You know, sometimes you look at something and the only response you can possibly have is: “Duh!” Like when someone says, “Wow, the New England Patriots were a pretty good team last year, weren’t they?” Or when they say, “Oh, Barack Obama is the Democrat candidate for President?” Or, “I didn’t realize that the UN was so corrupt.” Or some other such obvious statement.

Shockingly (and I use that term with as much sarcasm dripping off it as I can make), the International Olympic Committee just had a huge “Duh!” moment in a very long list of “Duh!” moments of various sizes over the last several years, since they announced that Beijing, People’s Republic of China, would host the Games of the XXIX Olympiad (2008). Apparently China has pulled the wool over the eyes of the good people at Lausanne, Switzerland (the home of the IOC). 

The shocks and surprises really didn’t occur until early this year when China actually had to start hosting events related to the Olympics. The first major shock to the folks at the IOC was that the people of Tibet do not like their masters in Beijing, and would prefer it if the rest of the world (China, especially included) would consider them to be an independent nation, which, according to China, they are not. The IOC seemed surprised by the protests by Tibetans and their supporters along most of the torch relay route.

Apparently, the IOC also does not realize that Taiwan is a separate country and would also like to be considered as such, despite China’s desire to impose communism on a prosperous, and relatively free, country. Taiwan was initially placed on the torch route in such a position as to make it part of the “domestic” (intra-China) route rather than the international route. The last straw to the Taiwanese was the banning of waving the Taiwanese flag and playing the Republic of China’s National Anthem. Taiwan was not on the final route, at their own request.

Then there was the pollution in Beijing. With all the rhetoric about American waste, and American environmental laziness, and how badly the American economy destroys the environment, it’s understandable, to a degree, that some people would not realize that there are other countries that pollute, and China is one of the several that are worse overall, not to mention per capita. But, still, it was a shock to the IOC that the pollution in Beijing is so bad that it might affect the performance of the athletes at least in outdoor sports.

Well, this week, we have the “Duh!” to end all “Duh!”s, so far, at least. Apparently the media that are arriving for the Games have discovered that the internet access in China is not unlimited. The media were “surprised” (according to an AP story on 31 July) that they could not access certain sites, particularly those that do not show China in the most positive light conceivable. 

To me, there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance, which is 100% curable, means simply that you do not know something because no one’s taught you. If you’ve never had access to a particular bit of information you should not be expected to know it. That’s ignorance. Stupidity is when you DO have access to information, or people have told you the information, especially repeatedly, and yet, you are still surprised to hear it.

That China censors the internet is not news. It wasn’t news last year, and it wasn’t news 7 years ago when the IOC awarded the games to Beijing. China is a totalitarian regime. It is not a democracy. They do not believe in free speech, free press, free religion, or anything like that. Any information that contradicts the Communist Party of China (CPC)’s view of events is suppressed, because The Party doesn’t want the people to know just how bad it is in China. They fight with search engine companies and several (Google and, I believe, Yahoo being noteworthy among them) have acquiesced and allowed the Party to censor searches in China. 

That China censors the internet should not be surprising to anyone. The information is out there, and not difficult to find (outside China.) That crosses the boundary from ignorant to stupid.  I’ve never held the IOC in high regard. That they chose China for the Games validates my point, and the continual “surprises” at China’s backward, totalitarian behavior don’t improve my opinion even a little bit. It’ll be interesting to see what “surprises” are in store for the IOC in the coming weeks as the Games approach. 

It must be nice to be stupid enough to be surprised by the pretty blue sky every day.

HJG

As I noted in the first two parts of this series, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights shows great insight into the mentality of the Left where rights are concerned. What I have not yet done is show the danger of a document like this and why it is important to closely monitor any human rights group and their purpose.

When I closed part II of this series, I talked about the right to free education as enumerated in the Declaration. In the Declaration, that right is made compulsory at the elementary level and "shall further the activities of the United Nations." They want your children to be compelled to go to school and learn about the greatness of the UN and all the good it does. Once every child is thoroughly indoctrinated in the finer points of UN groupthink, when they become adults and responsible for running their respective countries, they will be amenable to handing over their sovereignty to the UN. (It's worth noting that Barack Hus-Change Obama could become the first President of the United States who has lived his entire life after the Declaration was adopted.) 

