Of Bride Wars and White Dresses

Recently the Mrs. and I rented a movie called Bride Wars. Quick summary: two little girls vow to someday participate in each other's weddings which, for some reason I don't understand, simply must be held at the Plaza Hotel in New York. They grow up and circumstances force them to hold their ceremonies on the same date and time. They become bitter enemies. Hilarity follows.

The professional reviewers appear to have disliked Bride Wars. I thought it was mildly amusing, but I have a weird sense of humor. There are much worse movies you could watch. That's not my point; I just want to comment on one aspect of the film.

While there is no nudity or sexual activity, both the main characters are obviously living with their husbands-to-be while the weddings are being planned. "So what," you may say. Everyone lives together before marriage nowadays. Well, no, not everyone does. But obviously many people do.

Another case of Hollywood trying to pervert our culture? I don't think so. I think it is a case of Hollywood reflecting our culture. Cohabitation prior to marriage is now so common that it's unremarkable - even in a PG-rated film.

To me, it seemed a little strange to see these brides happily planning their elaborate weddings while already sharing a bed with their fiances, all the while seeing nothing ironic or unusual about it. The first part of the movie even shows both women impatiently waiting for proposals. Hello? You're already sleeping with him. Of course he's in no hurry to give you a ring.

A lot of sociological research suggests that couples who cohabit and then marry have higher divorce rates and unhappier relationships than those who don't. The reasons for this are debatable, and we've all known people who managed to make it work. Likewise many people who go through the right steps in the right order still end up in divorce court.

In any case, our culture seems to have turned a corner in its attitude about marriage. The push for same-sex marriage is succeeding because straight people have already redefined how family life is supposed to work, and not for the better. Having established - at least since the 1960s and maybe earlier - that marriage is nothing more than a contract between willing partners, and that it is perfectly acceptable for people to behave like families without any form of commitment, we now have no logical reason to restrict the arrangement to one man and one woman. Any combination will do.

Where this will lead us as a society is unclear; no culture has ever gone the places we are now going and lived to tell the tale. Maybe 21st century America will be the exception.

Or maybe not.

So Grandma Isn't Perfect

Obama's speech about race is drawing rather vicious attacks from Ann Coulter and other conservatives. Before I go on, let me be clear: I disagree with Barack Obama on almost every political issue. I do not want him to be president. I will never vote for him unless he makes some truly dramatic philosophical changes. I think many of his followers are a little wacky.

This, however, does not mean I automatically disagree with every word Obama says simply because he is the one saying it. The truth is the truth, even when it comes from the mouth of someone who is not part of my Tribe and with whom I have many other disagreements.

Speaking of Jeremiah Wright, his stridently opinionated pastor, Obama said this:

As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Coulter uses this to accuse Obama of "throwing Grandma under the bus." Does this really make sense? I think of my own late grandfather. I heard him say things about black people that I thought, even as a child, didn't sound right. I've now learned they were absolutely wrong. Yet I loved him dearly. I know he wasn't perfect, and I don't respect him any less because of it. I think I understand how he came to have such attitudes. It was hard to think otherwise during the formative years of his life. If he were alive today, I would love him even as I disagreed with him.

I suspect most people can relate to this. We all have people in our lives that are close to us, but with whom we have significant differences. We find ways to get past the differences so we can enjoy the positive aspects of these relationships. So I have no problem believing that Obama loved his grandma at the same time he cringed at her remarks - and I don't expect him to disown her.

This is not, of course, the view of most people on the political right. To them, Obama is from the other tribe. He is a threat. He is the enemy, and must therefore be destroyed, whatever it takes. As noted above, I have no political sympathy for Obama, but this Grandma angle is a tactic I choose not to use. A few others agree. Here's Mark Shea:

Sorry, but I don't see that as "throwing grandma under the bus". I see it as pretty much resonating with my own experience of living in community with people who have real faults and sins on their heads. There are members of my family who were quite as unabashed in their racism as Obama's pastor or grandmother. There are people I love and care deeply about who hold opinions I find repellent or kooky. Hell, in my parish there are people with views on everything from Jews to 9/11 conspiracy theories I think are nutty. I've never believed people are binary. I think it's quite possible for the most saintly person to have some thoroughly disgusting streak of wickedness.

Steven Taylor at Poliblog:

To me, this was an intensely honest portion of the speech and one of the best arguments for explaining how Obama could tolerate things that Wright has said. I find the assertions noted above that this was throwing grandma “under the bus” to be a combination of disingenuous and ignorant.

First, this was not sacrificing his Grandmother for some political gain. For crying out loud, in this passage, the man is proclaiming his love for his grandmother, and noting how she is part of him. That is hardly throwing her under the bus–this is biography.

