An interesting Catholic Democrats story, including a note that "Dissatisfaction With Robertson Grows"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801666.html

The House's Catholic Democrats Detail Role Religion Plays

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Page A04

Still reeling from the attacks on Sen. John F. Kerry's brand of Roman Catholicism during the 2004 presidential race, 55 House Democrats issued a joint statement yesterday on the central role that the Catholic faith plays in their public lives.

The signers said they were fed up with being labeled "good Catholics" or "bad Catholics" based on one issue -- abortion. They said their religion infuses their positions on many issues: poverty, war, health care and education.

Pat Robertson was not reelected to the board of broadcasters. (Andrew Wong - Reuters) setTimeout('update_delicious_form(delicious_cookie)',1)

"Some of us are pro-choice and some of us are pro-life," said Rep. William J. Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.). "But we respect each other and we're going to defend each other, because we're all operating in good conscience."

The statement stressed that all of the Catholic Democrats share the goal of reducing the incidence of abortion.

"We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion -- we do not celebrate its practice," the statement said. "Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term."

The statement also said that though the Catholic Democrats "seek the Church's guidance and assistance," they "accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas."

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the Catholic Democrats "have decided to stop letting others define us." But Tom McClusky, a Catholic who is acting vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, predicted they would fail.

"What is at the core of being Catholic is the life issue, and that's something the pope has never strayed from," he said. "While other issues are important -- such as helping the poor, the death penalty, views on war -- these are things that aren't tenets of the Catholic Church."

Dissatisfaction With Robertson Grows

---

If evidence is needed that the Rev. Pat Robertson's shoot-from-the-hip approach to world affairs has embarrassed some of his fellow evangelicals, it comes from the recently concluded convention of the National Religious Broadcasters.

Robertson, 75, a longtime member of the NRB's board of directors, failed to win reelection despite good odds: He was one of about 36 candidates running for 33 seats, NRB President Frank Wright said.

Wright said the elections usually hinge on the relative strength of radio, television and Internet broadcasters, so Robertson might have lost simply because he is a TV guy. But Wright acknowledged that there also was dissatisfaction with Robertson's recent call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his assertion that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment for the ceding of land to the Palestinians.

"I would say that there was broad dismay with some of Pat's comments and a feeling they were not helpful to Christian broadcasters in general, but by no means was there any broad effort in our association to dissociate ourselves with him," Wright said.

Robertson did not reply to calls for comment.

Here's an interesting non-political story that one of my liberal radio hosts found from somewhere.  Just so you don't worry, the dog (a shih-tzu) is fine.

Dog Found Hanging From Leash Caught In Elevator

I'm back after a long absence from Xanga (not that many would notice)...  I've been busy with work, and at home.  Well, we have a new Supreme Court Justice.  Many think he's a conservative, but I don't know of many conservatives that believe that:

1. Automatic machine guns (and presumably portable rocket launchers and other large weapons like ) cannot be regulated by the American people through Congress.
   
2. Police officers can strip-search people who are not named in a search warrant (including 12-year girls) even if they not inside, but in the vicinity of the house specified in a search warrant.
   
3. Presidents have the power to intrepret Congress's laws and decide if they apply to him, when he signs those bills into laws - as he did when he claimed that Republican Senator McCain's anti-torture admendment didn't apply to him.  (Which explains why he has never vetoed any bills)
   
4. People like himself, who lie to the Senate, should get promotions - instead of being fired.  (He previously told the Senate that he would recuse himself from cases involving a financial investment company he had lots of money with, and also his sister's legal firm - both of which he failed to do.)

On another note, I heard the State of the Union speach... It sounded like Bush was proposing many ideas that Democrats have been proposing for quite a while.  Such as "America will continue to rally the world to confront these [Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon] threats."  Which is what Kerry ran on doing to fix the problems in Iraq.  And..."Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care. Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility."  Other than the fact that we are obviously not providing affordable health care to the poor and the elderly...it seems like exactally what every Democrat who has ever spoken on health care has said.  Also..."To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy."  is practically right out of the environmentally friendly Democrats platform.

