I travel relatively frequently. I don't exactly qualify for frequent flier miles, but I do get around and I have for a number of years. Often for business, sometimes for pleasure. An interesting fact about my travel is that I am often out of town over a Sunday, and, therefore, must find my way to a church. A side effect of this is that I get to see a fair number of Catholic Churches around the country, and I get to see what each community gets out of their parish.

Most of the time, the churches I go to are decent, neither particularly traditional nor particularly "progressive." Sometimes the music choices are pretty good, others are pretty bad (but that's a matter of opinion.) Where the rubber meets the road is when you hear the priest give his homily, or sermon, and that usually gives some insight into the view of the priest vis a vis Catholic teachings. Most of the time, as I said, it's decent and mainly in line with real Catholic dogma.

I had a bad experience in a small town in West Virginia over the weekend, however. Unfortunately, the church in the town from whence my fiancée comes is one of those "progressive" parishes. I'm not sure whether it's the pastor – whose homily wasn't too bad – or one of the lay people who coordinate the liturgy, but there were a few things I didn't care to hear, mainly because they don't fall into Catholic teachings.

In the first case, it's traditional in the US to play a patriotic hymn on major holiday weekends, especially Memorial Day, Veterans' Day, and Independence Day. Most often it's "America the Beautiful" or "America" (also known as "My Country 'Tis of Thee"). More conservative parishes might do "Battle Hymn of the Republic" or "Eternal Father Strong to Save" which are religious songs with Patriotic overtones, rather than the reverse.

Unfortunately, there are those parishes, like the one I attended this past 4^th of July weekend, that play "Let there be Peace on Earth." I have always bristled at playing that song during a church service, not solely because it's more a political than religious song – because the same can be said about "America the Beautiful" for example – but because rather than being a patriotic song, it evokes images of "citizen of the world", "Diversity" (capital "D"), and left-wing pacifism.  It can only be considered a "religious" song because God happens to be mentioned (and only in the context of being our Father) in the middle, the rest of it being a hippie anti-war anthem. ("America the Beautiful", by the way, includes, in each verse, a prayer to God to "shed His Grace" on us, "mend [our] ev'ry flaw", and refine our gold (which I presume means praying that everything we produce is offered up to God, based on the next line).) In any event, I always have heartburn about "Let there be Peace on Earth" being played in a Church Service.

Music aside – though I find the music selections to be a pretty good indicator of the leanings of the parish – there was a slightly more disturbing moment in the Mass that Sunday. The Left frequently and loudly complains about churches that have political messages. I've seen bumper stickers advocating revoking the tax-exempt status of churches that insist on making political statements. I tend to agree with this statement, but what qualifies as a political statement is where the contention lies. To the Left, the Catholic Church's stance on abortion, contraception, homosexuality, irresponsible sex, and other similar issues all constitute "political" statements (never mind that these are significant moral issues, on which a church is not only competent to comment, but it has the authority to make rules.) You never hear the Left complain when a church allows a liberal political candidate to speak at a pulpit, or when people (particularly leftists and blacks) with the word "Reverend" in their title run for high office (a practice that I find particularly offensive. Catholic clergy are forbidden from running for or accepting political office.), or when they speak out in favor of illegal immigration or against the war, or the death penalty, or what have you. 

At a Catholic Mass, there are usually petitions read as community prayers for certain things. Often we will pray for ill or recently deceased persons, victims of large-scale or local disasters, the safety of troops, law enforcement, travelers, or what have you, the wisdom of elected officials (without making any particular points on policy), and other intentions. Usually the general intercessions, as they are called, are pretty standard, though often geared toward the particular community and time in which they occur. At the church in West Virginia, one of the intentions was a prayer that tax dollars would be used for universal healthcare, education, and other left-wing entitlement policies. Issues of faith and morals (abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality) are not political and are very appropriate for a church service. Issues dealing with public policy, particularly how tax dollars are to be spent, particularly when dealing with issues that some in the congregation may not agree with and are not part of the Christian Doctrine (Universal healthcare is not a fundamental moral issue) is not appropriate in the context of a church service.

From the Associated Press on 19 May 2008: Global Warming does not cause hurricanes. More accurately, the story cites a study conducted by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Tom Knutson indicates that Global Warming is not the cause of the jump in Hurricanes seen in 2005, and it may even lead to a reduction in Hurricanes.

Before you start calling him a Bush Administration hack, it's worth noting that Knutson had been sharply critical of the administration's policies vis à vis Global Warming. Knutson was one of the scientists originally on the bandwagon that Global Warming causes hurricanes in general, and Hurricane Katrina in particular. 

