CNS News Ticker

Sports Tickers






Stock Market Indices
&ltPARAM NAME="1:multiline" VALUE="true">
[Scroll Left] <     • STOP •     > [Scroll Right]



Haircut: 25 Cents / Shave: 15 Cents / Talk Of The Town: Free



The Inside Track ... News With Views You Won't Hear On The News ...


New GlowBarber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... http://del.icio.us/Gazette
Showing posts with label Immorality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immorality. Show all posts

Monday, November 27, 2006

Criticism Of Religion Reflected In Ignorance


RELIGION / HARSH CRITICISM OF ORGANIZED RELIGION REFLECTS CULTURAL AMNESIA, IGNORANCE, INDIFFERENCE AND INTOLERANCE OF WHAT CONSTITUTED RELIGION FROM ITS BEGINNING



ZENIT
The World Seen from Rome

- Daily Dispatch -



Smiley Flag Waver"In nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong."

"Apart from the crass vulgarity of some student speakers, what shocked me most was the apparent ignorance of many speakers about what constituted religion in general and Catholicism and Christianity in particular."

So many things that are taken for granted today -- education, hospitals, the very notion of a person, the distinction between sacred and secular -- owe their origin to Christian inspiration. "Cultural amnesia is a dangerous condition for any society."

"Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation." A concern that means the Church will not allow itself to be intimidated by those who wish it to remain silent.



Religion In The Cross Hairs

Secular World Attacks Organized Belief



~ By Father John Flynn



LONDON, NOV. 26, 2006 (Zenit.org) - Organized religion is coming in for harsh criticism in many parts. English singer Elton John said religion turns people into "hateful lemmings." He also accused it of lacking compassion. His comments came in an interview with the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine, published Nov. 12.

The aging pop star's criticisms were sparked off by the matter of how religion deals with homosexuality. "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," he said.

He is far from being alone in this view. In the United States, talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell likened Christianity to radical Islam. Her attack, in a nationally broadcast program in October, was not well received, according to a Nov. 13 press release by the California-based Barna Group.

A nationwide survey by the Barna Group found that although few Americans would challenge O'Donnell's right to make such statements, just as few share her point of view.

Across the Pacific, Pamela Bone, writing in the Australian newspaper on Aug. 15, rejoiced over data which, she argued, showed that "in nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong."

Bone accused religion of being "directly responsible for countless world conflicts, resulting in the loss of millions of human lives." Religion is still a danger today, she contended: "The truth is that it is now too dangerous for religion to be given the special status it has always had."

Bone added: "The best hope for a less religious and thus safer world is for religion -- all religion -- to be open to rational and stringent examination and criticism, and yes, to ridicule."

Meanwhile, in Canada, author Christopher Hitchens recently explained why he "hates religion," reported the National Post on Nov. 18. Speaking at the University of Toronto, Hitchens declared he hates Islam because it exhibits a "horrible trio of self-hatred, self-righteousness and self-pity," while making a "cult of death, suicide and murder."

He also hates Judaism, because it leads to Christianity. His negative view of Christianity is well known, particularly after his infamous attacks on Mother Teresa of Calcutta in the 1990s.

In the midst of declaring his multiple hatreds, Hitchens declared: "I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion."

Anti-Religious Books


During the Toronto address Hitchens gave some details of his forthcoming book, "God Is Not Great." The book, he said, is "a general case against religion."

Anti-religious books are in fashion these days. American author Sam Harris has just published a brief (112-page) sequel to his 2004 book, "The End of Faith." At a recent presentation at the New York Public Library, Harris condemned the God of the Old Testament, in addition to the New Testament, "likening the story of Jesus to a fairy tale," the Washington Post reported Oct. 26.

For good measure Harris also attacked the Koran, calling it "a manifesto for religious divisiveness."

According to the Washington Post, "The End of Faith" has sold more than 270,000 copies. In that book, Harris described religion as "a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance." He also slammed religion for promoting intolerance. Nor was his argument limited to extremist groups. "One of the central themes of this book," Harris declared in the opening chapter, " … is that religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma."