He's also made quite a bit of other promises that he's already started work on breaking.  See the many posts debunking almost everything he said at ThinkProgress

He also made broad stereotypes of his opponents, such as repeating that same often heard line "there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure."  Implying that most of the critics think that everything he's done has failed, and that they don't offer any useful suggestions.  I've previously said that he's done one thing good (I had to think hard about it first...), which is that he attacked and brought down the Taliban in Afganistan after 9/11.  Other than that, I'd love to hear what someone who supports him thinks he's done a good job on (expecially if you're one of the 2% of african-americans that support him).

UPDATE:

A Republican's congressman's wife was kicked out of the people's house before the State of the Union for wearing a t-shirt supporting the troops.

From AP

Of course, Cindy Sheehan wasn't just kicked out, but was actually arrested also just for wearing a t-shirt - despite the fair and ballanced Fox news falsely saying she was unfurling a banner, being disruptive, and refusing to cooperate with authorities, (as video proves she did none of).

I'm back, but busy... but for now, think on this passage...

Mark 10:17-31 (NIV, BibleGateway.com)

The Rich Young Man

 ¹⁷As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 
 ¹⁸"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. ¹⁹You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.' [Exodus 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20]" 
 ²⁰"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." 
 ²¹Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 
 ²²At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 
 ²³Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" 
 ²⁴The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is [for those who trust in riches] to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 
 ²⁶The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" 
 ²⁷Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." 
 ²⁸Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!" 
 ²⁹"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel ³⁰will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. ³¹But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

A few quick comments:

The rich man approached Jesus, and when he refused to obey and follow Jesus, what happened?  Did Jesus follow him, shouting what a sinner he was, did he curse the man for not following the one true way?  No, he just let him go and live his own life, being aware that even He couldn't prevent the man from choosing how to live his own life.  Love can only exist while free-will exists.

Other than the $6,000 in tainted money, what has the 'rich man' G.W. Bush given to charity?  Oh, that's right, he helped give our government's money back to those poor, unfortunate, friends of his that make over $1 million a year, while cutting those social programs that actually helped the people who God didn't 'bless' with gobs and gobs of money.  Or the other (mostly Republican) Congressmen (like mine) who loudly and proudly proclaim themselves to be Christians... and who also did the same? 

Which kind of Christians do you follow?  The Pat Robertsons of the world, living in their mansions while asking the poor and middle class to keep the money flowing, while praying for God's wrath to fall on foreign leaders and American cities?  I prefer to follow the Christian leaders that aren't in the upper class, the ones that put my money to help people other than themselves, the ones that will look at and love everyone, even if they disagree with them, even if they aren't following Jesus.

I'm going to be presenting part of our product with our customers at work today.  I'm pretty confident and am (strangely) not really nervous.  Me and my wife (and our dog) are going to San Antonio to be with her family for Christmas this year (my family lost their chance, see previous posts). 

I've donated a care package to the USO in honor of one of my college buddies fighting over there - on the recommendation of Al Franken, that liberal troop-hating communist moonbat, who has just left with the USO to go entertain the troops in Iraq, Afganistan, and places elsewhere.  Supposedly, Franken and fellow liberal radio host Ed Schultz, will be on the armed forces radio to be the "anti-American" voice to counteract the "American" voices like Rush Limbaugh (who is making money off the troops with his Adopt a Soldier Program and has recently said that torturing terrorist suspects in Abu Ghuraib is just the troops "having a good time...blow[ing] some steam off")

On the Tom Delay front, Crooks and Liars pointed me to this AP article...  It seems that DeLay's prosecutor, DA Ronnie Earl has issued subpoenas for two subsidiaries of Wilkes Corp, a defense contractor who bribed Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.  One of these subsidiaries, Perfect Wave, donated $15,000 to the fundraising committee that DeLay's accused of using to launder money to illegally give corporate money to legislative candidates.  Thus two individuals in the Republican party's "Culture of Corruption"™ are linked (just wait for the $5.4 million Jack Abramoff indictment, soon to come, for links to DeLay and almost every Republican in power).  By the way, the Republican's weren't even trying to hide their criminal acts... Look at Cunningham, the evidence was so blatant and overwhelming that he even plead guilty (after claiming innocence before the investigation).

