Cardinal James Francis Stafford has come out rather strongly against the president elect. Seems that abortion and stem cell research are so destructive to his sense of religion that he feels that Obama campaigned on “extremist anti-life platform. . . .”
Here we go again. The Catholic church and its acolytes climb up in their high and mighty pulpits to preach from their sanctimonious platforms about what is right and moral. This is a church that actively hid child molesters in its parishes. Worse, even when the wretched sick pedophiles were caught and identified for what they were, they were secretly shipped of to another location and allowed to prey upon the young and innocent. Only when humiliated by the legal process did they take ownership of this sordid and inhumane treatment of its very own.
Who are they to dictate what is a danger to the world? Let's face it, the church has had its hand in many of the problems of the world. As recently as Pius XII there was collision with a repressive Nazi government. How is it that these moral beacons can look at the world in this century and talk of the dangers of birth control and stem cell research? How is it that the Vatican doesn't fully look into the early church and the gospels of Thomas and Mary?
The trouble with the Catholic Church is that it is a closed system ruled by a single person with absolute authority. While one can, if they strictly follow the cannons of the church, find a direct line back to Jesus, the fact is the cannons were in fact written by those whose position it was to reinforce the cannons. Martin Luther's objections to the church were its venal application of cannons that had nothing to do with Christianity. Yet the church, always from the moral high ground, condemns all those who sway from their outdated, if not inhumane cannons. They talk of life without a realization for what life is like for people in this 21st century. One can only look into history and see the ramifications of this influence. The inquisition was conducted by the Church and its priests.
The church clings to its outdated practices and principles because it is ruled by old men who have little but their standing and their outdated practices and principles. It is ironic given the fact that Christ was a radical. He was a man who stood for change, dramatic change in the face of the old outdated practices and principles. The rich history of Christianity doesn't lie in the gilded domes of old men's homes. Historians are uncovering serious questions about translations and other historic documents relating to the teaching of Christ. To restrict one's understanding of a subject is to favor ignorance over knowledge. The reason these old men seem so out of step is because they are dated. It will probably take the church as long to recognize the issues of the 21st century as it did for light to shed the truth on the Dark Ages.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Reflection on the Election
The election of Obama is a seminal moment in the history of the world. In many respects, it signals an inner striving of humanity to find equality and morality. It also tells us for humanity to fully realize its potential it must exist in a free society. Only when the chains of convention are broken can change be realized. Yet while this victory is momentous, this is no time to feel complacent. Our world is far from reaching its true potential. A world wherein all life is honored.
It was amazing to see McCain's concession speech. Where was this man during the election? He was a bit verbose to be sure. Yet in that moment, McCain rose to the occasion. His words were the words of a patriot. His campaign, on the other hand, was rife with discord and rancor and all the ugly aspects of an America whose time had passed. It would seem that he did in fact sell his soul for the nomination. Quite frankly, McCain was in a world foreign even to him. His party still rankles at the mention of Obama. The catcalls that rang out when Obama was mentioned is indicative of a deep seated hatred, a hatred that is blinded by an allegiance to dogma. It is that hatred that was so successfully tapped in previous elections. It is the hatred of exclusion. It is hatred that ties into the basest side of all life forms – a proclivity to sustain one's existence at the expense of another. It is part of the animal nature. To grasp this concept, just look at a robin's diet after a good rain.
A growing world population forces change. Only with an open and free society can the human race realize its potential. We need only look at past and current governments to experience hope or fear. Governments dominated by a single ideology or religion are most susceptible to tyranny. When a position of exclusion is advocated, then any outside of the artificial construct are vulnerable. We need only look a Nazi Germany or a Darfur to see the consequences of exclusion. Countless examples abound. The history of this world is dominated by exclusive armies rendering havoc on those outside its realm. The idea that “might makes right” is borne out of this base instinct.
With this election, we see the hope of millions of downtrodden humans lifted in a single man. That this transformation came about in this country should give us all pause. The fact that so many still cling to ideas that serve no purpose in furthering humanity only indicates that challenge that faces Obama. But through the creation of a climate of inclusion, hopefully those who are clinging to the idea “That my country right or wrong” will come to realize the benefit of a saner more humane world.
In the final analysis, people are not moved by arguments. They are moved by actions. For the world to see change, we need to open our arms so that we may encircle those who are to fearful to venture into a new tomorrow. How best to understand this idea? John Donne said it best so many years ago:
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
It was amazing to see McCain's concession speech. Where was this man during the election? He was a bit verbose to be sure. Yet in that moment, McCain rose to the occasion. His words were the words of a patriot. His campaign, on the other hand, was rife with discord and rancor and all the ugly aspects of an America whose time had passed. It would seem that he did in fact sell his soul for the nomination. Quite frankly, McCain was in a world foreign even to him. His party still rankles at the mention of Obama. The catcalls that rang out when Obama was mentioned is indicative of a deep seated hatred, a hatred that is blinded by an allegiance to dogma. It is that hatred that was so successfully tapped in previous elections. It is the hatred of exclusion. It is hatred that ties into the basest side of all life forms – a proclivity to sustain one's existence at the expense of another. It is part of the animal nature. To grasp this concept, just look at a robin's diet after a good rain.
