Welcome to Current Events

“Over the last week there have been incidence's of what has become for me a mantra and a constant theme of my preaching. I believe that the gospels more than ever are calling us to strive towards civility as a Church and as individuals. I see us creeping toward it at best. Last week we as a nation did not even come close to being civil.
What is civility? According to Webster´s Dictionary civility is described as "good breeding; civil conduct, politeness; a polite act or expression."
One of the best bishops ever in the United States, in my opinion, was Cardinal Joseph Bernadin of Chicago. Here was a man who knew civility and dedicated his life to be an example of it. He began the Common Ground Project for the sole purpose of creating a climate where folks would at least listen to each other to try to come to a common understanding of each other or at least to agree to disagree.. .and still be able to speak to one another and live in peace with each other. He mainly organized it so that people and leaders within the Church could do that, much less society as a whole. Amazingly many including some of his brother bishops made fun of it or ignored the call of Common Ground. How sad! What are some signs of "incivility?" "Road Rage" is one. We never heard of the phrase until recently. We used to be more civil when we were behind the wheel of a car. Now the use of four letter words and profane gestures are so common most of us are not the least bit shocked at their use in public. Last week we saw many examples of it. How so? How about when President Obama addressed the Congress and the Representative from South Carolina yelled out, during the President´s speech, and called him a "liar." Even the Congress thought that to be bad conduct from one of their own. Or how about Serena Williams, the tennis star and a marvelous athlete, and her sad outburst toward the line official at the U.S. Open Tennis Matches at Flushing Meadows, New York. Not only was she out of line but her profane language in this public arena was "over the top" uncivil. She lost more than the match that day. She lost her reputation and her dignity. When one so emulated and "professional" is uncivil publicly one loses so much more than an argument.. .and so does the nation. And how about the Rap star, Kanye West, and his little tirade at the MTV Awards in New York angered that another singer (Taylor Swift) received the award instead of his choice (Beyonce)...not the first time this character has publicly shown his ignorance.. .and his incivility. And how about those so-called "Town Hall Meetings" conducted by members of Congress in their districts around the country regarding the Health Care debate and issues? The incivility at many of these meetings, the yelling and the screaming, the name-calling, has upset the very fabric of our nation´s principles and practices. A new message is being sent to the world.. .if you disagree with me you must be wrong and I will fight you to the end and worse, not allow you to speak or hold your opinion. We no longer can agree to disagree in a civil manner!!! This is not good!! Perhaps the most disturbing sign of incivility came last week when President Obama was set to address the nation´s school children on the value of staying in school and the importance of getting a good education. Your future depends upon your schooling. Other Presidents have addressed the nation´s school children. President Reagan and President George H. Bush both talked to the young people during their terms as President. However last week when President Obama tried to do the same thing partisan politics reared its ugly head along with a manufactured controversy and it interfered with our children´s opportunity to hear the President of the United States in the company of their classmates and teachers. A small percentage of parents called schools and school districts requesting that their children not listen to the President fearing that Obama would use the opportunity to "bully pulpit" our youth with his policies on health care or abortion. Even our own Catholic School Office requested that our Catholic Schools in the Archdiocese not show the President´s address to the children.... caving in to the demands of the few. Our own school of St. Peter received requests from three parents not to have their children see or hear the President´s message. And because of a small percentage of negative calls all the children of the Archdiocesan schools could not see or hear the President of the United States speech in a classroom setting. Wow! What message does that give to our youth! You don´t have to listen to the President or anyone else with whom you disagree. And what an opportunity missed! To say the least I respectfully and civilly disagree with Mr. George Henry, the Superintendent of the Catholic Schools in St. Louis and the Archbishop over that decision. Yes, parents have the right to choose whether their child views the address but how come a small minority was allowed to make that choice for the majority...or at least in St. Peter School? Wouldn´t it have been more appropriate for those parents simply to request that their children be excused from watching and listening to the President that day? I lump this with my cause for civility because 1 believe the above decision and manufactured controversy surrounding that Presidential address on education is yet another example of our nation and our people´s inability or unwillingness to hear each other, understand each other´s opinions and views and "agree to disagree" in a civil way. There is so much fear and distrust of each other both in the political and the ecclesiastical arenas today we can no longer even listen to one another and try to find Cardinal Bernadin´s "Common Ground." Instead we react with rage, yelling and screaming at each other to make our point and put the other down thus failing to treat one another with reverence and respect.”
THANK YOU MONSIGNOR JACK !

“Andy Rooney
DO YOU KNOW?
As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view..it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DO YOU KNOW?
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DO YOU KNOW?
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

DO YOU KNOW?
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington , D.C...

DO YOU KNOW?
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement: "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DO YOU KNOW?
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

DO YOU KNOW?
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1977.

DO YOU KNOW?
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DO YOU KNOW?
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law they would begin making law an oligarch, the rule of few over many.

DO YOU KNOW?
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:
"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

It is up to us to remember what this great country was built on!
And help all citizens know the price that was paid.

Chamber, US House of Representatives

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn...

It is said that 65% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 35% that if this country is to survive the effort on their part to reduce us to look alikes and the facism that it represents needs to be taken seriously and with responsibility on their part as well as on our part. Fraud is no basis for democracy. A country that insists that God has no place or right to partner with a nation that was founded on the principles of Christianity because it may give one group or another an advantage needs to see the socialism of Wall Street and the poverty of those outside of Wall Street. That we can't afford universal health care is the abomination of those who see greed as the bottom line. We can't afford to point fingers or ridicule or accept the democracy of the few.”

Pope Benedict XVI says moral values must be part of economic recovery, development

“Ethical values are needed to overcome the current global economic crisis as well as to eradicate hunger and promote the real development of all the world´s peoples, Pope Benedict XVI said in his new encyclical. The document, "Caritas in Veritate" ("Charity in Truth"), was released at the Vatican July 7.
The truth that God is the creator of human life, that every life is sacred, that the earth was given to humanity to use and protect and that God has a plan for each person must be respected in development programs and in economic recovery efforts if they are to have real and lasting benefits, the pope said.
—Charity, or–love, is not an option for Christians, he said, and "practicing charity in truth helps people understand that adhering to the values of Christianity is not merely useful, but essential for building a good society and for true integral development," he wrote.
In addressing the global economic crisis and the enduring poverty of the world´s poorest countries, he said, "the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity."
The global dimension of the financial crisis is an expression of the moral failure of greedy financiers and investors, of the lack of oversight by national governments and of a lack of understanding that the global economy required internationally recognized global control, Pope Benedict said. "In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth," the pope wrote.
"To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority," he said.
Pope Benedict insisted that the idea of the world's richest nations scaling back development aid while focusing on their own economic recovery overlooked the long-term economic benefits of solidarity and not simply the human and Christian moral obligation to help the poor.
"In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all," the pope said.
The economic growth of poorer countries and their citizens' demands for consumer goods actually benefit producers in the world's wealthier nations, he said.
The pope said that "more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid," respecting the obligations they made to the U.N. Millennium Development Goals aimed at significantly reducing poverty by 2015. Pope Benedict said food and water are the "universal rights of all human beings without distinction or discrimination" and are part of the basic right to life.
He also said that being pro-life means being pro-development, especially given the connection between poverty and infant mortality, and that the only way to promote the true development of people is to promote a culture in which every human life is welcomed and valued. "The acceptance of life strengthens moral fiber and makes people capable of mutual help," he said.
He said the environment, life, sexuality, marriage and social relations are inextricably united.
If society does not respect human life from its conception to its natural end, "if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology," he said.
Development programs and offers of aid that encourage coercive population–control methods and the promotion of abortion do not have the good of people at heart and limit the recipients´ motivation to become actors in their own development and progress, the pope said. In addition, he said, an anti-life mentality in the world´s richest countries is related to the lack of concern for the poor.
"How can we be surprised by the indifference shown toward situations of human degradation when such indifference extends even to our attitude toward what is and is not human?" the pope asked.
"While the poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich, the world of affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those knocks on account of a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human," he said.
Pope Benedict also emphasized church teaching that making money and being wealthy are not sins, but that the way the money is made and the way it is used can be.
The encyclical condemned corruption, the exploitation of workers, the destruction of the environment, the continuing practice of wealthy nations imposing such high tariffs on imports that they shut poor countries out of the international marketplace and, especially, an "excessive zeal" for enforcing patents, especially on medications that could save the lives of thousands of poor people if they were available at a reasonable cost. Pope Benedict called for "a profoundly new way of understanding business," which recognizes that investors are not a company´s only stakeholders, no matter how the business is structured and financed.
Pope Benedict XVI signs a copy of his encyclical, "Caritas in Veritate" ("Charity in Truth"). (CNS photo/L'Osservatore Romano via Reuters)”

Remarks from CBS Sunday Morning - Ben Stein I Only hope we find GOD again before it is too late ! ! The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
My confession:
“I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?' In light of recent events.... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit.
If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein”

“A Call to Political Responsibility
from the Catholic Bishops of the United States USCCB
-- Visit the USCCB home page

Welcome to the Faithful Citizenship Web site
of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops!

Download the bishops' statement
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship in PDF.
- United States Catholic Conference
See the "Faithful Citizenship" image/icon
You can order copies of the statement and
other Faithful Citizenship materials from USCCB Publishing.

Sign up for the Faithful Citizenship e-mail list and
be registered to win an iPod with Catholic content!

Do's And Don'ts: Political Responsibility Guidelines
to Keep in Mind during Election Season
What's allowed and encouraged?
What should parishes avoid? Here's help for:

* All Catholics
* Parish & School Leaders
* Diocesan & Community Leaders
* Young Catholics

Videos
VIDEO: Thought for the Day

VIDEO: Take a Faithful Citizenship quiz with Steve Angrisano.
View this video and more.

PODCASTS: Pray a novena for life, justice, and peace:
Novena for Faithful Citizenship. Listen to this Podcast and more. Catholic Communication Campaign USCCB Publishing”

Some of you, especially those of you in "swing" states, are probably tired of the ads and phone calls. But we hope that you'll engage with candidates and other voters during this critical time, and encourage registered voters to vote for the common good!
Here are some suggestions from NETWORK for engaging others during this election season:

1. Contact Your Candidates - Get in touch with your candidates and tell them your priorities for our country and your community.
2. Use NETWORK's Election Resources - Check out the election information on our web site.
3. Get Out to Vote - As Early as Possible!

1. “Contact your Candidates
We encourage you to contact the campaigns of the candidates running for office in your area. Challenge your candidates to keep focused on the common good as they address the critical issues facing our country.
You can follow these links to send personal messages to the campaigns of John McCain, Barack Obama, and your Congressional candidates:

* John McCain -
http://capwiz.com/networklobby/issues/alert/?alertid=12066761&type=CA
* Barack Obama -
http://capwiz.com/networklobby/issues/alert/?alertid=12066776&type=CA
* Congressional Candidates -
http://capwiz.com/networklobby/issues/alert/?alertid=12066791&type=CO

While you will find some suggested talking points for each letter, we encourage you make each reflect your own views and concerns. Some of the resources below can provide further background information as you craft your letters.

2. Use NETWORK's Election Resources
The following are some resources from NETWORK to guide you as you talk with your friends and neighbors about the issues at stake in this election and make your choices on November 4th.

* 2008 Presidential Candidate Chart for Conscientious Catholics - Compares the positions of the presidential candidates in the context of Catholic Social Teaching
http://www.networklobby.org/NEP%20ElectionChart%20WEB.pdf
* CapWiz Election Guide - From this link, click on your state (on the map) or enter your street address to find information about your Congressional, state, and local races, including candidate profiles and issue positions.
http://networklobby.capwiz.com/election/home/
* Platform for the Common Good - Presents a vision of and agenda for creating a "more perfect Union" focused on the common good
http://www.networklobby.org/PlatformfortheCommonGood.pdf

3. Get Out to Vote - As Early as Possible!
Early voting is a great way to avoid long lines at your polling place on Election Day and to ensure that your vote is counted. If you vote early, you can address any problems with your voter registration and avoid last-minute glitches in voting equipment. Early voting has expanded in many states since 2000. In this election, about a third of the electorate is expected to vote early. Varieties of early voting include: voting on a voting machine at a designated polling place and voting in-person with an absentee ballot. Many states now also offer early/absentee voting by mail with no excuse required. The types and timeframes of early voting vary from state to state. Check out the websites listed below for early voting procedures by state and for links to your own state's election website.

* NETWORK's voter registration and early voting information page
http://www.networklobby.org/voter_information.pdf
* League of Women Voters Education Fund, Election Information Website
http://www.vote411.org/
* Early Voting Information Center at Reed College
http://earlyvoting.net/states/abslaws.php

Be sure to take your family, friends and neighbors with you to vote!”

John responded to the following e-mail with the article that follows.

Subject: MUSLIM

“Please read the following carefully and pass it on if you care to. Is there more than a thread of truth below? You decide for yourself!
Interesting article..... Can A Muslim Become A Good American Citizen? Can a good Muslim be a good American? I sent that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia. Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Koran, 2:256) Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran). Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day. Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34). Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt. Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. Spiritually - no. Because when we declare, "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called Love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be more suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. At the very least, we should be more aware of what a Muslim is, and what a Muslim believes. They obviously cannot be both "good Muslims " and good Americans.
Call this what you wish....it's still the truth.
If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
Pass it on Fellow Americans if you care to. The religious war of Islam is bigger than we know or understand.