Second, what he is clearly saying is that people we love sometimes say things that we disagree with–even sometimes saying things that we find repugnant–and yet we still love them. What is so hard to understand about that? Now, I will grant that part of the reason I find this to be an honest and easily understandable portion of the speech is that I directly identified with it, as I have had older members of my family say things about race that have made me utterly cringe. Yet, oddly enough, I continued to love them. My guess is that most people have had this experience. As such, there is not bus-throwing here, but rather a simple reflection of a common occurrence in most of our lives.

The conservatives who attack Obama for these things are not helping their cause. They are, instead, allowing ideology to overcome common decency. I prefer the approach of Peggy Noonan, who reviewed Obama's speech and found it "strong, thoughtful and important."

Today is Good Friday, when we recall the suffering and death of One who loved us all, despite our many faults. It's a good time to remember the example Christ gave us. We can disagree with ideas without hating the one who holds them. Personally I have great difficulty with this, but I'm working on it.

RIP William F. Buckley

I think it was 1982 when I first read National Review. I was a freshman in college and it caught my eye in the library one day. One reading and I was hooked, mainly due to the incisive prose and brilliant reasoning of William F. Buckley, Jr. I proceeded to read several of his books and even his spy novels. He was a major intellectual influence on me. While I've since moved past him on some issues, I continued to admire and respect him.

Buckley passed away last night. He was found where every writer is happiest - at his desk, probably working on another column. After a lifetime of verbal battle, it's fitting that Buckley died in combat, weapon still in hand. May God grant him eternal rest and peace.

Rod Dreher has a good eulogy.

Boorish Anchorwoman Begs For Lightning

This sounds like a delightful woman. I'd like to meet her someday.

[from AFA] ESPN and its parent company, ABC, have refused to take any action against ESPN anchorwoman Dana Jacobson for her hateful, slurring remarks against Jesus, saying "F-- -- Jesus."

On January 11, Jacobson was speaking at a celebrity roast in Atlantic City, N.J., when she unleashed a profane tirade, saying, "F--- Notre Dame," "F--- Touchdown Jesus" and finally "F--- Jesus."

"Touchdown Jesus" is the popular moniker for a statue of Jesus raising his arms, located on the Notre Dame campus.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke with ESPN about the attack and received an e-mail from Jacobson which basically treated the incident as a non-event. The statement said, in part, "I respect all religions and did not mean anything derogatory by my poorly chosen words."

Jacobson's comments were at a public event where she was representing ESPN.

The fact that neither ESPN nor ABC has taken any action against Jacobson indicates they have a bias against Christians. Donohue said that Jacobson should be fired.

This anti-Christian bias of the networks is becoming commonplace. Actress Kathy Griffin used her appearance on the Emmy Awards program to tell Jesus to "suck it," responding to athletes who thank Jesus when they achieve certain levels. No action was taken against Griffin.

Bill Donoghue's latest post reports that ESPN has suspended Jacobson for a week, but he appears to have initially thought her insult was directed only at Notre Dame - not Jesus Himself. Apparently there is a video of the event that ESPN refuses to release. Donoghue wants the video made public so we can all know exactly what was said. Newsbusters has more details. Here is what ESPN has to say.

As usual, Notre Dame responded with class.

Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said, "While we in no way condone Ms. Jacobson's comments, we're aware of the circumstances in which they occurred, and in the interest of forgiveness, trust that she and ESPN will address the matter in an appropriate way."

I am not in the least surprised that an ESPN anchor would say such things. This is the network that glorifies the vile exploits of athletically-talented gangsters who in a more civilized society would be placed behind bars where they cannot serve as objects of adulation for impressionable teenagers. That we live in such a society is only partially the fault of ESPN, of course. TV networks air the things they think we want to see. Ms. Jacobson is simply a reflection of our neo-pagan culture. Nonetheless, there is no reason for Christians to patronize a network whose stars feel free to fling curses at our God and institutions like Notre Dame that are dedicated to His service. There are better things to do with our time anyway.

Ms. Jacobson is also a coward. If she really wanted to stir up trouble she would have directed her insults at Mohammad. She did not - and if she had, ESPN would not need to be pressured into taking action. Jacobson would have been fired within microseconds and told to leave the building quickly before the car bombs could get there. This double standard says all we need to know.

UPDATE: David Kuo - and apparently most of his readers - think Christians are just whining about this incident. Why are these people even reading a site called "beliefnet?"

Also, I forgot to mention that ESPN is owned by Disney. I'm sure Uncle Walt would be proud.