What makes this study particularly interesting is that Knutson actually dared to show data that indicates that the Global Warming alarmists may be wrong about attributing hurricanes to Global Warming. He did indicate that those that appeared would be worse than in the past (more rain and wind), but that there would be no change in number attributed to Global Warming. This may be the first time that a Global Warming proponent has not blindly attributed some natural disaster to Global Warming. 

I've stated in the past that I'm not so much a non-believer in Global Warming as I am a "Show Me" opponent. I need to see hard evidence of the Global Warming trifecta (that (a) it certainly exists, (b) it is certainly caused by human activity (and, thus, reversible by human activity), and (c) it will certainly and inevitably lead to catastrophe) if I am to support some policy aimed at reducing my freedom to save the Earth. The most important thing that this study – by a Global Warming proponent, mind – does is it undermines all the political claims that have been made on the subject. It casts doubt on the Chicken Little politics of Global Warming that attributes every natural anomaly to increasing average temperatures.

What I hope is that we will be able to use this to springboard efforts to have a real and effective debate on Global Warming. Let's listen to opposing points of view rather than ostracizing scientists who disagree with the trifecta. Let's actually work to figure out a cause rather than associating two possibly completely unrelated events (the alleged increased temperatures, and the whole of the industrial age) based solely on their historical juxtaposition. Let's try and really figure out what the damage, if any, will be rather than making ludicrous claims of 20-foot sea level rises, continent-sized hurricanes, and tsunamis caused by Global Warming. And let's stop making this about punishing industrialized nations in general and the US in particular. If there's a problem it's going to take everybody to fix it, not just the US. China, India, and Africa will all need to chip into this pot because they are all going to (allegedly) benefit from it – presuming the trifecta is true. 

A lot more will get done if we take the politics out of the issue and let the scientists do science. We may find that (a) the warming we've experienced is well within the bounds of what is considered normal, (b) that humans have had absolutely nothing to do with it, and thus cannot do anything to reverse it, or (c) it will be neutral or perhaps even beneficial to the world at large if it warms up by a couple of degrees. Or we may find that the Alarmists are right. Problem is, we won't know until we actually investigate it.

Those who study logic or critical thinking invariably come across the list of logical fallacies that are often used in arguments to steer the reader or listener to a particular point of view without using the facts. A common example in the modern world is called the ad hominem, or “Against the man,” argument. An argument ad hominem consists of attacking the credibility of the opponent rather than the substance of his argument. This is common in modern political mud-slinging campaigns, and we’ve listened to it for 7 years directed at the President. Few people debate the substance of President Bush’s arguments, anymore; they simply attack him, calling him an idiot, a liar, or the like.

One popular fallacy, that is one fallacy that is commonly cited as a fallacy, is the so-called Slippery Slope. A Slippery Slope argument basically states that when one, seemingly innocuous, event happens, it will inevitably lead to something far more dangerous. If I purchase one of the Grand Theft Auto games, for example, it is expected that I will inevitably go on a murderous, carjacking rampage as is commonly depicted in the game. Considering that I already own a couple of the editions of that franchise (a former guilty pleasure of mine, admittedly), and I’ve yet to even have the desire to go on any murderous rampages outside the game shows that the “inevitability” argument is not particularly accurate. Another example of a Slippery Slope is the children’s story If You Give a Mouse a Cookie where a child giving a mouse a cookie causes the mouse demand more and more inconvenient things from the child.

The problem with “Slippery Slope” as logical fallacy is that the situations described as slippery slopes are often 100% accurate. An example is the debate, in 1964, over the civil rights bill of that year. Opponents contended that such legislation would bring about not just equality between blacks and whites, but would have blacks call for privileges like racial quotas, reparations for slavery, and the like. Within 20 years, precisely that had happened with affirmative action and other programs meant to support blacks and protect them from white racism.

The Secular Left is trying now to complete a very long slippery slope. The slope they are pushing is one having to do with so-called “Sexual Freedom.” This past Friday, the California Supreme Court defied the People of California, Federal Law, and the natural order of things by setting aside a referendum aimed at preserving the sanctity of marriage as one man and one woman. The court has apparently decided that the convenience of a very small minority of people outweighs the rule of law. Gays can now “marry” in California. This is an intermediate step along the slippery slope into making the hedonistic values of Tolerance and Diversity replace the traditional Judeo-Christian values of family and temperance. There’s still a long way to go before the full effect is felt of this disastrous ruling. California is now only the second state whose courts have forced gay marriage on an unwilling public. However, California is also (as I noted in my piece the day before the ruling) a trend-setting state. As they go, so will go a number of other Leftist states. I’d wager Washington, Oregon, New York, Maryland, the rest of New England, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Nevada will follow suit over the next few years.

