Ok I have to weigh in on this Sarah Palin/Dave Letterman controversy.
The only reason why is that it appears to be over, so I wanted to go through a little “lessons learned”.
The first lesson is a question. Do any of you think that this was an accident? Those of you who think it was an accident can stop reading because you are also likely to learn that there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny.
This was a manufactured crisis which served the purposes of both people.
It served Letterman’s purpose because his main ratings competitor, The Tonight Show, was changing hosts. There was an opportunity to steal the spotlight and some ratings points. It worked.
It served Palin’s purpose because she had just come off a badly fumbled Republican speaking engagement. This is the one where she was invited to speak, declined because the group was unwilling to make concessions, then when Newt Gingrich agreed to speak in her place, decided to show up after all and make an awkward cameo appearance. It put her back in the limelight in the role of an outraged mother fiercely defending her child in particular and women young and old in general. It worked.
When both parties determined that they had squeezed about as much publicity out of the stunt as they could, they both agreed to end it.
The second lesson is a little more subtle. It was a litmus test of political correctness on the right and left. What it proved is that when the right feels as though one of its own have been the victim of “hate speech”, they fall right in line saying all of the same things as the left does when it feels that one of its own has been treated unfairly. So at the end of the day, you have the curious juxtaposition of Fox News commending Sarah Palin for her gracious acceptance of David Letterman’s apology for “inciting men to rape underage girls”, while at the same time defending itself for inciting murder by calling Dr. Tiller a “baby killer”.
The last lesson is a word to the wise. The human can only aspire to the divine, it can never duplicate it. As a result, nothing is completely black or white. Those who describe it as such have another purpose for doing so. They have another agenda that you may or may not be aware of. You have passed the first test for wisdom when you hold your favorite sources of information up to the same scrutiny that they bring to bear on the those they disagree with.
It is true ( and especially so of those people involved in the entertainment industry and government/politics) that there are agendas of which it is advisable and wise to discern.
However, the I disagree with this portion of the last paragraph in today’s blog entry :
“The last lesson is a word to the wise. The human can only aspire to the divine, it can never duplicate it. As a result, nothing is completely black or white. Those who describe it as such have another purpose for doing so. They have another agenda that you may or may not be aware of.”
Specifically, the sentence of which I highlight is ” As a result, nothing is completely black or white.”
In my view, this statement needed to be fleshed out a bit , i.e. ” nothing is completely black or white [when ...(describe/list the action/situation that connects with this assertion)].
The reason I state this is because without the causal connection , the verbiage ” …nothing is completely black or white. Those who describe it as such have another purpose for doing so.” is untrue.
This is untrue at least for the faithful members of the Catholic faith ( of which I am a member).
To follow is an example of when there is something “completely black or white ” — the case of abortion.
Precisely as outlined in the Catechism of The Catholic Church :
” Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”81
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”82
2275 “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”83
“It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”84
“Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity”85 which are unique and unrepeatable.”
Link http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2271
Jeff,
Good evening.
One comment. BY saying “nothing is black and white,” aren’t you saying something in the definitive. As in; “Black and white” isn’t “black and white” which is a “black and white” statement?
this is from your guys…..
http://www.breitbart.tv/white-house-reporters-grill-gibbs-over-selected-questions-for-obama/
“My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.”
- Barack Obama
History Unfolding
I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books on history that have been published in six languages, and I have studied history all my life. I have come to think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is simply a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely what I am talking about) – the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten… And we are at war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin ’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.)
Mr. Obama ’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.
This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.
And that is only the beginning..
As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the “savior” was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative “losers” read it right now.
And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did – regularly. And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled economic crisis bloomed at hand – the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly what to think. Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of course,
How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media – did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and …. change. And the people surely got what they voted for.
If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It’s all there in the history books.
So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. And the world came to regret that he was not listened to.
Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me..
I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it.
I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the next elections.