Perhaps more disturbing is the limitation on asylum which excludes "prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." What this tells me is that if I commit a political crime (say protesting for freedom in Cuba) I can be given asylum. If I commit a real crime (like theft) I cannot. And if I commit a crime "contrary to the purposes and principles" of the UN I cannot seek asylum. But what if it's a political crime? What if a law is passed in Canada banning anti-UN speeches? That is a clearly political law and anyone prosecuted for it should be allowed to seek asylum. But if the speech is against the principles of the UN (say, not wanting them to have a military for "peacekeeping" operations) the person making the speech cannot seek asylum because the speech is against the principles of the UN.

And if you think the right to "opinion and expression" trumps that, you should read Article 29, section 3: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." You can have any opinion you want, so long as it jives with UN orthodoxy. 

Here is a quote from the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, Article 51: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China, in exercising their freedoms and rights, may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society or of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens."

This from the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Article 39: "Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens.

Those articles are, essentially, a way to say that everything else you see here is for show. If the State (or the UN) decides that some activity is against the interests thereof, the State (or the UN) can revoke the right to engage in that activity.

I do not trust the UN to protect my rights. I do not trust them to keep the peace, or to promote freedom, or to govern effectively. I think the US Bill of Rights is a much better document for guaranteeing rights by limiting the Government's power, not "granting" rights to the unwashed masses, especially without providing a means to protect those rights (as we have here in the court system, imperfect though it may be.) The UN and its supporters want a world government with the UN at its head. In their perfect world, every nation would give its sovereignty over to the UN which would be the final, unimpeachable (unelected and unaccountable) arbiter of justice and right. Do we really want that?

(In the first part of this series, I talked about some of the basic differences between our Bill of Rights and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, I talked about the language used and the first enumerated rights in each, which indicates the most important ones to the drafters of each document. In this part I'll talk a bit about the enumerated rights and how they differ.)

The other freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights include: Freedom from quartering soldiers; protection against unreasonable search and seizure of property; indictment for alleged crimes; protection from self incrimination; protection of the taking of property without just compensation; the right to a public trial by an impartial jury with the opportunity to confront witnesses and the advice of Counsel for both criminal and civil disputes; and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Elsewhere in the Constitution we find the right to vote, protection from slavery, the right to the due process of the law, and the right of those born in this country to citizenship. The 9^th Amendment notes that the enumeration of particular rights does not diminish those that are not enumerated and the 10^th puts the state governments as more important than the central government, having all the powers not specifically delegated to the central government and not specifically prohibited to the states.

The freedoms "granted" by the UN Declaration include (similarities with the US Constitution in italics.  All other emphasis is mine.):

• "Life, liberty and security of person"
• Prohibition of and protection from slavery
• Protection from "torture [or] cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
• "recognition everywhere as a person before the law"
• Equal protection of the law
• Protection from discrimination (second time discrimination is mentioned)
• Remedy by the courts for violations of "rights granted him by the constitution or by law"
• Protection from "arbitrary arrest"
• Right to an impartial trial for alleged crimes
• Presumption of innocence (not explicitly stated in the US Constitution, but presumed in several articles dealing with "due process of law.")
• Protection from ex post facto laws
• Protection by the law from "arbitrary interference" with privacy correspondence or family or attacks on "honour and reputation"
• Freedom of movement within a country
• Freedom to leave any country and to return to one's home country
• Right to seek asylum (restricted to only those crimes deemed "political crimes" and excluding "acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations")
• Right to a nationality, protection from deprivation of nationality
• Right to change nationality
• The right of men and women to marry (Hey, even a blind squirrel can find a nut on occasion)
• The right to own property and protection from the "arbitrary" deprivation thereof
• Freedom of Religion (note that it is only now that we get to that freedom considered most important by the Founding Fathers of the US. I'm putting these in order as they appear in the original).
• "Freedom of opinion and expression" which includes "freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" (While this resembles freedom of speech and the press, I'm not highlighting it. The wording is suspect.)
• Right to assemble peaceably and freedom of association.
• Right to take part in the government, directly or by representative
• Right to "social security" and the entitlement to " to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality" (Welfare entitlements are an inalienable human right)
• "Right to work" (a favorite among communist countries), equal pay, and organized labor
• "Right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection." (Note that this is the second time in two articles where a right to welfare entitlements is enumerated.)
• "Right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay"
• "Right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control" (Look, more welfare entitlements)
• "Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection" (Even more welfare entitlements)
• Free education. "Elementary education shall be compulsory". Such education "shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations" (Note the mandate to compel education that is intended to support the aims of the UN)
• Right of parents to choose the method of education (but not the content (see above))
• "Right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits"
• Patent, trademark and copyright rights
• Entitlement to a "Social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized."