John's Response:

“It is with heavy eyes and skepticism that I read the original email message above as it alludes to the condemnation of an entire religion's capability to conform to the ideal of a "good American citizen." This sort of immediacy in a such a complex topic is short-sighted and intellectually vacant. It reminds me of the anti-German and anti-Japanese sentiments here in the United States during WWII–not all Germans were Nazis, not all Japanese supported the Emperor. Perhaps my shirttail relatives, the Blindauers and Schneiders, have some memory of this sort of discrimination in their pasts.
Critical thought and consideration are healthy qualities in arriving at a well conceived opinion, and to that end, the original email can contribute to a breadth of literature. But taken alone, it is an abysmal representation of the matter. It is my gut feeling that few of you who received the email have the time or inclination to pursue further study of Islamic culture and its reconciliation with American ideals to balance it with. If you do, I apologize for the assumption and would invite meaningful discourse on the subject as I am vested in the topic. But knowing, for example, that my own siblings are chin deep in their careers, marriages, elementary school and church activities, their own graduate studies, yard work, and rare moments of recreation that it is not likely. So let me share some insight from my own experiences and research.
To categorize "ALL MUSLIMS" as one in the same is a damaging generalization to understanding a multifarious religion in the same way speaking of all Christians as one united "people" convolutes an understanding of that western religion. As we all know, there are a multitude of divisions within Christianity with diverging views, beliefs, dogmas and sub-cultures: Eastern Orthodox v. Roman Catholic v. Protestant, and then a family tree of sects beyond these. The Muslim community is similar, broken between two major sects who have not agreed since the death of Mohammed in 632 on much of anything. Nearly immediately there were divisions, identifiable today by the two major sects: Sunni and Shi'ites. The hatred between them is prolific, as voracious as the Catholic/Protestant wars in the 16th century, and easily seen in the oppositional relationships pervasive throughout Iraq's current civil war, etc. Superimposed on these divisions are ethnic tribes. Arabs v. Persians. Turk v. Kurd. Pashto v. Tajik. Uzbek v. Turkmen; whose animosities go back so far in time that most of our Anglo-Saxon relatives were still going Viking. Today, retribution for ancient family and tribal skirmishes trump even religious unity. These two facts alone, sects and ethnicity, make the statement "ALL MUSLIM" incredibly ignorant. Muslims living in America come from more countries alone than make up the whole of European-American backgrounds, and have a diversity of beliefs and cultures that further negate any sort of Muslim generalization.
Theologically, Muslims see Islam as the succession of previous monotheistic religions-Judaism and Christianity. Their Allah is the Allah of Abraham, the ancestor of all three of these major monotheistic religions. This was not lost on Mohammed. In the early years after his revelations, his first order of business was not to divide and conquer the world, but to unify it and its tribes, Arabian and otherwise. In order to do so, he offered considerable tolerance toward non-Muslims. In fact, the Quran commanded Muslims to protect "people of the book," Jews and Christians who possessed a revealed scripture. Remember that it was the angel Gabriel who revealed God's word to Mohammed, the same angel who revealed to Mary of her blessing. Unfortunately, whomever authored the email below sites the Koran Sura II verse 256. It is completely way off in their usage of it. Here is what that passage says taken from my Quran bought on the streets of Kabul, Afghanistan: "God! There is no God but He; the Living, the Eternal; Nor slumber seizeth Him, nor sleep; His, whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth! Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His own permission? He knoweth what hath been before them and what shall be after them; yet nought of His knowledge shall they grasp, save what He willeth. His throne reacheth over the heavens and the earth, and the upholding of both burdeneth Him not; and He is High, the Great!"
As can be plainly seen, this passage has nothing to do with discrimination of other religions, but affirming Islam's monotheistic foundation, which, by the way, reiterates our own first Commandment. Sura 259, however, makes some nod towards those who do not believe in God, which excludes, obviously, Jews and Christians, but includes the pagan gods popular in the 7th century Arabian desert.
Indeed, Sura II verse 59 reads: "Verily, they who believe (Muslims), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians, and the Sabeites–whoever of these believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved."
Religiously, Islam is by nature understanding and tolerant. However, it is the beliefs of but a few radical religious teachers that abnegates tolerance. Doesn't it seem suspect that ALL MUSLIMS would miss this teaching and subscribe to the teachings of the most radical?
Scripturally, there is no doubt that Muslims ignore the Pentateuch (Torah) and the New Testament as the final word of God. However, by the reasoning of the author, Muslim allegiance to the Five Pillars of Islam precludes their ability to conform to the same natural laws of mankind that have trickled down into our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I might suggest that while there is some dogmatic absolutes, the fact is that the Five Pillars are hardly different from our own Christian teachings in the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, and hence, their differences are interpretative by nature. If you practice the Five Pillars, with the exception of the Haj or pilgrammage to Mecca, it is parallel to practicing the Ten Commandments and fulfilling Jesus' teachings. Both are amenable to living under the Constitution of the United States and by the guarantees of the Bill of Rights.
I'm not sure how the significance of Mecca in prayer detracts from one's ability to be a good American, and am interested in the author's ideas. I do know Jews pilgrimage to Jerusalem, as do some Christians, and Catholics also have Rome, which is much more of a political entity than Mecca. Indeed, should we hold Roman Catholics to the same standard as Muslims? While we don't point toward Rome to pray, many hold allegiance to the Papacy and his directives on abortion, homosexuality, and fornication. The significance for Mecca is much different than that. Previous to Mohammed's revelations, Mecca was the trade center of Arabia and a significant place of worship at the Ka'ba shrine for animist cults. When Mohammed's new Muslim army defeated the Quraysh tribal army outside Mecca, he knew of the cultural significance of the Ka'ba shrine to locals (which he was one), and maintained it out of strategic need for smooth conversion of these people. Today, Muslims point that direction because it signifies submittal to Allah. We do the same as we kneel before the cross.
Perhaps the greatest cleavage in Islam today is the rectification of church and state. For Muslims in America, however, this cleavage is not as prominent because of the existing separation between the two. In developing Muslim countries, ie. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc., the tensions are self-evident and being worked out, although again, complicated by tribal divisions and variations in tribal law. In America, however, one should consider the fact that many Muslim-Americans (one figure is 13 million Americans) immigrated here because of their desire to live freely from strict interpretations of Shari'at (religious social laws) and Purdah (laws governing women) Laws, and made considerable sacrifices to realize this dream. One article of a mullah in Brooklyn was striking to me in this way. I believe it was the New York Times, and if you do a search of nytimes.com around March 3 (I think the 5th, if memory serves me) I'm sure you will find it. The mullah is young, in his 40s, and spoke of the problems he faces rectifying Islamic law and American culture. His prerogative was that Muslim-Americans struggled with fidelity in their relationships, divorce and behavior (drugs, alcohol, pre-marital sex). His feeling was that it was the degradation of adherence to Islamic social norms because of an immersion in a much more liberal American culture. The thing is, I think that many of us would agree these things are the rot for all who strive to lead a moral life, and at that, one that makes us good American citizens.
Domestically, there is another cleavage between more modern Muslims and those who subscribe to traditional interpretations of the Quran. In much of the Islamic world, this translates into a cultural difference between urban and rural people. The norm in urban centers IS NOT polygamy. This is a tribal characteristic. Urban Palestinians, Lebanese, Afghans, Egyptians, Jordanians, etc. do not have multiple wives, perhaps because they understand that it is hard enough to please one woman much less four (ha!). Seriously, urban dwellers look down on such archaic interpretations of polygamy.
Sura IV Verse 34 does not prescribe four wives or beating and scourging and all the rest. It reads: "And whoever shall do this maliciously and wrongfully, We will in the end cast him (emphasis added) into the Fire; for this is easy with God."
The verse is in relation to the 33 verse: "O believers! Devour not each other's substance in mutual frivolities; unless there be a trafficking among you by your own consent: and commit not suicide: of a truth God is merciful to you."
As you can see, the verse calls for the eternal damnation for anyone meets wrongdoing with wrongdoing or complicity. Note that it is this verse that damns suicide, hence suicide bombings. This is a seriously held belief among Afghan Muslims. The verse that talks of four wives is as follows: Sura IV Verse 3: "And if ye are apprehensive that ye shall not deal fairly with orphans, then, of other women who seem good in your eyes, marry but two, or three, or four; and if ye still fear that ye shall not act equitably, then one only; or the slaves whom ye have acquired: this will make justice on your part easier. Give women their dowry freely; but if of themselves they give up aught thereof to you, then enjoy it as convenient, and profitable:"
The verse does NOT command Muslims to marry four women, but only as many as a man can support equitably. This is common among many tribal cultures. Granted that was a long time ago for many cultures, and it is a bit weird for us monogamists of modern day. But consider that there are sects of LDS in Utah that still grasp at some straws to legitimize their bigamy. I don't think this makes them bad Americans, just bad husbands.
Intellectually and philosophically, much of the Islamic world is diametrically opposed to western thought and culture, as the author writes, but not all. For one, we arrived at our Constitution through an evolutionary tract that included 1000 years of darkness, ie, the Dark Ages. We had to rebirth those classical ideas of ancient Greece and Rome through the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, the Reformation, and finally the Enlightenment, which gave birth to a multitude of social ideas; communism, socialism, liberalism, republicanism and transcendentalism among them. But we had to work at it, and it took revolution, the hapless deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents and not so innocents. So it is perhaps an unnecessary judgment to say that much of the Islamic world is living in its own Dark Ages-it is evident. The Ayatollah of Iran recently said as much in his defense of scientific progress for nuclear energy-his point was that Persia was once the leader of the world in science, literature, architecture, etc., and had a responsibility to return to that greatness. Now, as much as that scares the hell out of me, it does point to the backward nature of Islamic countries at this point in time. However, I wonder if this is the choice of the oppressed masses or the queer authoritarian and dictatorial Islamic regimes, like the Taliban, that have made this decision. I'd guess not. The aegis of totalitarian regimes is not to allow choice, so even our own "intellectual" ability as modern Americans to quantify universal Islamic belief in democracy is replete with holes.
Democracy requires an educated public, John Dewey once argued when the US government was wavering on free public education. The inability for Muslim people to adhere to democratic principles is not the Quran, but ignorance. You see this in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq at this very moment. They are struggling with democracy not because of their religion, but, in the case of Afghanistan, because of the "brain drain" that has occurred after thirty years of regime changes, war and oppression. All the smart people have left and are in the United States, in Virginia, the Bay Area, and in Germany, etc., leading productive, democratic lives. Give these people left behind opportunity and their potential to become good American citizens is endless (of course, some have no chance so long as they adhere to strict 7th century interpretations of the Quran). For perspective, forget not that two of the greatest philosophers in the history of mankind were Rumi and Hafiz, and were from Central Asia and under considerable Islamic influence. Only through education and opportunity can people of oppressive Islamic countries realize such greatness as the freedoms of America, and rise to our standard of a good citizen.
The author of the email below is correct in pointing out one possible interpretation of incompatibilities between the secular/Judeo-Christian West and Islamic East, but there is so much more to it than what I read below. To me, this email suggests that ALL MUSLIMS are fundamentalists and radical, and implies a certain discrimination that seems to be based on ignorance and misunderstanding-the very traits that demarcate Islamists from moderate Muslims. There are a great many good Muslim-American citizens, I've met some, and to ignore their accomplishments of overcoming despots, narrow minded mullahs, and oppression only to come to the United States to realize religious freedom, growth and opportunity-pursuit of the American Dream-only serves to perpetuate this horrible division among people who believe in the same God; none of which I imagine Jesus would condone, but I am not authorized to make judgments on His behalf.
I urge anyone who has read the email below not to succumb to unbridled suspicion of Muslims, nor to judge their ability to be "good American citizens." Instead, learn more about their religion, culture and communities, and reach out to them. Strengthen ties with them, because they are our first line of defense against radicals, not our supposed Intelligence. Indeed, it was a Muslim who tipped the Royal Police off to the planned airline bombings in London a few weeks ago. That person is an ally, a quintessential citizen, and someone I'd like to shake hands with and thank.”

—John Byorth

“Labor Day is a National legal holiday that is over 100 years old. Over the years it has evolved from a labor union celebration into a general "last fling of summer" festival. It has come to be recognized in the United States as a day to honor WORK and WORKERS ...to pay tribute to the driving force of our economy....the American laborer. As we gather this Labor Day weekend we are reminded that we owe much to the efforts of organized labor over the years, as it helped to bring decent wages and better working conditions to the workplaces of our beloved country...although the work is far from done...there are still many people in our midst and the world that lack decent work or fair wages ...who toil in terrible conditions and have no real voice in the economic life. It is IMPORTANT for us to recognize the everyday HEROISM of the people who teach our children...who care for our sick...who go into burning buildings...who work hard to try to keep our communities safe...who farm the land to help feed us...These are the people who contribute to the common good by their everyday work and enterprise. As the summer comes to a close, we ask our Heavenly Father, FOR: blessings on those returning to school...our children need special graces and we entrust them to your care. We ask that you bless the work of ALL of the ADULTS... May those who LABOR and those who MANAGE seek to understand each other and their needs. Bless the work of our RETIRED community, as they volunteer their time and as they assume grandparenting roles and participate in the creation of better lives for all. And for CATHOLICS this Labor Day 2007, help us, Lord to recommit in our own small ways to our own WORK, to treat others justly, to defend the lives, dignity and rights of workers, especially the most vulnerable. This is our FAITH and a way to advance the promise of our NATION... We ask these things in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord.Amen”
Courtesy of Larry Drexler, Carole Bernson and Sharon Hartmann

“2007 Danskin Women's Triathlon Series
“In its 18th consecutive year, the Danskin Women's Triathlon Series remains the largest running milti-sports Series in the World for women. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation is proud once again to be the official charity for the 2007 Triathlon Series.
Elyse, with her parents Frances and Rick Cansler, wearing her participation metal finished 426th of 3495; on the bike part she finished 87th out of the 3500 participants. Swimming was tough for her because prior to this year, she swam only with her head above water.

Pre-race preparations, such as race materials pick-up, mandatory bike racking and bike racking times, and body marking took place on Saturday, August 18th. Race Site – Genesee Park

Course Description

(1) Swim – 1/2 mile.
An open water swim in Lake Washington, participants can expect cold temperatures (approximately 65 to 70 degrees) and limited visibility. As this is a long distance Swim in open water, it is advised that participants have the skill sets to swim one-half mile without stopping. One-half mile is equal to 36 lengths of a 25 yard pool, which participants should be able to complete without stopping. Plus, in cold water the body will use more energy in order to maintain body temperature, so be fully prepared for these elements. We encourage participants to wear a wetsuit if they are concerned about water temperatures.
(2) Bike – 12 miles.
A technical course using Lake Washington Boulevard and Interstate 90, participants can expect a short, difficult S-curved assent midway on the course requiring good bike handling skills. Participants must know and use proper passing techniques as riders are traveling at varying rates of speed.
(3) Run – 3.1 miles.
Runners exit the north field of Genesee Park on the east side of the transition area and run southbound on Lake Washington Blvd toward Seward Park. Runners turn around at approximately Orcas Street and run northbound on Lake Washington Boulevard, turning onto Genesee Way and running up a short hill to Genesee Street. Running west on the westbound side of Genesee Street, runners enter the fenced vehicle storage lot of the Seattle Parks facility before finishing at the south end of Genesee Park.”

http://www.bcrfcure.org/eve_07_0819_danskin7.html

Focus on the Family Action,
Others Urge Congress to Guard Gambling Law
by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

Legislation threatens to unleash online casinos.
“Last year, Congress enacted the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which prevents U.S. banks and credit card companies from processing payments to online gambling businesses outside the country.
Now Focus on the Family and seven other pro-family organizations are urging lawmakers to guard the integrity of the act, which has come under fire from all sides.
Three concerns were highlighted in a letter that was sent to all members of the House and Senate on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, urging congressional support for strong UIGEA regulations from the Treasury Department; support of UIGEA´s integrity and opposition to contrary legislation; and congressional support.
The global online gambling market is estimated to be worth $15.5 billion. According to reports, about half of those gamblers are based in the U.S.
"There are well over 800 commercial and tribal casinos, alongside 42 state lotteries saturating our nation's landscape," said Chad Hills, analyst for gambling research and policy for Focus on the Family Action. "The last thing we need is foreign or domestic online casinos invading our homes."
Several Democratic bills threaten the integrity of UIGEA: Rep. Barney Frank´s H.R. 2046, which would provide online casinos with exemptions from federal and state laws; Rep. Robert Wexler´s H.R. 2610, which exempts poker and "games of skill" from UIGEA; and Rep. Jim McDermott´s H.R. 2607, which licenses and taxes Internet casinos.
"When congressmen promote the interests and profits of individuals at the expense of families and our national security, we´ve got a problem on our hands," Hills said. "People must be the common denominator in any decision."
Joining Focus on the Family Action in sending the letter were the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling; American Values; the Christian Coalition of America; the American Family Association; the Eagle Forum; the Family Research Council; and the American Association of Christian Schools.”

