Dr. Peter Kreeft: Pro-Choice People are Insane

This report is about a week old but is certainly worth highlighting.

Dr. Kreeft is one of the pre-eminent Catholic philosophers of our time. I remember being greatly edified with a series of his audio messages just over a year ago. In particular, his message entitled “How to Win the Culture War” seemed so profound yet so Christian in its call to action.

Recently, Dr. Kreeft delivered an address at the Annual Parish Respect Life Coordinator Conference in the Archdiocese of Chicago. Joseph Wemhoff was present and took extensive notes during the talk, summarized in this report.

Jam packed with insight and nuggets galore, Kreeft’s address, "We are living in a spiritual Hiroshima," is challenging for all Christians but will especially appeal to Catholics.

Here’s some reference to Kreeft’s comments about the insanity of “pro-choice” mindset.

Pro-choice people will not-indeed, cannot-listen to reason. Pro-choice people are insane and will not convert to reason-they will attempt to convert reason. Dr. Kreeft cited several cases. In one of his books-which, he bemoaned, are read only by pro-lifers-he made an airtight, logical argument that tolerating abortion is tantamount to tolerating infanticide. Confronted with this logic, pro-choicers said, yes, Dr. Kreeft, you just showed us how infanticide is now OK.

Well worth reading the whole thing.

The Fight Against Homosex—and Other Evils

I’m not surprised that some culture warriors are disappointed with my recent article entitled “It’s Not the Homosex, Stupid.” The article didn’t make much of a splash but one or more outlets at least linked to it. Most of the feedback I have received has been positive, but discussion of “sterile sex” sharply divides the population into two camps and I must confess that only the smaller camp seemed impressed.

But I am surprised that it elicited so few responses and so I conclude from that fact that either 1) there was sufficient merit to my argument to preclude a refutation or 2) it simply didn’t rate high enough in the interest department for readers to take the time to read, comment or respond. Who knows—given today’s levels of confusion and apathy—perhaps it was an odd combination of both.

For those who did read the article—thank you!—but who remain unconvinced and disappointed, I offer the following additional commentary, hoping it will prompt a careful re-read and maybe even trip the switch leading to the new paradigm shift in thinking which I maintained was necessary to make gains on the culture war.

I’ll start by expanding on the metaphor which I proposed in the article because in so doing it will likely have more punch than another 1500 words of similar argumentation on the subject.

Early in the piece I asked

“What would you think of drivers who ignored red lights but who regularly demonized speeding drivers as the real enemies on the road?”

And then towards the end I summarized,

“It’s like trying to engineer more impact resistant cars rather than require drivers to stop at red lights. At this stage, it seems we have even forgotten the red light is there, or perhaps by now we have removed it entirely from the intersection.”

Let’s imagine an intersection where such an odd development actually took place. Imagine people started running the red light—for reasons which they thought were good at the time—and after a number of years more and more people were ignoring it. In the meantime, accidents at the intersection had started to increase but people’s habits and attitudes regarding the light had changed and it was rare to find anybody stopping any longer for the light. Practically nobody wanted to hear about or consider the role of that outdated red light.

In the meantime, a whole new subculture had been developing at this intersection. Ambulances and paramedics were more and more a frequent sight due to the crashes, injuries, and even deaths taking place there. The local newspaper had special reporters assigned to cover the happenings at the site and to tell the stories of the victims. Journalists from outside the city and the region were often writing on the phenomenon. Tow trucks were found parked as close as possible to the intersection in hopes of being the first to haul away the crumpled wrecks. Fire trucks were required to make scheduled passes of the intersection. There always seemed to be a crew of automotive engineers present from one major carmaker or the other, taking notes on how to make their cars more impact resistant in order to increase sales to the people in the area.

Over time, hundreds of people had found full time work—even a calling—to give themselves to saving lives and making a safer intersection. Countless theories and strategies were being offered and implemented to moderate the damage taking place at this notorious location. Sidewalks had been changed to protect pedestrians; signs saying “Be Careful” were posted everywhere; lighting at the intersection had been changed; etc., etc. Some blamed the media for their biased coverage of developments at the intersection; others said it was all caused by those who were speeding through the intersection; others blamed the increasing numbers of new—and foreign—residents to the area; many others attributed it to a societal breakdown in driving ethics and were busy trying to reform people’s thinking.

At some unknown stage, kids had noticed the strange looking red light peering down at them from the center of the intersection and had put out its eye with a well aimed stone. News reports had called for a crackdown on youth crime.

“Preposterous scenario!” the reader might exclaim.

Yes, I agree that it’s rather unbelievable, in the context of an intersection and a red light. What’s most unbelievable though is why people in the above city who had been actively engaged in helping the injured, consoling relatives of the dead, writing stories about the tragedies, re-engineering cars, moving sidewalks, posting signs, etc. were not screaming at the same time: “Something has to be done about this light! Everybody is ignoring it!”

When I point in my article to the disused and maligned red light, it is these very people—the ones most busily engaged in helping at the intersection, so to speak—who protest that criticism of their efforts is counter-productive to the common good. Usually, they cite the absolute necessity of continuing their work of vigilance, education and cleanup at the intersection and they miss entirely the point of getting the red light fixed. To them, I suspect, this suggestion is—in computer language—entirely un-processable. It’s impractical and sub-consciously dismissed because to them the red light is simply a relic of the past, an odd and ancient restriction of their right to drive on the road as they please—and as everyone else drives.

Some of the critics dismiss my point by claiming that the principal evil of running the red light is only one more evil in a long list of evils occurring at the intersection. They cite the evil and perversity of those who speed through the intersection because that’s what causes the most serious accidents. Others suggest they are fighting the evil misrepresentation by the media of the truth of what happens at the intersection. Others claim that in order to keep this kind of chaos from spreading to other parts of the city they’ve had to engage in the political process so as to promote laws to protect the innocent. These critics seem to be saying that since we’re all fighting various evils—but the same battle—I shouldn’t be zeroing in on the red light issue.

The argument about fighting various evils holds as much weight with me as claiming that the woman who is raped bears equal responsibility as the rapist because she happened to be dressed attractively. Perhaps it was provocative dress but the rapist is the one who committed a grave infraction of the law and who needs to be punished. Focusing on the woman’s behaviour without acknowledging and addressing the principal evil is totally irresponsible.