A few notes. First off, note that welfare entitlements like social security, standard of living payments, medical care, and other "social services" are mentioned at least four times in this document. Free education is also listed, presuming that education furthers the aims and goals of both the UN and the Tolerance and Diversity movement. Nowhere in this document is there even a veiled protection from government (particularly the UN) taking away these rights, as they are granted by the UN to the people. There is nothing in this document about the right to defend one's self, family, or property from criminals whether they be individuals or governments. There are no mentions of "Due process of law" and many rights may not "arbitrarily" be taken, but no mention is made of just compensation. So your property may be seized and you may get nothing for it so long as the State provides a valid reason. 

Many of the rights set forth in this document (as is true with most Leftists' definitions of rights) require that someone be provided with something (like education, work, healthcare, and a good standard of living). The government is usually called upon to provide those services to those who cannot afford them, with the associated costs being distributed to those who used to be able to afford those services on their own, before the government took all their money.

One of the things that bugs me about the "freedom of opinion and expression" is that it includes the right to "receive" information. Often times "Freedom of the Press" is seen as including the right to irresponsibly publish private, confidential, or classified information without regard to the consequences. Many journalists believe that they should be allowed to publish realtime national security information or information on open criminal investigations, or that sort of thing, never mind that people might be hurt or killed because that information comes out. 

Finally, the right to education is an interesting one. It is to be free (that is paid for by tax dollars; nothing's free), compulsory (I don't like the UN telling my country how to conduct its educational affairs), and supportive of the aims and goals of the UN. Free, compulsory indoctrination into UN groupthink. Yeah, there's a right I want protected.

The Left has a tendency to talk a lot about rights. I've detailed this in several pieces in this space for the whole time I've been doing this blog. I've talked about what the Left thinks of rights, what they mean when they talk about rights, and how they believe rights ought to be applied. To compare rights as seen on the Left with rights as seen on the Right, we can look at the way two very different documents talk about rights. One is the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. The other is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. While the intent is ostensibly the same, the language of the documents are vastly different with the US Bill of Rights written to guarantee our freedom, and the UN Declaration trying to take it away.

(I've included links to both documents on their respective official web pages for the sake of reference. The UN document is too long and cumbersome to include here, so a direct comparison will require that you go to each document's web page.)

The first thing you'll notice if you read these documents, is the language that is used. The US document lists a series of prohibitions against the Government, saying such things as "Congress shall make no law…" or some right "… shall not be infringed." The implication being that you, the people, already have this right, and the Government cannot take it from you. The UN document states, in the vast majority of its 30 articles "Everyone has the right…" to this, that, or the other; as though the UN is giving you that right through its unequalled beneficence. You didn't have the right before the UN gave it to you, and you will not have it if the UN takes it away. This follows along with the Leftist belief that "there is no God but Government" and that the Government-God is the ultimate arbiter of rights. "Government giveth and Government taketh away." 