On yet another note, I recently heard President Nixon's Speech on Vietnamization (Nov 3,1969).  It is eerily similar to Bush's recent speaches, see here.  Jerry Springer had the audio, I'll link it when I can find it again....Update: here it is...

I'm sick and tired not only of Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson's fake war on Christmas... but mostly about Bill's joy when Macy's (a Jewish owned company) aired a commercial with somewhat scantily clad dancing girls -- but included the word Christmas twice. 

As a Christian, nothing proclaims Jesus's love to humanity better than rampant commercialism of his birthday {end sarcasm}.  I would actually rather the companies avoid using Christmas, since I see the commercialism of the holiday as the actual 'War on Christmas' if there is one at all.

Christmas trees mean nothing to me religiously, to me they are a part of the secular part of the holiday, and thus I don't mind them being called holiday trees. As, obviously, so did Fox News with their "holiday ornaments" for their "holiday tree" before they got labeled as hypocrites and later changed it.  Another good note is a recent Fox News Poll: where even among Fox News watchers (with internet access) more people think there is NOT a war on Christmas (48% to 42%).

I just wish that everyone would follow my very simple holiday guidelines:  If I don't know which holiday a person celebrates, I wish them happy holidays.  If I know they are a Christian, I wish them a Merry Christmas.  If I know they are a Jew, I wish them a Happy Hanukkah...likewise with Kwanzaa, winter solstice or whatever they celebrate. 

As long as you don't RESTRICT someone from actually celebrating their chosen holiday, you are not attacking their holiday, and you shouldn't have a problem with fools like O'Reilly, Gibson, and Fox News.

Our Thanksgiving went pretty well, with only one snag.  We had planned on cooking a turkey ourselves, from a recipe we were given from a friend.  My parents called and told us that they were doing nothing that day and invited themselves to our house for an afternoon Thanksgiving meal.  So we bought a larger turkey, more potatoes and stuff, and were preparing the turkey (on the Tuesday beforehand) when my mom called. 

She asked us what time we were planning on eating.  We said it would be ready around 1:30.  That's when she pissed us off by saying that she was going to have lunch with their son-in-law and his family (my sister would be working).  She didn't say it, but was obviously wanting us to postpone our meal to the evening so she could have her second Thanksgiving meal of the day at our house.  Then she proceeded to try to change history by claiming that she "was sure she told us about it earlier."  Now, to her credit, she did mention that my sister's in-laws were having a Thanksgiving lunch... she just didn't mention that she was going, and instead mentioned that she had no plans.

She claimed that she had already confirmed her plans with them "a couple of days a...I mean last week."  Apparently, she didn't feel that her telling us she was coming over as "confirming" it with us when she originally called 3 days ago.  This is a double insult to us, because we have seen my parents treat my sister's husband better than they treated my wife, and even better than my sister!  And he's not a catch in any sense of the word.  He was a full time student that didn't even try to work part-time while his pregnant wife was working full time. 

However, even as upset as me and my wife were for being rejected for their son-in-law's family (when their daughter wasn't even going to be there) - there is a bright side for us...  My parents weren't going to visit!  Instead, we had a lovely meal, the turkey turned out to be the best and juiciest turkey I've ever had.  Overall, the holiday was great. 

Tonight, something happened that upset me for the first time in a really long time.  I'll have to explain it first, and then I'll mention more about it.  I'm quoting from memory, but the things I actually put in quotes are things I distinctly remember.

I had to go to church Saturday night, because my wife and I will be busy tomorrow during the normal time.  Service went well until after the homily (sermon).  The readings for today were from Ez 34:11-12, 15-17, 1 Cor 15:20-26, 28 and Matthew 25:31-46 (full text).  The focus of the homily was on the Gospel reading.  It was about the end times when Jesus will separate everyone as a shepherd separates sheep from goats.  The sheep are the ones who treated Jesus with love through treating the least of his people (poor, widows, and the hungry) with love.  The goats are the ones who treated Jesus with love through failing to love the least of his people. 