David Kaiser
Jamestown, Rhode Island
United States
——————————————————————————–
My last response was mearly to present what some are thinking more and more each day. I don’t and hope Obama will be taken at his word that he “really doesn’t want to own the banks, car companies…etc.” but i get a weird feeling when i don’t see him act as i think he should…..and say the kind of things i hope he would.
i’ll still in the camp that says lets pull togather best we can but i’m not sure he’s in my camp. he certianly isn’t here to work with anybody, which i don’t blame him as he won. but, i thought that isn’t what he was all about.
Keith,
I was a little concerned for your sanity reading the post that turned out to be David Kaiser.
What David is really concerned about it is the demise of the Republican party and the failure of “family values” voters to elect responsible representatives who actually lived and governed by those values.
Trying to tie Obama to Hitler is just another desperate attempt to pull people back into the divisive wedge politics that was a the hallmark of the Bush years.
In reality it is David who is attempting to manipulate people through fear. David is the one who is attempting to scapegoat particular segments of the population (Pro-Choice and gay rights). David is the one who is advocating the fantasy of a racially pure and simple time.
The people have moved on and the majority will reject David and those who support him.
President Obama is doing what he was elected to do.
On the financial front, his plan is working. He continues to close the weak banks, shore up those than can survive, and allow those who are strong to repay their TARP funds.
That’s not to say that we are out of the woods. Not by a long shot. Unemployment remains a difficult problem. The foreclosures that we’re seeing now are due mainly to lost income rather than bad mortgages.
We’ve got to get people back to work and hopefully the stimulus funds that are just now being spent will have a positive effect.
I saw an interesting billboard in Rhode Island the other day. It said that there is one thing that is true of every recession. They all end.
This one will too and we may start seeing positive economic growth as early as next year.
As far a bi-partisanship – unfortunately it takes two to tango and the Republicans aren’t willing to dance. They have adopted a very simple strategy. They are going to stand in opposition and hope that Obama fails. This from the same group that for the past eight years wrapped themselves in the flag and called those who stood in opposition to Bush policies unpatriotic.
If they are wrong and the country starts to pull out of this recession, the Republican party is likely going to be out of power for a long time.
If they are right, and they are able to gain enough power to slow or reverse the current economic agenda, I share David’s fear about the what the future holds.
Steve,
I’m familiar with the Catholic Catechism, at least the Baltimore version that I studied as a child.
I also respect your right to support the Catholic point of view.
I also agree that from the Catholic perspective there are many things that are black and white, but that doesn’t make them so for everyone else.
The passage that you site as the basis for life begining at conception for example. It says nothing of the sort. It says that we have a spiritual existence that begins before we are concieved (formed in the womb). It says nothing about how or when that spiritual being enters the body that is forming in the womb, only that it happens sometime before we are born. The Catholic Church simply assumes that it is at the moment of conception because there isn’t any other moment that it can pick. The Church has built a large structure of law around that fairly arbitrary and very human position. Ever wondered why?
If you actually read the Bible from a critical historical point of view, there are many questions which the Catholic Church doesn’t try to answer in the Catechism.
Here are just a few.
Who wrote the books of the New Testament? The original books were all written in Greek, but is highly unlikely that the original twelve disciples even spoke greek, much less were able to write in it. In fact, they probably couldn’t read either, being poor uneducated working class jews. Mark was the first written gospel and was most likely written during Paul’s life, but Mark was not one of Jesus disciples. He was most likely a friend of Paul who wrote down the early stories that were being told of Jesus life.
Paul only wrote about half the letters attributed to him. All of the rest of the new testament books were written after the death of Paul and the original disciples by other people. These documents continued to appear through about 100 BCE when the Gospel of John was written.
These documents reflect the evolving theology of the early Christian Church as they grew to understand themselves as a group apart from Jews.
They also reflect the politics of the authors at the time they were written. The current version of the Bible, for example, was assembled in 397 BCE after Constantine’s death. By that time the Christian Church was becoming a political force that needed to replace the apocalyptic views of Paul and the early Christians because clearly the world hadn’t ended, Jesus didn’t return, and the resurection of the dead didn’t happen. This was what Paul was preaching and represented a real problem when, three hundred years after Paul’s death, it hadn’t happened.