UPDATE 2: Bill Donohue now says after further discussions with ESPN he now feels the network has taken appropriate action, and he considers the matter closed. Sister Mary Martha has a few words.

Anticipating 2008

At this time of year we are always treated to a flurry of predictions for the new year. Unfortunately I cannot join the fun because my crystal ball is out of order. For your enjoyment, however, here are a few things I suspect will dominate the headlines for the next twelve months.

U.S. Presidential Election: If you're already tired of the endless campaign, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Tomorrow nigh week real people in Iowa will actually start selecting delegates to the national party conventions. Then things will start to happen really fast, and we ought to know who the two nominees will be sometime in the next few weeks. Then we will be treated to fun of a different kind as the two finalists spend months slinging rocks at each other. There's a good chance that one, and possibly both, candidates will be senators, which means every single vote in the U.S. Senate will become a presidential campaign issue. Congress may just grind to a complete halt - which wouldn't be such a bad thing, actually.

Troops Withdraw From Iraq: The "surge" strategy may or may not be working, depending who you ask and how they measure success, but one way or the other the U.S. military commitment in Iraq should start to fall significantly this year. The Pentagon simply can't sustain current troop levels for another year unless they lengthen tours beyond 15 months. Hopefully the force reduction will be orderly and the Iraqis will be able to maintain order on their own.

New War Fronts: The troops who leave Iraq may not get much rest before finding themselves in another hotspot somewhere around the Gulf. Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey are all potential destinations. Iraq will not be the last campaign of the War on Terror.
.
Geopolitics: Apart from the Middle East there are plenty of other trouble spots. Radical Islam is moving into Asia and Africa, for instance. It will be interesting to see how Russia develops when Putin moves from president to prime minister. North Korea, Venezuela, and other potential enemies will bear watching. The summer Olympics in Beijing will have vast political implications.

Pope Visit U.S.: Pope Benedict XVI will visit New York and Washington in April. He is scheduled to address the United Nations and meet with President Bush. The publicity surrounding this will be intense and coming in the midst of the presidential campaign it will inevitably turn political.

Culture War: The movie and TV writer's strike, if it drags on, may have the pleasant side-effect of sparing us from Hollywood's worst indignities, at least temporarily. Don't applaud too quickly, though; they will find new and innovative ways to pipe garbage into your home.

Bolt from the Blue: It's the things you don't expect that always matter the most. The possibilities are endless: another 9/11, nuclear war in the Mideast, bird flu pandemic, economic collapse, you name it. At some point in 2008 we'll get an ugly surprise, and maybe more than one. Should we worry about it? No. Just be ready. You can save time if you start praying now.

I can say with complete confidence is that this time next year, things will be a lot different. In what ways? I'll get back to you on that.

2007 In Review

A little retrospective humor for New Year's Eve...



Click here if you don't see the video embedded above.

Happy New Year!!

(video via Fr. Erik)

Obscenity at Barnes & Noble

So this weekend I went shopping at the new Barnes & Noble in my area. Mrs. D.O.T.S. and I were pleased when it opened because there were no other bookstores nearby.

At the front of the store near the checkout counters is a table featuring 2008 box calendars, the kind where you tear off a page each day. There are all manner of such calendars: dogs, cats, cartoons, happy thoughts, etc. I took a picture of it for you. Which one grabs your attention? Keep in mind this is only a few steps away from the children's section of the store.

I dare say most eyes will be drawn straight to the bright red "Sex Every Day In Every Way 2008 Daily Calendar." (Click here for a better look on the B&N web site.) This is just what America needs because, as you know, we just don't think about sex often enough in this country. Having such a daily reminder will be good for everyone.

If people want to buy this thing, so be it, but is it really a good idea to display them out in the open, alongside products that will draw the eyes of small children? There are more than words, too. The box has illustrations that graphically depict people engaged in a variety of (ahem...) acrobatic maneuvers. I don't want to show them on my blog, but you can click here for a small sample.

On the same table was another calendar, shown in the second photo. If you can't read it, the headline reads "The Dictionary of Corporate B------t." This is slightly less offensive than the sex calendar but still not appropriate for public view, in my opinion. Movies that use this word get a PG-13 rating, so parents at least know what to expect. Barnes & Noble doesn't give you the courtesy of a warning.

I took one of the sex calendars to a female store employee and asked her if she thought it was appropriate to display where children would almost certainly see them. She took one look and called the manager.

He offered no regrets whatsoever. All he could say was "People have different tastes" and he would pass on my concern to their corporate office. I again asked, what kind of person could even remotely think that it is appropriate to let children see this product? He would not answer the question. So I wished him a Merry Christmas and left without buying anything.