Perhaps there are better examples in this context but, similarly, the ones who run the red light [with impunity] are the ones committing the grave offense—according to the longstanding tradition and wisdom of Western civilization. It makes little sense to go after the woman in attractive dress or the speeders who are substantially ignorant of the purpose of the red light. Couldn’t we admit they have been conditioned by the longstanding behaviour of the good folks who have taken the liberty of altogether disobeying the injunction to stop for the light—and then setting up their own standard of carefully breezing through?

And besides, don’t we have a responsibility, insofar as possible, to trace evil to its roots and lay the axe to the root of the problem, not to its branches?

At the very least, shouldn’t the good folks who are tending to the challenges and tragedies daily unfolding at the intersection be consistently screaming “The light! The light! They’re running the red light! Someone needs to get a ticket!”

Bear in mind that the entire chaos taking place at this intersection, along with its attendant subculture, would disappear overnight if the red light were re-instituted.

That was my point and I made a case for it in the best way I could in short readable fashion. That’s all. If someone would like to refute my argument, fine. But to do so, we’ll have to get down to the particulars of the matter without gross misrepresentation of my thesis.

And I’m ready to respond to particulars.

It's Not The Homosex, Stupid

by Eric Alcock, President, Vote Life, Canada!

Note to the reader:
Commentary on a disturbing trend

With all due respect to savvy Mark Steyn who quipped “It’s the Demography, Stupid,” I wish Steyn would have pushed back for us the curtain of Western society’s bedroom a little further in order to give us a glimpse of the smirking elephant in the closet. Heaven knows we desperately need a paradigm shift in our thinking about sexual “freedom” in the bedroom.

Is it my imagination or do you notice that a great many “conservative” culture warriors—individuals and organizations, Christians and otherwise—have taken to lobbing grenades at those promoting and engaging in homosex, making that the defining strategy, if not obsession, of their war? According to them, among the top threats to our civilization is the “homosexual” agenda.

So let me ask you. What would you think of drivers who ignored red lights but who regularly demonized speeding drivers as the real enemies on the road? Comical? Yes, but consider this. Heterosexuals who rail against homosex, which indeed is a particularly odious variation of sterile sex, are—with strikingly few exceptions—themselves egregiously addicted to their own pleasurable variety of sterile sex. Equally comical, of course, but only if you consider sterile sex per se to be in a league with dangerous behaviours such as running red lights.

But please don’t jump ship at this point. Hear me out. I know that our post modern society, parroting the relativism of its enlightened pulpiteers, considers this subject settled and entirely off limits. Any suggestion to re-open it is probably constituted an offense in itself—a possible relapse to a prudish repressive sexual ethic of Victorian times.

"But we believe in real marriage, the traditional kind, one man and one woman for life, and sex only in that context. That’s the correct standard because it’s God’s standard. A married man and woman can make their own decisions in good conscience about the kind of sex they engage in. It’s nobody else’s business."

Indeed, that’s the claim, but tragically these days it rarely goes beyond a claim. For too many conservatives, yes, and Christians also, who normally relish opportunities to expose politically correct speech, the lack of reasoned debate and evasions of the truth, a remarkable about-turn takes place when the truth concerning sexual disorders gets a little too close to home.

"Whoa there! Truth? Disorders? According to who?"

Can it be a shock to the reader that throughout two millennia of Western civilization—as well as nearly two millennia of Jewish thought which preceded it—the moral consensus on sterile sex could be summed up like this: All sexual activity, both heterosexual and otherwise, practiced with a view to circumvent procreation constitutes a perversion of God’s order and an abomination.

Here we could take our pick of sources, from the Early Fathers through to Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any other reputable preacher, bible scholar or theologian, right up to the early and mid 1900’s. All—without exception—considered these acts as “a most unnatural wickedness, and a grievous wrong.”

Thus we had the American and Canadian laws which prohibited the sale and distribution of devices that aided in such perversity and which were not rescinded until the 1960’s. Thus we record the witness of some of Western society’s most public figures, such as U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, who matter-of-factly labeled the practice of birth control as “the capital sin” against civilization.

But are such ideas peculiarly Western, or even Christian? A surprising number of non-Western cultures throughout history fully squared with Christian teaching on this point. Mahatma Ghandi, a world famous reformer and Hindu, condemned sterile heterosex as a corrupter of morals, a destroyer of marriage and a further degradation of women.

But regardless, truth—the old-fashioned objective kind—is no respecter of cultures and the fallout in our society from a denial of this particular truth has been debilitating. Take note of the Anglicans, the first Christian denomination to break rank with the faith of their fathers on this major doctrine. They formalized the opening of a Pandora’s Box in 1930 by allowing certain exceptions for sterile heterosex and are now being rent asunder by the practice of sterile homosex in the bedrooms of their Bishops. Coincidence?

The extreme break with Christian tradition represented by this acculturated disorder raises serious questions about just how much hostility towards God we have harbored this past generation or two. Some say our rejection of God—played out in this sexual arena—has so cursed our Western society as to account for not only our sex-crazed degeneracy but also family and marriage deformities and breakups, the abortion holocaust, dangerously higher quotas of immigration due to falling birthrates, the growing threat of Islam, the secularization phenomenon with its evil twin Christianophobia and a mounting civilizational self-loathing.

This is a hard pill for many to swallow. But can we admit this much at least: Steyn got it perfectly right when he prophesied the death of Western society due to reproductive sterility. Not for a moment did he suggest that even ten thousand new conferences and/or books on Islam, the tyranny of homosex, the battle for marriage and the family, secular humanism or Christophobia would save us. No, very clearly he stated that it was the question of birthrate which we have refused to address. That alone will cause our society to implode. Steyn put his finger on the precise nature of the problem. Likewise the solution, if it was any closer, might jump up and bite us.

The yearning of many contemporary Christians for a cultural fix through revivalist and “biblical” calls to repentance must also take the birthrate—and sterile heterosex—into account. Though some will contest the point, it must be admitted that any conversion wrought through the preaching of a Whitefield, Finney, et al will not only demand our hearts get right with God but will necessarily reinstitute cultural prohibitions and taboos supporting the age old and exegetically superior biblical interpretation of the sin of Onanism.

The very thought makes many shudder and some to say,

"Surely, God, we can instead pay women to have babies, still hold on to our hard earned sexual “freedoms” and save our future. Otherwise, God, this is really going to hurt!"