In a curious use of religious terminology, Harris concludes the book by describing faith as "the devil's masterpiece." The book also appeals for a sustained campaign against religion, and faith in general: "We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it."

British author Richard Dawkins also recently published a book decrying religion, "The God Delusion." Dawkins is well known for his hostility to religion. "The celebrated atheist and high priest of popular science" is how a review of the book in the Observer newspaper on Oct. 29 described him.

Dawkins is not limiting himself to publishing. The Sunday Times on Nov. 19 reported that he plans to set up a charity that will subsidize the publication of educational materials for distribution in schools.

His organization, according to the article, will also attempt to divert donations from the hands of "missionaries" and church-based charities. His foundation, which is in the process of seeking registration in the United Kingdom and the United States, will have a database of charities free of "church contamination."

The Times article cited the concern of Anglican clergyman John Hall, dean of Westminster. Hall criticized the project as not being based on reasoned argument.

Dawkins and other critics of religion have often come under fire for their superficial view of religion. This was repeated recently by Verbite Father Vincent Twomey, a retired professor of moral theology at St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Ireland. He took part recently in a debate at the College Historical Society in Trinity College Dublin, on the topic "That Religion Is a Block to Progress."

"Apart from the crass vulgarity of some student speakers, what shocked me most was the apparent ignorance of many speakers about what constituted religion in general and Catholicism and Christianity in particular," Father Twomey noted, writing in the Irish Times on Nov. 13.

So many things that are taken for granted today -- education, hospitals, the very notion of a person, the distinction between sacred and secular -- owe their origin to Christian inspiration. "Cultural amnesia is a dangerous condition for any society," he observed.

Bring Forth Treasure


While not referring to these recent attacks specifically, Benedict XVI recently addressed the issue of how religion is portrayed as a negative force. "So often the Church's countercultural witness is misunderstood as something backward and negative in today's society," he commented to visiting Irish bishops on Oct. 28.

What the Church needs to do in these circumstances, the Pope recommended, is to act like the wise householder who brings forth from his treasure "what is new and what is old" (Matthew 13:52). In this way the faithful will be able to discern what society offers them today. "Help them to recognize the inability of the secular, materialist culture to bring true satisfaction and joy," the Holy Father continued. "Be bold in speaking to them of the joy that comes from following Christ and living according to his commandments."

Moreover, even though the bishops need to warn against the evils around us, "we must correct the idea that Catholicism is merely ‘a collection of prohibitions,'" Benedict XVI said. In order to do that Catholic teaching must be formulated in such a way that it communicates "the liberating power of the Gospel."

The Gospel is good for society, the Pope argued in his Sept. 28 address to the new German ambassador to the Holy See. Commenting on the favorable reception by the German people to his recent pastoral visit, Benedict XVI noted: "Wherever society is growing and people are strengthened in good, thanks to the message of faith, this also benefits social coexistence, and the readiness of citizens to assume responsibility for the common good is reinforced."

This message is not imposed by the Church, and therefore faith exists in the context of tolerance. "Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation," the Pontiff pointed out. A concern that means the Church will not allow itself to be intimidated by those who wish it to remain silent.


ZE06112623




Copyright 2006, Innovative Media, Inc.

ZENIT is an International News Agency.

SEND US YOUR NEWS:
Please send press releases, statements and other information to our international news desk at:
news@zenit.org.




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Thursday, November 09, 2006

America - Living In A Divided Nation Without God


AMERICA - LIFE / LIVING IN A NATION WITHOUT GOD



New Media Alliance



Smiley Flag WaverIn a youth-oriented society, there is no tomorrow; just the Epicurean "eat, drink, and be merry." In an atheistic and philosophically materialist society, living a righteous life is a quaint relic of a discredited past; one must focus on personal consumption, financed by credit cards, confident that the Federal government must and will take care of us no matter how profligate or debauched we may be.

Whenever society strays from God's will and worships wealth, personal power, and sensual gratification, disaster is not far away.



A Divided Nation Without God


~ By Thomas E. Brewton


We are no longer "One nation under God." The destructive blows of liberal-progressivism since the 1930s have increasingly left us a disunited, spineless rabble.

