A news release by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights shows how the plaintiffs in the prop 8 trial are distorting religious views in an attempt to make the facts fit the homosexual agenda. Lead attorney David Bois, who also represented Al Gore in the 2000 Florida election litigation, called as an expert witness professor Gary Segura of Stanford University. Segura's testified that religious groups which supported Prop 8 constituted 34 percent of the nation’s population, while only 2 percent of religions opposed it is a serious distortion of the facts.
What Bois is trying to do is to show the court that homosexuals are a protected class in that their life style is an immutable charcteristic like race rather than at some level a choice. Once that has been shown he needs to complete the scenario whereby homosexuals are the object of relentless discrimination by the majority which has embeded its discriminatory ideas in law, thereby making homosexuals a "protected class" in Supreme Court parlance and therefore entitled to "equal protection" under the Constitution.
There are a couple of problems with this line of attack. First, this is not factually true. While churches did provide much of the organized support for Proposition 8, the proposition passed with an overwhelming majority of voters of all faiths and non-faith. Further, Bois distorts the religious position by claiming that Church in rejecting homosexuality wishes homosexuals ill, that the church wishes to keep homosexuals under subjegation, likes blacks under Jim Crow. This is untrue. The Church has always distinguished between the sin and the sinner. As believers, we have no animus against homosexuals, only the activities in which they engage. But please do not ask us to ratify the homosexual lifestyle in marriage.
The second and greatest problem is ethical. Lawyers need to provide the most effective representation to their clients. Lawyers, though, also have a duty to society. However, at a certain point excessive zeal in representation may do actual disservice to society. Bois is casting religion as the villain of the piece. Through his distortions Bois seeks to make illicit the church's ideas about homosexuality, marriage, and society.
The lesson he wants society to draw is that you can believe anything you want but you can not vote based upon your deeply held beliefs, you can not act on your deeply held beliefs, and you can not speak publicly about your deeply held beliefs. This is the lesson of totalitarianism. Under totalitarian systems individuals can believe as they wish but may not act on these beliefs. Under these systems individuals need to carry two sets of beliefs, one the party line which they must pretend to profess, the other that which they actually believe.
Does David Bois intend to prohibit bringing our consciences into the voting booth. If so, his advocacy intends the destruction of democracy.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
U.S. Educated Lawyer Imprisoned in Vietnam
Le Cong Dinh, one of Vietnam's most famous lawyers, was sentenced to five years in prison for trying to overthrow the government. At his brief trial, Dinh, who went to Tulane Law School, admitted he was influenced by Western ideas while studying abroad, admitted being a member of the banned Democratic Party of Vietnam, and admitted attending a meeting of dissidents in Laos. He denied attempting to overthrow the government seeking only to introduce multiparty democracy. Dinh could have received the death penalty.
Le Cong Dinh's courage in speaking the truth to his interrogators provides a model for us all. None of us faces death but many of us hesitate to tell the truth about the many ills that beset our nation, including abortion, pornography, and the "gay" agenda. In an earlier time, Alexandre Solzhenitsyn told the truth about the Soviet regime and galvanized resistence to it. He became so famous that even the Soviets could not simply kill him.
Le Cong Dinh deserves our support. Let the Vietnamese government know that the whole world is watching. Send a letter to:
Ambassador Le Cong Phung
Vietnamese Embassy
1233 20th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20036-2364
Vietnamese response to U.S. criticism of trials.
Le Cong Dinh's courage in speaking the truth to his interrogators provides a model for us all. None of us faces death but many of us hesitate to tell the truth about the many ills that beset our nation, including abortion, pornography, and the "gay" agenda. In an earlier time, Alexandre Solzhenitsyn told the truth about the Soviet regime and galvanized resistence to it. He became so famous that even the Soviets could not simply kill him.
Le Cong Dinh deserves our support. Let the Vietnamese government know that the whole world is watching. Send a letter to:
Ambassador Le Cong Phung
Vietnamese Embassy
1233 20th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20036-2364
Vietnamese response to U.S. criticism of trials.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
I'm just back from the National March for Life. It was the largest March for Life yet. More on that in a later post.