The suggestion that our future hinges on the abandonment of sterile heterosex is utterly disconcerting. It’s too much to grasp—let alone admit—that old fashioned traditional Western wisdom on sexuality was spot on.

But no, it was much more than that. It truly was a civilizational bulwark.

Preachers and pundits would do well then to cease from their various crusades against homosex, Islam, etc. in order to refocus their energies and resources to formulate a new strategy which targets the real enemy. By attacking the ideology and behaviour which is directly fuelling our demographic demise, our odds of making gains in this war are markedly improved.

Another point must be raised. The defense of current phony and lethal sexual “liberties” may be worthy of the label progressive but hardly worthy of the label conservative, and certainly unworthy of the name Christian, at least historically. Such perversions of true liberty were legitimized by the victories of yesteryear’s liberals yet they currently enslave us because they are defended by today’s “conservatives.” Conservatives must seriously examine their own complicity in the sterile sex agenda—which has aided in the destruction of society and has rightly identified them as co-conspirators—and be encouraged to instead stand in defense of established Western wisdom.

Conservatives must decide what it is that they are fighting to conserve. Indeed, what else deserves conservation, other than the collective wisdom and institutions central to Western thought and civilization? Isn’t this precisely why conservatives fight unhesitatingly against abortion, attacks on marriage, disintegration of family, pornography, lowering of morals, etc? Yet why have we not been fighting the one mortal enemy which Western wisdom has explicitly warned—in loudest fashion this past 100 years—would spawn precisely such an epidemic of evils? Sterile heterosex is a beguiling demon of tremendous significance and must be opposed with all our energies and by all possible means.

Instead, we have been trying to beef up our society in order to withstand the intense battering spawned by our own endorsement of sexual license: Educate about the radical homosexual agenda. Expose the dangers and tyranny of secular humanism. Equip Canadians to confront the threat of Islam. Bolster the family and marriage and fight those who attack it.

It’s like trying to engineer more impact resistant cars rather than require drivers to stop at red lights. At this stage, it seems we have even forgotten the red light is there, or perhaps by now we have removed it entirely from the intersection. Is it any wonder the “culture war” is being lost?

So yes, it is the behaviour and specifically it’s sterile sex—of all brands. With great courage, it needs to be identified as such, properly condemned and duly proscribed.

Which again brings us back to Steyn’s famous line and his sober closing:

"It's the demography, stupid. And, if they can't muster the will to change course, then "What do you leave behind?" is the only question that matters."

Joanne Byfield: Pro-Life Movement Has Made No Political Gains In Canada

For a worthwhile summary of the current state of the pro-life movement in Canada, check out this article

Byfield sees slow progress in battle against abortion
Voters need to speak out before change will take place, she says

Byfield has impressive pro-life credentials. She thinks the media are playing a huge role in our current impasse.

She said in Canada it is impossible to have a public discourse about the issue of publicly funded, unrestricted access to abortion because most of the members of the mainstream media are pro-choice and consider abortion a settled issue that is not "of interest to anyone because it's not of interest to them."

No surprise, like Tristan Emmanuel, she points a finger at Christian leaders.

"Our churches aren't doing enough. There is a fear, on the part of pastors, to speak about abortion because they know there are wounded men and women out there and they don't want to make anyone uncomfortable."

Her solution?

Voters need to tell the politicians who come to their doors asking for votes, "We won't vote for you unless you do something to protect human life.

"Priority has to be (given) to de-insure abortion and our politicians have to hear it from person after person when they go from door to door. Our job is to get people to that point."

Joanne is certainly correct when she says that our politicians need to hear it from person to person, door to door. But how will that happen? Who can motivate citizens to take such action?

Good question. Consider this: Who controls the thinking and actions—the very morality—of our citizens? Who can have the greatest influence upon their lives?

If, generally speaking, Christians and pro-lifers do not agree that religious leaders fulfill that role almost exclusively, then I’m afraid I don’t know on what planet they are living. Granted, the “media” have very significant influence but they don’t shape the morality of the nation. They just talk to death the existing morality from their point of view. Nor do pro-lifers shape the thinking and actions of citizens to any significant extent. Isn’t that the point made by Joanne Byfield? Nor do politicians seem to be shaping the morality of our nation. Again, listen to Byfield.

Who then shapes morality?

Church leaders. The Church. And other religious leaders to a much lesser extent. The morality of Canada is essentially shaped actively or passively by our Christian leaders. The big question though for Christians and the pro-life movement as a whole is “Can we do anything about the failure of Christian leadership in Canada and thus change the moral direction of Canada?”

In the article It's Time For Pro-Lifers To Change Their Strategy In Canada Or The Toll On Babies Will Continue pro-life leaders are challenged to take their heads out of the sand and take a different approach to the defense of innocent unborn lives in Canada. The article deals more pointedly at the failure of Catholic Bishops but applies equally well to the failure of other Christian leaders. A prominent example of the fear which immobilizes pro-life leaders in Canada can be seen in this posting Are Pro-Life Leaders In Canada Afraid To Speak The Truth?

Joanne says

Priority has to be (given) to de-insure abortion and our politicians have to hear it from person after person when they go from door to door. Our job is to get people to that point.

No doubt everyone can participate at some level in the strategy to "get people to that point." But I would argue that the only people truly able to succeed in such a revolution of reforming voting habits is the clergy, through a reformation of the Canadian conscience. If we make Byfield's strategy our chief preoccupation, which seems to coincide with the general philosophy of action of pro-life leaders throughout Canada, we'll keep on spinning our wheels.

If anything at all can be done to halt the neo-paganism overtaking Canada, I believe that only when Christians/pro-lifers decide to take concentrated and united aim at a campaign of accountability for Canada’s clergy—the higher the ranks the better—the sooner we'll see citizens pressing political candidates door to door.

And not a minute before.

For those who claim pro-life leaders in Canada have tried such a strategy and found it impossible or impractical, I for one would like to see the evidence. Like Byfield, I see a trail of political and educational failure but where is the evidence of a national strategy to hold Christian leaders accountable for fulfilling their God ordained duties—and for their failures?

You say it can't be done? I say it's time to talk about it.

SLAPP Legal Strategy Changing Landscape of America’s Traditional Culture

Insightful article on the need to loudly protest when necessary in order to preserve in our society what we hold to be true and valuable.