“Focus on the Family opposes all forms of legalized gambling for moral and pragmatic reasons. We believe the net societal effect of our government's embrace of gambling has been disastrous.
Gambling is driven by and subsists on greed. For this reason, the activity is morally bankrupt from its very foundation. Gambling is also an activity that exploits the vulnerable – the young, the old and those susceptible to addictive behaviors. Further, gambling entices the financially disadvantaged classes with the unrealistic hope of escape from poverty through instant riches, thus ultimately worsening the plight of our poorest citizens. Also, gambling undermines the work ethic. It is based on the premise of something for nothing, a concept that sanctions idleness rather than industriousness, and slothfulness instead of initiative.
The more tangible downsides to gambling are similarly disturbing. Legalized gambling breeds a host of social ills, as has been demonstrated time and time again in areas where gambling has been introduced on a widespread basis.
Legalized gambling creates gambling addicts. An abundance of research and expert testimony demonstrates that as gambling expands, so does the number of those with serious gambling problems. Millions more Americans have developed devastating gambling addictions over the last few years, as a direct result of gambling's rapid proliferation. Further, these newly created addicts are the lifeblood of the industry. Preliminary research indicates that a third or more of gambling revenues come from problem and pathological gamblers.
Gambling breeds crime. Communities that welcome gambling also welcome an increase in crime. Recent history in communities ranging from Atlantic City, N.J. to Deadwood, S.D., to the Mississippi Gulf Coast indicates the number of crimes skyrockets in an area once gambling is permitted. Much of this is attributed to the newly created gambling addicts who, in desperation, turn to crime to finance their addiction. Also, legalized gambling makes an attractive target for career criminals. Organized crime has infiltrated numerous legal gambling operations in various states in recent years.
Gambling is an economic negative, too. Many states and communities embrace gambling as a means to generate revenue, as well as to inspire economic growth, boost tourism and create jobs. Gambling's ability to do all of these is either greatly exaggerated or nonexistent. For instance, gambling often hurts, not helps existing businesses by siphoning away discretionary dollars that might otherwise have been spent at local shops. Also, the social costs associated with gambling - such as losses due to crime, additional law enforcement costs, gambling addiction treatment costs, and lost work productivity - are staggering, often far exceeding a state or community's total revenues from gambling.
Legalized gambling devastates families. Authorities in gambling jurisdictions report dramatic increases in divorce, suicide, bankruptcy, child abuse and domestic violence related to gambling. Research shows that children of gambling addicts experience lower levels of mental health and physical well-being.
Given these and other considerations, it is unconscionable that our government would continue to allow - and even promote - gambling activities. Legalized gambling is ravaging the lives of untold thousands of individuals and families, and contributes substantially to the moral decay or our communities. Therefore, we believe gambling, in all its forms, should and must be vigorously opposed.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Chad Hills, gambling research and policy analyst/or Focus on the Family Action, maintains an extensive library of quick/acts, news articles and commentary on all forms of gambling at http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling
– Dale D. Buss

Cardinal warns against secularism´s dangers,
by Mark Pattison of the Catholic News Service
“WASHINGTON (CNS) – Freedom of religion, and all freedom, can be placed at risk by an "aggressive secularism" that asserts its dominance in society, Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago warned in a talk at the Library of Congress.
In his talk titled "What Kind of Democracy Leads to Secularization?" Cardinal George weighed in against both legal and cultural expressions of secularism that marginalize the importance of religion in society.
It is, the cardinal said, "an issue of great importance for our life together in a democratic republic." Religion"can remain a necessary and legitimate actor in our affairs," he added.
"The secular must provide legitimate ground for religion" in society, Cardinal George said. "When the secular is legitimized without freedom of religion, persecution of religion becomes inevitable."
He noted his own remarks could be minimized. "If I were to present an argument on its own philosophical, rational terms, it would be seen as religious, because of the speaker," he said.
Cardinal George took aim at the Supreme Court. "Their jurisprudence is admittedly incoherent," going back 50 years to when Justice Felix Frankfurter was on the bench, he said.
The cardinal cited as one example the 1971 ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which dealt with Pennsylvania and Rhode Island laws on government aid to religious schools. Eight-member majorities of the high court, in each of the two questions before it in the case, ruled against government aid, calling it "an excessive government entanglement with religion." "Incoherent and unpredictable law has resulted in self-censorship," Cardinal George added, noting on the day before Valentine´s Day that some have even banned Valentine´s Day cards to avoid any possible entanglement between government and religion.
"In the United States, the primary danger to democracy comes not from religion, but from philosophical secularism," Cardinal George said, adding that some of the wounds have been self-inflicted. Jews embraced secularism, he said, to show that one "did not have to be Christian to be American," and, likewise, Catholics embraced secularism to prove one "did not have to be Protestant to be American."
But matters have been carried too far, the cardinal said, "when a preacher can be tried in Scandinavia..., and even in Chicago, for saying that the Bible says homosexual activity is immoral."
Cardinal George said another danger can manifest itself when "democracy doesn´t remove religion, but democracy replaces religion: ‘The homeland deserves our love.’" At times, he said, "it can be replaced by asserting that the mission takes on a religion dimension."
Alexis de Tocqueville, whose travels in the United States in 1831 resulted in the widely quoted book "Democracy in America," "loved this country but was afraid for its future," Cardinal George said. The French writer wondered whether democratic ideals would "be undermined by the same forces that give democracy its rise."
"What kind of democracy promotes freedom? Ours, if it becomes totally free," Cardinal George said. "What kind of democracy destroys freedom? Ours, if it becomes totally secularized."”

Almost Holy
Confessions of a Bad Catholic...
An American Saint
by Rocco Palmo

“"The world is all messed up, the nation is sick, trouble is in the land, confusion all around."
As the scourges of a never-ending war continue to dominate our national debate, division trumps common ground in the public square, and our leaders play political games while the marginalized continue to suffer in society´s shadows, it would be hard to find a truer sentiment than the one above to describe the American situation today.
In reality, though, these were the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., spoken in Memphis the night before he died nearly 40 years ago. But sickness, confusion and trouble, weren´t all he saw.
"But I know somehow," Dr. King went on, "that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. And I see God working in this period in a way that men in some strange way are responding. Something is happening in our world."

Light Load

All of 39 when he was assassinated in Memphis in April 1968, MLK´s ability to see with the eyes of faith, to look beyond the pessimism of the moment, to find hope down here born from above, and to serve as the sower who planted its seeds made him the closest thing we´ve got, in a civic sense, to an American saint. He knew instinctively what so many allegedly Christian–not to mention Catholic voices of our day have seemed to lose sight of: that the light of Christ entrusted to each of us isn´t something to be arrogantly kept away or used for our own ends, but must be borne aloft and in the midst of the masses, that it might spread and bathe others in its embrace.
By design, this isn´t supposed to be easy. Our faith charges us to be the ones who ensure that "something is happening in our world:" not just any something, but something good, something uplifting, something that gives life to others, even if it might cost us, whatever it might cost us – even if the price is our own life.
King stood up to the water cannons and endured jail to carry the Christ-Light forward. He preached, taught and lived to enhance action and protection for the rights and dignity of all God´s children – a nonviolent crusade impelled by his Christian faith–only to be martyred by a bullet. In our pluralistic age, he is arguably the most compelling example of equally faithful citizenship in the two domains coined by St. Augustine: the "city of man" and the "city of God."

Shoulders of Giants

But almost four decades after his "homegoing" –the Black Church´s term for one´s passage from this life to the next – his words may still ring true, but what does his legacy mean for us?
In our pluralistic age, King is arguably the most compelling example of equally faithful citizenship in the two domains coined by St. Augustine:the "city of man" and the "city of God."
For starters, it´s not something simply to be admired from afar. As in everything else, we stand on the shoulders of giants as we attempt to build on their work and carry it forward even further. Whether we´re talking the legends of state or those canonized in the church, the purpose of the treasure of the saints is to serve as an example for each of us. And from MLK to Martin de Porres, Thomas Aquinas to Teresa of Calcutta, Joan of Arc, John Neumann, Lincoln, or RFK, the truly great ones of history, secular and religious, all share the same distinctive trait: they were able to step outside themselves, to give their lives over to a higher purpose and, by doing so, won immortality for themselves and life for us. By spending their lives in service, whether as heirs of the American dream or heirs of the Lord´s mandatum, the goodness and richness we often take for granted has been enhanced by their "yes" to a difficult call.

The Source

It´s not hard to trace King´s inspiration back to its source, Christ himself: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."
We can only ever hope to accomplish something truly worthwhile to the extent that, like the grain of wheat, we give of ourselves and so nourish and strengthen those around us who need it. Spreading the light and falling to the ground in that way doesn´t necessarily involve going on a Habitat trip, making headlines with street-marches and demonstrations, or selling everything you´ve got and moving into a thatched hut. But it begins with things that might be even more challenging: a kind word to someone who´s been difficult, sacrificing a moment that might not be easily spared to help a person in need, an open ear, an open hand, open eyes and an open heart.

MLK Day

This coming Monday, January 15, marks yet another year that, here in the United States, schools, shops and offices will close, prayer vigils and days of service will be held to commemorate the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr., on what would´ve been his 78th birthday. And just as our churches are filled on Christmas and Easter and not so full the rest of the year, we need to be mindful that our call to service doesn't begin and end on Monday.
The story of King and the Christ he followed to the end is one of love: of faith that its power is stronger than violence; of the confident hope that its purity can make all things new. As heirs to this triple witness to the truth, so may it be for us.
Oscar Wilde once said that "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." It´s still pretty dark out there. But luckily for us and those who need us, as sinners in a suffering church and citizens of a hurting society, it´s not too late to see the stars – and strive to join them in spreading a bit of light.”

“As appeared in the Saint Peter Bulletin for December 31, 2006.
First Tuesday Pro-Life Speaker Series, Tuesday, Jan. 2, 7:30-9:00 PM St. Peter Parish Cafeteria 215 N. Clay, Kirkwood MO 63122. Reception follows.
A Social Revolution in the Homeless Fight! Highlights will be:

• What is homelessness? Probably not what you think.
• A new approach - the paradigm shift in services.
• How St. Patrick Center is fighting homelessness.

In Dan Buck´s 18 years of broadcasting he received 13 prestigious media awards. In his 9 years here in St. Louis, he was honored with 18 Emmy Nominations and 6 Emmy Awards. Known best for his 7+ years with 'Show Me St. Louis' on KSDK, Dan also spent 2 years as the morning show host on the BIG 550 KTRS. However, Dan decided to leave his successful broadcasting career behind, and became the C.E.O. of the St. Patrick Center, the largest Homeless Service Agency in Missouri.”

“This is the story of how I went from being a person interested from a distance in the scientific and ethical aspects of the embryonic stem cell debate to a person who is passionately and personally committed to protecting embryonic human life.
For some weeks I had been attending different informational talks on the upcoming embryonic stem cell petition drive here in Missouri. The petition sounds vaguely pro-life and the organization promoting it, the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, is very well-funded and has attracted the support of many powerful interests and influential Missourians, most notably former Senator John Danforth. But the wording on the ballot for the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative is misleading.
For example, it claims to outlaw human cloning. Yes, the amendment will outlaw cloning that is intended to result in a baby. But the amendment will not outlaw - indeed it will legalize - the cloning of hundreds and thousands of human embryos for a deadly purpose, the harvesting of stem cells - a procedure that kills the embryo. In short this amendment will allow the creation of human lives just so they may be intentionally destroyed and used in medical experimentation.
While the wording is being challenged in court, petition-gatherers are going forward collecting the approximately 150,000 signatures that they need to place this Missouri Constitutional amendment on the November 7 statewide ballot. When I encountered a petition-gatherer outside the Sachs Library on a Saturday afternoon, I knew exactly what she was doing and I knew where I stood on the issue. I also knew that what she was telling the prospective signers was largely false.
I did not confront the woman with my personal stand, but simply declined to sign the petition. Something had upset me about seeing her there, but my mom´s suggestion after I returned home was even more disconcerting. Go back and give my position? I´m only seventeen years old. Stop total strangers and impose on them my side of the argument? As outspoken as I am, that didn´t strike me as a dream Saturday.
As I thought a little more on the matter, I realized that for several weeks I had beer? Learning about this initiative, closely following the issue, shaking my head at the deception, saying it needed to be defeated. But now faced with taking action, not merely thinking and talking, I was falling short.
With my younger sister Maggie along for moral support, I decided to head back to the library to give every prospective signer their right - the knowledge of what they were really affixing their names to! When I returned to the library I found the petition-gatherer very willing to chat about things in general, but unwilling to engage in a reasonable discussion about the petition. Whenever we seemed to be getting somewhere she would change the subject.
I took a very friendly approach and remained cheerful. I would let the petition-gatherer go through her opening comments and then step forward and give my remarks. For the most part I simply pointed out that there had been no cures with embryonic stem cell research. Several people were immediately repelled just by the knowledge that the initiative deals with embryos. I convinced one person not to sign because of the overwhelming number of cures with adult stem cells and the total absence of cures with embryonic stem cells. But tragically, some people signed wholeheartedly.
After several library patrons shied away without signing, the petition-gatherer walked inside. Soon all the librarians were looking out the window at Maggie and me! We were standing the regulation twenty-five feet from the doors and were quite peaceful so we were not asked to leave.
Maggie and stood outside for four hours in the rain. Although she had convinced about 15 people to sign the petition in the first hour. The petition-gatherer seemed discouraged. She ended up spending the greater part of the final three hours inside the library! I hope that even those who signed the petition went home and looked into this referendum a little closer.
Every argument about the petition that day came down to the same fundamental question, when does life begin? This is a huge life issue. The Catholic Church accepts the scientific fact that life begins at conception but researchers in favor of embryonic stem cell research ignore the many medical textbooks that teach this medical fact. Instead they view the little blastocyst as a useful clump of cells. We must take a stand for life at this, its earliest stage, or protestations at later stages of gestation are futile.
Once the pro-life community is alerted to this fact, as many are, it is reasonable to argue against this initiative from other perspectives. It is clear that embryonic stem cell research is highly speculative, given that it has yielded no cures whatsoever despite extensive research in other countries. In comparison, adult stem cells have yielded thousands of cures for more than 65 diseases.
It is essential to stress that adult stem cell research is entirely ethical. Adult stem cell research is bringing real* cures and hope to thousands of people, yet does not require the amending of our constitution. In addition, the complete absence of accountability for researchers found in this amendment is a cause for concern, as is the possibility that taxpayer money will be used to fund this unethical and unproductive research. I urge everyone to get involved in fighting this amendment in Missouri. At first I made the easy choice to get in my car and go home. Then I found the strength to make the right choice and it has been a great thing in my life. Unfortunately the majority of voters in Missouri don't know what this referendum is all about. And they won´t know unless we tell them, because the petition-gatherers certainly won't. I learned this the following day when a different petition-gatherer told me that the amendment only dealt with umbilical cord blood, and that embryos were in no way involved! The more I talk with different petition-gatherers around the area, the more I wonder if they know what they are gathering signatures for!
Missouri must take a stand and send a firm message to the rest of the nation, don't sign a petition that creates a protected right to clone human embryos for experimentation. Young people in particular need to get involved in this fight; we have so much at stake. These decisions will affect us more than our parents. The state, nation, and world in which we will live, work and raise our families is being shaped today. This is our future, let's keep it bright.”