If B&N is like most large retailers, the store manager is given detailed directions from above on how products are to be displayed. He probably doesn't have authority to move them. This means B&N has made a corporate decision that it doesn't care if young children are exposed to sexually explicit images. Their first priority is to make money however they can. That is their right, of course. It is also my right to not shop at their store. I urge everyone else to do likewise.

One more indication of the priorities at Barnes & Noble: there is a large display of Phillip Pullman's atheism-promoting Golden Compass line of children's books and related merchandise. If they can't corrupt your kids one way, they'll find another way to get the job done. Their persistence is admirable.

You can express your concern to B&N management by using the contact form at the bottom of this page.

UPDATE: Moms go after CVS; Is Barnes & Noble Next?

The Allure of Power

I recently discovered a very interesting blog called Rebellion. The owner, Mike Tuggle, seems to share much of my concern about the state of our culture, and where it is taking us. Here's what he said about the Rev. Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani.

What attracted Robertson to Giuliani is the allure of State Power, the new object of post-Christian America’s veneration. It’s not a failing that’s confined to Robertson, but to all who support any and all demonstrations of the Empire’s military might. We Americans are all pagans now, and emperor worship has supplanted both the ideals and traditions of the American Republic as well as the foundations of our Christian faith. Power, our power, intoxicates and defines us at the same time. We may pay lip service to our old traditions, but with a few new definitions, we’re good to go on to our next imperial conquest. So when we invoke the core principles of the American tradition, we now affirm loudly, and with straight faces, that the Founders intended us to roam the world to root out deviations from the one, true system, which we still fool ourselves into believing is the American Way—which we still try to fool others into believing is a universal truth meant for all. Therefore, our armies do not conquer, but liberate. And those who stand in our way are so blind to our noble intentions that they deserve what they get.

This is the attitude that grips us now. That’s what Robertson has actually endorsed. And the longer the rot of empire eats away at us, the worse we will all become. Rudy’s outrageous antics will soon become the norm, and the death-spiral of empire will only accelerate. May God have mercy on us.

Read the rest

No More Ho Ho Ho

At first I thought this had to be a joke, but it seems real.

Santas in Australia's largest city have been told not to use Father Christmas's traditional "ho ho ho" greeting because it may be offensive to women, it was reported Thursday.

Sydney's Santa Clauses have instead been instructed to say "ha ha ha" instead, the Daily Telegraph reported.

One disgruntled Santa told the newspaper a recruitment firm warned him not to use "ho ho ho" because it could frighten children and was too close to "ho", a US slang term for prostitute. [source]

Where do I begin? Any woman who would be offended to hear Santa Claus say "ho ho ho" is out of her mind and needs to get psychological help. What's next? Consider the alternatives:

• Ha ha ha promotes the stereotype that fat people are jolly.
• Hi hi hi implies that Santa is a user of illegal drugs.
• Hu hu hu may be offensive to owl lovers.
• Hee hee hee will be heard by radical feminists as a male chauvinist taunt.

Unless someone invents a new vowel, it appears that Santas throughout the English-speaking world will have no choice but to stand there in silence and stare at the kiddies. Children who expected a jolly old man will be sorely disappointed. Before you know it, Santa will be regarded as the creepy man in red who appears every year to frighten youngsters. Merry Christmas!

Feline Music

With 6.7 million views on YouTube, this cat named Nora is officially a star. Click here if you don't see the embedded video. There's also a sequel if you want more.

Nora's sublime and thoughtful notes are a vast improvement over most of what passes for music today. Hopefully she will devote all of her nine lives to composition and give us a full symphony.

Hat tip: Sister Mary Martha

Jefferson vs. Madison

... according to the inimitable Mark Shea:

The odd thing about America is that our whole system of government is predicated on a faith in the Fall. That's why we have checks and balances: because nobody can be trusted with too much power. The moment fallen man is given power is the moment he is tempted to forget what the power is for and start using it to acquire more power, no matter what it takes. And, just in case you are wondering, "Does this have dark implications for America since we are the sole superpower on earth?" the answer is "Yes."

The tension in American culture has always been between Jeffersonian cockeyed optimism and Madisonian realism. Our governmental institutions are founded on the belief that you cannot trust people with power. Our culture is founded more and more on faith in The Wisdom of the Common Man. That, by itself, is not a bad balance. But in the 20th century, there have been fewer and fewer Madisonian voices and more and more flatterers. Our entire advertising industry is all about giving you moral permission to indulge yourself because You Deserve It.