The second feature you'll notice is that in the US Bill of Rights, Freedom of Religion, Speech, the Press, Assembly, and Petition for redress of grievances occupy the first article. The Framers of the US Constitution felt that these were the most important rights and, thus, listed them first. Second to those rights is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" which, again is not granted by the Constitution, but is protected from infringement. In the UN Declaration of Rights, Freedom of Religion and assembly don't show up until articles 18 and 20 respectively, freedom of "expression" and "opinion" – which, I suppose, could be analogous to the freedoms of speech and the press – appears in Article 19, and the right to petition can be presumed in article 21 which "grants" the right to "take part in the government" whether directly or through freely elected representatives. The right to keep and bear arms does not exist anywhere in the UN document.

The first article of the UN Declaration is a declaration that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." The article later states that we "should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." So, while the most important freedoms to the framers of the Constitution were those of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petition, the UN's most important concern is that we are all polite to each other. The first actual right "granted" by the UN is nondiscrimination by "race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." (It's worth noting that this was written before the notion that the acceptance of homosexuality as perfectly normal and healthy was required for political correctness. If they had written the document now, it would almost certainly have included "sexual Orientation" in the list of things that can't be discriminated against.)

If I had anything to say about it, I'd propose a few amendments to the Constitution. The goal would be to further limit government power, limit the authority and influence of kritocratic judges, and reassert certain rights already enumerated by the Constitution while limiting the faddish rights imposed by those same judges. Not being a legal scholar, I will readily admit that the wording on some of these might need some work, and I'm sure I forgot something.   (I've even made some edits based on comments I've received, and some new ideas.)  But in the interests of entertainment, here are a few amendments I would propose:

28^th Amendment

Section 1.

The fourteenth article of amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

All persons born in the United States for whom one natural parent is a citizen or legal resident thereof, and all persons naturalized therein, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 3.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed and those non-citizens currently residing in that state. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the inhabitants of such State, being eighteen years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such citizens shall bear to the whole number of citizens eighteen years of age in such State. No state shall have fewer than one representative for each one hundred thousand residents.

Section 4.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 5.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 6.

This article shall not in any way affect the citizenship of any person who is a born or naturalized citizen of the United States upon the ratification of this article.

Section 7.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

29^th Amendment

Section 1.

The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

Congress shall not levy taxes on the income of individual persons for any purpose.

Section 3.

Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on the sale of goods and services within the United States. The establishment and increase of those taxes must be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. If the President should return the establishment or increase legislation to Congress unsigned, a unanimous vote in both Houses shall enact the legislation.

30^th Amendment

Section 1.

No provision of either this Constitution or of the Constitutions of the Several States shall, without expressed and specific language to the contrary, be construed or interpreted by any court as requiring that marriage be of any configuration of persons other than one man and one woman.

Section 2.

Congress shall pass no law defining as marriage any configuration of persons except one man and one woman.

Section 3.

The several states may choose not to recognize as valid any marriage that violates that state's laws whether that marriage is performed in that state or another state.

31^st Amendment

No provision of either this Constitution or of the Constitutions of the Several States shall, without expressed and specific language to the contrary, be construed or interpreted by any court as requiring access to or availability of such procedures – commonly called "abortion" or "termination of pregnancy" – intended to terminate pregnancy through the induced death of the embryo or fetus at any stage of development.

32^nd Amendment

Section 1.

The first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is to be clarified as follows:

1.      The term "establishment of religion" shall not be construed as to include:

a.       The acknowledgement of God by public officials in the performance of their official duties;

b.      The encouragement to use religious charities instead of government for assistance of those in need;

c.       The existence or placement of art, artifacts, decorations, displays, or other accoutrements that have a religious theme in public areas, especially when the theme expressed applies to several religions or when the display reflects a current religious holiday or other celebration;

d.      The existence of such religious personnel – i.e. chaplains and their aides – as are necessary to protect the freedom of exercise of religion by those in the care or employ of the United States;

e.       The recognition, officially or unofficially, of certain holidays of a religious nature;

f.       The inclusion of God in national, state, or local emblems such as songs, poems, mottoes, currency, logos, seals, or other such symbols.