Making matters worse, forcing us to accept gay “marriage” now will probably lead the Left to force us to accept other “non-traditional” relationships as equal to a normal, one-man-one-woman marriage. I would not be shocked to see polygamy allowed and “regulated” (as the pro drug lobby wants for marijuana) possibly so that it is made “safe, legal, and rare.” The other option is to simply do away with civil marriage – which some feminists decry as tantamount to sexual slavery for the woman – leaving it solely a religious feature with no civil recognition whatsoever. (Let those crazy Christians do what they want, I’m going to have 6 legal, live-in girlfriends.) If I’m not mistaken, that is, in fact, the primary goal of the most leftist of the secular Left: Do away with the traditional family structure. The consequence will most likely be a breakdown in our societal structure.

I realize that’s a pretty damning statement, but consider this: Society is hierarchical. Everything goes from larger units to smaller units. At the top of a society is the central government. It’s power and jurisdiction extend throughout the territory for which it’s responsible, and all the people who live therein. Most central governments on earth have first-level divisions: States, provinces, departments, parishes, districts, prefectures, regions, emirates, oblasts, etc. Those divisions are often themselves divided into what most Americans call “counties.” Under that are usually individual cities, towns, and townships. Finally, at the bottom of the hierarchy is the family, the smallest societal unit. It is in the family that we, as people, are formed into who we will be when we grow up. Influences outside the family can affect this development, but the effect of the parents on the child’s upbringing cannot be understated, even if the parents are aloof and standoffish. Those who ignore their children’s upbringing allow an undue amount of outside influence, and the children will develop unpredictably. Doing away with the family altogether has the effect of allowing the outside influences to take over the development of the child, putting them at the mercy of the schools or the nanny-state government. When the government is the provider of morality, it can shape children into any mold it wants (like the Nazis, Communists, and Islamists, all philosophies where the state is the provider of values.)

There are they who believe that we do not need a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage. The lot of them are wrong, and the rulings in Massachusetts in 2005 and California earlier this week are proof of that. The lack of such a definition in the Constitution is used to declare alternative “marriages” a right protected by the Constitution.

I pray we can stop this madness. I hope we can stop basing rights on skin color, or voluntary behavior, or political views.  We all have the same rights. There is no call for special privileges for a segment of the population, especially when that segment is not defined by who they are, but by what they do. 

The California Supreme Court (CSC) is set to hear a case in which it will decide whether or not to give gay people the special privilege of allowing two people of the same sex to marry. The debate on same-sex "marriage" has been going on for some time, and, for the moment, doesn't show any signs of stopping any time soon.

Having said that, however, if the CSC rules correctly and does not bestow a special privilege on a small group of people based solely on their voluntary behavior against the wishes of the people of that state (which people have voted in a referendum to ban the privilege), that could put a significant impediment to the momentum of the issue. California is a large and influential state. (Admittedly, to say that is akin to making the controversial proclamation that the Sun is hot or the Pope is Catholic.) As such it tends to set the trends we see in other states, especially the "Blue" states, of which California is generally a very deep shade (at least overall.) While it isn't necessarily "As goes California, so goes the nation" the Left will often follow suit. (California gave us anti-American war protesters in the 60s, now they are everywhere.)

The important thing is that California will have significantly more influence on the issue than did Massachusetts, whose Supreme Court has, rather famously, granted special privileges to gay couples, however that decision mainly served to have a number of states scramble toward varying degrees of banning the practice. Some, like Virginia, ban any sort of official recognition of same-sex relationships in their constitution. Others ban only marriage and don't speak on "domestic partnerships" or the like. Still others have similar bans in their statutory law, but not in their state constitutions. And some have varying recognitions of "lesser" relationships without expressly calling them "marriages."

There is good news here, though. If the CSC does rule correctly, and does affirm the state's right (and the people's rights) to not allow homosexual marriage, it will likely cause the issue of gay marriage to whither. No other state has the influence of California (Note that one commentator called Massachusetts a "one state parade" on the issue) and the Left making headway on this issue will be far more difficult if the CSC does not vote their way.

Here's the whole problem with the issue of what to do about gays who want to marry. The question is not, contrary to what gay activists would have you believe, a case of equal rights for a historically oppressed segment of society. It is in no way similar to the laws preventing blacks and whites to marry. It has everything to do with a segment of the population wishing the government to provide special privileges based on a pattern of behavior which, regardless of the cause, does not conform to societal norms in the modern world. The argument that homosexuality is an inborn trait, or is in some other way uncontrollable is inconsequential to whether or not gays can marry each other. Even presuming that the predilection toward sexual attraction toward members of the same sex is an inherent trait, acting on that attraction is still voluntary and behavioral.