Religion has, to a large extent, also been co-opted by the flattery industry. God is crazy about you because you That Sort of Chap. Joel Osteen is the Face of American Protestantism. Jonathan Edwards, not so much. Catholics are afflicted with the Church of Aren't We Fabulous where it's always the Feast of St. Narcissus. Our Manufacturers of Culture are constantly playing to our vanity. And a theology of the Fall is highly inconvenient to this project. It's "guilt manipulation". It's "hatriotism". We want to hear about how wonderful we are, how wronged we've been, how much everybody owes us, how powerful we are.

READ THE REST

We're The Mission Field Now

Christianity is, by definition, an evangelical religion. Jesus told us to "go and make disciples of all nations." This does not relieve us of the responsibility to practice and preach the Gospel at home, of course. Yet there is a special need to take the Word to those in other places who need to hear it.

Missionary work, as most of us think about it, consists of Americans going to the less developed parts of the world: Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Mideast. This is wonderful, but sometimes creates a perception that the Gospel only goes in one direction. The natural order of things, it appears, is that Christianity came to Americans first and now we generously share it with the poor lost people everywhere else.

The truth, of course, is that Americans are just as lost as the rest of the world. To the extent our culture is Christian, it is because we are the descendants of Christians who came here from elsewhere, and who established a political order that allowed religion to flourish.

Is the tide now turning? Certainly Christianity in the U.S. is not nearly as influential as it used to be. We live in a culture that is in many ways as pagan as Ancient Rome. Meanwhile Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds in places that really were pagan not too many years ago. As a result America is becoming a mission field for others.

I thought of this when I heard the podcast of Fr. Benedict Groeschel's EWTN program last week (listen here). His guest was a priest from the Missionary Society of Saint Paul, Fr. Efiri Matthias Selemobri. This order originated in Nigeria and has a number of missionaries working in the United States as well as Europe. Get it? The Africans are now coming here to help us.

This is richly ironic, in my opinion, but I have to say it is a very good idea. American churches obviously need all the help we can get. Defending and spreading the Faith in this materialistic culture isn't getting any easier. Africans bring some unique gifts and a new approach that I think will be helpful.

Remarkable things are happening in Africa and elsewhere. Nigerians, for example, don't have hundreds of years of Christian heritage as we do in the U.S. The first foreign missionaries arrived there in the 1860s to find a population devoted to tribal religious customs. Now only 150 years later, about half the people are Christian (mostly Catholic) and Nigerians are sending their own missionaries to the rest of the world.

This is an excellent illustration of how the Catholic Church is truly universal. It is one body with many limbs and organs that work together. When one part of your body gets an infection, antibodies from far away will immediately rush to the infected area and join the fight. There's no doubt that the church in America (both Catholic and Protestant) is infected with the germs of relativism and secularism. Africa is sending antibodies - in the form of priests from MSP and other societies - to help us.

The Church in Nigeria is vibrant and orthodox. The MSP seminary, for instance, gets about 3,000 applicants every year. Of these about 300 are well qualified to begin studying for the priesthood. Sadly, the seminary only has the resources to accept about 30 new students each year. Imagine if all 300 could begin their training and go on to become missionaries around the world. This is just the beginning, too - the MSP is only one relatively small group in a very large continent.

Check out the MSP web site for more about this very interesting religious order. We should all pray their their work prospers, and support them however we can. We need their help, and they need ours.

Is Huckabee the One?

With Fred Thompson proving to be less attractive than some people thought, and Sam Brownback now out of the race, many social conservatives are turning their attention to Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor is firmly pro-life and pushes all the right buttons on other cultural issues. As a Baptist minister he is also comfortable talking in religious terms. He wowed the audience at the recent Values Voter Summit and did surprisingly well in the straw vote of attendees.

Not so fast, said John Fund in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once "his No. 1 fan." She was bitterly disappointed with his record. "He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal," she says. "Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

The business community in Arkansas is split. Some praise Mr. Huckabee's efforts to raise taxes to repair roads and work with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. Free-market advocates are skeptical. "He has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement," says Blant Hurt, a former part owner of, and columnist for, Arkansas Business magazine. "He's hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate." MORE

David Kuo came to Huckabee's defense, suggesting Fund may have had other motives.

Well let's think about this. He loves the spotlight? Check. He was a preacher and is now a politician - he definitely believes in himself.

An economic and environmental liberal? Yeah, he only cut taxes and fees 100 times totaling more than $375 million. He only left a state surplus of nearly $850 million. What a liberal disaster he is.

This is a pure hit piece with a curious number of quotes from Mitt Romney backers. MORE

My view is we could probably do worse than Huckabee, but I can't get excited about him. Maybe I will learn more and change my mind. For now, my vote in the GOP primary still goes to Ron Paul.

Condomania & the Catholic Church

The rapid spread in Latin America of the virus that causes AIDS is made worse by the Roman Catholic Church's stand against using condoms, a U.N. official said on Monday.