Such are the new politics of whispering in the twenty-first century version of the culture wars. The values that were instrumental in forming the American culture have been ignored, forgotten, or—worse—forbidden in public debate. Through court rulings, bureaucratic pronouncements, and well-intentioned but unhelpful laws, secular values have allied with government authority to dismantle the ideals of a decent nation.

[snip]

After World War II, an American journalist returned to Germany to live in a remote town in hopes of discovering why law-abiding citizens followed the leadership of Adolf Hitler. Milton Mayer interviewed ten average families, and in one of the more revealing sections of his book, They Thought They Were Free, he asked why the townspeople didn’t protest the abuses of the state. A policeman related the story of a local leader who was arrested in 1933 and “taken away” without being charged with anything. When Mayer asked why there was no outcry from citizens, the policeman told him that the people, by their silence, had given the government that right. There were “no open trials for enemies of the state,” he said. “They had forfeited their right to it.”

Read the rest of Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It’s Wrong

Tristan Emmanuel: Church Leaders Culpable

Tristan Emmanuel, who just returned from a great conference and Caribbean cruise, shares his disappointment in his No Apologies column today.

But there was also something sad about the event.

…I was struck time and time again, by how inept the leadership of the evangelical and conservative Catholic strains of Christianity have become when it comes to defending the faith.

…they are also not equipping their congregants for the daily battle of ideas in our culture.

He makes some very good and seldom-heard points, much along the lines of my recent posting Mother of all Human Rights’ Battles Launched by Ezra Levant. I was surprised that Tristan seemed a little more than simply disappointed by the reality he describes, given his “culture wars” background.

If he believed in the one holy, apostolic—and visible—catholic Church, no doubt he would agree near-perfectly with the analysis I offered in my posting, i.e. the failure of Bishops in their role to teach, govern and sanctify is the primary and dominant cause of our current malaise.

Tristan is certainly right when he gives credit to the Church for being the chief force in promoting a free and just society. The vast majority of society, including Christians, cannot seem to apprehend—or believe—such a concept.

I have often thought that in an ideal world - where the church was doing its job - the "ECP Centre" shouldn't be necessary. After all, churches should be advocating for brothers and sisters who find themselves on the wrong end of the law simply because they have spoke truth. The price of political freedom is free speech that gives offence. After all, what can be more offensive than the gospel's call to unrepentant sinners - be they abortionists, homosexuals or philanderers?

As I noted similarly in my posting, shouldn’t the pastors—the defenders of Truth—of Christ’s Church be the very first ones to be hauled before such “human rights” Commissions for announcing offensive truths? Instead, they have left the defense of truth to the rare courageous layman, journalist, or common citizen.

In my mind, there’s also no doubt that when those individuals fail whom God has called and ordained to announce the Gospel and defend His Truth, He can as easily “raise up the stones” to serve as salt and light to the world, to testify to His Truth and to mobilize His people.

That seems to be what Tristan alludes to in his closing paragraph.

The fact that so few pastors are actually equipping their congregants with a consistent Christian world and life view that manifests itself in "salt and light" activity - or in advocating on behalf of those who are subject of hate-crime investigations - tells me there is room for this Canadian to start equipping the saints in America.

In a similar sense, that is precisely the nature of the work undertaken by Vote Life, Canada! but without losing sight of the fact that Church leaders themselves must be continually called to live up to their God ordained roles and to account for their failures. Until the rank and file Christian is so persuaded in this task, in my opinion, we can be only marginally successful in winning the war.

Archbishop Chaput on the Public Life of Christian Citizens

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, Colorado last week delivered an address in New Orleans entitled “Catholic Identity in the American Public Arena.”

Read it. Pay attention. It’s distinctively Catholic but it’s also distinctively Christian. I especially liked his approach towards voting for pro-abortion politicians, covered in #’s 8 & 9. Wow!

Canadians: Please replace “American” with “Canadian” whenever appropriate.

Protestants, Reformed, Baptist—pretty please—replace “Catholic” with “Christian.” You’ll be surprised!

That should do it.

Be a better citizen. Be a better Canadian. Be a better Christian.

**********

Better Citizens, More Faithful Catholics

When we speak about a nation’s culture, we mean the entire fabric of its common life, from art and music to sports and schools. But since this is an election year, I want to apply the idea of Catholic witness specifically to our public life as citizens. Here are ten simple points to remember as we move toward November, and then we can take questions and talk about anything you like.

1. George Orwell said that one of the biggest dangers for modern democratic life is dishonest political language. Dishonest language leads to dishonest politics—which then leads to bad public policy and bad law. So we need to speak and act in a spirit of truth.

2. Catholic is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, then that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act as though we’re not.

3. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s similar to being a spouse. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.

4. The Church is not a political organism. She has no interest in partisanship because getting power or running governments is not what she’s about, and the more closely she identifies herself with any single party, the fewer people she can effectively reach.

5. Scripture and Catholic teaching, however, do have public consequences because they guide us in how we should act in relation to one another. Loving God requires that we also love the people He created, which means we need to treat them with justice, charity, and mercy. Being a Catholic involves solidarity with other people. The Catholic faith has implications for social justice—and that means it also has cultural, economic and political implications. The Catholic faith is never primarily about politics; but Catholic social action, including political action, is a natural byproduct of the Church’s moral message. We can’t call ourselves Catholic, and then simply stand by while immigrants get mistreated, or the poor get robbed, or unborn children get killed. The Catholic faith is always personal but never private. If our faith is real, then it will bear fruit in our public decisions and behaviors, including our political choices.

6. Each of us needs to follow our own conscience. But conscience doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It’s not a matter or personal opinion or preference. If our conscience has the habit of telling us what we want to hear on difficult issues, then it’s probably badly formed. A healthy conscience is the voice of God’s truth in our hearts, and it should usually make us uncomfortable, because none of us is yet a saint. The way we get a healthy conscience is by submitting it and shaping it to God’s will; and the way we find God’s will is by conforming our lives to the counsel and guidance of the Church that Jesus left us. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the teaching of the Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong. The problem is much more likely with us.

7. But how do we make good political choices when so many different issues are so important and complex? The first principle of Christian social thought is: Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing somebody else to do it. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. The reason the abortion issue is so foundational is not because Catholics love little babies—although we certainly do—but because revoking the personhood of unborn children makes every other definition of personhood and human rights politically contingent.