The arc of these works is fairly easy to trace. Among serious scholars there is little doubt that the books that ended up in the Bible were chosen to support the how the Church viewed itself 400 years after Jesus death rather than any serious attempt to preserve the original teachings of Jesus.
That not to say, or even imply, that the Bible isn’t an inspired work representing God’s message to man. But it is also a very human document. As a result, the theology of many Christian churches (including the Catholic Church) turns out to be a pastiche of beliefs that are not as universally supported by the scripture as these churches would lead you to believe. You only have to read the Bible with some sensitivity to it’s contradictions to be faced with the simple question of who decided which one was right and how did they decide it?
I don’t mean to imply that these theologies don’t have value or that they are somehow wrong while another is right. What I am saying is that in many ways they are as human as their members.
So I stand by my original quote. We as humans can only aspire to perfection because perfection is divine. The Bible, like us, is a wonderfully flawed and self-contradictory document because it was written by us. As a result, nothing of our construction is black or white even though our institutions and our religions and our desires would like to say it is.
Are the absolutes in our lives? Certainly. The sun comes up every morning. We are all born. The sun goes down every night. We all die. There is one God. He loves us all. He has asked us to return that love, and love our fellow humans as ourselves.
I’ll take a shot….give me a contradiction in the bible…
There are plenty, but I’ll give you a couple.
When did Jesus die?
In the first gospel, Mark, it was after the Passover meal was eaten. In the last gospel, John, it was before the passover meal was eaten. This change in date served the author of John’s purpose because he wanted to portray Jesus death as a Passover sacrifice.
Here’s another, when did Jesus “cleanse” the temple? In Mark, Matthew, and Luke it is was just before he was crucified and was the event that led to his arrest. In John it was early in his ministry. It’s certainly possible that Jesus cleansed the temple twice, but it is curious then why there is no record of two violent temple disruptions. Or why in Mark, the first “cleansing” present in John wasn’t referenced by Jesus. Something along the lines of “you have turned it back into a den of thieves”. A more likely reason is that the temple cleansing didn’t fit the narrative that the author of John wanted to tell, because he didn’t want Jesus’ act of civil disobedience to be the reason Jesus was arrested. He wanted Jesus to be blameless and the Jews to be guilty.
Here’s a last one, though there are plenty more. Matthew is the only gospel where the “slaughter of the innocents” is mentioned. Herrod in an attempt to kill Jesus ordered all male Jewish babies killed. So did this happen or not?
If it did, how did John the Baptist survive? He was the same age as Jesus.
If it did, why isn’t it in the earliest gospel, Mark? Why isn’t it in the Flauvius Josephus book on Jewish history written in the first century BCE. He has plenty of other very unflattering things to say about Herrod. Why isn’t it in any other record of the time, and the Romans kept plenty of records about what was going on in thier territories.
Have fun.
Thanks for the challange…this will be fun and useful. The answer may not be swift as I am in the middle of making over our business and am traveling quite a bit and working long hours…
the last one is probably out of my league with the references you site. however at first blush there are many things mentioned by one writer that isn’t by another. so, to answer why only one wrote about it is purely conjecture and not a contridiction. remember the book is written ultimately by a single auther and thats God him self. “for all scriputer is God breathed useful for……so i’ll do my best.
i will tell you i believe the bible is the literal word of God and without flaw. it is perfect, as written in the original text.
I sure you can come up with explanations. That’s not the isssue. The Catholic Church came up with convoluted ways to explain the movement of the planets in an earth centered solar system. That worked for hundreds of years until Gallileo built a telescope which showed moons orbiting Jupiter. Even then, it took a while longer for them to give up.
The simple explanations usually turn out to be the most accurate.
So if every word of the Bible is accurate, are the attributions accurate too? Do you think Paul wrote all of the letters that bear his name? Were the rest of the gospels written by the Apostles?