Some 1.7 million people across Latin America are infected with the HIV virus or full-blown AIDS, and the epidemic is spreading swiftly with up to 410,000 new cases in 2006, up from as many as 320,000 new cases in 2004, according the UN AIDS program, UNAIDS.

"In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region," said Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. MORE

This is so absurd it would be funny if the subject were less serious. We are, apparently, supposed to believe that the very same people who obviously reject Catholic teaching on fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and other such practices somehow feel they must, nevertheless, slavishly avoid condoms because the Church tells them to. Therefore, the Catholic Church is responsible for AIDS. I don't think so.

In fact, if the people of Latin America (or anywhere else) actually did what the Catholic Church says - i.e. limit sexual activity to married men and women who are faithful to each other - diseases like AIDS/HIV would disappear very quickly. Funny how this works - frequently things the Church teaches for moral reasons also turn out to be just plain smart. Most Protestant and Evangelical denominations teach the same thing, incidentally.

Some will argue that that condoms are hard to obtain in Catholic-dominated cultures. Even if it's true, which I doubt, so what? The places where condoms are most easily obtainable also happen to be the places with the highest HIV infection rates. Condoms are freely available all over the United States, even beginning in middle school in some states, and we still have an HIV epidemic here. Clearly the relationship between condom usage and infection is a little more complicated than just assuming "More condoms = less HIV."

The most effective way to prevent HIV and other STDs is to change your behavior and stop engaging in the practices that spread it. This is what the Catholic Church teaches, but it isn't just a moral principle; it is scientific fact. The UN certainly isn't giving people this message, but someone needs to. Lives depend on it.

[Note also, in the Reuters story linked above, how all pretense of journalistic objectivity is abandoned. Normal practice is to show both points of view. In this case the UN condom pusher gets quoted directly, while the Catholic position is characterized by the reporter without a response from the Church. Typical for the Reuters "News" Agency.]

American Papist has a good take on this same story.

No More Miller Time

This story has been all over the blog world the last few weeks but I'll pass it on anyway, in case some people missed it.

In San Francisco the gay and lesbian community has an event each year called the Folsom Street Fair. It includes a wide variety of sexual acts that normally occur behind closed doors between consenting adults. Here are some very graphic images of the event. Prepare to be shocked.

Disgusting as this is, it would not be so bad if these people would simply practice their lifestyles among themselves. For some reason, however, they feel compelled to use the opportunity to attack the religion most Americans hold dear. Their promotional poster is a satire of Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper, featuring a table covered with sexual devices. You can see it here.

The fair also features a group called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the purpose of which seems to be mocking the dedication and sacrifice of Catholic nuns. Clearly the Folsom Street Fair is an anti-religious event. In particular, it is an anti-Christian and anti-Catholic event. (For some reason Islam gets a pass, despite its history of violence toward homosexuals.)

The Folsom Street Fair is supported by numerous local businesses in San Francisco and one national sponsor: Miller Brewing Company. After complaints, Miller had its logo removed from the Last Supper poster but continued to sponsor the main event.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is leading a campaign to boycott of all Miller products until the company promises to no longer sponsor such anti-religious events. I think it's a great idea. Miller can't have it both ways; if they want Christians to buy they products, they need to stop funding events that insult us and degrade our culture.

So next time you feel like it's Miller time, find something else to drink. A company that supports obscenity and religious bigotry does not deserve your business.

Does Poverty Cause Abortion?

Surveys of women who have had abortions reveal that many of them felt they simply "couldn't afford" to have a child. Darwin responds to a Christian blogger who made this argument:

We live in the most wealthy country in the world, with one of the highest abortion rates in the world. Is our problem really that we're not wealthy enough?

Not only the average citizen of our country, but the poor of our country are far, far wealthier than they were 100 years ago. And yet, as we have become wealthier, the institution of the family has collapsed, illegitimacy has become a pandemic in the lower economic reaches of society, divorce has become commonplace, abortion is common -- used by some parts of society as a last resort, and by others almost as backup-birth control. (The stats I've seen on abortion repeat customers are pretty terrifying.)

And yet the problem, we are told, is that our country is still too poor to have a lower abortion rate? The claim is, quite frankly, so ludicrous that it's hard to believe the author even means it seriously. Sadly, though, I think he does. MORE

I agree - the idea is simply laughable. The fact that people take it seriously says a lot about the rampant materialism of Americans. When these women - and the men who impregnate them - say "I can't afford to have a child," what they really mean is "I can't afford to have a child without giving up my life of fun, frolic, and freedom."

