.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, September 26, 2005

Al Neuharth and Terror At 35K Feet

I almost fell out of my 1st Class seat this past Friday. Al Neuharth said in his Op Ed piece in his USA Today W 'deserves better than those low ratings.' Read that again...Al Neuharth who has not been a friend of Bush and neither are most of the op ed pieces I've seen over the last several months. But here he goes with three points he feels W needs to be given credit for some decisions he has made over the last several weeks:
A) John Roberts - Naming John Roberts to the Supreme Court 'was such a smart move, even some partisan Democrats grudgingly approve.'
B) Taking Blame - 'His accepting blame for some of the Hurricane Mess and dumping his political crony Michael Brown as the head of FEMA was belated but brave.'
C) Mission To Mars - 'His approval of the plan by his new head of NASA, Michael Griffin for an ambitious nut affordable return to space, going back to the moon and then on to Mars, is futuristic and commendable.'

Of the three, I am partial to the C since I live in FL and the Space Coast depends heavily on NASA to have a purpose - not to mention all the benefits to the private sector space exploration has given the US. Bravo, Al! I hope to read more flattering editorials with equal pleasure as W steers the last years of his Presidency to even more successes.

Next - Voter ID Cards - Julianne Malveaux (I wonder if she is from LA since she ends her name with an X as so many Cajun decedents do to separate themselves from their French neighbors to the North) put out an Op Ed piece that decries the uselessness of Voter ID Cards the current administration wants to implement. She laments, 'I haven't gotten over the 2000 Presidential Election (which she did not capitalize) what happened in FL and elsewhere can only be described ass a 'fiasco.' The nation's fix-it attempt, with the 2002 Help America Vote Act failed to prevent more meltdowns in the 2004 election, including long lines and implications of fraud in Ohio.' Oh really, Ms Malveaux. Maybe it's because you lost both elections, the second worst than the first. Maybe that is why you think it was a fiasco, 'implications' (not fact) and all. Loser!

Well, Ms Malveaux then takes a swipe (no pun) at the recommendations from the National Committee of Federal Election Reform, headed by one of her heroes, Jimmy Carter, that recco's the following: A voter database, administration of elections by non-partisan groups, and a paper receipt from electronic systems. Now her main criticism falls on Voter ID Cards. She cites the analysis of George Washington University law proff Spence Overton who opines, 'Voter IDs would burden 19 Million eligible voters. Many people would be required to provide documentation of citizenship before a real voter id would be issued.' What's wrong with that? He claims doing so would 'fall heaviest on people of color, low income earners and the elderly...Georgia's AARP chapter noted that 36% of its residents do not have a driver's license. In WIS, he added that '23% of those 65 and older do not have licenses or photo ids.' Malveaux then states, 'For many people, especially blacks, it makes voting expensive - a certified copy of a birth certificate costs as much as $45.' She concludes, 'Implementing the Real ID proposal is likely to leave out many eligible voters further undermining confidence in the nation's electoral process.'

First she only said that voter id cards are expensive. She never said they are a bad idea. So in essence she has not claimed that such a reform is bad thing. It's only a bad thing since it might cost money to those that allegedly can't prove citizenship. She has economically excused the multifarious ways to prove citizenship, but that is not important since it seems her only intent is to further the disenfranchisement of a single group. The proposal states that for those that do not have a driver's license, voter id cards would be free!

Lastly - New Rules May Restrict Gay Men From Catholic Seminaries - Great! There should be no homosexuals in the Catholic clergy, period! If gay men want to be men of God, there are other religions that will welcome them. Go there, not the Catholic Church, please. Here's the rub (sorry) , there is a proclamation that has been in the works since 1994 which would bar gays from Catholic service with a catch. The problem with this 'Don't Rub, Don't Tell' rule allows regional Bishops to decide if regional seminaries would allow those with homosexual inclinations to be admitted into seminaries. WRONG! The rule needs to be uniform and sweeping to disallow any man who has such tendencies or outright inclinations, period! If the proposed rule is enacted, then what you will have will be regions where such unholy behavior is sanctioned. Personally, I want to know what seminaries allow such acceptance and what priests in my parish came from one of those trollop factories. No thanks, Pope - Don't Rub Don't Tell will not work. Exclude them all and let them go where they are welcomed.