8. So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics—people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views. And they also need a proportionate reason to justify it.

9. What is a proportionate reason when it comes to abortion? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them in the next life—which we certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives, then we can proceed.

10. The heart of truly faithful citizenship is this: We’re better citizens when we’re more faithful Catholics. The more authentically Catholic we are in our lives, choices, actions and convictions, the more truly we will contribute to the moral and political life of our nation.

[source]

**********

Archbishop Chaput’s forthcoming book on American Catholics and public life, “Render Unto Caesar,” will be published by Doubleday later this year.

Another outstanding article from the Archbishop, helpful fare for all Christians concerned about our current culture war crisis, is entitled “Religion and the Common Good” and is available here.

Mother of all Human Rights’ Battles Launched by Ezra Levant

Here’s a fight destined for history books.

LifeSiteNews has a great summary to date.

On Friday, January 11, Ezra Levant, the former publisher of the now defunct conservative Western Standard magazine, appeared before the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). Levant was brought before the Commission after a complainant accused him of hate speech, citing Levant's decision to republish in The Western Standard a series of controversial cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

I’m hoping that Canada’s Human Rights Commissions have met their match in Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Macleans. If these formidable foes cannot smack down the Orwellian HRC’s in Canada, I’m afraid we are in our last days of freedom of speech [and religion] in Canada.

I’m happy that Bishop Frederick Henry has been willing to take on the HRC's, soul-less tyrants that they are. Although I’ve spoken out against Bishop Henry on some accounts, it is much to his credit that he is the only Canadian Bishop who has been threatened by such Commissions to answer for Christian teaching—which is unalterably opposed on some crucial accounts to the politically correct ideology demanded by such kangaroo courts. Bishop Henry had simply reaffirmed the truth contained in the Catholic doctrines on marriage and the family. To date he has survived the assaults and has prevailed.

In fairness, it must also be noted that, aside from the “Generals” in this war such as high profile Bishops like Frederick Henry, company captain and pastor Steven Boissoin as well as foot soldiers like Bill Whatcott and Chris Kempling have also faced off with the enemy. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly they have not prevailed. Were it a conventional war we were fighting we should not be surprised in the least by these casualties. How many soldiers normally die in battle for every General lost? Sure, that’s stretching the analogy but couldn’t statistics apply here as well because even in a spiritual battle, when humans are involved, casualties are still counted in names and faces.

A very big question here, and one which I hope will be asked, is, “Why haven’t most, if not all, of the Bishops [or other Christian leaders] been hauled to account before the Commissions?” After all, there’s but one Christian faith and one Catechism. So is it because they not declaring the Truth and defending the Faith? Should it depend on which geographic area of Canada where you live? In fact, why does the battle for freedom of speech, which may be considered a derivative of the more fundamental right to free expression, conscience and religion, have to be fought at this stage by “laypeople” and even non-Christians? Don’t misunderstand; I think it’s good and right and courageous of them to do so. Clearly, it is not only Christians who are able to recognize and adhere to the principles of natural law. So I thank God that they are doing it!

But the Bishops are the sanctifying power of society, entrusted to preach and to teach Truth. Doesn’t the truth touch at all upon this battle of rights we are now witnessing? Of course! It’s all about truth and fundamental human rights. Where do human rights originate? Hint: Don’t try to figure out that question without reference to Christian revelation and teaching, i.e. Truth. So where are the Bishops?

Our progression backwards in terms of fundamental rights and justice is simply clear testimony to a societal breakdown in the apprehension of objective truth. It is more than obvious that the “hate speech” battle now in the news reminds us that at one point in the past we had something which we now fear we have lost or are losing. What we are losing is the very integrity of Western civilization which was knitted and forged under the tutelage of Christian thought and leadership.

The ground we lose is ground lost solely because truth is consistently and appreciably undefended or misrepresented by the “Generals” in this war, the Bishops. The enemy of God and of man is only too happy to take it back, one step and one fight at a time, hoping with all his might to de-Christianize Canada and plunge it into an abyss of tyranny and totalitarianism—a political system tragically proven throughout history to be the reward of willfully ignorant, corrupted and unbelieving peoples.

The sooner we see the essential and decisive role of Bishops in the “culture war” in Canada the sooner will we govern ourselves personally in fidelity to the Truth—and the sooner will we acquire the right and duty to demand more from them—and the sooner will our society recover itself.

In the meanwhile, Mssrs. Levant and Steyn, lead us onward! Champion our cause! And God be with you!

[image source]

Dinesh D'Souza Rebuts Atheists on Christians and Slavery

D’Souza notes

Isn't it remarkable that atheists, who did virtually nothing to oppose slavery, condemn Christians, who are the ones who abolished it?

Visit the comments box to see how his enemies follow him around.

He’s good.

Could Monks, Monasteries and Prayer be Key in the Culture War?

Protestants and particularly Evangelicals look upon the idea of monks and monasteries, nuns and convents, with a suspicious skeptical eye. How, they ask, is that kind of lifestyle fulfilling Jesus command to go out into the world? How, they ask, will that help to rescue our corrupt society and bring God’s salvation, justice and order?

Monks in Oklahoma are creating a cloistered compound built to last 1,000 years.

Most Catholic monasteries in this country are devoted to service, operating schools and other institutions, Anderson said. "We wanted to build a community like the ancient monasteries, a place devoted to the contemplative life and prayer."

Contemplative prayer? Is that the same as centering prayer? Isn’t that mysticism? Or New Age and Emerging Church stuff? Some Christians claim that the focus should rather be on a return to the simplicity and purity of the Christian faith.

The courtyard and monks' rooms are part of the cloistered area, not open to the public, as part of the monks' discipline in separation from the world, and silence.

"This is to create an atmosphere conducive to prayer and communion with Christ," Anderson said.

That has the sound of simplicity and purity to me.

Some Christians, such as Tony Campolo, are linking this kind of prayer and communion to a spiritual revival now starting to take root in the Western world. Others, typically faith communities that take strong anti-Catholic stands, condemn such prayer practices entirely.

However, the Pope himself, along with other Catholic leaders, has also warned of certain New Age dangers in contemporary prayer movements.

There is obviously more to monks and monasteries than the issue of contemplative prayer but an open mind to the related aspects of Christian history will do wonders to dispel confusion.