“A disciple once complained to his Master, "You tell us stories, but you never reveal their meaning to us." Said the master, "How would you like it if someone offered you fruit and chewed it up before giving it to you?" No one can find our meaning for us, let alone give us our conclusions to vexing moral questions, Not even a master.
And so, in the spirit of chewing my own food, and giving everyone else the same opportunity, I'd like to pose 8 questions that I believe are worth 'chewing on' when thinking about the proposed stem cell amendment:

1. If I'm being asked to vote for something that's already legal, that we're already allowed to do, and already are doing, how does my vote really either save or harm the baby in the billboard, the man in the wheelchair or Michael J. Fox?
2. If a group of the nation's top scientists who FAVOR stem cell research, spent a year to come up with 8 safety requirements that, in their words, we ought "strictly adhere" to, why is only one of these critical safety requirements in this amendment?
3. If the entire Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution is only 439 words, and has no pages of definitions, why are there more than 2000 words in this one State amendment and 17 different and complicated definitions? Isn't this the "Show Me State," where we say please and thank you, and our words actually mean what we say?
4. If we don't want young, fertile women selling their eggs for 'valuable consideration' or money, why does the amendment carve out a special right so that fertility clinics can buy their eggs?
5. If we want young, fertile women to donate their eggs voluntarily, and with informed consent, then why don't we need their permission, let alone have to inform them, when we take and use their eggs for stem cell clinical trials?
6. If the most conservative among Christian groups support 4 of the 5 different kinds of stem cell research, why would they oppose this one?
7. If this is just a pro-life, conservative Christian issue, why would some pro-choice, well-known feminists oppose this amendment?
8. If we believe in all kinds of important rights, from freedom of expression and the free exercise of religion to parental rights that allow us to supervise and protect our minor children and young adults, then why would we make this amendment superior and controlling over these and every other law and right?

Conscience is an interesting word that comes from Latin roots meaning, ´with knowledge or knowing.´ And so, I would suggest that&133
o If I vote "No," and we haven't read it, I'm part of the problem&133
o If I vote "Yes," and haven't read it, I'm part of the problem&133

Because I let somebody else chew my food.

I think that St. Francis had the right 'take' on a lot things, including this, when he prayed:” "O Divine Master,
Grant that I may not so much
seek to be consoled as to console;
To be understood, as to understand;
To be loved, as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And in dying that we are born to Eternal Life."

That's how Quatloos.com (http://www.quatloos.com/) describes itself: Quatloos.com is a public educational website covering a wide variety of financial scams and frauds, including wacky "prime bank" frauds, exotic foreign currency scams, offshore investment frauds, tax scams, "Pure Trust" structures and more...

How to Read Email Headers

Explained by Pobox (http://www.pobox.com/headers.mhtml): Headers contain a wealth of information about your email. They tell you which machines handled your message, and how long they took to send it to you. They can tell you who sent the message, and who it was destined for. However, headers can be misleading. It is fairly simple to write fake headers, which obscure information about the sender, recipient, and the machines that handled the mail.
Spammers frequently use fake headers to confuse the people they spam. And because so few people know how to read headers, it often works. A working knowledge of email headers can help you track spam to its source, which makes it easier to stop spammers in their tracks.

Voter I. D. Requirements

“Legislation has been signed into law by Governor Matt Blunt that will require Missouri voters to present a state or federal government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Acceptable ID'S include a valid Missouri Driver's license, a valid Missouri non-driver's license, a U.S. passport, or a valid military ID. Individuals who need a photo ID to vote can obtain a non-driver's license ID free of charge from their local Department of Revenue office (DOR) or through DOR Mobile Licensing Units that will schedule visits to nursing homes and other senior facilities. In order to get a non-driver´s license ID an individual must show three types of documentation:

1. Proof of who they are: either a Social Security card, Medicare card, or U.S. passport;
2. Proof that they are a citizen: either a birth certificate, certificate of citizenship, or U.S. passport;
3. Proof of Missouri residence: either a recent utility bill, voter registration card, property tax receipt or recent paycheck.

Voters need to be aware that if the name on their Social Security card, Medicare card or U. S. passport does not match their current name, individuals may need to present proof of name change, such as a certified marriage license, divorce decree, adoption papers or a court order. Certified documents must bear the proper seal of the court or agency that issued the document. Copies are not acceptable. To locate the nearest Department of Motor Vehicles office Call toll-free 866-443-4165 or go to http://www.dor.mo.qov/mvdl/offloc. To find out if a Mobile Licensing Unit will be in your area call toll-free 866-443-4165 or go to http://www.dor.mo.qov/mvdl/drivers/voterid.pdf>. If you have a number of individuals who are elderly or disabled, encourage them to contact the DOR about scheduling a visit. Prior to this trip, make sure each person has gathered all the appropriate documentation so that they will not have to make more than one trip. For more information about the new voter ID requirements and where to obtain the required documents go to http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/s default.asp?id=voting.

Failure to have a proper ID for November 2006 Election

If a person cannot obtain a valid photo ID in time for the November 2006 General Election, he/she may cast a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are placed in envelopes, signed by the voter and put in a separate container from the regular ballots. The ballot is not counted until the election authority can verify the identity of the voter by matching the signature of the voter on his/her registration form on file with the local election authority. The local election authority will have two weeks to validate the provisional ballots.
Those living outside of Missouri need to refer to their attorney general's website or Board of Election Commissioners Office.”

The Da Vinci Code: Fact & Fiction shows need for education.

“Many people respond to Dan Brown's bestselling book "The Da Vinci Code" and the forthcoming film version with this mantra: “It's only fiction.” “It's only fiction.” “It's only fiction.”
True, it is only fiction, both in its story line and in the so-called factual history woven in -- a history that is more than simply romanticized, and often wrong. It's a mostly bogus history purportedly revealing Christianity's original understanding of Christ as simply a moral prophet who cured, taught and died. End of story. No incarnation. No Eucharist. No resurrection. No eternal life for anyone.
This aspect of the book -- as well as the movie -- is not clear for all to see, especially the unchurched, ex-churched and underchurched. And, I might add, the under aged.
I believe such blindness is not a matter of intelligence, for bright people have certainly enjoyed Dan Brown's fiction and are associated with the soon-to-debut movie. Bright people have also been responsible for masterpieces of harmful fiction, such as D.W. Griffith's bigoted epic, “The Birth of a Nation,” which portrays "uppity" former slaves' supposed degeneracy and their alleged destruction of post-Civil War Southern culture and polity.
Rather, I believe commonplace prejudice is at the root of this blindness. If you need to see Christ's resurrection as staged, and Christianity as an evil and conniving force in the world, then you will certainly find solace in Brown's fictional history.
The "documents" that Brown cites to support his story? He's on record as saying he used "history" from a book titled “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” containing so-called illuminating esoteric information. (Its authors -- woefully undercredentialed themselves -- were, alas, unsuccessful in suing Brown for plagiarism.)
I read this paperback 15 years ago and wondered when some publisher was going to bring it to the supermarket checkout lane rack. This book was written by a psychologist, a television producer and a novelist -- not exactly scholars of scripture, history or theology. The history in this paperback is not completely bogus, just often bogus -- and therefore dangerous.
It cites documents in the Bibliotheque Nationale, for example, that support the existence of a secret illuminati brotherhood, the Priory of Sion, with Leonardo da Vinci and Isaac Newton as members. Alas, these documents have long been understood to be forgeries, placed in the archives by an anti-Semite, Pierre Plantard. Yes, the priory existed, but there's no evidence it was illuminati and that Da Vinci and Newton were members. Check out www.cbsnews.com for the "60 Minutes" investigation of the Priory of Sion fantasy.
Other documents that Brown relied upon -- which the supposedly evil Constantinian church suppressed -- are certain Gnostic writings. Brown contends that these writings, second–through fourth– century documents, are more accurate portrayals of Jesus' life and ministry than are the four first-century canonical Gospels.
Paradoxically, Gnosticism generally disdained the material world as evil; only the spiritual was good. For Gnostics, the divine Jesus was not -- could not -- be human. Jesus was a ghost only appearing to be human -- very strange textual support for Brown's contention that the church down played Jesus' humanity.
"The Da Vinci Code" film will be coming Friday to a theater near you, and Christians want to do something. Anything! Some Christians are talking about picketing. My sense is that this is a Hollywood PR agent's dream come true, creating even more public interest in the fiction's misleading history -- fiction that may not cause violence to people, but would misinform minds and souls.

Here's what does need to be done. "The Da Vinci Code" readers' credulity is an indictment of how ill-informed Catholics and other Christians can be about the faith, history, tradition and scripture. What's needed is a more educated Christian community. In my own back yard – the Catholic Church – what´s needed are Catholicism 101, 201 and 301 classes for adults in every parish or cluster of parishes – during and long after the movie's debut.

We should also ask why it's still perfectly acceptable for Hollywood to stereotypically cartoonize a Catholic churchman as either a scheming, power-hungry prelate or a psychopathic, self-loathing monk. (In fact, there are no Opus Dei monks.)

If "The DaVinci Code" is the fantasy, where's the truth? Here it is, as expressed by St. Athanasius: God became a human being so that human beings could become of God. This is what we celebrate as Christians. This is the good news of the Gospel. And it's coming every week to a church near you.”

“February 27, 2006, JEFFERSON CITY, MO
Advocates for human cloning have been collecting signatures for the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative throughout Missouri. Many unsuspecting citizens have signed the petition not realizing that the initiative will create a constitutional amendment authorizing human cloning and taxpayer dollars to fund such unethical! research.
“We have had phone calls from people who have signed the petition because they were told that the initiative would ban human cloning or not destroy human life,” said Deacon Larry Weber, Executive Director of the Missouri Catholic Conference. “Many people who signed the petition are upset because they feel they were mislead and want to have their name removed from the petition.”
Missourians who wish to have their name removed from the Missouri Stern Cell Research and Cures Initiative can do so by submitting a sworn statement to the Secretary of State asking that his or her signature be withdrawn from the petition. Citizens who wish to have their signature removed from the petition will need to submit a written request to:

The Honorable Robin Carnahan,
Secretary of State of Missouri,
Missouri State Capitol, Room 208,
P.O. Box 778,
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0778

The request must contain the name of the petition (Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative), the name the voter used when signing the petition, the address of the voter and his or her county of residence. The request must be notarized by a notary public and be received by the Secretary of State before the signed petitions are filed by the initiative proponents with the Secretary of State.”

STATE OF MISSOURI )
)
)
) ss.
)
)
COUNTY OF ________________)


TO: The Honorable Robin Carnahan
Secretary of State of Missouri
Missouri State Capitol, Room 208
P.O. Box 778
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0778

I signed the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative petition. I formally request pursuant to Section 116.110, RSMo, that my signature be removed from the petition.

I signed my name as: ________________________________

My address is: _____________________________________

The county I reside in is:__________________________

I understand that it is a class A misdemeanor to file a false withdrawal statement with the Secretary of State that is punishable by imprisonment for up to one year in the county jail or a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars or both.


Date: _________ Signature of Voter ___________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,

this ____ day of________________, 2006.


__________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC

Of course you didn't know. How could you?

Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the reestablished Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5- 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!

WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW? OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US! GOOD IS NOT NEWSWORTHY!

Instead of reflecting our love for our country and the incredible job our people are doing in Iraq, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades. Instead of hearing reports on the amazing progress being made, all we hear is suggestions that it's time to get out.

The lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes. It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourage American citizens. It appears to be working. You'd better question the motives of the American media -- whose side are they on?

The above facts are verifiable on Department of Defense web sites.

Pass this on -- ESPECIALLY TO YOUR LOCAL NEWS MEDIA AND ASK THEM WHY! Their answers would be worth noting.

BOSTON GLOBE ~ Gays, priest sex abuse: Is there any connection? By Carey Goldberg, Globe Staff | October 17, 2005

If the Catholic Church wants to prevent sexual abuse by priests, several abuse experts said, there are better ways to do it than by trying to bar gay men from the clergy.
The church recently began checking American seminaries for “evidence of homosexuality,” and the pope is widely expected to ban actively gay men from taking holy orders.
But it will be tricky to cull gays from the priesthood, the abuse experts said this month. And it would be more effective -- and more humane -- to target likely abusers rather than all gays.
“There's no adequate way to screen out homosexuality,” said Martin P. Kafka, a psychiatrist at Harvard's McLean Hospital. “We don't have any lab tests.”
Kafka was among a half-dozen abuse experts invited to the Vatican in 2003 to report on the latest research. He and two others who attended said they recommended the church improve its monitoring of priests, as well as its teaching about intimacy and sexuality – which the church had already begun to do.
They also told the Vatican that it could better screen out problem priests by checking for personality traits known to be linked to sexual abuse, using methods already familiar to the field.
Instead of asking about homosexuality, Karl Hanson, another expert who spoke at the Vatican, said he would focus on questions like, “Have you ever been in love? What was it like for you? Have you had long-term friendships? Who are your closest friends? Are you most comfortable with people older or younger than you?”
Pedophiles cannot be expected to admit to their prior crimes, so “what you have to do is look for proxy measures of things which increase risk,” said Hanson, a psychologist for the Canadian government and researcher on sex offenders. “And when you do that, you're never going to be 100 percent accurate, you're always going to be playing the odds.”
Factors that increase risk of pedophilia, he said, include things like: a history of being sexually abused during childhood; a lack of adult friends and lovers; signs of antisocial behavior or trouble with impulse control; indications that a man is conflicted and uncomfortable about his own sexuality; and a general lack of happiness and satisfaction with life. If an applicant has many such warning signs, specialists say, it should raise suspicion.
The experts who went to the Vatican said they proposed other, non-screening measures, many of which the church has already undertaken on its own. In the Boston archdiocese, for example, more than 70,000 adults and 30,000 children have been trained in preventing, recognizing and reporting sexual abuse since late 2002, said Deacon Tony Rizzuto, director of the archdiocese's Office of Child Advocacy.
“We think we're doing the best we can to prevent anything like this from ever happening again,” he said.
The church has also increased supervision of priests. And seminary training includes more on sexuality and relationships.
In the church's current effort to more strictly screen candidates for the priesthood, the Vatican is expected not to completely bar gays from the priesthood, but to prohibit those who have been active in gay causes or who are thought to have a particularly strong gay orientation, according to press reports from Rome.
Among the experts invited to the Vatican, Hanson said, most said that homosexuality was “largely an irrelevant variable.”
But the issue is tricky. In society at large, the experts said, no link has been found between homosexuality and pedophilia. Most sexual abuse victims are girls molested by men, and even the sexual abuse of young boys is perpetrated mainly by men who consider themselves straight, Kafka said.
But as the church's data show, in the clergy abuse, both the victims and the abusers differed from the usual profile: The victims were likelier to be older boys and the perpetrators likelier to say they were gay.
And gay men may be over-represented among the abusers, although no hard numbers are available. Estimates suggest that upwards of 30 percent of the clergy is gay. Kafka said two studies of abusive priests suggest that between 46 and 66 percent of the molesters were gay or bisexual.
Of course, Hanson noted, the numbers of gay men among the abusers may be exaggerated, because “if you're caught doing something with a boy, you say, 'Well, look, I'm gay,' and it's better than being a pedophile.”
Researchers also point out that priests had far more unfettered access to boys than to girls. When lay pedophiles who consider themselves heterosexual have been asked why they molested boys, they pointed to greater access as the reason, said Dr. William Marshall, one of the experts invited to the Vatican and a professor emeritus at Queen's University in Ontario.
They say, “If I ask a parent if I can take a boy to a football match, they say yes, but if I asked, “Can I take your daughter to a movie?” they'd ask, “What's wrong with this guy?” Marshall said. Still, when adults molest children past puberty, they tend to follow their sexual orientation. When the victims are older, straight men tend to molest girls and gay men molest boys. According to one survey, two-thirds of the victims were 12 or older when the abuse began.
So, Kafka concluded, “inasmuch as the church has a problem with the abuse of post-pubertal males, homosexuality is a risk factor.” And thus, “it makes rational sense then to ask, 'What do we do about homosexuality?'
No easy answer. Specialists in sex offenses use various methods for trying to detect pedophilia: They include assessing a man's arousal while he looks at pictures of children, whether by measuring his penile response or more indirect reactions. But experts could not imagine the church resorting to such methods to test for homosexuality.
So “the only way they're going to know is through self-report or setting up a network of informers, and I don't know how practical that's going to be,” Kafka said.
Marshall was more outspoken. At the Vatican, he said, he told gathered officials, “It's primarily a monitoring problem, and it's not going to be solved by kicking homosexuals out of the church.” Furthermore, he said, he argued, “If you have a policy of excluding homosexuals, all the applicants to the seminaries who are homosexual will just lie.” His audience, he recalled, “looked at me in shock and said, 'Lie?'”
David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, pointed out another flaw in plans to screen out gay men. Among the priests who abused boys, “probably large portions of them were either in denial or unaware of [their homosexuality] or conflicted or eager to see themselves in another light.”
"So," he said, “it's not clear that trying to screen for homosexuality among a population of that sort really gets those people out.”
And in current-day America, he added, gay people are much likelier to acknowledge and accept their sexual orientation, so they may present far lower risks than the repressed types of the old days. (That fits with the profile of abuse in the church; it has fallen precipitously since the 1980s.)
Another big problem with broader screening, Finkelhor said, is that it carries a high price: Many of those screened out would never have become molesters.
“In screening for anything, they're going to be culling hundreds or thousands of people for every bad apple that they eliminate,” he said. “And just taking out gays is an extraordinarily meat-cleaver approach.”

