A Minor Inconsistency

It seems that if a body were interested in reducing STD infections, they should oppose the morning after pill. After all, if you can have unprotected sex and then take a pill the next day to prevent pregnancy, why should you bother with a condom? However, not using a condom would necessarily leave one open to potential infections (I submit that if you really believed he had an STD, you wouldn't be having sex with him).
I think if one were honest, one would make the case that having Plan B on the market would lull more women (and girls) into a false sense of security, potentially reducing condom use. I'm sure that study will never be done because making that leap, one might also draw the conclusion that abortion being legal also reduces the likelihood that people will use contraception "responsibly" or that contraception being legal reduces the likelihood that people will have sex responsibly, i.e. within the context of marriage. I didn't intend for this post to end up like this. But i'm glad it did. :)

Get ready for the roundup.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

As everyone has probably been made aware already, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report on Right-wing Extremism stating that it's on the rise because of the new administration. There are many problems I personally have with this report especially because the language is so broad that it could be used to do some very scary things in the future.
First, I resent the label "right-wing" being used for groups like the KKK and other racist organizations. It seems to be inaccurate since Lincoln was a Republican and the Klan started in the South, which is primarily Democrat because of the Civil War. I suppose militia groups uphold gun rights, which is a right-wing position, but the implication of the report is that racism is a right-wing thing. It's not.
Secondly, the report lists people who believe in the balance of federalism as potential enemies of the state. The federal government has lately been attaching some very frightening strings to the money it gives out. Banks are trying to return TARP loans and the government is refusing so they can maintain a stake in the banks. They forced the CEO of GM, a private company, to resign because the company foolishly accepted taxpayer money for a bailout. Despite the bailout, GM is still expected to file bankruptcy. We get the same result, but now the government has control of the company, which they bought with your money. They are telling the governor of S. Carolina that he can't refuse stimulus money, but he can't spend it the way he sees fit. He wants to pay down state debt, but the federal government says the money must be spent to set up education programs that the taxpayers of the state will not be able to afford, since they have a deficit already from existing programs. The DHS report is worded so broadly that it could be interpreted that people who have a problem with the above mentioned power-grabs are "extremist". Even Robert Byrd, Democratic Senator of West Virginny (and former Klan member, I might add) says that this administration is constitutionally out of line because of the "czar" positions he is creating, positions of authority that aren't elected by the people, yet have final say over many policy issues (above and beyond the say of the elected representatives).
Thirdly, the report lists as potentially dangerous extremists those who focus on one issue, like abortion. Who do we know who focuses heavily on life-issues? Any Catholic worth their salt. Pro-life people statistically are not violent. Since 1977 there have been 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 4 kidnappings, and 216 arsons committed against abortionists/abortion mills (according to abortionviolence.com). The DHS report fails to cite any new and recent incidents to support the claim that pro-life "extremists" are on the move. This seems, then, like a non-factual way to throw suspicion on the peaceful pro-life majority, especially since our bishops have actually been speaking out on life matters recently.
The report also throws suspicion on people for buying guns and stocking up on ammunition. There is actually a very good, non-extremist reason for people to be doing that. Obama has a very non-vague record on gun-control and has floated the idea of taxing ammunition to make it harder for people who own guns to actually be able to use them. Our right to bear arms (and have a militia without being called extremist, for that matter) is protected by the constitution. People own guns for hunting, to practice target shooting, and to protect their homes and families. When someone breaks into your home, it is a lot more comforting to be able to protect them yourself instead of having to wait for the cops to show up and worrying what will happen in the meantime. People who have this practical view can, by the vagueness of the DHS report, be labelled extremists because their behavior is listed as potentially extremist. The man in Scranton Heights, PA, who shot and killed three police officers is held up as an example because he supposedly was afraid of Obama taking away gun rights. What about the man LA who shot and killed four police officers? He was also a rapist, but because he's not "right-wing", he's not an enemy of the state.
Basically, the report seems to make sweeping generalizations that anyone conservative is potentially dangerous. There are no specific groups listed, except racist groups, just political points of view that should be red-flags. This scares me because the average person who hears news without critically examining it (we are a pretty apathetic nation) gets the impression that pro-lifers, hunting enthusiasts, and veterans are dangerous, just like they got the impression that Obama was well-spoken and politically moderate, and that Michelle Obama doesn't hate this country. I worry about the seeds of division being sown by Janet Napolitano and what fruit they might bear.