Sister Margaret Vickers: The Culture of Death Wrapped in Compassion

Nurse and former nun Margaret Vickers has been named to the Order of Canada.

Vickers is director of Providence Health Care -- Canada's largest Catholic health organization, which includes Vancouver's St. Paul's Hospital.

She hopes

Hillary Clinton will be the next American president even though Clinton is pro-choice.

Popular writer Anne Rice is also rooting for Hillary. Professor Robert P. George has something to say about that.

Former nun Margaret

doesn't condemn Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer who murdered his severely handicapped daughter because he could no longer bear to hear her crying out in pain and suffering. She empathizes with his having to make such an awful choice.

Instead of requiring a lifetime commitment to the Church, Vickers says

perhaps women will be able to commit to only a few years of service before going back to normal, family life.

Because

for Sister Margaret, it's the Sisters of Charity's mission of compassionate care that's more important than abiding by tradition and old rules.

Hers is a

quiet, humble life of dedicated service; a life of poverty, chastity and obedience.

Atheism and Apostasy Not the Right Road

In October past I announced that The Telegram, our province’s largest daily newspaper, had accepted me onto their Community Editorial Board, and at the same time I also posted my first editorial.

Here’s my second editorial, published in Wednesday’s paper.

**********

Atheism and apostasy not the right road

Many people seem to think that the atheism of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is building great momentum. But can their philosophy be properly described as simply atheism? Or is it something much more sinister than merely denying God? To me it gives evidence of being oftentimes aggressively anti-Christian and anti-God. Shouldn’t it be better labeled as the spirit of anti-Christ? Is that too shocking and dramatic to say? I don’t think so but whatever it might

be called there is no doubt that a historically unique movement of people has been forming. Certainly these individuals disavow any connection to an oftentimes hypocritical and repugnant form of Christianity broken loose from its moorings in a post modern world. But again I ask whether what we are seeing is an expression of a fierce spirit of apostasy which has been breeding within the ranks of organized Christian bodies over long periods and which is now disguised as atheism.

Because atheism and apostasy pose grave threats to our well being as a society, I propose a review of some of the uncomplicated cultural distinctives throughout two millennia that have set the true Christian apart from the surrounding, and often godless, culture.

Maybe this review will prove helpful to the reader in assessing any question of apostasy and thereby any culpability in sustaining a post-modern “Christian” society overwhelmed by a culture of death. If so, it might count as a service to the soul since, I assume, we all wish to avoid the “terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries” [Hebrews 10:27], a reference to the future, and personal, encounter with God by all those who forsake Him.

In particular, those who shepherd the flock of God and who are sharply warned by Scripture against leading God’s little ones astray are urged to seriously consider this review. I suggest that the following historic Christian distinctives ought to urgently and intently preoccupy us.

1. Evangelizing society with unassailable drive. Preach Jesus Christ as the only way to be reconciled to God.
2. Viewing earthly life as a temporary residence. All thought and action must be accounted for and is a preparation for heaven to come. Choosing against Christ is choosing separation from God forever in hell.
3. Christians the most generous of people, giving up possessions, talents and even their lives for God and neighbour. Unparalleled hospitality and radical relief of the poor and the sick.
4. Christians bestowing great dignity, love and justice upon even the lowliest sinner, criminal or slave. Unequivocal opposition to abortion and infanticide.
5. Christians, the servants of all, ministering to others as unto Christ Himself. This revolutionized Christian leadership as well as the world of business and politics.
6. Christian marriage and the family replacing the State as the cornerstone of a new civilization. No sex outside marriage. All sexual activity, both heterosexual and otherwise, aimed at circumventing procreation constitutes a perversion of God’s order and an abomination. Strictly practiced by all Christians until first defied in the 1930’s by the Anglicans who sought exemption for birth control. Marriage and the family have not since recovered. Neither have the Anglicans, nor every Christian body which followed them, nor society in general.

Clearly we have strayed from the path. With courage we must return.

Light Blogging These Days—Visit Some of These Links

Blogging has been light lately and may continue so for a few more weeks. I’ve been working on some important projects to ensure the survival and success of the Vote Life, Canada! campaign. Any prayers would of course be welcome.

Here are some stories that I have been following. Maybe you’ll find them interesting and helpful as well so I’m posting the links.

**********

Rick Warren recently hosted Hillary Clinton at his AIDS conference. Here’s one report of the event: Clinton gets standing ovations from evangelicals

And here’s good commentary from today’s Christian Post:
Saddleback's Conference on AIDS Gave Hillary Evangelical Cover
Because Rick Warren is a fellow evangelical and has rightly earned the respect and trust of many in the evangelical community (myself included) I am reluctant and yet compelled to question the judgment of including people on the program who do not support the Bible’s teaching concerning the sanctity of life and the protection of the family.

Mark Pickup has a post up that’s worth reading
Ronald Reagan's Clarion Call to America
According to the US Bureau of Vital Statistics, the year before Roe Versus Wade (1972) there were 39 women who died from illegal abortions in America.[4] Suffice to say that abortion advocates SLIGHTLY inflated the numbers…

You’re probably well informed about the Golden Compass controversy with reporting like this from LifeSiteNews
US Bishops asked to Fire Chief Film Critic over Glowing Reviews for "Brokeback" and "Compass"

Here’s a rather detailed posting from John Borst who publishes Tomorrows Trust, a “web based journal of news and opinion on Catholic education.”
Golden Compass 'review' causes media firestorm
Quite frankly I have never seen an educational issue so intense or concentrated in my years of monitoring education issues. The recent Ontario election debate over faith-based schools did not even come close. It was more drawn out. It never did reach the intensity that ‘censoring’ The Golden Compass has achieved.

And finally, Dr. Albert Mohler adds his perspective. [Great job, Dr. Mohler!]
The Golden Compass -- A Briefing for Concerned Christians

More on the US Catholic Bishops’ recent voting guidelines, approved November 14 in Baltimore during the semiannual assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Here’s a pretty standard report
Bishops aim to shape political consciences

But here’s the best analysis I’ve read on the Bishops’ guidelines. There’s quite a lot of commentary floating around on the subject but Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture has made an excellent and very useful summary in my opinion.
How Not to Form Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
I’ve finally plowed through what we might call the U.S. Bishops’ quadrennial voting manifesto, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”, released at their November 2007 meeting. Never has a document been so technically correct yet so utterly confusing. As a piece of practical voting advice, it is a disaster.