The homily was fantastic; he reminded us that if we have friends that we love, but we show or tell them that we hate their children, we have just ended that friendship.  This was likened to how we treat human beings of all types, all races, all colors, and all religions -- of course God will be upset if we treat his children badly.  He mentioned that we need to be unified in love with all countries - America, France, Spain, Germany... and with people of all colors - black, white, yellow, red, green and rainbow.  We are all children of God, and we need to treat each other as such. 

But then, he said this... "You can think whatever you want, but this is what my opinion on the war in Iraq is."   Now both me and my wife were wondering how he would tie the war in Iraq with this wonderful homily about loving all children of God...but he didn't.  Instead, he said that we have to "stay the course in Iraq", and that anyone "who favors surrendering there is a coward."  Then he spouted out yet another (old) Republican talking point, and said that "we have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."  He followed that up by saying that "those beasts over there are killing each other, killing themselves, and killing us."  He then concluded by saying that we need to pray for our president, who "stays awake at night, worrying about our troops and the safety of our country."

Now I think you can probably guess several reasons that I was upset, but I really don't even mind Church leaders mixing politics and religion.  What got me so upset, is that he went a complete 180 from his homily on the Gospel reading.  I don't even mind that he used the same illogical talking points that I usually hear from Bill O'Reilly and Limbaugh.  He made such a big deal about making sure we treated all God's children with love, then he called some of those children of God cowards and beasts.  Now, the terrorists have performed horrible acts of violence upon innocent people, and should be stopped and punished...but they are still children of God, no matter that they believe in the wrong God, and no matter what evil influence they are under.  But I was most offended because he (like so many Republicans) indiscriminately lumped everyone together as beasts.  For every terrorist that has come into Iraq, there are thousands of innocent Iraqis.  I was very tempted to point out to the priest his blatant hypocrisy in calling Gods children beasts, especially after that homily, instead of saying that they behave beastly.

Alright... now I've vented... I feel much better now.  I'll think I'll go and feed the dog.

Here's a political joke I heard on the internet somewhere...

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher (whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle), the doctor and the old man struck up a conversation about George W. Bush being in the White House.

The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'."
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help the dumb bastard get down!"

Looks like even though they want to make voters think they want to outlaw abortions, Republicans actually have the vested interested in keeping it legal. 

Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), "who helped guide the GOP to an expanded majority in the House three years ago," said a Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade "could hurt his party's political prospects and cause a 'sea change' in suburban voting habits," reports the Boston Globe.

Davis, who chaired the NRCC through 2002, admitted that "Republicans have a political cushion with voters as long as Roe is intact."

Democrats on the other hand have no interest in keeping all abortions legal.  That is why on abortion restrictions, Democrats so far have only fought against legislature that doesn't have provisions for a the health and life of the woman.  Republicans have made sure that on every proposed bill, there is no provision to save the life of the woman.  That way, when if fails, they can say that all Democrats are pro-abortion, when they are really just for giving the woman the chance to make that difficult choice for themselves. 

Since Republicans have tremendous influence over the 24hour news shows, they are often able to sucessfully reduce the broad range of intelligent and tolerant stances into their stance and the "other one" (which noone actually has).  For example:  You are either "pro-life" or you want to have as many abortions as possible.  You are either for "staying the course in Iraq" or for "Cutting and running".  You are either for the (current) president, or you are un-american.  You are either for the war in Iraq, or you are against the troops.

If there was actually a biased liberal media, the Democrats would be framing the issues the other way.  It would be you are either against focing women to sacrifice their life or health for an unborn baby, or you are against women.  You are either for providing a series of benchmarks and estimated dates for withrawl from Iraq, or you are for leaving the troops in Iraq forever.  You either support the right to dissent even the president (like Republicans did to Clinton), or you don't believe in the constitution.  You are either for providing troops armor, goals, plans, veterans benifits, etc. or you are for sacrificing America's sons and daughters to profit Haliburton and oil companies.

Boy, I'm glad I left the Republican party after casting only one presidential election vote for them.