The urgent readiness of the majority of voters to pull out of Iraq, regardless of the consequences, is the expression of a nation that no longer has core beliefs and faith in itself. We refuse to fight for our national rights and our survival, preferring groveling, making-nice to other nations, to get their approval.

Liberal-progressive spokesmen like Senators Kennedy and Kerry declare that gaining the approval of other nations via the UN should be the objective of our foreign policy. Supreme Court Justices declare that we must turn away from the Constitution to laws of other nations for guidance in deciding cases before the Court. Laws to make English the nation's official language are denounced by liberals as racism. Politicians on both sides of the political aisle perceive no danger to our survival in the overrunning of the Southwest and the West Coast by Hispanic illegals who have no intention of Americanizing themselves, and by immigrants who openly declare their intention to become the majority and vote to secede from the United States.

This sort of craven surrender of national tradition and pride is not unprecedented. It started in Europe in the 19th century.

There is very little of Friedrich Nietzsche's thought that can be taken seriously. But his appraisal of the jellification of European culture in the late 19th century is an exception.

In "Beyond Good and Evil" (1885), speaking of the ethos prevailing in Western Europe (what we witness today in the United States as a cultural war between Judeo-Christian traditionalists and liberal-progressive, atheistic materialists), he wrote:

There is a point of pathological hollowness and over-indulgence in the history of social groups where they even side with those who harm them, with their criminals -- and they feel this way seriously and honestly. Punishment seems somehow unfair; at any rate it is certain that the idea of punishment, of having to punish, hurts the group. It creates fear in them. "Isn't it enough to render them harmless? Why punish on top of that? Punishment is frightful!" ... Anyone who tests the conscience of today's Europeans, will pull the same imperative out of a thousand moral folds and hiding places, the imperative of herd-timidity: "We desire that someday there shall be nothing more to fear." Some Day -- the will and way to that some-day is everywhere in Europe today called "progress."

In this one can recognize today's liberal-progressive preoccupation with "sensitive" foreign policy. Common sense in the past informed us that it is better to be respected, or even feared, than to be held in contempt. Liberal-progressives move in the opposite direction. The object of liberal foreign policy is not protection of our vital national interests, including survival itself, but being liked by socialist governments around the world. That necessarily means that we cannot make our own foreign policy; the UN, led by thugs like Hugo Chavez, will do that for us.

In Nietzsche's description of the 1885 climate of opinion in Europe, we also can see foreshadowing of the pathetic myth that a world government by socialist intellectuals and technicians, the UN, will remove all reasons to fear aggression by other nations and other cultures. Liberal-progressives remain steadfast in their faith, in the face of repeated disappointment, that socialism is the gnostic path of progress to perfection of humanity. At the end of that gnostic path government will wither away, and we will find ourselves in the Garden of Eden.

Nietzsche continues: Anarchists in 1885 were savagely antagonistic to this liberal faith in "progress" ... and even more to the bungling philosophasters and brotherhood-visionaries who call themselves Socialists and desire a "free society" -- but in actuality the anarchists are of the same breed, of the same thorough and instinctive hostility against any social structure other than that of the "autonomous" herd (they go so far as to reject the concepts of "master" and "servant" -- [Neither God nor Master] is one of the Socialist slogans) ...

. . . they are one in their faith in the morality of commonly felt compassion as though this feeling constituted morality itself, as though it were the summit, the attained summit of mankind, the only hope for the future, the consolation of the living, the great deliverance from all the guilt of yore -- they are all one in their faith in fellowship as that which will deliver them, their faith in the herd, in other words, in "themselves" ...

Nietzsche could easily have been describing today's "educated" young people coming out of our colleges and universities, having been thoroughly inculcated with the anti-American, atheistic, and philosophically materialistic religious views of the Vietnam War Baby-Boomers who infest academia's professoriats.

As many other observers have noted, our short-changed young graduates have been led to believe that universal indulgence in narcotics, sexual promiscuity, and rebellion against the nation's founding traditions constitutes individuality -- Nietzsche's herd-mentality. Conformity to the latest media-communicated fad in dress, entertainment, and social justice ideas is "individuality." Worse, the media bombard us with images of youth, turning society into an immature juvenocracy that worships only that which is novel and consciously rejects the wisdom of experience in past ages.