A growing world population forces change. Only with an open and free society can the human race realize its potential. We need only look at past and current governments to experience hope or fear. Governments dominated by a single ideology or religion are most susceptible to tyranny. When a position of exclusion is advocated, then any outside of the artificial construct are vulnerable. We need only look a Nazi Germany or a Darfur to see the consequences of exclusion. Countless examples abound. The history of this world is dominated by exclusive armies rendering havoc on those outside its realm. The idea that “might makes right” is borne out of this base instinct.
With this election, we see the hope of millions of downtrodden humans lifted in a single man. That this transformation came about in this country should give us all pause. The fact that so many still cling to ideas that serve no purpose in furthering humanity only indicates that challenge that faces Obama. But through the creation of a climate of inclusion, hopefully those who are clinging to the idea “That my country right or wrong” will come to realize the benefit of a saner more humane world.
In the final analysis, people are not moved by arguments. They are moved by actions. For the world to see change, we need to open our arms so that we may encircle those who are to fearful to venture into a new tomorrow. How best to understand this idea? John Donne said it best so many years ago:
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Revisionist History and Impeachment
In the waning days of the Bush Administration, we are seeing but another travesty of incompetence and corruption unfolding. I have long been an advocate for impeachment. It is clear that someone who is so obviously corrupt and immoral can not be entrusted with the power of the presidency. Any single act of outright incompetence or worse corruption would have been enough. And the list is long and only historians will be able to fully document the failures. Some of the more glaring ones are Katrina, Iraq, the Rove/Cheney affair with the leaking of an agent, the firing of the US Attorneys, the corruption of intelligence and the blunders of the Defense Department under Runsfeld. Each and every one of these fiascoes clearly had the finger prints of George W. all over them. Incompetence, malfeasance, misfeasance – call it what you will but any and all were the grounds for impeachment.
As if this litany of failures weren't bad enough to endure, the Times devoted op ed space to some hacks reminiscing about the Bush Presidency. One cannot make this stuff up. In a piece entitled, Loyal to a Fault, a Robert Draper incredulously states “President Bush has paid a price for his human decency.” That comment was made in reference to Katrina. He cites Mr. Bush's loyalty as blinding. What a joke! So if you at the helm and the ship it is heading towards the crags and the first mate says full steam ahead you remain loyal. Unbelievable, that this knucklehead can cite that a virtue. The fact is Browne should never have been in that position; and once it was learned, he was out of his league he should have been fired on the spot. Then there is Ari Fleischer. We all remember him spouting lies and misrepresentations for Bush. He praises Bush's “clear view.” This past operative who graduated to pundit is still selling the kool-aid as relief from an immoral world. Like the maniac down in Jonestown who encouraged his followers to drink the poison elixir, Fleischer promotes the “strength and moral clarity” of Bush. I guess one could with the same logic talk of Speck's singleness of purpose in the face of a relativism regarding protecting the lives of young nursing students.
Here it is folks the last desperate attempts by those who were a party to high crimes and incompetence. These so called pundits are attempting to put spin on an administration that was by any account a dismal failure. But more, the actions taken by the President and his men traverse the line between what is legal and what is moral. Because I carry a bible and go to church doesn't make my actions right. Fleischer talks of the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And I guess he can look beyond the five years of chaos and countless deaths and injuries not to mention the billions of dollars and assume it was justified. Hasn't he heard there were no weapons of mass destruction? And in that coterie of neo cons didn't anyone offer the suggestion that negotiations might have gotten to the bottom of our concerns. These wags are trying to re-write history and their feeble words are laughable.
The real tragedy of this dark dark period of American History is that Congress failed to act. There was some misguided judgment that impeachment hearings would have crippled the government. But when the government is clearly violating the public trust, when an administration is actively involved in criminal behavior, it is the constitutional responsibility of elected representatives to remove the offender from office. For those who declare it wasn't criminal, why then were pardons necessary? And remember there has been no serious investigation of actions taken in the oval office.
The inability of this president to discharge his duties under the constitution was clearly evident time and time again.. Citizens died because of the actions or inactions of this president. Yet the Congress failed to draw up impeachment articles. That the house hadn't stopped this administration in its tracks as soon as it gained a majority will go down as a most egregious error in judgment. It is especially ironic given the precedent set by the high and might Republican congress to pursue Clinton because of some misguided dalliance.
