I think one of the most important things to recognize in ourselves is that we all have prejudices. Most people see the word "prejudice" and presume a bad connotation: hatred of a group based on generalities, bigotry, that sort of thing. Prejudice is actually more than that. The word comes from the Middle English word praeudicium, which means "prejudgment." A prejudice occurs whenever you judge something before understanding it. Most often the judgment will be unfavorable to the judged and will almost always reflect previous experience from the person making the judgment. For example, I am prejudiced against Oliver Stone movies. After hearing such wonderful reviews about the accuracy and credibility of such masterpieces as JFK and Nixon, I made the judgment that anything he has his name on is a worthless pile of offal. When Alexander was released, I thought, "OK, Here's something even Ollie Stone can't screw up." Good Lord, was I wrong. To this day, Alexander is the only movie on which I have ever walked out during the film, and that includes Highlander II, *Batteries Not Included, and The Scout. (And if you've never heard of any of those, there's a very good reason.) Even my more liberal, college freshman (at the time) brother hated the film. As such I see Oliver Stone in the credits, I avoid the movie like the plague. That's a prejudice: I find any of his movies to be a standard piece of Leftist conspiracy theory garbage just because they have his name on them, and without any further research.

Acknowledging a prejudice is the first step toward curing it. I'm not likely to be cured of my prejudice against Oliver Stone, but I heard enough good about World Trade Center that I would see it if a woman who caught my interest wanted to. The only reason I haven't seen it is that I don't want to see any movie, well done or not, about 9/11. I hate depressing movies. The prejudice will always be there, but it will be tempered with a willingness to at least research it.

My point today, however, is not the collected works of Oliver Stone (shudder). Actually, I'm more aiming at one major prejudice that affects me directly. I don't generally sit here and whine about discrimination and bigotry, except when there is a specific and egregious example of it in the news. I certainly don't complain about it when I suspect I am a victim, because I'm tired of hearing all the false victims whine. Having said that, I see a problem of prejudice in society nowadays, about which I have to at least say something.

The Catholic Church is probably the one "group" that can still be the victim of discrimination without anyone coming to its defense, except its own members. Liberals of all shapes and sizes decry perceived discrimination against Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, Jews (sometimes), women, gays, and anyone else who either contributes to their campaign or accepts support and control from Holy Government. Conservatives back Evangelical Christians, Israel, whites, and the military, when the Left comes down on those groups. But very rarely do you see non-Catholics come to the defense of the Church or the Pope, especially when the attacks come from other Christians. Neither political party is particularly allied with the Catholic Church. Most Catholic politicians are Democrats (John Kerry, Tom Daschle, anyone with the name Kennedy) and they identify their Catholicism with Charity (Welfare and Social Security), Compassion ("Diversity"), and Forgiveness (Softness on Crime and anti-Capital Punishment). Catholics who (like me) identify more with the Republicans do so because the Democrats part company with the Church on key moral issues like Abortion, Homosexuality, Euthanasia, and personal responsibility. As such neither party feels particularly compelled to defend the Church as they might their core constituencies, so we're left hanging when people spout their venom against us.

The worst part about it is that the attacks that hit the Church from the regular Joe on the street, or the entertainment industry, or politicians, or what have you, often come from a stance of ignorance, and are not always attacks on a particular belief, political position, or doctrine, but against the Church itself, or the people that adhere to those beliefs. You get the Pentecostal ministers who call the Pope the Antichrist. You get the Protestants on the Right who lash out at some of our core beliefs: venerating the Virgin Mary, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the need for personal confession of sins to a priest, praying to the saints, etc. You get the media latching on to the scandal caused by a few sexually depraved priests and attributing that behavior to the whole Church. All of that is in addition to the standard anti-Christian bigotry on the Left.

I will admit to having philosophical disagreements with those religions outside the Catholic Church. Some are political, others are in an interpretation of the Bible, and others stem from basic theological concepts. In many cases I think another given religion is flat wrong in something that it says.

Non-Christians, for example (like Jews and Muslims), deny the fact that Jesus Christ is God the Son. I'm sorry, but they are wrong. I can't prove it, of course, and the only evidence I have is the Bible which non-Christians would argue (reasonably) was written for the purpose of giving that impression. But that's why they call it faith. I also go on the lines of "Who would make this up?" It's true that the Greeks had a number of heroes (Heracles, Perseus, Achilles, to name a few) in their mythology that were the offspring of one god or another (Zeus, being a philanderer, had several heroic offspring). But in Christian theology (or that of any Christian sect that believes in the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) Jesus is more than simply a divinely conceived human. He is God in the person of God the Son. And the manner of his birth, life, and death do not befit a made-up god.