Sorry, Liam.

Wow, my first retraction. I would just like to note that the circumstances surrounding Natasha Richardson's untimely death were a cause of natural death. I was hasty in my interpretation of the media's calling it "brain death", but because of the lateness of medical care she received (by her own doing), there simply was nothing that could have been done to save her. Johnnycatholic sends his apologies and prayers for her family and for the departed.
Note to self: wait for the autopsy report next time, lest ye be judged . . .

Put down

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03172009/news/worldnews/natasha_richardson_is_brain_dead_160027.htm

According to the above article, actress Natasha Richardson is brain dead resulting from a ski accident and will be removed from life support forthwith. To paraphrase the great Norm MacDonald, "Note to self: reject marriage proposal from Liam Neeson!"

Pulling Apart for the Sake of the Nation

I am an occasional listener of conservative talk radio. While i am by no means a "ditto-head", i do find conservative philosophy more compatible with a Catholic society. While i'm normally content to let the experts do their jobs, one caller today on Rush Limbaugh upset me with yet another well-meaning but foolish argument. She told Rush he sounded like an angry petulent child and instead of being upset that we lost the election, he needed to give Obama a chance, stop with the criticism, and help us pull together as a nation. While Rush was being a bit more snarky than usual, the caller was otherwise wrong. If Obama's economic plan is a bad idea, it doesn't matter if 100 people agree with it or 300 million people agree with it, it is still going to run the country into the ground. The only thing that changes is the number of people prepared to deal with the aftermath.
Furthermore, Obama not only doesn't believe that life begins at conception, he's apparently also not sure it begins at birth either, as is indicated by his voting numerous times against the Born Alive Infant Protection act.
We do not owe a president who is wrong loyalty to his wrong ideas. We owe him our prayers and sacrifices for his conversion and respect for the office he holds.

A couple notes on Christmas.

As fairly new parents Christmas presents some interesting challenges for our family. What do you tell your kids about Santa Claus? How do you create a meaningful emphasis on Jesus "the reason for the season"? While I'm sure we will continue learning and trying new things, a couple of things at this point seem perfectly clear.
#1. Keep gift giving to a minimum. There is no way you can give a 4 year old a mountain of presents and then tell him what's really important is Jesus. It sends a mixed message.
#2. I think lying about Santa sends a message that there is no real wonder to the season so grown ups have to make it up. I believe it undermines what we truly believe as Christians and that we need to keep seeking genuine ways to emphasize God and his miraculous gift of self to the world.
Merry Christmas!
Love,
The Catholic Family

It's Faith AND Reason, Kids

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_re_us/faith_healing_death

Faith healers in Oregon are once again making all Christians look like morons by letting their children die of easily treatable diseases. This story brings up many issues that i think it important to analyze.
Firstly, i think we need to examine if the basis for the belief that Christians should shun doctors in favor of God's healing. We do definitely see in the Bible that Jesus and his apostles healed the sick. However, it's typically things like leprosy that a doctor in those days could not heal. In the Catholic Church today, we see that saints intercede for healings also in things where medical science cannot help, such as multiple sclerosis. I think it is reasonable, therefore, to view doctors and medical science as a gift from God with prayer as a backup. God does not want us to be too prideful in the abilities of man, of course, but he does give us the ability to become doctors and heal with ordinary means. I think by shunning doctors, you are prideful in the same way as someone who denies that a saint's prayers can be helpful. God works in people and wishes you to find Him in your brothers and sisters. It is humbling to accept help from others and that is spiritually nourishing.
I think the national media picked this story up because they like ridiculing Christians and also are hoping it will encourage support fo legislation that forces Christian parents to get immoral treatments for their children in less serious instances, like the HPV vaccine. Because evil forces like that are at work in this world, it is important that our public actions be authentically Christian, stemming from both faith and reason. Otherwise we look like the superstitious nutjobs everyone thinks we are.