Contrary to the claims of the gay lobby, there has never been a society that has officially recognized "marriage" between two people of the same sex. Yes, homosexuality has been around as long as there have been people. It is recorded a number of times in the Old Testament, for example. There were societies that tolerated that behavior more than is typical nowadays. But none had officially recognized relationships that operate in the same fashion as marriage where two people of the same sex were involved, certainly not in the permanence that is presumed in marriage. The closest one might come is polygamy, but even there the husband is married to a number of women. The individual women are not married to each other.

Marriage is more than a simple expression of love, a civil contract between two persons, or a way to legitimize a sexual relationship. Marriage is a union between two people. It is the start of a family unit, which is the most basic form of "society" to be found. In Christianity (and other religions, as well, but I'm most familiar with Christianity) it is an important, religious experience. The Catholic Church considers it a Sacrament that bestows God's grace on the couple. It's a permanent, life-long bond. Mormons consider it an eternal union. Those on the secularist Left want to reduce marriage to a simple civil contract. They don't even believe in the need to legitimize sexual relationships because sex outside the bounds of marriage is just as OK as sex within it.

The Left, for reasons that, frankly, escape me, wants to do away with marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years. In the perfect world scenario, any romantic bond could be considered marriage. All are equal. Polygamy, homosexuality, random groups of men and women, perhaps even child marriage (which is practiced in some countries) are all morally equivalent to one-man-one-woman marriage. Failing that (primarily because even some liberals know that there's a big moral difference between a real marriage and a polygamous one) they concentrate on pushing through marriage as being a contract between any two consenting adults, whether they be normal or same-sex couples. If that doesn't work (and it hasn't so far), they try to push "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" with some or all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. All these arrangements serve to do is cheapen the meaning of marriage.

"Domestic Partnerships" are particularly problematic. It forces the state to do one of two things. Either (a) recognize that any two unrelated, consenting adults living in the same residence have all the rights and privileges of marriage (work benefits, tax breaks, child custody, etc.) or (b) give that privilege only to selected people based solely on their sexual behavior. The first option renders marriage moot because the formal recognition is unnecessary for the benefits. The second option is clearly discriminatory and favors a lifestyle that is both highly immoral and risky to the life and health of the participants. 

The simple solution is to stop the madness. Back away from this precipice. Put marriage back where it belongs: in the hands of heterosexual couples. If gays want to live together, that's fine. If they want to have ceremonies to profess their "love" for each other, feel free. If they want to live in long-term, committed relationships, good for them. But recognize this: Even if (and I don't buy this, but for the sake of argument we'll pretend it might be true) homosexuality is some inherent, genetic trait, and gays have no control over what causes their impulses, the bottom line is that what they do with those impulses is voluntary. The gays for whom I have the utmost respect are those who brave the ridicule of their own "community," recognize the wrongness of their actions and their predilections, and live a celibate life working hard to avoid giving in to those impulses, as difficult a task as that is. 

I've mentioned before how the Left views rights, especially when expressed in the context of "Tolerance and Diversity." In that post, I note that the Left believes: that "rights" include behavioral rights (like homosexuality or illegal immigration); that no one has the right to trample on the exercise of another's behavioral rights; and that rights are without consequence, and that facing the consequences of ones actions is a violation of their rights. To wit, government funding is required for AIDS research, because AIDS – being a consequence of homosexual or other risky behavior – infringes on some people's rights to act in an irresponsible and dangerous fashion. For example.

But that's an incomplete understanding of Leftist rights. There is no simple explanation to explain it, but the best way to understand rights as they are understood by the Left and the Right, is to do a fairly simple comparison.

The Right believes that the freedoms listed in the Constitution, and inferred by the 9^th and 10^th Amendments involve more a prohibition on government conduct than a grant of service. 

For example, the First Amendment states that the government cannot interfere in the religious lives of the people, cannot restrict their ability to speak out either verbally or in print, and cannot restrict their ability to disagree with the government on policy either by protest or petition. 

The Second Amendment states that the government may not interfere in any way with the right of a person to own and carry a firearm or other personal weapon. 

The Third prevents the government from forcing people to allow soldiers to live in their homes without consent. 

The Fourth prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures by police. 

The Fifth lists a host of rights. The government may not:

• Try a person for a crime without an indictment by grand jury
• Try a person twice for the same crime
• Compel someone to testify against themselves or confess to a crime
• Deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
• Take private property for public use without "just compensation."

The Sixth requires the government to provide a jury trial for someone accused and indicted of a crime, and provides the right to counsel in court.

The Seventh requires a jury trial in civil suits whether between private parties or involving the government.

The Eighth prohibits the government from using excessive, cruel, or unusual punishments.

