Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, “Universal Voluntary Public Service.”

“Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities,” Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for “justice” and “equality” in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. “I get to practice being an activist,” and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. “Don’t go into corporate America,” Michelle has exhorted youth. “Work for the community. Be social workers.” Shun the “money culture,” Barack added. “Individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”

“If you commit to serving your community,” he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, “we will make sure you can afford a college education.” So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.

Many of today’s youth find the pitch attractive. “I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement,” said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. “There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I’ll have a job.”

…”heterosexism,” which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of “capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege.”

Read the article here!

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/06/08/obama-wants-to-prot ect-america/

To help end confusion caused by recent misrepresentations of Catholic Church teaching on abortion, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities has issued a two-page fact sheet called “Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church’s Constant Teaching.”

Public debate on the topic was prompted by misleading remarks by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, August 24 in an interview on Meet the Press.  On August 26, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chairman of their Committee on Doctrine, issued a statement to correct her remarks.

That link will take you to the document.  They’ve also put out a brochure called “The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church.”

They aren’t stopping there on correcting and clarifying misinterpretations of Church teaching, as evidence by this statement:

Many communities within the United States are now engaged in a new conversation on the meaning of the word “marriage”, questioning whether it should describe a union only between a man and a woman. As leaders of our respective faiths, we, as Orthodox Rabbis, communal leaders and representatives of the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States, wish to affirm our shared commitment to the ordinance of God, the Almighty One, who created man and woman in the divine image (Gen. 1:26-27), so that they might share as male and female, as helpmates and equals (Gen. 2:21-24), in the procreation of children (Gen. 1:28) and the building up of society.

We now confront a demand that same sex unions be classified as marriage. Advocates of this position argue that to do otherwise is to engage in a form of discrimination against homosexuals.   We recognize that all persons share equally in the dignity of human nature and are entitled to have that human dignity protected, but this does not justify the creation of a new definition for a term whose traditional meaning is of critical importance to the furtherance of a fundamental societal interest.

God’s design for the continuance of human life, as seen in the natural order, as well as in the Bible  (Gen. 1-3), clearly revolves around the union of male and female, first as husband and wife, and then as parents. A unique goal of marriage, which is reproduction and the raising of families, exists apart from that of same sex unions, which cannot equally participate in this essential function. While others may claim the right to establish private relationships between persons of the same gender that simulate marriage, the legal classification of such relationships as marriage dilutes the special standing of marriage between a man and a woman. Since the future of every society depends upon its ability to reproduce itself according to this natural order and to have its young people reared in a stable environment, it is the duty of the state to protect the traditional place of marriage and the family for the good of society.

While others have the freedom to disagree with us, we hope that even those outside of our common religious traditions will recognize that we speak from the truth of human nature itself which is consistent with both reason and the moral life.  We also call upon our local faith communities to consider carefully the long held traditions of Jews and Christians on the nature of marriage as built upon the commitment of a man and a woman desirous of establishing a family for contributing to the common good of humanity.

Here we have a statement which can only be described as quintessentially Judeo-Christian, and it doesn’t beat around the proverbial bush at all.  Great stuff.  No doubt the formerly “closed cafeteria” will be in a tizzy about this.

The implication?  She’d do a better job if she’d aborted the baby…….

Surprised?

First of all, numerous Bishops and the USCCB have now spoken out specifically about Pelosi’s promulgations.

Leaked to various sources, Pelosi’s official response, to be delivered by a flunky rather than herself:

“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view. The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions. She believes that can be done by making family planning more available, as well as by increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs.

There’s more there, but Thomas did all the work, so how’s about checking out his blog and all the various links he has.  To keep it all straight, start here with his Timeline for PelosiGate.

An “ecumenical catholic church” has started in the Nashville area (apparently a few of them have) and the Bishop put out this letter to clarify for the faithful that they cannot receive valid sacraments at these churches.

Here’s an article from The Tennesseean about it.

And here’s the piece de resistance from the Bishop’s letter (just scroll down past the first story):

These groups are misleading people into thinking that they are Catholic and that they offer valid sacraments. Neither claim is true. They could call themselves a cantaloupe but the claim would not make them such.

Methinks the Bishop’s lunch included cantaloupe the day he wrote this letter.

Here’s the video clip - you have to see and hear it to believe it.

And here’s Archbishop Chaput in yesterday evening’s homily:

“If you’re Catholic and you disagree with your Church. What do you do? You change your mind.”

What the Speaker has done here is essentially decided to speak on behalf of all Catholics and in fact for the hierarchy based on her alleged research.  The Great One made a great point on his talk show today - that a person’s historical frame of reference begins with their birth - hence the Speaker believes that this hardcore pro-life position on the part of the Church has only been around the last 50 years or so, when in fact even 2 minutes of googling will show you that the position has been completed unchanged for the entire history of Christianity.  She’s made herself an arbiter, and a doctor of the Church, by stating not only that the scholars of the Church have never taken a firm position on when life begins, but that since they haven’t she can (even though she still didn’t actually take a position.)  Her concern, and therefore the Church’s concern, is not when life begins, but rather that nothing should interefere with a woman’s “right to choose.”

Meet Nancy Pelosi, newest member of protestantism.  No, never mind, she’s been a protestant for decades.  Oh for her bishop to be as loving and concerned for her as Kansas City Bishop Naumann was toward Governor Sebelius.

I wrote this piece in 1970, as a very young man. I’m afraid there’s no special story behind it. I do remember beginning it while on retreat and working on it for several months before I was satisfied. When I entered the Jesuit novitiate in 1966, the Jerusalem Bible had just been published. It was the long-awaited project of some of the world’s most respected scripture scholars. The translation was modern, in the best sense of that word, and attempted to be true to the poetic character of the Biblical songs, especially the Psalms. I first learned to pray the Psalms from the Jerusalem Bible. And, like you, I turned to the JB translation in considering Biblical texts my compositions.

The JB team of translators decided to use the name “Yahweh” whenever the tetragrammaton YHWH appeared in the original Hebrew text. It was certainly not a frivolous decision on their part. It might be interesting for your bloggers to read what the Editor’s Forward in the JB says about their decision:

It is in the Psalms especially that the use of the divine name Yahweh may seem unacceptable – though indeed the still stranger form Yah is in constant use in the acclamation Hallelu-Yah (Praise Yah!). It is not without hesitation that this accurate form has been used, and no doubt those who may care to use this translation of the Psalms can substitute the traditional “the Lord”. On the other hand, this would be to lose much of the flavor and meaning of the originals.

As our communal, and my own personal, sensitivity grew in the years after the writing of “You Are Near,” we came to understand that speaking the name “Yahweh” out loud was not in keeping with our long Christian tradition, and was, in fact, offensive to Jewish sisters and brothers. So after 1973 I’ve not used the name “Yahweh” in my compositions.

I’m presently working to revise the lyric of “You Are Near.” I suppose that won’t keep people from singing it the way they have for 37 years, but I feel I need to provide an “official” revised text for use at liturgy. Of course, those who make musical decisions for worship could simply choose not to sing it. There are many beautiful, well-crafted settings of Psalm 139.

Full post

I suppose that’s a laugh line.  A laugh line at the expense of babies’ lives.  Brilliant.

Article