Carey Goldberg is reachable at goldberg@globe.com

-----Original Message-----
From: James E. O'Leary [mailto:jmomoos@swbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 4:44 PM
To: Vaughn McCurry; McCurry, Vaughn C. MAJ TXARNG
Subject: Checking in

Dear Vaughn,

I am very worried about you. I know very well you must be in the thick of things and that you probably haven't slept in a week.

I went today to help out the evacuees in Corpus Christi. By sorting clothing and all kinds of stuff the people of Corpus Christi kept hauling in. Nobody told them the evacuees want bus tickets and a suitcase and not tons of clothes. And gallons and gallons of water from HEB. But people mean well.

Please take care of yourself and don't get carried away with your big heart.

Love,
((Jim O'Leary))
Jim

((Vaughn McCurry grew up next door to us here in Corpus Christi. I am very proud of him. ))

Hello Jim,

I was flown into the Super Dome on Tuesday night just after the storm. I didn't get out of that location till Saturday. Conditions were so very extreme. Everything was a bit like the movie, "Escape from New York" in a way. The Louisiana Guard tried to control the process of the folks to insure that they weren't armed, which was needed, but people would keep walking up out of the water day and night. I was part of the lead element for the Joint Task Force for Texas to act as Liaisons and I was trying to cover logistical issues. I would call back as I noted things trying to give convoys and the Joint Staff opportunities to insure they got things that would support out troops. Then we got our Communications Cell, ISSIS in and they were even able to show CNN by Wednesday, sadly the press seemed to show day old issues by Friday with dated film clips, or showed a man calling "Let Us Out" but we weren't holding them in.....but that was what the CNN showed.

I kidded an officer that it felt a bit like the battle of Keh San where Lyndon Johnson was not going to let it fall. We couldn't leave 30,000 people and we kept flying things in air lifts with choppers. There was just so much trash and human waste and conditions as I said it was very extreme.

Thursday afternoon and into Friday..you could feel a collective weight taken off as more reinforcements came in. I have to say again with a little humor as new units pushed in to help on Saturday morning we looked a bit ragged new troops showing up and the raspberry berets showing up:) we were laughing amongst us “here come the FNG's (f'ng new guys)” Kind of like the old movie "Battle of the Bulge" where the ragged guys marching saw the new guys coming down the road all clean neat and marching. Wednesday and Thursday just as supplies looked to be about out in would come the Aircraft. We got ahead of the deal again ..by Friday.

I was at the Yellow tent which was near the command post being shown on TV. We can yak sometime about it.

Sunday they pulled the two of us out that were left from the team. Our Sergeant Major having caught a flight back to Texas. He didn't really have the gear to stay. So many of their soldiers were down to the gear they had....all else was lost with the waters...like everyone else but they hung in there. The Commander made me the Operations Officer (J/S-3) for the Joint Task Force for Texas with about 1200 soldiers. He was replaced now by my old Brigade Commander who is such a good man and leader. I was glad to hear of my change of mission because I didn't want to have to leave. I have learned and seen a good bit and want to finish out the lesson. So now we have been working support missions and helping with presence patrols and supporting rescue operations. It is nice to have gone from the Siege to this work because it feels much more like I am making an impact.

Anyway, I need to get some sleep. Again we will have to talk sometime about this.

BTW we have established our headquarters in Loyola University. The people left in charge have been very gracious and the change of environment is so great from the Dome. I think this is such a pretty little Campus. We have our Command Post in the Library and at least the generator provides us with emergency lighting and power. The statue fo St Ignatius is just outside.

They even let us hang a Texas Flag from the Castle Tower at the front of the campus. We help patrol and keep the area safe from damage. Hopefully our Maintenance will be able to help get their other generators up.

One cool thing was I had called back and asked my boss to send me my patrol cap from my office on one of the flights which actually brought my new commander and asked him if he would get me a cheap pair of sunglasses and I would pay him back. When the package had arrived he had made sure he had gotten me a very good set of sun glasses. I appreciate having a boss like him. He also sent me waterless soap, T-shirts and some beef jerky and some other little things. I thought it was very nice of him. He and I have seen our share of stuff together and working together. He always has let me execute, and supported me when I made stands. I consider him a good friend and mentor. He has done a lot as others have to get us troops things we have needed.. I still have a bit of pride seeing some of the things brought in are some of those things I had called to warn them to get for the soldiers.

Anyway it is almost 1 AM and I have a chopper flight to go recon in the morning.. it has been very hot..but the evenings haven't been near as muggy as it would have been in Corpus.

My best to you,
Vaughn

“NEW ORLEANS, September 1, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The popular adage, “there are no atheists in the trenches” sums up the truth that in times of disaster it is natural for people to turn to God, for help and also for an explanation. The devastation wrought by hurricane Katrina has brought that reality home to the United States, particularly in the affected regions.
Yesterday Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco called for a state-wide day of prayer. “As we face the devastation wrought by Katrina, as we search for those in need, as we comfort those in pain and as we begin the long task of rebuilding, we turn to God for strength, hope and comfort,” she said. Meanwhile, New Orleans City Council President Oliver Thomas after witnessing the horrors first hand and hearing talk of Sodom and Gomorrah commented, "Maybe God's going to cleanse us."
The theme of cleansing or purification has become a frequently discussed topic as the tragedy in the affected states unfolds. European papers have suggested that Katrina was the punishment the US received for failing to sign onto the Kyoto accord, Islamic militants have rejoiced that "private" Katrina has joined in the holy war against the U.S. for - among other things - the Iraq war. Some have even suggested that the hurricane was God's punishment on the U.S. for cooperating in the removal of Jews from the Gaza strip.
However, beyond these speculations is a more general acknowledgement that New Orleans, the epicentre of the disaster, was a "sin city" which harboured few rivals. The New Orleans "southern decadence" festival which was to take place Labour Day weekend, is described by a French Quarter tourism site as "sort of like a gayer version of Mardi Gras" which is “most famous (or infamous) for the displays of naked flesh which characterize the event,” with “public displays of sexuality . . . pretty much everywhere you look.”
The city is also renowned for occult practices, particularly voodoo. Voodoo is also common in violence and crime saturated Haiti.
The American Spectator reports that “New Orleans has one of the highest murder rates in the country. By mid-August of this year, 192 murders had been committed in New Orleans, 'nearly 10 times the national average,' ...New Orleans was ripe for collapse. Its dangerous geography, combined with a dangerous culture, made it susceptible to an unfolding catastrophe. Currents of chaos and lawlessness were running through the city long before this week, and they were bound to come to the surface under the pressure of natural disaster and explode in a scene of looting and mayhem”.
Michael Brown, creator of the immensely popular SpiritDaily.com website - popularly known as the Catholic DrudgeReport, has said that Katrina was "definitely" a purification for New Orleans. Brown points out that the name Katrina itself means "pure". And that, Brown told LifeSiteNews.com, is not a coincidence. “I don't believe in coincidences,” said Brown, adding that God has everything in His control and “I think that everything is interwoven.”

LifeSiteNews.com contacted Brown due to his startlingly accurate prediction of the events in New Orleans in 2001, when he issued what is now being seen as a warning to New Orleans. In 2001 Brown wrote a piece about what ”e felt was upcoming disaster for New Orleans.

Brown began, “There are few cities with so many good as New Orleans and also few cities where there is such a stark coexistence with the bad. It is this city, the Big Easy, that is home to kind and generous and Christian people . . . and yet also this city that has allowed evil to flourish in a way that has become truly dangerous.” Noting the occult practices and the sexual immorality, Brown warned, “When you invoke dark spirits, you get a storm. The very word hurricane comes from the Indian hurukan for evil spirit.”

Brown claims no hearing of inner voices, but said in his warning to the city, "When I visited the National Hurricane Center, they told me there was no place that gave them the meteorological willies like your city." Describing what would befall the city if a major hurricane were to strike, Brown said, “On Bourbon Street -- which has turned into a stretch of porn shops, strip joints, and hooter bars -- there would be water to the second story.”

“Officials told me that in the best of circumstances 100,000 would be stranded . . . If a category-five made landfall between your city and Baton Rouge . . . it would be ‘the most catastrophic hurricane in the history of the United States.’”

See Brown's warning written in 2001 here:
http://www.spiritdaily.org/New-world-order/neworle...
jhw

“Early in June, Bishop J. Terry Steib of Memphis announced in his regular column in The West Tennessee Catholic the inauguration of a new diocesan ministry to gay and lesbian Catholics “to be sure that we do not leave anyone behind," and that "all are welcome in their own home.”
He disclosed that he had been reflecting of late on the Church as a home: “I have become more acutely aware of the number of people - the number of Catholics – who are no longer comfortable in their home. In fact, some are no longer certain that the Church is their home.”
Such feelings of alienation, the bishop pointed out, can develop for various reasons. Sometimes they are generated by "the circumstances of life that cause people to feel estranged or separated." Occasionally, it is a matter of misunderstanding the teachings of the Church, or of sensing that their lives do not conform to the values and expectations of others, "or worse," of feeling that “who they are is unacceptable.”
Bishop Steib reported that he had met recently with several gay and lesbian Catholics, and later with their parents. "For all of them," he wrote, “being Catholic is at the core of who they are. At the same time, they are people who are not sure of 'their place' in their home. They are people – wonderful, good Catholic people – who are gay and lesbian.”
The parents of these gay and lesbian Catholics, the bishop observed, see the "goodness" and "giftedness" of their sons and daughters, “but they also see (their) loneliness ... as no one else sees it.”
He urged his readers to recognize and accept their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as full-fledged members of the Church, "welcome in their own home," and to “lay aside preconceived notions of who does or does not belong.”
The bishop pointed to Jesus as our model, and Jesus, he insisted, “loved all, lived for all, and died for all.”
Himself an African-American, Bishop Steib cited the era of slavery in the U.S. South, the "march of tears" of Native Americans, and the grape strikes in California as reminders “that God's work is always hampered when human beings are afraid of differences in each other.” “A new ministry with gay and lesbian persons,” he explained, “will push open even further the door to promoting understanding and compassion among all of us. It will open the door to 'home' for many who are an important part of who we are, and to a segment of our family that has been apart from us for too long.”
“In my meetings with gay and lesbian Catholics,” Bishop Steib noted, “I told them that God does not withhold love from any of us. I believe that wholeheartedly. God's love is unconditional and that is the gift God offers us in Christ Jesus: the gift of loving each other with that same Godly and unconditional love.”
It is no secret that any discussion of homosexuality – particularly one without the standard condemnations – makes many people uncomfortable, inside and outside the Church. It is also no secret that those who write and speak as Bishop Terry Steib has done are perceived by many others as a threat even to the faith itself.
In fact, Bishop Steib's initiative was viewed as so much of a threat that the editor of a weekly paper in a nearby diocese was explicitly forbidden by his own bishop to publish anything about Bishop Steib's column and his inauguration of a diocesan ministry of outreach to gay and lesbian Catholics.
Unfortunately, such stories can be multiplied. One openly gay priest was recently ordered by his provincial to excise a reference to his sexual orientation in a book that he was about to publish on Catholic spirituality.
A high-ranking Vatican spokesman once suggested that homosexuals cannot validly be ordained, and there have been persistent rumors that Rome will issue a directive prohibiting the admission of gays into seminaries and the priesthood.
There is, however, a certain ambivalence in the Church's official approach to homosexuality. It teaches that homosexuality is an "objective disorder" and that homosexual acts are an "intrinsic moral evil." At the same time, the Church insists that the homosexual is a person of dignity who should never be the object of contempt or discrimination.
Wherever the fault might lie, many gay and lesbian Catholics feel like strangers in their own home - unwelcome and looked down upon, just as Bishop Terry Steib has said.
If there were more bishops like him, that situation would surely begin to change.”

Don't buy Pepsi in the new can.
Pepsi has a new "patriotic" can
coming out with pictures of the
Empire State Building, and the
Pledge of Allegiance on them.
However, Pepsi left out two little
words on the pledge,

"Under God."

Pepsi said they didn't want to offend
anyone. In that case, we don't want
to offend anyone at the Pepsi
corporate office, either!
So if we don't buy any Pepsi product,
they will not be offended
when they don't receive our money
that has the words

"In God We Trust" on it.

WRITE IT ON THE BACK OF YOUR ENVELOPES.
I THINK THIS A GREAT IDEA.
I WILL START WRITING THIS ON FRONT OF ALL MY ENVELOPES. TOO!
You may have heard in the news that a couple of Post Offices in Texas have been forced to take down small posters that say "IN GOD WE TRUST,"
The law, they say, is being violated.
Anyway, I heard proposed on a radio station show,
that we should all write "IN GOD WE 'TRUST" on the back of all our mail.

After all, that is OUR NATIONAL MOTTO, and it's on all the money we use to buy those stamps.

I think it is a wonderful idea. We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed. (Strange gods!)
If you like this idea. please pass it on and DO IT.

The idea of writing or stamping "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our envelopes sounds good to me.
I'M HAVING MY STAMP MADE TODAY!