With nearly all of these rights, the government is prohibited from acting in a certain way. Thus the rights are guaranteed only so far as the government's interference is concerned. The only exceptions are the requirement that a trial by jury and appropriate counsel be made available in court proceedings, though a lawyer is not required for civil suits. In those cases, the government must provide the judge, jury, and – in the case of a criminal defendant – counsel.

The basic point is that the government cannot interfere with my beliefs or my property (particularly my firearms). Besides a trial to protect my rights if I am accused of a crime (especially one which I did not commit) the government is not required to supply me with anything to protect my rights.

The Left takes the theory seen in the 6^th and 7^th Amendments and applies them to a whole host of rights, indicating that the government must provide goods and services to protect those rights. For example:

·         The Left believes in an inalienable right to abortion. Those who cannot procure one by their own means must have it provided by the government if desired.

·         The Left believes in an inalienable right to primary and secondary education, as such the government must provide schools. More recently, the Left wants the government schools to be at least preferred if not compulsory.

·         The Left believes in an inalienable right to earn a living, thus if the person cannot or will not work, they must be provided for by the Government. The "right and duty to work" is a feature in most Communist constitutions.

·         The Left believes in an inalienable right to shelter, thus those who do not earn enough money to shelter themselves must be provided government housing.

In summary, the Left's idea of rights frequently deals with the government providing some good or service to an individual either free of charge or at a drastically reduced fee. For some Leftist rights (like the right to practice homosexuality) the government doesn't necessarily have to provide anything (though, now the government is being asked to provide recognition and benefits to "non-traditional couples."), but impediments to those rights, even ones outside the government's control, must be dealt with. I cited the example of government funding for researching a disease that is closely tied to risky behavior. But that also comes with a belief that impediments created by other people, either by simple disagreement, or by not patronizing a business you disagree with, are violations of their rights. Consider what happens when Leftists get wind of someone who disagrees with abortion, homosexual conduct, promiscuous behavior, racial quotas, etc. Such critics are branded "intolerant" or "bigoted" or whatever. 

The contrast between rights on the Right and rights on the Left is stark. The Left believes primarily in rights that require that something be provided. Such rights are "granted" by the Government (through the Constitution in some cases, the courts in others) and, thus, can be taken away. On the Right, rights are seen as simply enabling people to do what they wish within their own means. These rights are natural (or "God Given, if you prefer") and merely confirmed in the Constitution. They are not granted by the benevolence of a government that now must be appeased with sacrifice, like some moldy, Babylonian god, but exist regardless of the government, and may not be infringed by the government. 

It is the beliefs of the Left that make up the sense of entitlement that those on the Left feel. Such ideas are expressed in places like the European Union's constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the constitutions of communist countries like China and the late Soviet Union. And they promote a culture of dependence on Government that tends to dilute and destroy the American way of life, which is freedom from government interference and reliance on self.

With Pope Benedict XVI visiting the United States for the first time in his papacy earlier this week, there has been occasion to reflect upon one of his most famous quotes. In giving a homily during the conclave that would eventually elect him as Pope, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger made the following statement:

Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

 “Dictatorship of Relativism” has become, lacking a better term for it, a sort of catchphrase defining this Pope. It has also fueled the thoughts of many a Christian – and other – conservative commentators, including yours truly, when dealing with the attacks on traditional morality from the Left. 

What is meant by the “Dictatorship of Relativism” is that they who profess traditional morality are called “intolerant” and accused of trying to impose “their” morality on the rest of the population. Such ideas as moral truth, objective morality, and man’s sinfulness are eschewed as old-fashioned, intolerant, and oppressive. As such, those ideas are quashed by the elite with the goal of enforcing a looser, more individualistic, more internalized version of morality.

Oddly, though, with a little analysis we find that the idea of moral relativism we find that it doesn’t exist, even in the minds of the relativists. Moral relativists, almost to a man on the left side of the political spectrum, state that morality is what you make it to be. In theory this means that a five-man homosexual orgy relationship is the functional moral equivalent to a man and a woman married and producing and raising children. A promiscuous lifestyle is no different, morally speaking, than a celibate life, and loads more fun. Taken to its logical extreme, moral relativism puts Adolph Hitler and Osama bin Laden in the same moral realm as Pope John Paul II and Martin Luther. There’s no difference. Both Hitler and bin Laden thought (or think) that mass murder on a grand scale that would produce the desired result for their political doctrines was at least justified. In bin Laden’s case, it’s a belief that violence and murder for his political cause is called for in his beliefs and it is better to murder 3,000 infidels than not to. Under the stated moral relativist theory, Hitler and bin Laden both have a seat reserved in Heaven (if Heaven is believed by the relativist). 