I took the opportunity of being in Washington to finally visit the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. I should not have waited so long. The architecture is breathtaking. The altars devoted to the various devotions to Our Lady are moving. The church was crowded with tourists yet they were quieted by awe. Sincere praying could be done without disturbance. Masses are being said on the Crypt level at almost every hour. Confessions were being heard all day. My visit touched me at a deep emotional level -- Our Lady working in my life, I guess. This is religious architecture done right; providing awe, inspiration, and reverence.
If you have not yet made a visit to our National Shrine-- it is America’s Catholic church, make one soon. You will be rewarded beyond expecations. I will shortly post pictures of the Basilica and the March; none of which do justice to the place or the event.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Rhetoric, argumentation, and propaganda
Ever wonder why the good guys always seem to be at the rhetorical disadvantage. We mean well but find ourselves cast as oppressors. That is because our opponents use rhetorical and advertizing techniques to change the subject and shade the meanings of words. For example, pro-abortion groups have taken to calling for the right to fund "women's reproductive health." Thus those who opposed them are against women and their health. Pro-life activists are cast as attempting to deny women health coverage.
I saw an good exposition of the techniques used by progressive social activists on The Abundant Life with Johnnette Benkovic, a program seen on EWTN. The guest, Paul Rondeau, a professor of marketing at Regent University, explained many of these techniques and how the progressive movement uses them to influence opinion and silence opposition. Another example is the program of "desensitize, jam and convert" whereby we are exposed to certain ideas so often and so ubiquitously that we become desensitized to the idea. Thus the media present to us many images of "normal" homosexual lifestyles including on such innocuous programs as HGTV's House Hunters. After a while we see these couples as just another "lifestyle." "Jamming" refers to linking legitimate points of view with the most extreme negative attitudes. Thus if you are against hate speech codes you ar a homophobe and in the same class as those who assault and murder homosexuals. This technique is used to quiet opposition. No one wants to be cast as a racist or hatemonger. Conversion comes when they portray people happily living with the ideas that they aimed to put across.
A copy of the program can be purchased at the Living His Life Abundantly web site. Some of these techniques are discussed here on the Christians Thinking site.
Knowing the techniques is the first step to countering and exposing them. Having the courage to speak the truth unmasks these techniques and will ultimately defeat them. In the end, reality will defeat them. The progressive movement believes that words and language have no meaning; that is words do not refer to anything real. This argument was made clear by Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. Words and language do not refer to anything in the real world they are simply exercises in power. The world is fully malleable by the manipulation of language. Thus they can take the position that gender is a "socially constructed" concept. There is no male and female, only things we call male and female and these concepts have been imposed on us by the existing power structure. We have the power to create whole different concepts of gender by changing the language. In the end, though, language refers to actual characteristics of reality. Those who deny reality are, in the end, going to smash into it.
I saw an good exposition of the techniques used by progressive social activists on The Abundant Life with Johnnette Benkovic, a program seen on EWTN. The guest, Paul Rondeau, a professor of marketing at Regent University, explained many of these techniques and how the progressive movement uses them to influence opinion and silence opposition. Another example is the program of "desensitize, jam and convert" whereby we are exposed to certain ideas so often and so ubiquitously that we become desensitized to the idea. Thus the media present to us many images of "normal" homosexual lifestyles including on such innocuous programs as HGTV's House Hunters. After a while we see these couples as just another "lifestyle." "Jamming" refers to linking legitimate points of view with the most extreme negative attitudes. Thus if you are against hate speech codes you ar a homophobe and in the same class as those who assault and murder homosexuals. This technique is used to quiet opposition. No one wants to be cast as a racist or hatemonger. Conversion comes when they portray people happily living with the ideas that they aimed to put across.
A copy of the program can be purchased at the Living His Life Abundantly web site. Some of these techniques are discussed here on the Christians Thinking site.
Knowing the techniques is the first step to countering and exposing them. Having the courage to speak the truth unmasks these techniques and will ultimately defeat them. In the end, reality will defeat them. The progressive movement believes that words and language have no meaning; that is words do not refer to anything real. This argument was made clear by Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. Words and language do not refer to anything in the real world they are simply exercises in power. The world is fully malleable by the manipulation of language. Thus they can take the position that gender is a "socially constructed" concept. There is no male and female, only things we call male and female and these concepts have been imposed on us by the existing power structure. We have the power to create whole different concepts of gender by changing the language. In the end, though, language refers to actual characteristics of reality. Those who deny reality are, in the end, going to smash into it.
