"...endowed by their Creator..."

The President of the United States has recently quoted the Declaration of Independence, directly or indirectly, in three recent speeches. Or, perhaps, I should say MISQUOTES it. He suspiciously leaves out the phrase "endowed by their Creator". For those who do not follow either of the hyperlinks to the Declaration or Presidente Obama's speech should know that the text says,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This clearly is not accidental, as he has done it now three times. Anyone who knows anything about the history of religious liberty in the western world, upon reading the above statement, should be struck by the near meaninglessness of the statement without the words in question ("endowed by their Creator"). If the Creator (whether Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, the Great Spirit, or a higher consciousness) did not endow humans with rights then from whence do they come? For example, if the right to life does is not intrinsic, several questions are raised.

1) Where do these rights come from?
2) Are there limits to these rights?
3) Who determines whom gets these rights?

The bottom line is that if the right to life is not universal then it can be taken away by others. Hitler and Stalin did not appear to believe that Jews, "Homosexuals", and others had this intrinsic value. This may have been because they did not believe in a higher authority. In Stalin's case we are sure of this. It stands to reason that if Mr. Stalin could not believe that a higher power existed, he could not have believed that it had endowed his political enemies with rights. By the way, this does not mean that Theists do not commit human rights violation. They, in fact, do. However, this is in contradistinction to their stated beliefs.

I am not suggesting that one must be a Theist to believe in natural law. One, simply, need see two facts.
First, the political, religious, and social freedoms of the western world depend on this implicit acceptance of natural law, endowed by a higher authority. Second, as G.K. Chesterton wrote, that if God is removed from society then the government will attempt to become the god. Negligence of Natural Law is the canary in the coal mine. If a higher authority is removed, humans try to take its place and history tells us that consequences are often horrendous.

Please Mr. President, the USA has fought too long and too hard to reach this point of balance between individual rights and responsibilities. Besides, to misquote the Declaration of Independence, is simply irresponsible history.

Muslims using Good Cop/Bad Cop tool

There is a link that shows how Muslim Activists use the Good Cop/Bad Cop threat to advance their agenda. As a former Muslim, I truly empathize with Muslims who would like Islam to be more peaceful. I had hoped for the same thing. I suggest that Muslims who want Islam to be peaceful should work with the west and "out" the radicals, instead of subtly threatening western, non-Muslims.

Baby Monkey riding on a Pig

Again..."Gay Rights" crew is at...logically inconsistent as usual

Wow...I came across this story on Yahoo. Apparently, this Mega-church pastor allegedly was luring "three young men into sexual relationships". The young men were, according to the report, 17 to 18 years old. My first impression was disgust. But, after further contemplation, I see the story for the "gay rights" propaganda that it is. My disgust was based on the fact that I hold the belief that any genital relations outside that confines of a marriage between one man and one woman (that is open to life). I am including homogenital relationship, which are intrinsically evil, in the list of moral Thou Shalt Nots.

However unfortunate that it may be, those who support marriage of the same sex, should not be appalled at this story. If they are, it is hypocritical and logically inconsistent. If they want to be consistent, they should say that the good bishop is bisexual and was exploring his sexuality. So, from whither comes the lawsuit and the outrage? I always find it amazing that those who seek to free themselves from the moral shackles of monotheism, base their pretend moral outrage upon the ethics of the same monotheism. After all, didn't Senor Dostoevsky speak the truth when he said,
"If there is no God, everything is permitted".

Think about it, in the ethical vacuum that is secularism, why should people with same-sex attraction be given equal rights? In the secular, hedonistic, and relativistic culture that we live, the is no compelling ethical standard that we should live up to. Secularists and moral relativists are like a man sitting on a tree limb and sawing it off. Only the monotheistic and, specifically, the Christian culture, says that man (all men) have infinite and intrinsic value. Let us think things through people!

Common Sense Thinking about the Delaware Election

Check out this article, concerning the Delaware Election on Nov.2. Who the extremist is becomes clear.

Well Said, Catholic League

The Catholic League strikes back at atheists critics with truth!


ATHEISTS MUST APOLOGIZE FOR HITLER

Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacts to the way British atheists are handling Pope Benedict XVI's trip to their homeland:

The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to "reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century." Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of "a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God."

The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.

Why should atheists today apologize for the crimes of others? At onelevel, it makes no sense: apologies should only be given by the guilty. But on the other hand, since the fanatically anti-Catholic secularists in Britain, and elsewhere, demand that the pope—who is entirely innocent of any misconduct—apologize for the sins of others, let the atheists take some of their own medicine and start apologizing for all the crimes committed in their name. It might prove alembic.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall.....!

I just finished reading The Jesuit Guide to (almost) Everything: A Spirituality for Real Life by James Martin, SJ. It was an enjoyable read. The author has a remarkable ability to communicate his thesis in a manner more akin to sharing a story with your uncle on the front porch, in the heat of a South Carolina summer (while drinking sweet tea of course). The book is popular Catholic spirituality that is accessible to all readers. I do recommend it.
As someone who is new to Catholicism, I have only the slightest degree of familiarity with the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The author describes these exercises and their application to everyday life. There was one specific part of the Exercises that caught my attention immediately, though. In fact, I put the book down to ponder this portion.
Towards the end of the Exercises, retreatants are invited to contemplate the Resurrection of Christ, generally. One specific example of this meditation, offered by St. Ignatius, really intrigued me. He suggests to ponders the meeting of Jesus and His Mother, after the Resurrection. Oh, to be a fly on the wall!
Of course, scripture is silent on this meeting. However, logically, it would eventually have taken place. Besides, the meetings' absence from Holy Writ should not trouble a Catholic, or any Christian for that matter, due to the fact that scripture NEVER states that it is the only source for Christian beliefs. As an aside, more that three centuries passed wherein Christians did not have an official, standardized canon. During this time, Christians worshipped, prayed, and held beliefs, without a Bible. But I digress.
Imagine the amazing meeting between Christ and His Holy Mother! What joy! What tears! I think it is quite certain that Mary knew something was afoot, from the visitation of the Angel Gabriel. But, even if she knew down to the very last detail, I doubt it would have stunted her reaction in any way. A mother's love is usually unbounded. The Blessed Mother's love for her Son would likely have surpassed all loves, since it was also a love for God (as Jesus was and is the Second Person of the Godhead). I don't think there would have been a dry eye in the house, at this meeting. This would be like Heaven. Any ambiguity of the crooked lines of God's planned of redemption were clarified in that meeting. It was Christ returning home to His Blessed Mother and, also, Her (and all possible bystanders) getting a glimpse of Heaven, where "He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, (for) the old order has passed away."

Christ's appearance to His Blessed Mother and all others is a culmination of revelation and a preview of His statement, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!"