The problem with moral relativism is that it requires caveats and limits. Obviously, given the examples of mass murderers, the most pure definition of moral relativism cannot be used effectively. Otherwise any and all laws that prohibit some sort of action would be “oppressive” and the truest relativist society would be absolute anarchy. Since anarchy is always bad, limits are required on relative morality. The first caveat applied is normally “… so long as you don’t hurt anyone.” Thus we can exclude Hitler and bin Laden. The problem with that caveat is that “hurt” itself can be subjective. So, the caveat is often further modified to “… so long as you don’t hurt anyone directly” which allows things like adultery, promiscuity, pornography, even petty thievery. No one is obviously seriously harmed by these acts in and of themselves, though there may be consequences later. But later consequences rarely enter into the relativists mind.

The concept of direct harm itself can be subjective, and can encompass both physical and psychological harm. Telling someone they are doing something immoral is frequently decried as harmful to that person, because it offends their sensibilities. Offense of sensibilities – hurt feelings in plain, non-psychobabble English – is considered immoral because hurt feelings are harmful to people’s sense of self worth. Harmed self worth can cause depression, anxiety, loss of confidence, and other psychological problems. Because of the lasting effects of psychological problems, causing them causes great harm and, thus, is immoral to the relativist. And this is where the whole idea of “relativism” begins to lose its relative nature.

I assert – and I have said this before – that true moral relativism does not, and cannot, exist. Even those most ardent supporters of the idea have a solid, absolute, and inflexible – albeit warped – sense of morality and become highly agitated when that sense of morality is offended. Even more so, I believe, than a devout Christian. 

Consider this: the supporters of relative morality are, as I said, almost to a man on the political left.  The Left supports policies like abortion, gay “rights”, environmentalism, welfare, gun control, and easy punishments for most crimes. Abortion and gay “rights” – more accurately: gay privileges – are supported solely by the theory of moral relativism: what’s OK to me is OK period. Well, if it is OK to me to say that homosexual acts or abortion are wrong and should be avoided, it should be OK to express that opinion. To the relativist, it is not. I must accept homosexuality and abortion as acceptable behaviors, despite the fact that I find them morally repugnant. Thus we enter the realm where moral relativism is not relative at all. I, a practicing traditional Catholic and staunch conservative, cannot profess my faith where it regards abortion and homosexuality because my “intolerance” is hurtful to others. If I do, I am subject to insult and, in the right environment, some form of discipline. (Consider campus “Hate Speech” codes). While it is OK for pro-abortionists and gays to express their views and their lifestyles publicly without fear of reproach, they who disagree with them are not afforded the same opportunity.

Consider, also, environmentalism. While environmentalism – that is the desire to keep the world as clean and pollution free as possible – is not, in itself, immoral – and may in fact be the right thing to do – it can easily be exploited by the relativist. Any opposition to leftist environmental pronouncements, no matter how badly presented, is considered immoral. Anthropogenic – human-caused – Global Warming is a perfect example. They who believe that (a) the Earth is warming, (b) that humans are causing it, and (c) that it is necessarily a bad thing, will not accept any statements to contradict any of these three precepts. Challenging the establishment results in ridicule, and even sanction, especially in academia. Purchasing things like large vehicles, energy intensive appliances, and now, even incandescent light bulbs are violations of environmental stewardship. Such violations are considered immoral. Disagreements about taste, comfort, and utility are ignored.

The objections raised by relativists are frequently far stronger and more venomous than those of Christianity against, for example, gays. One of Christianity’s basic tenets is that of forgiveness. Sins can be forgiven if forgiveness is asked for. This only requires that the sinner realize that what they are doing is wrong and intending not to commit the same sin again. Sometimes, people get weak and need forgiveness many times, but they also get it. God alone can forgive sins (Catholics use priests essentially as a conduit to God in this case) but we can also forgive those who wrong us, and we are called to do that by Christ. Even the “Lord’s Prayer” mentions this in the line “dimite nobis debita nostra sicut dimitimus debitoribus nostris,” “[Lord], forgive us our debts as we forgive those indebted to us.”

Moral relativists are short on forgiveness. Intolerance, especially, and other sins against the liberal creed are rarely forgiven. We find this out in election campaigns when a candidate has a statement he made 30 years ago in a private conversation while in college brought out to prove that he is a bigot. An academic not accepting the three precepts of Global Warming is often ridiculed and may find it difficult to publish his work. Those who hold fast to “a version of morality” – specifically traditional Judeo-Christianity – are called bitter, intolerant, backward, or even stupid.