Contrast this with of Third World countries where people who have far less than even the poorest Americans continue to view children as a blessing, and do whatever it takes to care for them. For that matter, right here in America we have parents who figure out ways to afford five, ten or more children on a typical middle-class income.

So the question is not really about money; it is a question of priorities. People whose highest priority is their own pleasure naturally regard children as a burden to be avoided. That's why we have DINKs and pampered pooches. Children are, quite literally, the future. If your focus is on the present, it's much easier to flush your future down the drain.

Rise of the Wiggers

Bill Cosby, who in recent years is making it his mission to preach self-responsibility to black Americans, has a new book called Come On, People. On Sunday he appeared on Meet The Press along with his co-author, Dr. Alvin Poussaint of Harvard Medical School. They seem to have their work cut out for them.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the things that you did in “Come On, People” were—was to compile statistics, very hard-headed numbers.

DR. POUSSAINT: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: And they are numbing when you read through them. You mentioned one. One out of three of homeless people are black. Blacks make up 12 percent of our population. And here’s a some—a few more that you cite which I think really does help us dramatize how critical this discussion is. And let’s read them through here.

“Homicide is the number one cause of death for black men between 15 and 29 years of age and has been for decades.

“Of the roughly 16,000 homicides in this country each year, more than half are committed by black men. A black man is seven times more likely to commit a murder than a white man, and six times more likely to be murdered.

“Ninety-four percent of all black people who are murdered are murdered by other black people.

“Although black people make up” “12 percent of the general population,” “make up nearly 44 percent of the prison population.

“At any given time, as many as one in four of all” black men, “young black men are in the criminal justice system—in prison or jail, on probation or on parole.”

Those are numbing numbers. They truly are. What can we do? [Full transcript]

What the transcript doesn't show is that when Russert said "What can we do?" there was a long, awkward pause before Cosby began to answer. My impression was that he knows full well that there are no good solutions. Two and maybe three generations are lost forever. It's very sad. Cosby has a few specific public policy ideas, which may help some, but what really needs to happen is a moral awakening in the black communities. There is only so much that outsiders can do to help.

The broader point I wish to make is that I fear the trends we see among young blacks are finding their way to white youth, through the conduit of rap music. More from the MTP interview:

In fact, the audience for gangsta rap is made up predominantly of white youth, who get a vicarious thrill from participating in a black thug fantasy, including the degradation of women. Black youth, as well as some misguided adults, have defended the use of the N-word, suggesting they are somehow making it a positive term...

If you’re going to use those words and the white male is buying the CD, then they’re buying into those words, and those words are being used on their women. Hint, hint. Domestic violence in the police department. Now they also share in the N-word. And it’s OK to say it, according to them, because it’s on the record...

Remember, too, that for a while that white kids who were into some of this rap and so on started calling themselves “wiggers”? ...

... the young, young girls will be dancing to words that degrade women and degrade them and they’re dancing to it. It shows you how much values have been corrupted, you know, by some of the media influences, and the young people can’t distinguish between what’s right and wrong. It’s like the, the bad stuff has become normal, and then they even see it as part of their culture instead of something that’s abhorrent and, and, and, and hurtful to their, to their lives and to their community.

Now, I know plenty of white parents who either don't mind or don't know that their kids listen to the vile lyrics of gangsta rap. I suppose it is possible, in a family situation that is otherwise healthy and stable, that this kind of music won't cause any harm. On the other hand, it's insane to suggest that music has no effect on us at all.

Music is processed by our brains differently from spoken or written words. It makes us feel good, and we retain information better when we acquire it musically. Kids who would never read poetry in English class love to hear the same words set to music. Properly used, this can be a good thing. Use it to spread misogynistic, violent, and hedonistic thoughts, and it should surprise no one if we end up with misogynistic, violent, and hedonistic youth.

White Americans need to hope and pray that people like Cosby and Poussaint are successful in their mission - not only because blacks are fellow citizens and humans, but because whites are vulnerable to the same disorders. The trends you see in black youth today will overtake white youth. When white kids begin calling themselves "wiggers," you know it's already starting. The violence and chaos that prevail in inner cities are spreading to white suburbs.

Think I'm wrong? I hope I am. Let's talk again in twenty years.


UPDATE 10/16/07: Mark Gordon has a post about the Cosby book. Otherwise not much reaction in the blogs I read.

A Healthy Lifestyle That Isn't Promoted

Reports show that one in five youths (age 15-24) in California are infected with some kind of sexually transmitted disease - genital herpes, gonorrhea, HIV, etc.