Some of the more conservative Christians, like many Baptists and many Presbyterians, prohibit things like alcohol, gambling, dancing, and the like. These same sects cite the Bible as the one source for morality, especially when members of those sects attack the Catholic Church. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any prohibition on games of chance or dancing in either the Old or New Testaments, and I know for absolute certain that drinking is nor prohibited. Jesus' first miracle was changing water into wine (and particularly good wine, at that). And wine was used at the Last Supper. True, drinking too much can lead to all sorts of problems, as can gambling too much and dancing immodestly. But it is the excesses of these (and just about anything else) that are wrong for obvious reasons, not the acts themselves.

The more "Progressive" (liberal or Leftist, really) Christians among us take political stands that have little to do with the Bible or 2,000 years of Christian tradition, sometimes ignoring the Bible altogether on an issue or ruling that it no longer applies and God has to update morality to meet the desires of men. As such, in the Episcopal church, for example, open, active homosexuality is not a bar to the clergy, even at the level of Bishop. Never mind that both the Old and New Testaments say that homosexual acts are "wicked things." No, Jesus, Himself never said it, but he didn't have to. It was considered common sense back then (at least in the Jewish faith). Never mind also that an active homosexual man is engaging in sexual acts with someone who is not his wife. That, by itself, is fornication, and that is also condemned throughout scripture. And as to those Catholic priests who do it, they should be defrocked as well. Period. The purpose of a clergyman is to be the moral leader of his congregation. If he cannot himself lead a moral life, he is setting a terrible example for his flock. He will either corrupt the teaching to match his own moral confusion ("Homosexuality is OK because I do it and I'm the bishop") or, even if his preaching is correct (Homosexuality is wrong), his followers will hear the words and see the actions that don't match them. If I tell you not to steal money from other people, and that evening, I rob a bank, you're probably (if you're smart) going to think that I have no authority to tell you it's wrong to steal because I do it myself. Being a hypocrite undermines the moral authority required to be a religious leader.

Now, I realize I've just said some inflammatory things. I've called out Conservative Christians, Liberal Christians and Non-Christians, and told them that certain things they hold dear are wrong. And, you know what? If you come back and tell me that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the Veneration of the Virgin Mary are incorrect based on whatever biblical reference you use, fine. That's a debate. That's a philosophical disagreement. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, to a point, it's healthy. I probably won't agree with you, but so long as you stick to the topic, I'm not going to have a problem with it. The problem is that too many people refuse to argue about a specific theological point, and use whatever education or background they have to back it up, they simply call the Pope the Antichrist (and not Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul, but, simply "The Pope"), call the Church corrupt, evil, misguided, and/or backward, and its followers bigoted, violent (yes, I've heard "Violent"), mindless, and/or biblically ignorant (because most of us can't quote the Bible Chapter and Verse. One should note, though, there is always the saying "Satan can cite scripture for his own purposes.") I've heard people equate a Catholic family's virtual disownment of one member who converted to "Born Again" Christian to being one step better than the beheading a Muslim apostate can expect (as though no "Born Again" families would ever disown a member who converts to Catholicism.) I've heard about how the Church preaches a "false gospel." (But you never hear anyone call the Book of Mormon a heresy, which, in the strictest definition of the term, it is. And oh, by the way, the only difference between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is that the Catholics include several books, called the Deuterocanonical books, that were left out of the final version of the Jewish scripture which was agreed upon in AD 100. 70 years AFTER Christ rose from the dead, and 30 years, or so, after Peter (regarded as the first Pope) died, and at the same time as the last New Testament book (The Gospel according to John) was written. The New Testament (where the Gospels reside) is no different between the two.) And I've heard of the Church referred to as a cult (Never mind the fact that the Catholic Church has as many adherents as Islam (over one billion) and, as such is not only the largest Christian denomination, but worldwide, its numbers exceed the entire population of protestants combined. That's one big cult.) And most of that's from the Right. Folks, that's not reasonable, polite, educated, constructive debate or criticism. That's judging something without knowing it. That's prejudice. More than that, it's classic bigotry. I haven't even talked about how the Church is portrayed in the Leftist media and Hollywood.

If you disagree with me, fine. That's expected if you and I worship God differently. I'm not expecting the entire world to convert to Catholicism. But enough is enough with the insults and the hatred and the self-righteous pity. Such things serve no one.

HJG