The other major problem of moral relativism is that when traditional morality – that set by God – is taken away something must be put in its place for society to function. That something is always put in place by humans with some vested interest in the definition of moral behavior. Whether it’s a dictator trying to control his population, someone wishing to justify their own aberrant behavior, a political group wishing to exercise control over a nation’s policy, or a group or person simply wishing to become richer and more powerful in the eyes of the masses. The point is that it is always a person or group of people and there is some reason they wish morality redefined. That’s where the “Dictatorship” comes in. To get their “relative” version of morality accepted by the masses, they must quash opposition. As that opposition often comes from Christians, Christianity must be suppressed. This leads to the current climate of antipathy for Christianity held by the Left, so much so that rather than trying simply to argue the Christian message on even ground – where, of course, the relativists message would lose hands down – Christianity is declared “intolerant” and public displays of it are suppressed or eliminated. (For example, nativities on public property during Christmas or the Ten Commandments in public buildings.)

Fortunately, in the US, the Christian faith is as strong as it has ever been, and Christians would not tolerate active oppression of their faith, so I don’t predict that Christianity will be pushed underground in the US. But it is being attacked, harshly and frequently, by people who profess to believe that whatever you believe is OK… so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.

I wrote, yesterday, about Barack Obama whom I now view as the worst of the three candidates currently in the running for President. Now I’ll go ahead and express my opinion on the other Democrat candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. For a very long time, it was she on the very bottom of my list of people I wanted to see in the White House.  Incidentally, that list includes everyone constitutionally eligible for the Presidency (Born a US Citizen, Lived here 14 years, over 35 years old). Currently, Obama now occupies the bottom rung of that ladder, but Madame Hillary is still a solid second.  

The differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are significant. Hillary Clinton has already spent 8 years in the White House, much of it probably making policy for her husband to parrot. She’s also spent nearly 8 years in the Senate. The other thing is that she’s smart enough to not let her elitist side come out during a campaign. She’s still leftist, elitist, welfare-state-loving, and anti-military, but she’s better at hiding it sometimes than Obama. She realizes that she can’t alienate the entire white, middle-class vote and hope to win the election.

My issues with Hillary Clinton are many and varied, but the primary disagreement I have with her is her integrity, more accurately her total and complete lack thereof. Her primary goal in life, now, is to get elected – whereas before it was to get her husband elected. Her lust for power is rivaled in US history only by the likes of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Gen. George McClelland. In the pursuit of that power, she will say or do just about anything. She appears to change her stances more often that most women change clothes. She of the great support for the federal Assault Weapons Ban in the 90s now shows herself to be a gun-toting, whiskey-swilling hick. She supported the war when she thought it was popular and she hated the war when she thought it wasn’t. Since reviews on the war are currently mixed (some, especially on the Left, hate it because we’re oppressing the terrorists; others are on support it because we’re oppressing the terrorists) her stance has been lukewarm recently, neither for continuation or escalation, nor for immediate withdrawal and surrender. It isn’t so much that she waffles. Waffling supposes that a person is indecisive about an issue and changes their opinion based on events at the time. Hillary Clinton has very strong opinions about everything. She simply lies about them when she’s speaking to people who hold a position different from hers. She makes every effort to disguise her true intentions, and as we’ve seen in the past, there’s probably a good reason for that.

Even the Mistress of Disguise has let her mask slip a little. Apparently, according to a Michael Medved column, she wants to start a new Cabinet department to deal with poverty. Anyone who believes that any such department would be anything other than a train wreck – specifically a train wreck in the middle of a major city involving a five-mile long train full of propane tankers and nuclear waste containers, hitting three city busses during rush hour – should stop reading this and return to their first-grade class. A Department of Poverty will only siphon billions out of the economy every year to do millions of studies on what makes people poor. The only lives it will improve are those of the 10,000 people likely to be employed by it. I’d wager that (a) it will be more expensive than the Department of Defense, and (b) it will include a very prominent Office of Health Care Coverage. 

Hillary Clinton, despite the faces she shows in public, is still nothing more than a leftist and a socialist. She is one of the Chief Priests of the Church of Liberalism and believes fervently in the infinite benevolence of Holy Government, and will do everything she can manage to make that the reality for everyone. She loathes the military (to the point that the Marine Guards who worked inside the White House under her husband’s reign were not allowed to wear their uniforms while on duty) and she hates conservatism. She wants everyone dependent upon Holy Government so that they will worship at its altar. But she’ll never show her true colors in public. That just wouldn’t fit “Slick Hilly.”

HJG

I don’t usually write much about a particular candidate in election years. So much ink and pixels are spent on the various candidates, I figure I have very little to add. Such is the case here, but I just want to throw in my two cents’ worth. 