2.      The terms "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press" shall not be construed to include:

a.       Speech with the intent to communicate a threat, incite a crowd to violence, conspire to commit a high crime under the laws of the United States or the Several States, or commit perjury, slander, libel, or any other offense involving intentional false statements made in a public setting.

b.      The dissemination, by print or spoken word, of information classified as essential to protecting National Security or the privacy of individuals without approval from the President or the Congress, or the just requirement by the Judiciary;

c.       The dissemination of words or images of a sexual nature that are obscene or patently offensive to the moral standards of the community as set by the laws and ordinances of the Several States or their local jurisdictions, particularly those that depict an act that would normally be in violation of those laws;

d.      The dissemination of words or images intended to encourage war or rebellion against the United States, or intended to give the enemies of the United States aid or comfort, whether those enemies be foreign or domestic.

e.       The violation of certain military provisions regarding the need for discipline, morale, and command effectiveness within the uniformed services.

Section 2.

No provision of this article shall be construed to require or prohibit any action listed in this article by the People of the United States except as provided by the laws of the Several States. Notwithstanding any other part of this article, speech or printed matter regarding the policy, officials, laws, and conduct of the government of the United States or the Several States shall be protected presuming it is not libelous, slanderous, directly threatening, or in direct violation of specific military laws and regulations. Speech regarded as merely discriminatory shall also be protected, presuming it is not libelous, slanderous, or directly threatening.

33^rd Amendment

Section 1.

The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen in accordance with Article 1, Section 3 of this Constitution.

34^th Amendment

Section 1.

No person shall be elected a Representative in the House of Representatives having already served twelve eleven years as a Representative at the time of the next inauguration of Representatives the election.

Section 2.

No person shall be elected to the Senate of the United States more than twice, and no person who has held the office of Senator for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the Senate of the United States more than once.

Section 3.

No person shall hold the office of Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States – whether as Associate Justice, Chief Justice, or some combination of the two – for more than 15 17 years. Except in the case of the death or removal from office of a justice, the President shall not make more than one appointment to the Supreme Court every two years.

Section 4.

In the case of the death or removal of a Justice of the Supreme Court, a person may be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate to complete the 15-year term of the deceased or removed Justice. Such person, provided that person has not served more than 5 years as a Justice, may, at the expiration of the term of the deceased or removed Justice, be appointed to a 15 17-year term.

35^th Amendment

Section 1.

In exercising the power of Judicial Review, when the constitutionality of any law is called into question, members of the judiciary shall indicate the specific provision of the Constitution or other law violated by the law in question; shall not consider the laws of governmental entities outside the United States; shall not include intangible concepts such as personal preference, evolving standards of decency, or other such concepts not codified in law; and shall base all decisions solely on the laws and Constitutional provisions applicable to the case in question.

Section 2.

No decision by any court, whether a court of the United States or a court of one of the Several States, shall be construed as to require that any legislature, whether the Congress or the legislature of one of the Several States, enact some provision of law.

36^th Amendment

Section 1.

The eighth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be clarified as follows:

1.      Punishment by death is not, in and of itself, cruel or unusual when applied to crimes that result in the death of a person, or that include violation of military discipline in time of war, treason, or espionage.

2.      While it is understood that violent death is always painful and unpleasant, the means of execution of a sentence of death is not considered cruel and unusual unless such means normally result in a prolonged, and obviously painful death.

3.      The absence of recreational facilities, equipment, and opportunities in a facility intended to incarcerate those convicted of a crime shall not be considered cruel and unusual.

4.      The absence of specific meals, except on demonstrated medical necessity, shall not be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Section 2.

The fifth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be clarified to state that the failure of law enforcement officials to inform an accused person of the rights enumerated therein shall not be construed to violate that article.

37^th Amendment

Section 1.

The official language of the government of the United States is English. All official business conducted with residents of the United States shall be conducted in English.

Section 2.

The Several States and other territorial jurisdictions in the United States may choose additional languages to serve their own residents, but English shall be the primary language of all government business.

38^th Amendment

Section 1.

The United States does not recognize the executive, legislative, or judicial authority of any multinational organization as being superior to that of the United States or of the Several States.

Section 2.

Any treaties or agreements with such multinational organizations, whether formal or informal, must not violate provisions set forth in this Constitution.

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.