I do not know what the rates are in other states. Given the licentious nature of that state's culture it wouldn't be surprising if the STD rate is higher there. In any case, this figure illustrates just how "effective" modern sex education is. In California middle schools are required by law to teach HIV prevention techniques. It seems clear that whatever they are teaching is not working very well, while the only 100% effective technique, abstinence, is actually banned from public schools.

The ironic thing is that the people who nag the rest of us to live "healthy lifestyles" very frequently come from California. Yet it seems that at least 1 out of 5 of their own young people are living a lifestyle that is anything but healthy.

The behavior that spreads STDs is almost always voluntary. It is a choice that carries a cost to one's health, similar to smoking. Insurance companies know this - which is why people who smoke have to pay more for their life and health insurance. Many employers encourage their workers to eat healthy foods, exercise, stop smoking, lose weight, etc. It has nothing to do with morality. It's all about the money.

This brings up an idea: maybe those who choose to live promiscuous lives, and allow their children to do so, should pay for this privilege. Is it really fair that people who live in chastity or monogamy be forced to underwrite the inevitable costs of other people's choices? That is what happens, either through higher insurance rates or higher taxes.

I'm not saying anyone should be prevented from fooling around however they wish. I am simply suggesting that they pay for the consequences of their choice and not expect other people to subsidize them. With freedom comes responsibility, right?

This is, of course, not what will happen as a result of this data. What will happen is that the citizens of California will get more and more explicit sex education that is introduced at younger and younger ages and is less and less effective. Where it will end, I don't know. Many people will die -or live their lives with awful afflictions that render them unable to enjoy true intimacy and union with another. This is the cost of so-called "freedom."



Hat tips: Mark Shea and Darth Beckman

So Much For Growing Up

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Thoughts on Hypocrisy

A few days ago Rod Dreher noted something from a recent press interview of Jenna Bush, the president's daughter. It seems that in 2006 Jenna and her boyfriend (now fiance) Henry went on a camping trip. Upon being told of the plans, the president asked his daughter, "Do you have two tents?"

Rod's post quickly drew comments from people saying the president, who had his share of youthful indiscretions, is a hypocrite for saying such a thing. To me, this attitude is very strange. In our culture hypocrisy seems to have become the only unforgivable sin. Yet at the same time, it is something we are all guilty of in one way or the other. I wrote the following a few weeks ago in reaction the the arrest of Senator Larry Craig:

It is entirely possible to simultaneously a) believe that a certain behavior is immoral, and b) be unable to resist one's own urges to engage in that same behavior. As much as we struggle to do good, every single day we still do things we know to be wrong. To be human is to be a hypocrite. The fact that we are often unable to live up to the standard does not mean that no standard exists. MORE

I think when people make charges of hypocrisy, often what they are really saying is "I don't like that rule." But in fact, the existence of a moral principle and the ability of individuals to follow that principle are entirely different subjects. Neither effects the other.

For example, I know that I should not eat an entire quart of Blue Bell Cookies & Cream ice cream at one time. It is not good for my health, it is wasteful of my family's money, and it sets a bad example for others. I should not do it. It's wrong. Yet I have, on many occasions, done this thing that I know to be wrong. I'm pretty sure I will do it again at some point. Am I a hypocrite about ice cream? Sounds like it. But that does not change the fact that too much ice cream is bad for me. I could simply deny the negative effects of ice cream and eat a quart of it every day. Then I would not be a hypocrite. I would, however, pay a heavy price in other ways.

Now, back to the Bush family situation. Like many of us Baby Boomers, George W. Bush did dangerous, unwise, and sometimes illegal things in his youth. What does this have to do with the way we bring up our own children?

One approach is to presume that we as parents have no moral authority to tell our own offspring not to do these things, because we did them ourselves. The result is kids with no restraint who quite naturally go wild. If they don't come to some kind of harm, they will go on to produce another generation that is even worse. This isn't good, but at least you, the parent, won't be a hypocrite. Congratulations. I'm sure your hypocrisy-free conscience will help you feel better when you visit your kids in prison, or put flowers on their graves.

The other approach is to recognize, with the benefit of maturity, the harm that we caused ourselves and others when we were young, and then help our kids avoid the same mistakes. Is it hypocrisy? Yes. Is it the best thing for our children? Yes.

This seems to be what Bush was telling his daughter: sharing a tent with a young man to whom you are not yet fully committed in marriage can be harmful in a variety of ways. By this time she was probably old enough to make her own decisions, but there is nothing wrong with a father offering advice to his daughter - at any age.

Is George W. Bush 100% successful as a parent? Apparently not, if some of the stories about his daughters are true. On the other hand, I don't know any parents who are perfect. I'm sure not. We all just do the best we can, regardless of what may be in our past. The alternative is to set our kids adrift without a moral compass. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.