It has been reported that 86% of Americans believe in God.
Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the pledge of Allegiance. Could it be that WE just need to take action and tell the 14% to "sit down and shut up"?

The Establishment Clause - June 2005

As reported by the Thomas More Law Center - Richard Thompson June 2005
“Out of Sight, out of mind” ~ the principle guiding the ACLU's relentless and ruthless pursuit to search for and destroy every vestige of Christianity in America and remove it from sight ~ especially the sight of our children.

CONTRAST: FREEDOM FROM RELIGION vs. FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Thompson cited an erroneous decision on which he filed an appeal. The "Establishment Clause" in the Constitution mandates neutrality which applies very clearly in the case ~ the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently described the Establishment Clause as forbidding not only state action that promotes or advances a particular religion, but also actions that tend to "disapprove" or evince "hostility" toward a particular religion,
i.o.w.

OUR CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT ACTION THAT FOSTERS A PERVASIVE BIAS OR HOSTILITY TO RELIGION !

Thompson's appeal for support cites that this is one of over 200 legal matters in 44 States currently pending.

The Senselessness of Silencing Debate

Corpus reprinted with permission of Commonweal magazine.

American Catholics, including most regular churchgoers, get their news about the church from the secular media, not from church spokespersons or official pronouncements. Most Catholics read about papal encyclicals in the papers; they don't read encyclicals. It therefore behooves the hierarchy, if it wants to communicate with the faithful (or re-evangelize them), to act in a way that does not lend credence to the still-widespread impression that the Catholic Church is a backward-looking, essentially authoritarian, institution run by men who are afraid of open debate and intellectual inquiry.
It is safe to say that the Vatican's shocking dismissal of Rev. Thomas Reese as editor of the Jesuit magazine America has left precisely such an impression with millions of Americans, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
It is hard to judge what is more appalling, the flimsy case made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)-apparently at the instigation of some American bishops-against Reese's orthodoxy and stewardship of America, or the senselessness of silencing perhaps the most visible, and certainly one of the most knowledgeable, fair-minded, and intelligent public voices the church has in this country. As a political scientist who has written extensively on how the church's hierarchy works, Reese has for years been a much-relied-on source for the mass media in its coverage of Catholic issues. During the recent conclave, his visibility increased exponentially, with millions of television viewers being introduced to him on PBS, CNN, and other networks. Not surprisingly, he showed himself to be lucid, succinct, and nonideological. In a church with a more confident and magnanimous hierarchy, Reese's prominence would be seen as a great asset, not a threat. Instead, Reese's dismissal, following so closely his increased exposure during the conclave, has become front-page news. As a consequence, the first thing many Americans are now likely to associate with Pope Benedict XVI's papacy will be yet another act of Vatican repression. Does this mean that the zeal with which then-Cardinal Ratzinger harried theologians while head of the CDF will continue during his papacy? For those who had hoped that the pastoral challenges of his new office might broaden Benedict's sympathies, this is a time of indignation, disappointment, and increased apprehension. For those who know Reese and his work, the injustice of the CDF's action is transparent. No intellectually honest person could possibly claim that Reese's America has been in the business of undermining church teaching. If the moderate views expressed in America, views widely shared by the vast majority of lay Catholics, are judged suspect by the CDF, how is the average Catholic to assess his or her own relationship to the church?
It is even more troubling to learn that the CDF insisted on Reese's removal despite his compliance with the congregation's own demands that America publish articles of a more apologetic nature defending controverted magisterial teachings. In 2003, apparently, the CDF informed Reese that he had indeed corrected whatever imbalance it had detected in the magazine's content. According to news stories, more recent articles in America questioning the church's position on same-sex marriage and the status of pro-choice U.S. Catholic politicians precipitated the latest CDF action. Both of the articles cited, however, were in response to other pieces in America defending magisterial teaching. Evidently, the CDF insists that any church-sponsored publication aimed at the educated faithful confine its activities to catechesis.
The reaction to the CDF's removal of Reese has been widespread and impassioned among the Jesuits and in the Catholic academic world. Certainly the church's reputation has been badly damaged, especially among those in the secular media who knew and had every reason to respect Reese. As a consequence, it will be even harder for the church's views to get a fair hearing. Those who love and cherish the Catholic priesthood are equally appalled, seeing how callously someone like Reese, who has devoted his life and contributed his enormous talents to the church, is treated. It is possible to ascribe the incredibly maladroit timing and handling of this decision to Vatican incompetence, arrogance, or obliviousness. More worrisome, however, is the suspicion that Reese's dismissal was carried out in precisely this way to send an unmistakable message. If that is the case, then the self-defeating demand for unwavering docility coming from those now in charge in Rome-and increasingly from members of the American episcopate-is only exceeded by their insensitivity and recklessness.
The audience for intellectually serious Catholic publications like America, where theological, ethical, political, and aesthetic questions are explored and debated, is shockingly small: some estimate not more than 200,000 potential readers among the nation's 65 million Catholics. Why are Catholics so incurious about the intellectual challenges and satisfactions of their faith? Certainly one reason is that the church has historically taken a dim view of the questioning intellect, and especially of the public expression of such questions. Another reason is because the demand of bishops for editorial control deprives much of the Catholic press of credibility. Forty years after the Second Vatican Council, which did so much to enfranchise lay Catholics and to encourage their engagement with the great intellectual resources of the church, it is inexcusable that the CDF would censor a magazine as respectful and responsive to the church's tradition as America. At a time when elites are as polarized as they are now in the American church, Reese's dismissal will embolden those eager to purge "dissenters," while making it nearly impossible for a reasoned critique of the agenda of church reformers to be heard by those who need most to hear it.
Those calling for the strict regulation of Catholic discourse argue that public dissent from church doctrine creates scandal, confusing or misleading the "simple faithful." What really gives scandal to people in the pews, however, is the arbitrary and self-serving exercise of ecclesiastical authority. What the CDF has done to Thomas Reese and America is the scandal. Is it possible that not one bishop has the courage to say so? That too is a scandal.”

Copyright 2005 Commonweal magazine. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Join us for conversation and information in the CORPUS FORUM: http://www.corpus.org/forums/

Welcoming A New Pope

“There has been a mixed reaction to the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy.For many conservatives there was joy and celebration. This was the best of all possible choices. The stunning outpouring of love and respect that the world showed at the death of John Paul II indicated that it wanted more of the same. In Benedict XVI, by all indications, it should get that. His election made it clear that there would be real continuity with what John Paul II had started. It also meant, for them, that the world and the church are to expect no major changes from the Vatican. The church is once again in safe, trusted hands.
For many liberals, though, the reaction was very different. They were, at least initially, deflated and depressed by the choice. Why?
Well, as the whole world knows, Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, has been the head watch dog in the church for the past 24 years and, in that role, accumulated some baggage. He also acquired a persona within which he is perceived as hard, inflexible, ultra-conservative, overly clerical, negative towards women, regressive on ecumenism, overly centralizing in his ecclesiology, hostile rather than understanding towards the world, I and too prone to listen to selective pockets of malcontents rather than to the wider community.
Many of these perceptions are perhaps unfair; he was, after all, a symbolic lightening rod around which a lot of free floating frustration and anger could constellate. However it is fair to say that, more than his supporters would be willing to admit, this is how he has been perceived.
Beyond this, there is too the perception that, in choosing him, the cardinals may have been more motivated by the desire to batten down the hatches against secularity than by the kind of love, concern, risk, and self-dying for the world that Jesus embodied and expressed when he said, “My flesh is food for the life of the world!” In times of uncertainty, clarity too easily trumps everything else, especially risk. Liberals fear this has happened here.
Where do I weigh in on this?
Cardinal Ratzinger wasn't my first choice and may have been in fact my last choice, but, after some initial disappointment, I've made my peace with his selection. Why?
I've never met the man, but am close to many people who have and all of them, to the person, attest that his public persona is not accurate, and never has been. Our new pope, they assure us, is more soft than hard, more understanding than judgmental, more respectful than authoritarian, and, as even this critics admit, stunning in his intelligence.

Benedict XVI might be the best placed person, right now to actually achieve any reform.

Moreover, as his first homilies and actions already indicate, he promises to be quite different as a pope than he was as head disciplinarian in the church. As a friend of mine explains it: “I was once a vice principal in a school, in charge of discipline. Later on, I became the principal, in charge now of animating spirit and life. The different roles gave me an entirely different agenda – and a very different persona.”
Benedict XVI was a brilliant and even liberal theologian before being named to head the Congregation of Faith and Doctrine. My suspicion is that we will see some flashes of that again, now that he is freed of the watchdog responsibility. He might well surprise everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, as did John XXIII. We might have the surprise of our lives and might find ourselves inside Morris West's novel, Lazarus, where an aged pope, known for his strong conservatism, stuns everyone by not being what anyone expected.
Finally, there is this too: Given where John Paul II had taken the church and the curia, it might be wise to have a pope, for a while, who will try to move things ahead only slightly, without being a major reformer.
Any major reformer would, I suspect, find himself quickly crushed, and not just inside Vatican walls, by the structure and legacy that John Paul II left behind.
Thus, ironically, Pope Benedict XVI might be the best placed person right now to actually achieve any reform. Critics of reform will find it difficult to fight him, given his pedigree. To risk an analogy here: Ariel Sharon, because of his uncompromising pro-Israeli stance and his history in helping establish some of the Jewish settlements in Palestine, might be for that reason precisely the man best placed to dismantle the settlements and lead Israel into a new relationship with Palestine. Like Ariel Sharon, Benedict XVI's past can be his greatest asset in helping lead us into something new. We may yet see the deep wisdom in this selection.
Beyond all of this of course is the Holy Spirit. Faith asks us to believe in the Spirit's role in these things even when our personal expectations and agendas aren't met. The community is more important than personal need. Good will come of this choice, no doubt, even if, for now, not everyone is equally enthusiastic.”

Oblate Father Ron Rolheiser, theologian, teacher, and award-winning author, is President of the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, TX (on sabbatical until August 2005). He can be contacted through his website www. ronrolheiser.com.

Skills For A Lifetime

Marriage Day of Renewal - February 15, 2004
Conference Center of Our Lady of the Snows, Belleville, IL
Presenters: Susan and Robert Edwards

• Appreciation: Thank God for the many blessings that hve been bestowed upon you (your love for each other, your health, your family, etc).
• New Information: While God is all-knowing, it never hurts to express your point of view on the things happening in your life. You can talk about the ways you see God acting in your life, new insights into your faith or give the news on friends and family.
• Puzzles: Tell God what you wonder aout. What are the mysteries in your life? Ask for answers, and listen for God's response in the coming days and weeks.
• Complaint with Request for Change: Now, we aren't recommending that you ask for a change in God's behavior, that's not really feasible. However, you can tell God about a situation in your life that you don't much like and request God's help in making it better. For example, “God, I'm struggling with the situation at my office. I would prefer to work things out, but need help diserning the right way to go about it.” Again, listening in your heart and watching for God acting through the people around you is critical.
• Wishes, Hopes and Dreams: This is your chance to tell God what you want out of your life. Share the hopes you have for each other, for your children, for your friends, etc. Ask for good health, for protection, for happy times or whatever you desire, and have faith that God will provide what you truly need.

• Appreciation
• New Information
• Puzzles
• Complaints with Request for Change ("I notice...", "I would prefer...")
• Wishes, Hopes and Dreams

1. Blamer - projects responsibility on other or object;
2. Computer - goes into their head - rationalizes solution;
3. Distracter - changes subject - remains in denial;
4. Pleaser - agrees to anything just to get peace now.

1. The blamer is capable of speaking on it's behalf;
2. Computer basic strength is wanting to find a solution;
3. Distracter may be a great ice breaker;
4. Pleaser wants to make peace.

Online Identity and Security,
How do I know who you really are?

This story was printed from Anchordesk,
located at http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/.

How do I know who you really are?

By Rafe Needleman: Editor, Reviews
Friday, July 2, 2004

“What is identity?
That's either an interesting philosophical question or a very annoying one or both--I can't decide. The one thing I'm sure of is that a lot of companies want to manage our online identities for us. Unfortunately, I don't trust any of them--at least, not yet.
Online identity is the core of electronic commerce. When somebody or some company wants to do business with somebody else or another company, it's all based on identity and trust. If I'm trying to buy something from you, I have to trust that you're really the business I think you are and that, once I transfer to you the information you need to take my money, you will deliver to me what I want. And you trust that the transaction information is actually coming from me and not somebody who has stolen my identity.
Today, trust between two parties has to be established each time a relationship is formed. So I have one identity with Amazon, another with my bank, another with the phone company, and so forth. It's a pain to keep all these identities straight and to remember which passwords work for each. But there is an advantage to this madness: The identities are separate. If one account is cracked, the exposure of my identity should be limited. Break into my Amazon account, and you won't be able to turn off my phone.
Passport to nowhere
In 1999, Microsoft launched Passport, an ambitious attempt to consolidate identity. The concept was that, once you were identified by Passport, you could move freely around other sites that were Passport partners. Your identity and authentication would go with you, and you wouldn't have to keep signing in. Nice idea and potentially convenient--but would you trust Microsoft, maker of the world's least secure Web browser and e-mail client, to keep this information safe? Neither did anybody else. Passport is no longer a serious identity play.
But the idea of consolidated identity is not dead--far from it. The latest direction in identity is something called federated identity management. The idea is that institutions--banks, businesses, and governments--will communicate with each other about your identity, using standards (that are still emerging) for the passing of identity and authentication data.
For example, a user who is authenticated on a commerce site would be able to go directly to a shipper and upgrade their shipping method without having to create a new account on the shipper's site. This would be possible because the shipper and the commerce site would have a relationship of trust between themselves, and an agreement that users who were authenticated on one site would be able to do certain things directly on the other. In other words, Amazon would vouch for me on FedEx, even though I might not have a FedEx account.
But which companies are going to be the primary identity holders? I don't believe that holding identity is the right business for software companies, so I don't think this will be Microsoft's or Amazon's game. Instead, I'm looking to the banks. Identity has value, and we already trust banks to safeguard personal wealth. It stands to reason that in addition to acting as agents for our money, they will be agents for our identities.
Banking on privacy
Citibank is already running an intensive identity-theft advertising campaign; it's not hard to imagine the company offering consumers and businesses even more in this space. It's also possible that cell phone carriers will try to become key identity providers since an increasing number of services are going to be offered via cellular accounts.
If we're going to see our online identities consolidate, I'm in favor of the banks keeping the data and being the entities that other companies look to authenticate purchases I want to make. While today I still want to manage my own identities with the various companies I do business with, if somebody has to hold data about me that has value, I'd much rather put my trust in a company whose fundamental mission is, in fact, earning and keeping that trust.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Update: tempting fate
This is what I get for writing a column about backup: Last week, the hard drive on my IBM ThinkPad X40 crashed--badly. I couldn't recover a single bit from it.
The good news: I wasn't kidding about my ridiculously redundant backup scheme, and I didn't lose any of my work files that were stored in my data directory since I had them synchronized with my home PC. The bad news: Neither my Outlook archives (the messages I had filed away, not those still in my in-box) nor my OneNote files were stored in those directories and, thus, were not part of my daily backup scheme. Oops. I lost about a week of work in these programs, but since I've rebuilt the laptop, I haven't missed that data very much.
My lesson: Every once in a while, it's a good idea to audit your personal backup scheme. Backing up regularly and religiously doesn't do you much good if you're not protecting the right files.