Politicians like to stand on the soap box and lecture. They like to rationalize whatever advised or ill-advised action they may take. Reasons flow from their staff till black can be made white and white can be anything they desire it to be. Curious how moral turpitude can be twisted around illogical and criminal actions by a spokesperson.
Yet in their attempt to be rational and reasonable, the house has let this president continue in office. It is clear that this administration is incapable of governing. And now in the closing months of this historic failure of a president, we begin to see but a further eroding of the protections in environment and labor. Contemplated rule changes would make water less safe, workers more vulnerable, air quality more toxic. We have to ask ourselves why didn't those entrusted with constitutional authority exercise their responsibilities to begin a process whereby the wrongs perpetrated by this administration was brought to a hearing and hopefully stopped in its tracks.
All those strident righteous right wing pols should have been made to make the case for this presidency. Each and every one should have been thrust into a forum that would have made them defend the actions of this president. Never has one man brought such disgrace to the office. The ghosts of thousands of humans cry out from their graves. If this nation is to gain its moral high ground, then, it must ask for an accounting of this man and his cronies. Glibness and buffoonery are not a valid defense, not for a capital offense.
As if this litany of failures weren't bad enough to endure, the Times devoted op ed space to some hacks reminiscing about the Bush Presidency. One cannot make this stuff up. In a piece entitled, Loyal to a Fault, a Robert Draper incredulously states “President Bush has paid a price for his human decency.” That comment was made in reference to Katrina. He cites Mr. Bush's loyalty as blinding. What a joke! So if you at the helm and the ship it is heading towards the crags and the first mate says full steam ahead you remain loyal. Unbelievable, that this knucklehead can cite that a virtue. The fact is Browne should never have been in that position; and once it was learned, he was out of his league he should have been fired on the spot. Then there is Ari Fleischer. We all remember him spouting lies and misrepresentations for Bush. He praises Bush's “clear view.” This past operative who graduated to pundit is still selling the kool-aid as relief from an immoral world. Like the maniac down in Jonestown who encouraged his followers to drink the poison elixir, Fleischer promotes the “strength and moral clarity” of Bush. I guess one could with the same logic talk of Speck's singleness of purpose in the face of a relativism regarding protecting the lives of young nursing students.
Here it is folks the last desperate attempts by those who were a party to high crimes and incompetence. These so called pundits are attempting to put spin on an administration that was by any account a dismal failure. But more, the actions taken by the President and his men traverse the line between what is legal and what is moral. Because I carry a bible and go to church doesn't make my actions right. Fleischer talks of the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And I guess he can look beyond the five years of chaos and countless deaths and injuries not to mention the billions of dollars and assume it was justified. Hasn't he heard there were no weapons of mass destruction? And in that coterie of neo cons didn't anyone offer the suggestion that negotiations might have gotten to the bottom of our concerns. These wags are trying to re-write history and their feeble words are laughable.
The real tragedy of this dark dark period of American History is that Congress failed to act. There was some misguided judgment that impeachment hearings would have crippled the government. But when the government is clearly violating the public trust, when an administration is actively involved in criminal behavior, it is the constitutional responsibility of elected representatives to remove the offender from office. For those who declare it wasn't criminal, why then were pardons necessary? And remember there has been no serious investigation of actions taken in the oval office.
The inability of this president to discharge his duties under the constitution was clearly evident time and time again.. Citizens died because of the actions or inactions of this president. Yet the Congress failed to draw up impeachment articles. That the house hadn't stopped this administration in its tracks as soon as it gained a majority will go down as a most egregious error in judgment. It is especially ironic given the precedent set by the high and might Republican congress to pursue Clinton because of some misguided dalliance.
Politicians like to stand on the soap box and lecture. They like to rationalize whatever advised or ill-advised action they may take. Reasons flow from their staff till black can be made white and white can be anything they desire it to be. Curious how moral turpitude can be twisted around illogical and criminal actions by a spokesperson.
Yet in their attempt to be rational and reasonable, the house has let this president continue in office. It is clear that this administration is incapable of governing. And now in the closing months of this historic failure of a president, we begin to see but a further eroding of the protections in environment and labor. Contemplated rule changes would make water less safe, workers more vulnerable, air quality more toxic. We have to ask ourselves why didn't those entrusted with constitutional authority exercise their responsibilities to begin a process whereby the wrongs perpetrated by this administration was brought to a hearing and hopefully stopped in its tracks.
All those strident righteous right wing pols should have been made to make the case for this presidency. Each and every one should have been thrust into a forum that would have made them defend the actions of this president. Never has one man brought such disgrace to the office. The ghosts of thousands of humans cry out from their graves. If this nation is to gain its moral high ground, then, it must ask for an accounting of this man and his cronies. Glibness and buffoonery are not a valid defense, not for a capital offense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)