Nietzsche's "commonly felt compassion as though this feeling constituted morality itself" is the doctrine enunciated by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- truth is whatever wins out in the public market, whatever viewpoint the media can create in the minds of the majority of citizens.

In this scene there is no place for Judeo-Christian morality and principles of self-reliance, hard work, and saving for the future. There is no basis for, or even thought given to, the Constitution's Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In a youth-oriented society, there is no tomorrow; just the Epicurean "eat, drink, and be merry." In an atheistic and philosophically materialist society, living a righteous life is a quaint relic of a discredited past; one must focus on personal consumption, financed by credit cards, confident that the Federal government must and will take care of us no matter how profligate or debauched we may be.

Thousands of years in the Jewish people's history described in the Bible's Old Testament tell us, to the contrary, that whenever society strays from God's will and worships wealth, personal power, and sensual gratification, disaster is not far away.



Copyright © 2006. All Rights Reserved

Please consider publishing/posting this article from the New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org). Reprint rights granted.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.


His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776 (http://www.thomasbrewton.com/)


Support The NMA




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below







Monday, October 23, 2006

Supreme Court Rejects Scouts Constitutional Rights


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & RIGHTS / U.S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS BOY SCOUTS / SEA SCOUTS FIRST AMENDEMENT RIGHTS TO EXPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION



Another In The Bush, Republican Party, Liberal Supreme Court Appointee, Christian / Conservative Betrayals ...
A Liberal, Democrat-Controlled House And Senate In 2007 Will Guarantee A Deluge Of The Same ...


Thomas Moore Law center Mast Head



Smiley Flag WaverThe United States Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, recognized that the Scout’s policy was an exercise of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. In the aftermath of Dale, the City of Berkeley demanded that the Sea Scouts repudiate its association with BSA’s policy and, when the Sea Scouts’ failed Berkeley’s litmus test, the City stripped the Sea Scouts of the free berth extended to public service organizations. The California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scout’s claim that Berkeley’s decision to strip them of free berths violated their First Amendment right to expressive association.

“It is disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to reverse an outrageous example of how homosexuals use the powers of government to discriminate against an outstanding youth group in order to force compliance with their worldview on sex, marriage and religion.”


News Alert


Thomas More Law Center Decries Supreme Court Refusal To Review Decision Penalizing Sea Scouts For Policy Excluding Gays And Atheists


ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, expressed its disappointment that last week the United States Supreme Court declined to review a California Supreme Court decision allowing the City of Berkeley, CA to deprive the Sea Scouts of free berthing privileges given to other nonprofit organizations because the Sea Scouts refused to repudiate their association with the Boy Scouts of America and its policy requiring exclusion of gays and atheists.

The Sea Scouts are a public service organization that serves local youth by teaching them to sail and learn other skills such as carpentry and plumbing. It is associated with the Boy Scouts of America and must abide by BSA’s policy excluding gays and atheists.

The Law Center had filed a friend of the court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of Evan v. City of Berkeley. The Law Center’s brief argues that Berkeley’s decision to strip the Sea Scouts of a benefit extended to other public service organizations because the City disagrees with BSA’s policy places an unconstitutional condition on receipt of public benefits that violates the First Amendment.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who authored the brief, observed that Berkeley’s policy is a blatant effort to penalize the Sea Scouts for an exercise of their First Amendment rights. “The Supreme Court’s decision lets a truly tragic injustice stand. In this case militant homosexual activists have victimized the underprivileged in a vindictive effort to punish anyone associated with the Boy Scouts of America.”

The United States Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, recognized that the Scout’s policy was an exercise of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. In the aftermath of Dale, the City of Berkeley demanded that the Sea Scouts repudiate its association with BSA’s policy and, when the Sea Scouts’ failed Berkeley’s litmus test, the City stripped the Sea Scouts of the free berth extended to public service organizations. The California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scout’s claim that Berkeley’s decision to strip them of free berths violated their First Amendment right to expressive association.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “It is disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to reverse an outrageous example of how homosexuals use the powers of government to discriminate against an outstanding youth group in order to force compliance with their worldview on sex, marriage and religion.”