Family activist says studies show damaging effects of porn use
A pro-family attorney says a recent study confirms that pornography has devastating consequences.

Christian Divorce Trends Fuel Debates

34 Yr Old Evangelical to Replace Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries

Here’s something I’ve been too busy to bring to the front burner until now.

A 34-year-old evangelical has stepped up to the plate to lead a prominent global media ministry in boldly spreading biblical truth to millions. Brian E. Fisher, former executive vice president of Coral Ridge Ministries, was promoted this month to president and CEO, becoming the second ever head of the Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based ministry. He succeeds the late founder, Dr. D. James Kennedy.

This guy is one smart cookie for 34 years old. Christian Post does a great interview altogether but below are my favorite sections. I only wish other evangelical pastors and leaders would take special note of what he said—and take it to heart.

**********

Christian Post: You have something new at next year's Truths that Transform America conference, called "Pastors, Pulpits, and Politics," which supports the right for pastors to speak on social issues from the pulpit. Is this part of the effort by conservative groups such as Family Research Council and Focus on the Family who had issued a letter to pastors telling them that they have the right to speak on these issues?

Fisher: The last two hours of that conference is a special session called ‘Pastors, Pulpits, and Politics.’ We’re doing something very unique. We’re partnering with a few other ministries and we have American Vision and American Family Association. We’re talking with two or three other major ministries and we’re taking that last two hours and we’re going to be featuring some of the nation’s foremost authorities on what pastors’ rights are in terms of their ability to speak out on political and cultural issues.

And in two hours we’re going to educate America on those issues. We feel as many others do that the Church at large is disturbingly silent on core issues that they shouldn’t be. Many times … the pastors of the lay people don’t know what their boundaries are legally. And so we’re going to be very clearly outlining them. And we’re going to be broadcasting the entire two-hour session live on the Internet. And it will be made available after that – both online and DVD format. Frankly, our goal and the goal of American Family Association and American Vision is that every pastor in America sees this material. We think it is a pivotal, crucial time in the history of our country. And [as it was] with so many other points in history, it is the Church that will be determining factor on which course America goes. It was actually Gary DeMar (the head of American Vision)’s idea. Gary approached us and said ‘Hey, what do you think?’ We said, ‘My goodness, this is a must do.’ We think it could be a historic day.

CP: So you do feel pastors should speak up on politics? Some polls have indicated that people don’t really want preachers talking about politics from the pulpit. Is there any concern about people being turned off from the church by this?

Fisher: There’s the risk but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. Pastors have far more rights than they think they do. And I’m just saying about political candidates. We have to be careful to remember that the separation of the church and state does not appear in the U.S. constitution. Pastors, I think, have a moral and scriptural obligation to speak out about cultural issues facing the day. Why do more pastors not get involved with pro-life issues? It confounds me. The world has made it sound like it’s a political issue. It is a moral issue. It’s a cultural issue. It bleeds into politics because there is a legal aspect to it. I’m not necessarily saying about somebody endorsing a specific candidate. What I am saying is if we want to stop abortion, overturning Roe v. Wade is great, but overturning the hearts and minds of young women in crisis pregnancy situations is far more important. And that should be accomplished by the Church as led by the pastors. I would say it’s my view that pastors in America do have a biblical obligation to speak up and out loudly, lovingly about the issues facing America morally and culturally, and by and large, my perception is they’re not doing that. That is completely inconsistent with the many pastors who founded our country, who spoke out about these issues all the time.

CP: Why do you think there is such a silence in the Church?

Fisher: There are a couple of reasons. There is this 50-year cloud of lying in the media that has certainly impacted the church. The media has scared it into thinking that if a pastor opens his mouth on abortion or sanctity of marriage that they’re going to get thrown in prison. And if they don’t start speaking up soon, that is going to be true (laughs). So I think some of it is just intimidation and scare tactics on behalf of the media. I think there is a huge problem of biblical illiteracy in the church. We’re not aware that we are mandated to tackle these issues. Thirdly, and this is the toughest, I do sense there is a defeatist mentality in the church. The church just thinks America is on a slow steady decline to Armageddon and they’re just going to wait it out. That’s a dangerous and incorrect perspective. Otherwise, why would we pray in the Lord ’s Prayer ‘Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.’ We are to be the chief optimists in our culture and by and large, the church has taken a pessimistic silent attitude to its own detriment.

CP: Do you consider yourself one of the younger generation evangelicals carrying on the torch of such traditional conservatives as Dr. James Dobson and D. James Kennedy? And how do you plan to carry it?

Fisher: It’s been a journey for me. I did not come to Coral Ridge last August to become a leader of anything. I came to run Dr. Kennedy’s ministry. Obviously, the Lord has had other plans as four months after I got here, Dr. Kennedy had his cardiac arrest. I don’t know if I’m what you have said (‘one of the young evangelical leaders taking on the mantle that older conservative evangelicals are passing on’). I am a man who is deeply concerned about America, about the church and about unbelievers. And my role is to do whatever my God tells me. At this point, He has put me in a position to use media to influence our culture and I’m firmly committed to that.

[Source]

What Western Society Thinks Of Fertility (And Children)

No doubt about it—the Duggars have been exercising their (God-given) gift of fertility AGAIN.

The San Francisco Chronicle carries the story…along with 333 comments to date. The story appears below; the ten most recommended comments appear after the story.

**********

Arkansas Couple Welcomes 17th Child

By JILL ZEMAN, Associated Press Writer

Friday, August 3, 2007

(08-03) 07:56 PDT Little Rock, Ark. (AP) --

It's a girl — again — for the Duggars. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar welcomed their 17th child, and seventh daughter, into the world Thursday.

Jennifer Danielle was born at 10:01 a.m. at Saint Mary's Hospital in Rogers, Ark., the Duggars said in an interview. Jennifer weighed 8 pounds, 8 ounces and arrived five days after Michelle's due date.

Less than 30 minutes after giving birth, the Duggars already were talking of having more.

"We'd love to have more," Michelle said, adding that the girls are outnumbered seven to 10 in the family. "We love the ruffles and lace."

Jennifer joins the fast-growing Duggar brood, who live in Tontitown in a 7,000-square-foot home. All the children — whose names start with the letter J — are home-schooled.

The oldest is 19 and the youngest, before Jennifer, is almost 2 years old.