Monday, January 18, 2010
March for Life
Join us at the March for Life on the Mall in Washington, DC on Friday January 22, 2010.
Few issues define the divide in the culture more starkly than abortion. On one side, we have the the sanctity of human life, on the other, the rejection of "inconvenient" human life. On one side, we have a fundamental human right to life, on the other, we have no right to life beyond that which the state permits. On one side, we desire to protect the least among us, on the other, the desire to see the least among us disposed of. On one side, each life is a unique gift of God, on the other, each life is the curse of a mouth to feed. On one side, we have morality and human rights, on the other, pragmatism and nihilism. On one side, we have life, on the other, we have death.
Lawyers are called to be advocates. Advocate for the least among us this Friday.
Few issues define the divide in the culture more starkly than abortion. On one side, we have the the sanctity of human life, on the other, the rejection of "inconvenient" human life. On one side, we have a fundamental human right to life, on the other, we have no right to life beyond that which the state permits. On one side, we desire to protect the least among us, on the other, the desire to see the least among us disposed of. On one side, each life is a unique gift of God, on the other, each life is the curse of a mouth to feed. On one side, we have morality and human rights, on the other, pragmatism and nihilism. On one side, we have life, on the other, we have death.
Lawyers are called to be advocates. Advocate for the least among us this Friday.
Friday, January 15, 2010
You don't have to wait long
It did not take very long for an issue to come up that highlights the critical need for a Catholic organization dedicated to supporting law students and reform in the legal and political arenas.
Item 1. The 9th Circuit Court held that the University of California could reject high school credits given to a student by a Christian high school on the basis that the class content contained religious themes thereby preventing the student from enrolling in the University of California. The decision, Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns, et al., holds that the University rightly rejected the classes because the they did not teach about religion in a neutral way and that in rejecting the classes "UC does not punish a school for teaching, or a student for taking, an unapproved course."
Item 2. Martha Coakley, Democratic candidate for Senator from Massachusetts, in discussing abortion said ”You can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.” The context was that physicians need to be able to prescribe the "morning after" pill to rape victims.
The lesson here is that, if you go to a high school that teaches the wrong things, you cannot go to a public university and, if you believe in the wrong things, you cannot be a physician. The "wrong" things being ideas that disagree with the beliefs of the political and legal elites. However, it is modern philosophy that has it all wrong. Classical human rights are based upon our God-given human dignity which requires our acting as moral agents in the exercise of those rights. Thus the only true rights are so-called "negative" rights. The Declaration of Independence states that we have the God given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
When we exercise these rights we are expected to do so without imposing ourselves on our fellow citizens. Thus, we have the right to free speech but not the right to force anyone to listen. This leaves everyone else in society free moral agents who may listen or not listen to what you have to say. The rights are "negative" in the sense that no one needs to give up anything for me to exercise my right, they just have to leave me alone.
A positive right is one that others must provide to you if you are unable to provide it for yourself. For example, you have the right to an education until you are 18 years old. If you cannot afford an education, you will be given one for free. Notice that someone else in society will need to pay for your education. They have no choice in the matter, they can not simply just leave you alone. You have imposed your demand for a right to an education upon them. Now the right to a minimal education is pretty uncontroversial and involves no deep moral issues.
Abortion is permitted in the United States. You might agree with abortion or not, you can argue against it. However, the pro-abortion position is that abortion is a "positive" right.
The pro-abortion position is that if you want an abortion someone must provide it. Now you see that this would force others to take part in something with which they deeply disagree. Both parties are acting immorally. The person enforcing the "right" is immorally coercing someone else to do their bidding and the person being forced is no longer an independent moral agent but rather the servant of the holder of the so-called positive "right."
Likewise, we have free speech and freedom of association. The Christian high school has the right to teach as it wishes. In fact, to be a proper moral agent, it must teach as it believes and the student must believe what he understands to be true.
The public university can only review the credentials of students based upon such objective criteria as factual knowledge (i.e. what is the theory of evolution?). The public university may not discriminate against the student based upon what the high school taught or the what student believes about the theory of evolution (i.e. is it true?). In trying to rule on the content of the courses rather than the particular facts conveyed in them the public university is attempting to force them to become agents of the state rather than letting them be free to act as their own moral agents. True freedom is moral.