The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.


Thomas More Law Center 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive
P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
© 2006 Thomas More Law Center
about us | resources | newsroom | donate |




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Saturday, September 16, 2006

Liberal Democrats: The Party Of Moral And Intellectual Bankruptcy



POLITICS / LIBERAL DEMOCRATS: THE PARTY OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY





SmileyFlagWaver-1An indictment of today's Democrats -- in their own words, and meticulously documented -- revealing them to be a party of moral and intellectual bankruptcy with little promise of redemption in sight. Our country needs a responsible opposition party -- a party willing to participate in an honest policy debate -- but sadly, the Democrats fall way short of the mark.



Why The Democrats Deserve To Lose


~ By David Limbaugh
Posted Sep 08, 2006

An excerpt from the new book, "Bankrupt: The Intellectual And Moral Bankruptcy Of Today's Democratic Party," from Regnery Publishing, a sister company to HUMAN EVENTS.

Democrats have few policies beyond attacking President Bush and have long lost any legitimate right to claim they are a responsible opposition party. The "Scoop Jackson" Democrats of the 1970s who understood the need for a strong national defense are long gone, with few exceptions, like Senator Joseph Lieberman, whose responsible statements on the war have led to his ostracism by the party elites. The 1970s Catholic, Southern, and blue-collar Democrats who stuck by their traditional moral values are now mostly "Reagan Republicans."

In their desperation to regain the power they held for decades, Democrats have seized on a few isolated scandals and manufactured others, trying to paint Republicans as fostering a culture of corruption. But the real systemic corruption is in the Democratic Party, from its highest positions of leadership to the bowels of its Bush-hating, antiwar base.

The party's decline took firm root in the late 1960s and 1970s, but has accelerated dramatically over the last decade. Today's Democratic Party -- the party of Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Joseph Biden, Edward Kennedy, and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- is the party that sacrificed all moral principle to defend Bill Clinton in the 1990s no matter what the scandal. It is the party that adopted the Clinton mode of conducting politics as an art of personal assassination -- while accusing the other side of doing it.

It is the party that tried to steal the presidential election in 2000, then convinced itself that Republicans did steal it -- and has been paralyzed with bitterness and conducting revenge politics ever since. It is the party that demands bipartisanship and reconciliation, but whips President Bush with the olive branch he extended at their behest.

It is the party whose ex-presidents routinely violate the longstanding tradition against criticizing their successors -- and even do so on foreign soil.

It is the party that falsely claims President Bush is trampling on the Constitution -- while making no secret of its own willingness to subordinate the Constitution to its own political ends, most notably through using the judicial branch to "legislate" policy it cannot achieve through democratic means.

It is the party that isn't honest about its core convictions, knowing that honesty will render it even less electable in a center-right America. It denies its liberalism in favor of the euphemistic "progressivism." But while "progressive" implies "forward-looking," Democrats are mired in the past, reactionary on issues from Social Security (don't change a bankrupt system) to Iraq (don't defeat a hostile dictatorship and try to make it a democracy).

It is the party of elites who look down their noses at red-state America. It is the party that snubs Christians and "values voters" yet claims to be their authentic representatives. It is the party that can't decide whether its electoral difficulties stem from its failure to effectively articulate its message or from the wholesale stupidity of an electorate that's too Christian, too much in favor of traditional family values, and too patriotic.

It is the party that often doesn't even bother to offer alternative policies, but chooses instead to slander President Bush and obstruct his policies. In the last few decades the party has increasingly engaged in the destructive partisan politics of class and race warfare, further alienating and dividing Americans. But it has sunk to new lows more recently with the egregious practice of playing partisan politics with our national security.

What follows is an indictment of today's Democrats -- in their own words, and meticulously documented -- revealing them to be a party of moral and intellectual bankruptcy with little promise of redemption in sight. Our country needs a responsible opposition party -- a party willing to participate in an honest policy debate -- but sadly, the Democrats fall way short of the mark.




Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Absolute Power and Persecution.

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.





Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail icon [envelope], below.