What do you think? Who should be the keepers of our online identities? Banks? Microsoft? Someone else? TalkBack at
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/
”

Thoughts for Mission Sunday, On Mother Teresa and The Catholic Relief Society

October 17, 2003
Dear Friend,
Over the years, I had the privilege of knowing Mother Teresa, and it is my honor to attend her beatification in Rome.
On the occasion of Mother Teresa's beatification, we invite you to visit our web site and to hear her words. On our site www.catholicrelief.org, we've recently added a brief film highlighting the work that Mother Teresa's organization has done with CRS in over 30 countries around the world.
Allow me to extract a quote from her recognizing the contributions of CRS donors that have touched the lives of so many children of India and around the world-in the form of food, medicine, and loving care:
“I am grateful for the opportunity to thank the people of America by sending us the food through Catholic Relief Services. You have done us a tremendous service-and a tremendous gift of love. For every bit we have received in the past 23 years, I am very grateful... to you who have so faithfully given. I want to ask you all to remain faithful ... You have given real relief-pure love and compassion.”

Please accept my thanks to you, for all that has come from you, to our people. ~Mother Teresa, CRS video

And there are so many additional words from those who knew Mother Teresa. Many of our staff had opportunity to work closely with her and have a lifetime of wonderful stories to tell.
In her lifetime, Mother did many things as an advocate for the poor, the homeless, and the powerless. One of my favorite stories comes from Yemen, retold by one of our retired staff.
“One day in the streets of Sana'a, where Mother was active, she needed to attract the attention of a government minister who was unable to live up to his promises.
To keep his attention, she assembled a gathering of the homeless-people who benefited from her mission, and who were in jeopardy if help did not come. She marched them all into the minister's offices to make her point. She walked away with a promise of help that was then kept.”
Our work is not done. To help the poor, our work requires strong, compassionate partners. It requires our firm commitment. And it requires your support and your assistance. I hope that you will learn more about how you can get more involved with Catholic Relief Services' efforts. And share with us this Sunday the memory of a truly great, devoted servant of the poor.
May God bless you,
Ken Hackett
President

Dear Parents,
This past school year the Right S.T.A.R.T. teachers found a very disturbing trend among the students that we taught. To be blunt, pornography is becoming an increasing problem due to our changing world of internet, cable, videos* and mass media. With the summer, (and unmonitored free time) quickly approaching we want to share some information on this subject for you to share with your sons and, in some cases, daughters. First, make sure you know how to check the history of what websites your children are using. The history icon is usually in the top row, although sometimes it is hidden and you need to press on an arrow to get to it. It looks like: [History Icon].
Below is a compilation of thoughts from experts. All of the complete articles were given to the principals and the resources are given in the text.
First, Dr. Robert Furey in the March 5 St. Louis Review wrote: "Pornography is out of control in the United States... .The damage done to teens and pre-teens by exposing them to pornography can be severe and lasting." Healthy sexual development occurs over time ...Gradual exposure allows him to digest and process what he is learning. When a young person is flooded with sexual material, however, this balance can be lost....The symptoms that emerge after a young person is exposed to pornography are in some ways, similar to those that surface after sexual abuse....Among the other possible consequences of early exposure to pornography are feelings of fear and/or disgust toward sexuality. In this case, a young person may come to feel ashamed of his own emerging sexuality. Nothing good comes from exposing young people to pornography.”

1. “Pornography substitutes fantasy for reality....There is no relationship, the person displayed becomes an object, a thing, used to satisfy the viewer's desires... She is not a real woman with desires, wishes, preferences, opinions, ideas, thoughts, feelings-she is always just an object....Any sexual arousal that results is outside the context of a committed relationship.”
2. “Pornography affects how we view our sexuality. What enters our minds affects the way we think. Men, if we spend hours looking at naked women/it is difficult to look at real women and not wonder what they look like without clothes... .Instead of seeing sex as the intimate union of husband and wife-a physical sign of the self-giving love they share-pornography presents sex as arousal and self-gratification. Pornography always switches the sexual focus from the other to oneself.” (A "me" activity instead of a "we" commitment)
3. “Pornography is addictive. Pornography and its accompanying arousal are like eating hot sauce. If we use a mild hot sauce regularly, we will eventually get so used to it that it no longer has the same ability to flavor our food as before. So we will use a hotter sauce until we become used to it. Then we will move on to an even hotter one. Pornography has the same effect, What was arousing yesterday is not today, and the viewer needs more of it or something different... Viewing does not satisfy the appetite, but increases it.”
4. “Pornography exploits sexuality for the purpose of profit. It especially exploits the women who are photographed; their bodies and sexual vulnerability are turned from a gift for their spouse into a commercial product. Exploitation exists even if someone agrees to pose. All women are exploited by it because it presents an image of physical-sexual-beauty and perfection. Women do not need another reason to focus on their bodies and worry about their appearance.”
5. “The use of pornography is often coupled with the practice of masturbation, which also leads to a devaluing of our sexuality. Instead of a self-giving love as the foundation for sexual activity, self-seeking arousal and pleasure become the drives. As such, pornography destroys our ability to have intense, passionate sex.”

1. “The essence of manhood consists in readiness to deny oneself for the good of a beloved.”
2. “It denies the woman her dignity in order to satisfy his lust...Wouldn't it infuriate you if a guy looked at your daughter in the same way he looked at pornography?”
3. “For the person who indulges in porn, the purpose of sex becomes the satisfaction of the erotic 'needs,' not the communication of life and love. Porn drives a man to value a woman only for what she gives him rather than for the person she is.... (Also) his fantasies will have robbed him of the ability to be truly intimate with his wife.”
4. “We owe it to God to honor the Lord in all our actions and thoughts. To lust after his daughter is a grave sin.”

Jason also adds some interesting statistics to show that “When men learn their 'love' from videos and magazines, they accept the idea that a woman's 'no' is actually a 'yes' and that she enjoys being used.”
In Oklahoma City, “When 150 sexually oriented businesses were closed, the rate of rape decreased 27% in five years, while the rate in the rest of the country increased 19%. In Phoenix, Arizona, neighborhoods with porn outlets had 500% more sex offenses than neighborhoods without them.”
Therefore parents, we have a moral obligation to our sons and daughters to monitor where they are, who they are with, and what they are doing. Summer is a wonderful time to relax, play, and become rejuvenated, but we also need to be mindful of too much "free time" for all of our youth.
May God Bless each of you and your families!

“Okay, I'll admit it: I am twenty-two years old and still a virgin. Not for lack of opportunity, my vanity hastens to add. Had I ever felt unduly burdened by my unfashionable innocence, I could have found someone to attend to the problem. But I never did. Our mainstream culture tells me that some oppressive force must be the cause of my late-in-life virginity, maybe an inordinate fear of men or God or getting caught. Perhaps it's right, since I can pinpoint a number of influences that have persuaded me to remain a virgin. My mother taught me that self-respect requires self-control, and my father taught me to demand the same from men. I'm enough of a country bumpkin to suspect that contraceptives might not be enough to prevent an unwanted pregnancy or disease, and I think that abortion is killing a baby. I buy into all that Christian doctrine of law and promise, which means that the stuffy old commandments are still binding on my conscience. And I'm even naive enough to believe in permanent, exclusive, divinely ordained love between a man and a woman, a love so valuable that it motivates me to keep my legs tightly crossed in the most tempting of situations.

In spite of all this, I still think of myself as something of a feminist, since virginity has the result of creating respect for and upholding the value of the woman so inclined. But I have discovered that the reigning feminism of today has little use for it. There was a time when I was foolish enough to look for literature among women's publications that might offer support in my very personal decision. (It's all about choice, after all, isn't it?) The dearth of information on virginity might lead one to believe that it's a taboo subject. However, I was fortunate enough to discover a short article on it in that revered tome of feminism. Our Bodies, Ourselves. The most recent edition of the book has a more positive attitude than the edition before it, in that it acknowledges virginity as a legitimate choice and not just a by-product of patriarchy. Still, in less than a page, it presumes to cover the whole range of emotion and experience involved in virginity, which, it seems, consists simply in the notion that a woman should wait until she's really ready to express her sexuality. That's all there is to say about it. Apparently, sexual expression takes place only in and after the act of genital intercourse. Anything subtler-like a feminine love of cooking or tendency to cry at the movies or insuppressible maternal instinct or cultivation of a wardrobe that will turn heads or even a passionate goodnight kiss is deemed an inadequate demonstration of sexual identity. The unspoken message of Our Bodies, Ourselves is clear enough: as long as a woman is a virgin, she remains completely asexual.

Surprisingly, this attitude has infiltrated the thinking of many women my age, who should still be new enough in the web of lies called adulthood to know better. One of my most vivid college memories is of a conversation with a good friend about my (to her) bizarre aberration of virginity. She and another pal had been delving into the gruesome specifics of their past sexual encounters. Finally, after some time, my friend suddenly exclaimed to me, "How do you do it?"

A little taken aback, I said, "Do what?"

"You know," she answered, a little reluctant, perhaps, to use the big bad V-word. "You still haven't... slept with anybody. How do you do it? Don't you want to?"

The question intrigued me, because it was so utterly beside the point. Of course I want to - what a strange question - but merely wanting to is hardly a proper guide for moral conduct. I assured my concerned friend that my libido was still in proper working order, but then I had to come up with a good reason why I had been paying attention to my inhibitions for all these years. I offered the usual reasons-emotional and physical health, religious convictions, “saving myself till marriage - but nothing convinced her” until I said, "I guess I don't know what I'm missing." She was satisfied with that and ended the conversation.

In one sense, sure, I don't know what I'm missing. And it is common enough among those who do know what they're missing to go to great lengths to insure that they don't miss it for very long. In another sense, though, I could list a lot of things that I do know I'm missing: hurt, betrayal, anxiety, self-deception, fear, suspicion, anger, confusion, and the horror of having been used. And those are only the emotional aspects; there is also disease, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion. As if to prove my case from the other side, my friend suffered a traumatic betrayal within a month or two of our conversation. It turned out that the man involved would gladly sleep with her, but refused to have a "real relationship" - a sad reality she discovered only after the fact.

According to received feminist wisdom, sexuality is to be understood through the twin concepts of power and choice. It's not a matter of anything so banally biological as producing children, or even the more elevated notion of creating intimacy and trust. Sometimes it seems like sex isn't even supposed to be fun. The purpose of female sexuality is to assert power over hapless men, for control, revenge, self-centered pleasure, or forcing a commitment. A woman who declines to express herself in sexual activity, then, has fallen prey to a male-dominated society that wishes to prevent women from becoming powerful. By contrast, it is said, a woman who does become sexually active discovers her power over men and exercises it, supposedly to her personal enhancement.

This is an absurd lie. That kind of gender-war sexuality results only in pyrrhic victories. It's a set-up for disaster, especially for women. Men aren't the ones who get pregnant. And who ever heard of a man purchasing a glossy magazine to learn the secret of snagging a wife? Sacrifice and the relinquishing of power are natural to women - ask any mom - and they are also the secret of feminine appeal. The pretense that aggression and power-mongering are the only options for female sexual success has opened the door to predatory men. The imbalance of power becomes greater than ever in a culture of easy access.

Against this system of mutual exploitation stands the more compelling alternative of virginity. It escapes the ruthless cycle of winning and losing because it refuses to play the game. The promiscuous of both sexes will take their cheap shots at one another, disguising infidelity and selfishness as freedom and independence, and blaming the aftermath on one another. But no one can claim control over a virgin. Virginity is not a matter of asserting power in order to manipulate. It is a refusal to exploit or be exploited. That is real, and responsible, power.

But there is more to it than mere escape. There is an undeniable appeal in virginity, something that eludes the resentful feminist's contemptuous label of "prude." A virgin woman is an unattainable object of desire, and it is precisely her unattainability that increases her desirability. Feminism has told a lie in defense of its own promiscuity, namely that there is no sexual power to be found in virginity. On the contrary, virgin sexuality has extraordinary and unusual power. There's no second-guessing a virgin's motives: her strength comes from a source beyond her transitory whims. It is sexuality dedicated to hope, to the future, to marital love, to children, and to God. Her virginity is, at the same time, a statement of her mature independence from men. It allows a woman to become a whole person in her own right, without needing a man either to revolt against or to complete what she lacks. It is very simple, really: no matter how wonderful, charming, handsome, intelligent, thoughtful, rich, or persuasive he is, he simply cannot have her. A virgin is perfectly unpossessable. Of course, there have been some women who have attempted to claim this independence from men by turning in on themselves and opting for lesbian sexuality instead. But this is just another, perhaps deeper, rejection of their femaleness. The sexes rightly define themselves in their otherness. Lesbianism squelches the design of otherness by drowning womanhood in a sea of sameness, and in the process loses any concept of what makes the female feminine. Virginity upholds simply and honestly that which is valuable in and unique to women.

The corollary of power is choice. Again, the feminist assumes that sexually powerful women will be able to choose their own fates. And again, it is a lie. No one can engage in extramarital sex and then control it. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the moral nightmare of our society's breakdown since the sexual revolution. Some time ago I saw on TV the introduction of the groundbreaking new "female condom." A spokeswoman at the press conference celebrating its grand opening declared joyously the new freedom that it gave to women. "Now women have more bargaining power," she said. "If a man says that he refuses to wear a condom, the woman can counter, fine, I will!" I was dumbstruck by her enthusiasm for the dynamics of the new situation. Why on earth would two people harboring so much animosity towards each other contemplate a sexual encounter? What an appealing choice they have been given the freedom to make?

The dark reality, of course, is that it is not free choice at all when women must convince men to love them and must convince themselves that they're more than just "used goods." There are so many young women I have known for whom freely chosen sexual activity means a brief moment of pleasure - if that - followed by the unchosen side effects of paralyzing uncertainty, anger at the man involved, and finally a deep self-hatred that is impenetrable by feminist analysis. So-called sexual freedom is really just proclaiming oneself to be available for free, and therefore without value. To "choose" such freedom is tantamount to saying that one is worth nothing.

Admittedly, there are some who say that sex isn't nearly so serious or important, but just another recreational activity not substantially different from ping-pong. I don't believe it for a second. I learned most meaningfully from another woman the destructive force of sexuality out of control when I myself was under considerable pressure to cave in to a man's sexual demands. I discussed the prospect with this friend, and after some time she finally said to me, "Don't do it. So far in life you've made all the right choices and I've made all the wrong ones. I care enough about you that I don't want to see you end up like me." Naturally, that made up my mind. Sex does matter, it matters a lot; and I can only hope that those who deny it will wake up to their error before they damage themselves even more.

It is appalling that feminism has propagated lies so destructive to women. It has created the illusion that there is no room for self-discovery outside of sexual behavior. Not only is this a grotesque lie, but it is also an utterly boring one. Aside from its implied dismissal of all the world's many riches outside the sexual domain, this false concept has placed stultifying limitations on the range of human relationships. We're told that friendships between men and women are just a cover until they leap into the sack together. While romance is a natural and commendable expression of love between women and men, it is simply not the only option. And in our sexually competitive climate, even romantic love barely deserves the title. Virginity among those seeking marital love would go far to improve the latter's solidity and permanence, creating an atmosphere of honesty and discovery before the equally necessary and longed-for consummation. Where feminism sees freedom from men by placing body parts at their disposal in a bizarre game of self-deception, virginity recognizes the equally vulnerable though often overlooked state of men's own hearts and seeks a way to love them for real.