From the right, I’m beginning to hear things like “Barack Obama is the worst candidate, ever.” We didn’t get that for Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, or even Hillary Clinton. No, the right didn’t like any of them much (when Bill Clinton is by far and away the most conservative of any group, that’s bad) but I don’t recall them ever being called the “worst ever” by anyone. (Though, I suppose I could be wrong.)

Here’s the history of the Obama campaign as it exists in my own head. He started out as just another candidate. Originally there was talk that is total lack of federal or executive experience would naturally exempt him from running this year. 2012 or 2016, maybe, but not 2008. His entire political resume at the federal level consists of one half of one term in the Senate. He also had almost eight years in the Illinois State Senate, and that just about covers it. Little else was known about him, and his voting record wasn’t particularly extensive.

Once the campaign got going, it was becoming clear that Obama was moving up the ranks very quickly. That he is black (actually more a Tiger-Woods-esque amalgam of races, but since one of them is “black” he’s “black.” And that will do for this discussion.) has probably helped his status in the Party of Tolerance and Diversity. (I realize that’s probably a prejudiced, possibly even racist, statement, but it’s also probably the one point on which Geraldine Ferraro and I see eye-to-eye. A first-term senator who has never been in another major political position, like Governor, Vice President, or First Lady really has no business being in the running for President without (a) having particular notoriety outside politics or (b) having sponsored some landmark legislation that changes the face of the nation for the better. A white, male, first-term senator with no other significant political qualifications would stand little chance of even getting on camera during the campaign.) He shot ahead of Party luminaries like John Edwards and even Hillary Clinton on the way to his presumptive nomination.

Obama moved up the ranks partly due to his charisma (he’s almost as slick a politician as Bill Clinton), partly due to his race, and partly due to his constant demand for and promise of “change.” The word “Change” was the subject of any conversation, speech, sound byte, or interview Obama gave. It got to the point where his speeches could have been “Change change change, change change change change. Change change change… ad nauseum,” and he would have gotten the same point across. So all we knew to start with is that he was for “Change.”

Always worry when a politician touts “Change” without saying precisely what he’s going to change, how, and why.

The wheels started to come off the bus when after Obama had gotten to a comfortable, though still surmountable, lead in the primaries, Michelle Obama, the candidate for First Lady, stated that “for the first time in [her] adult life” she was “proud of this country.” When you look at precisely what she said, it’s somewhat alarming, even taken by itself. The wife of a presumptive nominee for President of the United States has never – repeat never – been proud of her country in her adult life. Taken by itself, that’s not a good sign.

Then we hear about his pastor at church. We’ve all heard the sound bytes from the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. Without going into much detail and rehashing old news, the preacher who married the Obamas and whose church they attended for at least 20 years is a racist anti-American who preaches things like unless God’s love includes the damnation of the United States he doesn’t want any part of God’s love. 

Remember, Mrs. Obama has never been proud of her country.

Most recently we hear that Barack Obama has stuck his own foot in his mouth by denigrating the people in small-town America. Obama, an apparent elitist from Chicago, sees the “little people” – whom the Party claims to support – as nothing but a bunch of bitter, racist, religiously fanatical gun nuts. “[T]hey get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment” in Obama’s mind and from his mouth. 

Remember, Mrs. Obama has never been proud of her country, and their Pastor thinks the US is an inherently racist nation that should be damned by God.

In an autobiography, Obama has expressed a deep-seated hatred of white people. He, for example, recounts a tale where, while he was in college, he suggested to a white friend that they go to a party composed primarily of blacks. When the white friend seems less than enthused (having just finished playing a basketball game, and probably physically exhausted) Obama confesses that he had a strong desire to punch his friend in the head. Why? Because it’s obvious that his friend was a racist who didn’t want to be associated with a party full of blacks. He has called his white grandmother racist because she was afraid of being accosted by a homeless man on her way to work. It becomes apparent that Barack Obama is the sort of person who believes that everything bad that happens to black people is a direct result of white racism.

Remember, Mrs. Obama has never been proud of her country, and their Pastor thinks the US is an inherently racist nation that should be damned by God, and he thinks the little people are racist, fanatically religious gun nuts.

He has been declared the most left-wing senator on The Hill based on his voting record, a spot held by John Kerry in 2004. His ideas for foreign policy leave a lot to be desired. He honestly believes that he can reason with people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that diplomacy is all it will take to get Iran to stop hating us. He has expressed that he wants to gut the military and, especially, that he will not pay for research and development into new weapons systems. Add to that his worldview vis a vis race and the United States, and you have a man that I wouldn’t want to elect as Chief Dog Catcher.

Barack Obama has been called (by his own staff as much as anyone else) a “uniter.” Well, at the pace he’s going, it’s as likely as not that he will end up uniting nearly the entire country.

Against him.

HJG