpful to be led down a dead-end path for nearly two centuries? In an academic sense, I suppose it could have been a useful exercise for scientists to hone their argumentation skills, building the strongest case they could from the evidence they could uncover. But, in the end, the evidence they produced has apparently been rent asunder, rendered completely useless.

Meanwhile, after four millenia of intense scrutiny, Yahweh still is. The further revelations that God is Trinity has withstood the battering of two thousand years’ worth of inquiry. Leaving Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as constant and immutable as the day Man discovered the nature of their God. All the while science has “progressed,” reversed its conclusions, and reinvented itself when, time after time, the latest theory is decimated by a johnny-come-lately claimant to the throne of scientific consensus.

Of course, it seems to be the vogue thing to worship Change. After all, it is something one can believe in. No matter how far-fetched.

Someone needs to find that pilot, give him a raise, a medal, and buy him a drink. Not necessarily in that order.

First, the late election was notable for the stark contrast between the candidates’ stances on abortion. On the Democratic side, there was a candidate who favored infanticide for alive-born aborted babies. On the other side was a candidate who professed to be against abortion (although I recognize that his voting record was ambiguous). In light of the differences, the outcome of the election made one’s vote particularly important, given the stakes.

I wrote a post wherein I supported the decision of a local priest to withhold the Eucharist from persons who had voted for Obama. My argument proceeded along the lines that because of the peculiar situation of the United States, where the people are their own rulers, our votes take on special meaning. The basis for this claim, as I alluded to, was St. Paul’s comments in Romans:

1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.

2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,

4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.

5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.

6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Of course, as we know from St. Paul, he always is strongly rooted in the Scriptures. In this case, he was referring to Wisdom 6:1-3, which states:

1 Hear, therefore, kings, and understand; learn, you magistrates of the earth’s expanse!

2 Hearken, you who are in power over the multitude and lord it over throngs of peoples!

3 Because authority was given you by the LORD and sovereignty by the Most High, who shall probe your works and scrutinize your counsels!

In referring to Wisdom, St. Paul emphasized that judgment for misrule would fall not on those who followed the rule of law, but on those who promulgated laws which were unjust. St. Thomas Aquinas makes a similar point when he states that a law which is unjust is no law at all. The point is that those who are charged with rule, as representatives of God, are also held to a higher responsibility and judged accordingly. In that sense, being in charge carries with it the potential for damnation if one does not attend to his responsibilities well.

I extended this concept to encompass the situation of America where “the People” rule. If “the People” rule themselves, then the God-imposed responsibility mentioned above falls on “the People.” For this reason, I argued, “the People” have a special responsibility to rule well to the benefit of the People. If they do not, then they will rightly incur the wrath of the God which set them in the position of responsibility. I hardly think this concept is objectionable.

But, having recognized this, it becomes clear that, as “the People” in a representative government, we have the responsibility to send representatives who will conduct themselves in a Godly way. In other words, our votes carry with them the potential to condemn the person who cast it. If one casts his vote for a person he knows will not represent him in a morally responsible way, then he has voted condemnation upon himself. The Catholic Church authoritatively states:

2237 Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged.

The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be granted according to the requirements of the common good. They cannot be suspended by public authorities without legitimate and proportionate reasons. Political rights are meant to be exercised for the common good of the nation and the human community.

Formal cooperation with an intrinsic evil, such as abortion, merits excommunication. (Catechism Catholic Church 2272.) Voting in favor of a candidate who supports abortion, when a viable candidate is available, constitutes just such formal cooperation.

By the same token, because the act of voting is fraught with responsibility, where two candidates exist, one of which is clearly pro-abortion and the other who is clearly pro-life, voting for a third party brings with it special responsibilities. In some instances, such a vote ensures the pro-abortion candidate victory. In others, the pro-abortion candidate may already be assured victory and the vote will simply voice displeasure with some other aspect of the losing candidate’s policies. In the latter case, voting for a third party may actually be virtuous if it supports the cause of life. However, where an election hangs in the balance, such a vote is the equivalent of voting for the pro-abortion candidate and therefore constitutes material cooperation.

Thus far, I have spoken only of the latest election. However, of late I have advocated for the formation of a third party. How is that not contradictory of what I have expressed?

The short answer is: it may not be. It depends entirely upon the circumstances. There have been times during this country’ history where third parties have emerged as viable alternatives. The Whigs were displaced by the Democrats. The Republicans formed out of the old anti-slavery faction of the Whig Party. Today, I have argued that the Republican Party has drifted so far to the left as to make it indistiguishable from the Democratic Party. Indeed, my latest post is an example of this drift. I think there is an opportunity to form a third party, which believes in small government, personal responsibility, war only when the national security is threatened, and which respects the principles of federalism. This party would certainly detract from the current Republican Party, but that party has made it clear that it will contend for those who number themselves as Democrats. In a sense, the Republican and Democratic Parties can fight it out amongst those who favor Big Government, split that vote, and pave the way for a small government party to occupy the right.

In this sense, I think a third party might worm its way in to the national picture. No other party has a chance. Certainly, the Libertarians, who advocate for excessive personal freedoms, such as abortion, are not viable. But a traditional-minded third party, which respects the sanctity of life, advocates for limited government, and respects the rights of States might resonate with those who number themselves as conservatives. A vote cast in sucnh an environment, where the outcome is not foregone would not be to one’s personal detriment. Of course, the overriding question would be whether such a party would have any chance of winning. If so, then a vote in favor of a third party would not be damnable. If that party had no chance AND if such a vote would ensure that an anti-life candidate would be elected, then such a vote would be. We live in a nation where our votes carry salvific meaning. As rulers, placed in that position by God, our votes are fraught with salvific meaning. If we rule well, that is to our benefit. If not, we rule ourselves to perdition.

As a side note, if one chooses not to vote, one is stuck with the outcome and abides by the popular will. In a sense, one abdicates his ability to decide one’s eternal fate. Because we are charged with the responsibility to rule from God himself, our abdication of the responsibility also is fraught with salvific meaning – for good or for ill.

At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.

There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.

There is only our natural world.

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts

and enslaves minds.

This is the second such display to be officially sanctioned by the government – the other is in Madison, Wisconsion. The assault on Christianity proceeds apace.