It is puzzling and disturbing to me that regnant feminism has never acknowledged the empowering value of virginity. I tend to think that much of the feminist agenda is more invested in the culture of groundless autonomy and sexual Darwinism than it is in genuinely uplifting women. Of course, virginity is a battle against sexual temptation, and popular culture always opts for the easy way out instead of the character-building struggle. The result is superficial women formed by meaningless choices, worthy of stereotype, rather than laudable women of character, worthy of respect Perhaps virginity seems a bit cold, even haughty and heartless. But virginity hardly has a claim on those defects, if it has any claim at all. Promiscuity offers a significantly worse fate. I have a very dear friend who, sadly, is more worldly-wise than I am. By libertine feminist standards she ought to be proud of her conquests and ready for more, but frequently she isn't. The most telling insight about the shambles of her heart came to me once in a phone conversation when we were speculating about our futures. Generally they are filled with exotic travel and adventure and PhDs. This time, however, they were not. She admitted to me that what she really wanted was to be living on a farm in rural Connecticut, raising a horde of children and embroidering tea towels. It is a lovely dream, defiantly unambitious and domestic. But her short, failed sexual relationships haven't taken her any closer to her dream and have left her little hope that she'll ever attain it. I must be honest here: virginity hasn't landed me on a farm in rural Connecticut either. Sexual innocence is not a guarantee against heartbreak. But there is a crucial difference: I haven't lost a part of myself to someone who has subsequently spurned it, rejected it, and perhaps never cared for it at all.

I sincerely hope that virginity will not be a lifetime project for me. Quite the contrary, my subversive commitment to virginity serves as preparation for another commitment, for loving one man completely and exclusively. Admittedly, there is a minor frustration in my love: I haven't met the man yet (at least, not to my knowledge). But hope, which does not disappoint, sustains me.”

First Amendment Restoration Act~WITHDRAWN

H. R. 4922 ~ To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - 2d Session ~ JUNE 12, 2002
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL ~ To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `First Amendment Restoration Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be one of the fundamental and unalienable rights belonging to all individuals.
(2) The Framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld, in the main body of that document, any authority for the Federal Government to meddle with the religious affairs or with the free speech of the people. Then, as further and more specific protection for the people, they added the first amendment, which includes the `establishment clause' and the `freedom of speech clause' which are as follows: `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .'. It is of utmost importance to note that the first amendment is not a grant of authority to the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a specific restriction upon the exercise of power by the Federal Government.
(3) For over 150 years, the Court held to this historically correct position in interpreting the first amendment. During this period, scant mention was made to `The Separation of Church and State'.
(4) Then, beginning in 1947, and accelerating through the 60's, the Court abruptly reversed its position. This was done with no change in the law, either by statute or by amendment to the Constitution. The Court invented the distorted meaning of the first amendment utilizing the separation of `church and state' in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when it announced: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 1, 18 [1947]). Over the past five decades, rulings of the United States Supreme Court have served to infringe upon the rights of Americans to enjoy freedom of speech relating to religious matters. Such infringements include the outlawing of prayer in schools and of the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. These rulings have not reflected a neutrality toward religious denominations but a hostility toward religious thought. They have served to undermine the foundation of not only our moral code but our system of law and justice.
(5) In making this abrupt change, the Court ignored all historical precedent established previously by the Court, the wording of the First Amendment, and the intent of its framers. The rulings are legally irrational and without foundation. Although the Court presumed to rely upon the First Amendment for its authority for these rulings, a review of that Amendment reveals that said rulings could not possibly have been based upon its original intent. Consequently, it is incumbent upon this Congress to review not only the rulings of the Court which are in question but the wording and history of the First Amendment to determine the intent of its framers. This abrupt change is found in the following court cases:

(A) `A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral.' (Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Abington v. Schempp, 1963, Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden, 1971.)
(B) `Freedoms of speech and press are guaranteed to students and teachers unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional.' (Stein v. Oshinsky, 1965, Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 1981, Bishop v. Aronov, 1991, Duran v. Nitsche, 1991.)
(C) `It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them.' (Stone v. Graham, 1980, Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District, 1980, Lanner v. Wimmer, 1981.)
(D) `If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud.' (Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.)
(E) `The Ten Commandments, despite the fact that they are the basis of civil law and are depicted in engraved stone in the United States Supreme Court, may not be displayed at a public courthouse.' (Harvey v. Cobb County. 1993.)
(F) `When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer.' (Harris v. Joint School District, 1994.)
(G) By interpreting the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in any public place, the Supreme Court necessarily violates the free speech clause of the very same first amendment. These rulings of the Court constitute de facto legislation or Constitution-amending. This is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, as all legislative authority bestowed by the people through the Constitution is bestowed upon the Congress and the Congress alone.

(6) A fundamental maxim of law is, whenever the intent of a statute or a constitution is in question, to refer to the words of its framers to determine their intent and use this intent as the true intent of the law.
(7) The intent of the First Amendment was and is clear on these two points: The Federal Government was prohibited from enacting any laws which would favor one religious denomination over another and the Federal Government has no power to forbid or prohibit any mention of religion , the Ten Commandments or reference to God in civic dialog.v (8) In its rulings to prohibit Americans from saying prayers in school or from displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, the Court has relied heavily upon the metaphor, `Separation of Church and State'. Note that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment or any other place in the Constitution.
(9) The metaphor, `Separation of Church and State', was extracted, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in reply to a letter from them expressing concern that the Federal Government might intrude in religious matters by favoring one denomination over another. Jefferson's reply was that the First Amendment would preclude such intrusion.
(10) The Court, in its use of Separation of Church and State, has given to this phrase a meaning never intended by its author; it took it out of context and inverted its meaning and intent. The complete text of Jefferson's letter is found in Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
(11) Justice William Rehnquist made an extensive study of the history of the First Amendment. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 48, n. 30 [1984],) he stated: `There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the `wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson. . . . But the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history. . . . It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. . . . Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor. `It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights, as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today, to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from endorsing prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God. History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.'
(12) As Justice Rehnquist states, the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its `mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . ' It is necessary to review not only Jefferson's intent in his use of this `wall', but his involvement or noninvolvement in the drafting of the First Amendment, and the intent of the framers of the First Amendment.
(13) Jefferson was neither the author of nor a coauthor of the First Amendment. He cannot be considered as a source of legal authority on this subject. The Court, if it had wished to rely upon Jefferson to determine the true and original intent of the First Amendment, could have served themselves and the American people well by referring to Jefferson's admonition to Judge William Johnson regarding the determination of the original intent of a statute or a constitution: `On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.' (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor [Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830, Vol. IV., p. 373,] to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823).
(14) The principal authors of the First Amendment, the record reveals, were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Thomas Jefferson. Others who participated were John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut and William Paterson of New Jersey and James Madison and George Mason of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson is not found in the record as having participated. (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Seaton, 1834], Vol. I, pp. 440-948, June 8-September 24, 1789.)
(15) George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention and recognized as `The Father of the Bill of Rights', submitted this proposal for the wording of the First Amendment: `All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion , according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.' (Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.)
(16) The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, submitted the following wording for the First Amendment: `The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.' (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Season, 1834,] Vol. I, p. 451, James Madison, June 8, 1789.)
(17) The true intent of the First Amendment is reflected by the proposals submitted by Fisher Ames, George Mason and James Madison and the wording finally adopted.
(18) Justice Joseph Story, considered the Father of American Jurisprudence, stated in his Commentaries on the Constitution: `The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohometanism [sp], or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive patronage of the national government. (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [Boston; Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833], p. 728, par. 1871.)
(19) Proof that the intent of the framers of the First Amendment did not intend for the Federal Government to restrict the exercise of free speech in religious matters in civic dialog is found in various statements by George Washington, who was President when the Congress adopted the First Amendment. The following is found in his `Farewell Address': ` . . . of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.' (George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States. . . . Preparatory to his Declination [Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796], pp. 22-23.
(20) James Wilson was a very active member of the Convention and was later appointed by President George Washington as an original Justice on the United States Supreme Court where he coauthored America's first legal text on the Constitution. Wilson never mentioned a `separation of church and state'. To the contrary, he declared the correlation between religion and civil laws: Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. (James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor. Philadelphia; Bronson and Chauncey, 1804. Vol. I, pp. 104-106.)
(21) It was Fisher Ames of Massachusetts who provided, on the 20th of August, 1789, the final wording for the First Amendment as passed by the House of Representatives. Fisher Ames, who should be considered the foremost authority on the intent of the First Amendment, never spoke of a separation of church and state. (Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames, Boston; T.B. Wait & Co. 1809, p. 134, 135.)
(22) Because the Court does not seem to be disposed to correct this egregious error, it is incumbent upon the Congress of the United States to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, by the use of its authority to apply checks and balances to other branches of the government, when usurpations and the exercise of excesses of power are evident. The Congress must, then, take the appropriate steps to correct egregious problem.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM -RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: `Sec. 1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom -related cases
`(a) IN GENERAL- The district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any religious freedom -related case.
`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `religious freedom -related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: `1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom -related cases.'.

SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM -RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL CLAIMS COURT JURISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: `Sec. 1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom -related cases
`(a) IN GENERAL- The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any religious freedom -related case.
`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `religious freedom -related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom -related cases.'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

An Adult Response to the Magical World of Harry Potter

• "The Magical World of Harry Potter"
• "Ms. J. W. Howling talks about her works"
• "The Question of EVIL: myth reveals the truth"
• "The Christian responds to Harry's world"

• Barber, Janette, "On Being...A Harry Potter Fan", Rosie (McCalls) (Aug, 2001). An adult appreciation.
• Biallas, Leonard J., Myths, Gods, Heroes, And Saviors, Mystic, CT: 23rd Publications, 1989. A classic - adds a Christian dimension; the author of World Religions.
• Colbert, David, The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter. Wrightsville Beach, NC: Lumina Press, 2001; deals with the first four books.
• Kronzek, Allan Zola & Elizabeth Kronzek, The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide To The Magical World of Harry Potter. NY: Broadway Books, 2001.
• Leibovitz, Annie & Leslie Bennetts, "Something About Harry", Vanity Fair (October, 2001), 302-321. A study of reactions.
• Lewis. C. S., The Problem Of Pain: How Human Suffering Raises Almost Intolerable Intellectual Problems. NY: Macmulan Publishing Co., 1962. Also: The Four Loves
• Lewis is one of the 'Inklings'. Others: Tolkien, Barclay, Joseph Campbell, John Sanford, George McDonald and Dorothy Sayers.
• McNulty, Edward, "Harry Potter Flies High At the Box Office", Christian Networks Journal (Winter 2001), 32. Extremely positive, encouraging.
• Neal, Connie, "What's A Christian To Do With Harry Potter?" Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbrook Press (Random House), 2001.
• O'Brien, Michael, "Beware The Danger of Harry Potter", National Catholic Register (December 16-22, 2001) & Michael O'Brien Forum (Sandra Miesel and Father Ranier Blankenhom) in National Catholic Register, January 27 - February 2, 2002).
• Rowling, J. K. Conversations With J. K. Rowling. NY: Scholastic Inc. 2000.

• Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone. NY: Scholastic Press, 1997.
• Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets.. NY: Scholastic Press, 1999.
• Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azkaban. NY: Scholastic Press, 1999.
• Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire. NY: Scholastic Press, 2000.

• Kennilworthy Whisp, Quidditch Through The Ages. Diagon Alley, London (NY: Scholastic Press, 2001).
• Newt Scamander, Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them. Diagon Alley London: Obscurus Books (NY: Scholastic Press, 2001).
• Sanford, John A., Evil: The Shadow Side of Reality. NY: The Crossroad Publishing Co., 1981/1998. (An Episcopalian Priest, Jungian Psychiatrist). (An Inkling).
• Schafer, Elizabeth D., Exploring Harry Potter (Beachman's Sourcebooks). Osprey, Fk Beacham Publishing Corporation, 2000. A Teacher's aid, Every teacher needs this!

• John Sanford, The Man who Wrestled With God.
• Joseph Campbell, The Hero of a Thousand Faces.
• George McDonald, The Princess and the Goblin.
• C. S. Lewis, The Space Trilogy:
  Out of the Silent Planet (Ours is the only planet that doesn't sing) Perelandra
  That Hideous Strength
• C. S. Lewis, The Narnia Chronicles
• Dorothy Sayers, Of a Greater Reality
• J. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

Morality In Media: Combat Pornography

Bite First Aid for Animal Bites

Prayer For Peace
To Mary, The Light of Hope
Pope John Paul II

“Immaculate Heart of Mary, help us to conquer the menace of evil, which so easily takes root in the hearts of the people of today, and whose immeasurable effects already weigh down upon our modern world and seem to block the paths toward the future.
From famine and war, deliver us.
From nuclear war, from incalculable self-destruction, from every kind of war, deliver us.
From sins against human life from its very beginning, deliver us.
From hatred and from the demeaning of the dignity of the children of God, deliver us.
From every kind of injustice in the life of society, both national and international, deliver us.
From readiness to trample on the commandments of God, deliver us.
From attempts to stifle in human hearts the very truth of God, deliver us.
From the loss of awareness of good and evil, deliver us.
From sins against the Holy Spirit, deliver us.
Accept, 0 Mother of Christ,
this cry laden with the sufferings of all individual human beings, laden with the sufferings of whole societies.
Help us with the power of the Holy Spirit conquer all sin: individual sin and the "sin of the world," sin in all its manifestations.
Let there be revealed once more in the history of the world the infinite saving power of the redemption:
the power of merciful love.
May it put a stop to evil.
May it transform consciences.
May your Immaculate Heart reveal for all the light of hope. Amen.”

Muslim, Jewish, Christian Prayer for Peace

“O God, you are the Source of life and peace.
Praised be your name forever.
We know it is you who turn our minds to thoughts of peace.
Hear our grayer in this time of war.
Your power changes hearts.
Muslims, Christians, and Jews remember, and profoundly affirm,
that they are followers of the one God,
children of Abraham, brothers and sisters;
enemies begin to speak to one another;
those who were estranged join hands in friendship;
nations seek the way of peace together.
Strengthen our resolve to give witness to these truths
by the way we live. Give to us:
Understanding that puts an end to strife;
Mercy that quenches hatred, and
Forgiveness that overcomes vengeance.
Empower all people to live in your law of Love. Amen.”

Prayer to Christ the Healer

“In the comfort of your love,
I pour out to you, my Savior, The memories that haunt me,
The anxieties that perplex me, The fears that stifle me,
The sickness that prevails upon me,
And the frustration of all the pain that weaves about within me.
Lord, help me to see your peace in my turmoil,
your compassion in my sorrow,
your forgiveness in my weakness,
And, your love in my need.
Touch me, 0 Lord, with your healing power and strength.”

Claim Your Vote,
Be Informed about Legislation:

Weather, Earthquake & National Parks Links

Time of Day & Calendar Date

Local Time

For More,

Thanks for Visiting