All of the above came from the first section of Friday's Sept 23 USA Today. And I only used to read USA for the Sports Section.

First op-ed, Kudos when kudos are due!

Second, she's a twit.

Third, Hey! Don't send them over here! Do you not remember 1Corinthians 5? The seminaries are all mostly liberal. A lot happens in those seminaries, whether or not you are inclined. It's time to clean up the seminaries!

Thank you! Pretty good stuff! :)
Good stuff. Thanks.
Great, while we're kicking out the gays we also need to kick out people that eat shellfish, pork, have grown two crops in one field, or worn blended fabrics. All of which are considered abominations by God. Did I say kick out, I meant kill because thats actually what the book literally prescribes. I love all the righteous indignation about gays among catholics while their tithing goes to protecting child molesters. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but if you think that's not where part of your money goes you are seriously kidding yourself.

But no big deal they can find another religion.
You don't understand, being gay has been anathema to both Jewish and Christain pedagogy for over 2000 years. That's it. It's an absolute. Only recently have the sheep in the leadership of the American Catholic Chruch allowed gays to be included - hate the sin, love the sinner. Bollocks! There is no room for debate, here. They can be gay all they want, just not in my church.
As for the child molesters in my church (and any church), it's about time for a little Torquamada!
Being openly gay has been anathema but it has been routinely tolerated as long as the person kept it relatively low key. However that still doesn't change the fact that the actual bible says very little about it. It does prescribe many other rules that the so called devout seem willing to regularly flout. I just think it is unreasonable to pick and chose which teachings of the bible will be sacrosanct and which will be ignored.

I'm not Catholic but I think priests should be allowed to marry and have families, I'm also very disappointed in the most recent choice for pope. Just so you know where I'm coming from.
The bible, by my count, has about 3 passages that seem to address homosexuality. There are 13 or so passages typically pointed to, but they mostly deal with prostitution, rape or have unclear word meanings.

There are two verses in Leviticus that say men should not lay with men (lesbians are okay) and if they do, they should be stoned. That seems fairly clear, but only if you're willing to start killing our gay brothers and sisters. This is part of the Holiness Code which folk don't buy wholesale anymore.

Then there's the Romans passage that condemns men and women abandoning "natural relations" but since we know that natural relations for homosexuals is with the same gender, it seems more an endorsement rather than a proscription.

The thing the scriptures do deal with are unhealthy and oppressive relationships, heterosexual and homosexual. Healthy and whole relationships are a blessing from God and should be accepted as such.

So much fuss in the church over these very few passages on this subject, but very little fuss over the weightier matters of economic justice and peacemaking that run the gamut of the bible. Makes you wonder...
Does not make me wonder at all. It's wrong. It goes against thousands of years of teachings and I don't want my children to be ministered to by someone who can't uphold the beliefs of the scripture he teaches. There have to be absolutes. Moral relativsim can't exist. If its does, why have religion at all.
I've got absolutes running out my ears, friend. This war in Iraq is absolutely wrong. The oppression and genocides of peoples, whether in Iraq, Sudan or Guatanamo, is wrong.

My absolute point is that the Bible is WAY clear on the need to address economic injustices with probably 100 times as many passages dealing with the issue as compared to sexual immorality issues.

We ought to be about the clear work of the Bible, not nitpicking a few verses that seem to validate our distaste for gays.
Great points Dan, the willingness of the Right to claim the moral high ground and the 'side of Jesus' while their leaders consistently act to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor is sickening, and frankly, downright unchristian.