From these two examples we see that the prevailing political and legal philosophy is set against the Catholic understanding of law and government and aims to marginalized and exile those who hold these beliefs. It didn't take long after the founding of the CLSA and this blog to find prominent examples of how far our society has strayed from its foundations.
Item 1. The 9th Circuit Court held that the University of California could reject high school credits given to a student by a Christian high school on the basis that the class content contained religious themes thereby preventing the student from enrolling in the University of California. The decision, Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns, et al., holds that the University rightly rejected the classes because the they did not teach about religion in a neutral way and that in rejecting the classes "UC does not punish a school for teaching, or a student for taking, an unapproved course."
Item 2. Martha Coakley, Democratic candidate for Senator from Massachusetts, in discussing abortion said ”You can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.” The context was that physicians need to be able to prescribe the "morning after" pill to rape victims.
The lesson here is that, if you go to a high school that teaches the wrong things, you cannot go to a public university and, if you believe in the wrong things, you cannot be a physician. The "wrong" things being ideas that disagree with the beliefs of the political and legal elites. However, it is modern philosophy that has it all wrong. Classical human rights are based upon our God-given human dignity which requires our acting as moral agents in the exercise of those rights. Thus the only true rights are so-called "negative" rights. The Declaration of Independence states that we have the God given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
When we exercise these rights we are expected to do so without imposing ourselves on our fellow citizens. Thus, we have the right to free speech but not the right to force anyone to listen. This leaves everyone else in society free moral agents who may listen or not listen to what you have to say. The rights are "negative" in the sense that no one needs to give up anything for me to exercise my right, they just have to leave me alone.
A positive right is one that others must provide to you if you are unable to provide it for yourself. For example, you have the right to an education until you are 18 years old. If you cannot afford an education, you will be given one for free. Notice that someone else in society will need to pay for your education. They have no choice in the matter, they can not simply just leave you alone. You have imposed your demand for a right to an education upon them. Now the right to a minimal education is pretty uncontroversial and involves no deep moral issues.
Abortion is permitted in the United States. You might agree with abortion or not, you can argue against it. However, the pro-abortion position is that abortion is a "positive" right.
The pro-abortion position is that if you want an abortion someone must provide it. Now you see that this would force others to take part in something with which they deeply disagree. Both parties are acting immorally. The person enforcing the "right" is immorally coercing someone else to do their bidding and the person being forced is no longer an independent moral agent but rather the servant of the holder of the so-called positive "right."
Likewise, we have free speech and freedom of association. The Christian high school has the right to teach as it wishes. In fact, to be a proper moral agent, it must teach as it believes and the student must believe what he understands to be true.
The public university can only review the credentials of students based upon such objective criteria as factual knowledge (i.e. what is the theory of evolution?). The public university may not discriminate against the student based upon what the high school taught or the what student believes about the theory of evolution (i.e. is it true?). In trying to rule on the content of the courses rather than the particular facts conveyed in them the public university is attempting to force them to become agents of the state rather than letting them be free to act as their own moral agents. True freedom is moral.
From these two examples we see that the prevailing political and legal philosophy is set against the Catholic understanding of law and government and aims to marginalized and exile those who hold these beliefs. It didn't take long after the founding of the CLSA and this blog to find prominent examples of how far our society has strayed from its foundations.
Welcome
This is the inaugural post on this blog. We, and I am using the royal we, hope that you will follow discussions here and make use of the resources that will be made available at our home website .
We also hope that you will become members of the organization. The CLSA is in its infancy and we have a lot of work to do. Many hands make light work. Please feel free to e-mail me with ideas and suggestions, or just to raise an issue you would like to see discussed on the blog.
This association was founded to support believing Catholics as they make their way through law school and, more importantly, to enable these students to withstand the attempts by "modern" intellectuals to marginalize Catholic thought and to encourage students to act to retake the culture and the public square.
We also hope that you will become members of the organization. The CLSA is in its infancy and we have a lot of work to do. Many hands make light work. Please feel free to e-mail me with ideas and suggestions, or just to raise an issue you would like to see discussed on the blog.
This association was founded to support believing Catholics as they make their way through law school and, more importantly, to enable these students to withstand the attempts by "modern" intellectuals to marginalize Catholic thought and to encourage students to act to retake the culture and the public square.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)