"We are just so grateful to God for another gift from him," said Jim Bob Duggar, 42, a former state representative. "We are just so thankful to him that everything went just very well."

Jennifer joins siblings Joshua, 19; John David, 17; Janna, 17; Jill, 16; Jessa, 14; Jinger, 13; Joseph, 12; Josiah, 11; Joy-Anna, 9; Jedidiah, 8; Jeremiah, 8; Jason 7; James 6; Justin, 4; Jackson, 3; Johannah, almost 2.

The family includes two sets of twins.

Michelle Duggar said that Joshua, Janna, Jill and Jessa were at the hospital, but that the rest of the family planned to visit their new sister later Thursday.

Michelle Duggar said she started feeling contractions Wednesday night and went to the hospital at about 5 a.m. Thursday.

"It actually went fast," she said. "I guess once I started progressing, it went within 30 minutes."

Jennifer was born via a VBAC — or vaginal birth after Caesarean, Jim Bob Duggar said.

The Duggars have been featured on several programs on cable's Discovery Health Network. The next special, the Duggar Family Album, is scheduled to air next month, Jim Bob Duggar said.

Among the "fun facts" listed on Discovery Health's Web page devoted to the Duggars: A baby has been born in every month except June; the Duggars have gone through an estimated 90,000 diapers, and Michelle, 40, has been pregnant for 126 months — or 10.5 years — of her life.

___

On the Net:

Duggar family Web site:

Discovery Health site:

www.duggarfamily.com

health.discovery.com/convergence/duggars/duggarfamily.html

**********

Below are the top 10 comments, rated by other readers who agreed with the comment.

The comments are very telling of society’s attitudes towards God’s gift of fertility, or the value of children, or the institution of the family, or our concepts of sacrifice and selfishness, or God Himself and the Christian faith. Note the repeating theme of birth “control,” i.e. contraception.

One wonders if even a small fraction of individuals in our society see any connection between such “reproductive rights” and the demographic tsunami heading our way? These comments, along with a good deal of their barbaric vitriol, really amount to a cocktail of prejudice against the Unborn and helps to explain why there is such support for legalized child murder. They add up to about the same conclusion reached by a columnist when the Duggars announced their 16th child.

#1 Comment—recommended by 83 other readers

"This could be called "binge birthing". Ridiculous. These are the most selfish people I've ever seen."

#2 Comment—recommended by 79 other readers

"Dear Mrs. Duggar: If you are going to be in the public eye you should probably do something about your 80's gang member hairstyle. I know you are usually pregnant and that your hair doesn't fall out aas much when you are with child but that doesn't mean an occasional trip to Supercuts should be out of your realm of affordability. When we channel surf we sometimes see you on the discovery channel and--your hairstyle is like a pimple we are dying to pop. Secondly--how can you properly love 17 children? A teenaged sibling babysitter is never going to be as loving or nurturing as mom. I'd rather have a mom than a "little buddy" Thirdly---stop raping our planet. You may look harmless with your cute little performing children who you have trained so well--but regardless they still create waste. Fourth---God doesn't decide to "give" you a child. Take control of your fertility (you're over 40 and at risk of Down's). Stop doing the nasty before ovulation, Mr. and Mr's Duggar! Ugh."

#3 Comment—recommended by 39 other readers

"This is the most immoral, selfish, and destructive couple about which I've ever heard. Statistics are overwhelming, the more children in a family the greater the neglect and abuse and the poorer the outcome s and more miserable the lives of those children. There is an inverse relationship between quality and quantity with children. Parents who have more children than they can care for doom those children to a life of agony, poverty, disease, unhappiness, and failure. These people should have been sterilized long ago."

#4 Comment—recommended by 39 other readers

"I would hate to be one of their kids OR one of the older kids that ends up acting like a parent when they are a teenager, taking cares of the younger ones."

#5 Comment—recommended by 39 other readers

"I just don't understand why this is a news story. If some RIDICULOUS family in Ark. is popping them out like Pez I don't want to know about it. Other than inspiring more volunteer work at Planned Parenthood. As the oldest of 8 I am convinced that those who have so many do it so they don't have to really parent any of them. It all just gets diffused in the day to day grind of feeding and cleaning. The Duggers freakish Stepford like affect and ludicrous middle ages approach to family planning is not an example of America in the 21st century. Also I'm sure they have no plans to pay for college - I know my parents didn't!!!! Watching the shows I truly wonder how that 7000 sq foot house was finished and decorated by a decorator to the 9's. Perhaps boycotts of the companies that are providing them welfare for the sake of a mention on the show is in order."

#6 Comment—recommended by 31 other readers

"I can hardly wait until Nos. 7, 11 and 13 become serial killers. Given that ma and pa are such arch republicans, maybe they think their god is telling them to build a christian army to fight the growing Muslim peril. Or maybe they are just both nuts."

#7 Comment—recommended by 29 other readers

"That child must have shot out of the mother like a missle. And they want more. This is not a family, it's a human bakery."

#8 Comment—recommended by 25 other readers

"And who are you people to say how many kids a married couple should and shouldn't have? We accept gays, les, bi, people of color, etc, here in the bay area but not those who have "too many"? I see why the rest of the country laughs at us."

#9 Comment—recommended by 23 other readers

"What is wrong with these people. I have watched their shows on TLC and feel sorry for the kids. I wonder how they are able to afford feeding these 17 kids. Do they get assistance from the State or Fed? I think that its time to put your pants back on Mom and Dad Duggar."

#10 Comment—recommended by 19 other readers

"This, from the same state that brings us a 67-foot-tall statue of Christ, known as "Christ of the Ozarks" (how about Okie Christ, or maybe Hillbilly Jesus, for short). The joke around Eureka Springs, AR (one of the only thinking sectors in the entire state, by the way) is this. After its construction, the FAA called its proprietors to remind them that, at 70+ feet, the statue presented an obstacle for air traffic and had to be marked with a red blinking beacon. The proprieters claimed to do so would be sacrilege. The FAA responded that not doing so would be a federal crime. Many in the area offered compromise suggestions, such as "Why not a thorny crown of red lights?" In the end, the proprieters decided to reduce the statue to under 70 feet by removing its feet. The end result is a 67-foot, footless Christ. I don't know if this story is true, but it is humorous. And it explains a lot -- like why some religious nut morons would pump out 17 puppies. It is, after all, God's will...."