It is insane to me that we have rampant CHILD POVERTY in this country and yet gay marriage is the big issue for the so called 'christian' lobby.
Amen and amen.
And since this admin has spent more money in five years than Clinton did in eight on the poor, we still have poor people. We have spent trillions since the 60s on the poor and we still have poor. Now you both still won't understand that hypocrisy of having homosexuals in the cloth of any religion. Besides breaking the tenants of celibacy in my faith, Catholicism, we would be saying to everyone including children, 'Father Ryan is not only not celibate, children, he is love with a man.' Nice. They can be gay all they want in someone elses religion. You want them? Take them - just watch your ass! And this crap from Cold Pillow - keep the rich, rich - it's not the Christain lobby I talked about. My point as you have missed again and again is that Catholics, not protestants, Baptists, Jews, etc., have a right to say no. If you can't recognize that, stop lumping my faith into the groups of your so called radical right. Also, let me ask you this, if the right is radcial Christain, is the left radical non Christain? Or is your faith so welcoming that you allow homosexuals to become clergy? I'd love to attend a service where the man (and now Women in some religions) in front espouses the wonders of same sex lifestyles to a congregation that is either ostensibly not homosexual, but married (man and wife) or single and heterosexual. The point of this piece is that the Catholic Church has a right to say no to homosexuals. That's it. If your religion welcomes them - have at it. I don't want them any where near seminaries, the altar or anywhere near children, especially mine. And I don't want them around your children either, if you can imagine that! Someone can be gay all he or she wants to, but not as a clergyman in anyones' faith. Why is that so difficult for anyone to understand?
Again, this post only exposes your own ignorance of actual homosexuality. Being Gay doesn't mean sneaking up behind random men. It doesn't mean you espouse the wonders of homosexuality any chance you get. In fact, the people you refer to in seminaries probably do everything they can to hide their innate feelings. Instead choosing a life dedicated to god. But I think you know that and just choose to portray otherwise to score points. I also agree that it is the Catholic church's right to exclude homosexuals. It is also my right to call it a hypocritical, bigoted position. The difference is I can provide a logically consistent argument for my assertion.
Well, we agree on one thing - you want them, have at it! My logical consistent argument is the that homosexuality goes against thousands of years of Christian pedagogy - I am not as well versed on Judiams' precripts for this, but I can imagine it's pretty much the same thing. It's the acknowledgement and acceptance of a man's disposition to this sexual orientation, the sanctioning of that orientation by his clergy at all levels and the hypocrisy of that person as man of God's letters in a Christian world. That has been and will be my contention. Scoring points? With whom? What I hope to score is revealing the hypocrisy of my religion to allow priests who are homosexual to operate in my church, those are the points I am after! The American Catholic Chruch needs reform on this issue and if it fails to provide it, more and more pews will contiue to be empty in this nation. Still, there are over 52 million Catholics in this nation. This one issue cant make them all go away, but having men of the cloth with this lifestyle choice certinaly is not going to fill any more seats on Sunday!
I wouldn't worry about the pews being empty. An interview on talk radio I heard a couple of days ago indicated that some bishops believe the number of gay priests on seminaries in the USA may approach 40%. Wholesale dismissal of homosexuals will cripple the US Catholic Church on a far wider scale than the child abuse scandal. As it is, there are not enough priests to manage the parishes.

If priests are celibate, I do not understand the difference between a heterosexual and homosexual priest. To me, the term homosexual priest has no meaning, as there can NEVER be any action.

At any rate, every religious body, corporately (or in the Catholic church, papally) has the right to select the type of priests AND flock it wants. On the other hand, selecting out a large portion seems like a bad idea.
Ah... the problem exists because there is action. And I hope to Christ it's not a large population. And doesn't it just seem to you that the only priests who are molesting children are Irish? Or is it just me. When Italian and Spanish priests get busy, it's usally with an adult female. I guees they need to put some saltpeter on those mickeys.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?