Atheists Protest Mother Teresa Stamp.

First, I want to thank Al at Is Anybody There? for the heads-up regarding this story from Fox News.[ Atheist Group Blasts Postal Service for Mother Teresa Stamp]

Earlier this month, Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation issued an "Action Alert" asking that the Foundation's supporters boycott the upcoming commemorative stamp honoring Mother Teresa.

Gaylor writes;
"Of course, you can vote with your pocketbook, and boycott these stamps by selecting other 2010 releases for purchase (such as Katharine Hepburn, whose views are publicized in the Foundation's freethought bus campaign. Hepburn said: 'I'm an atheist and that's it. I believe that there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people.' )"

That's an odd quote to put into the alert. As I mentioned in an earlier post, [Atheists Aren't Asshole.] if you take the atheist's philosophy to it's logical conclusion, we human are merely the random collection of chemicals that happened to join together, so treating people differently than any other creature is a logical absurdity. In the atheist's philosophy, there is no reason why we "should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people".


Gaylor's action alert is simply an excuse for her to trash the Roman Catholic Church. Her paranoia extends to what she sees as "America's disproportionately powerful Roman Catholic influence".
Gaylor claims "Mother Teresa is on the fast-track to sainthood and the Catholic Church is pulling out all the stops to beatify one of their own." And the atheists believe we live in a fantasy world.

Gaylor has absolutely no idea how canonization works and what it means to be a saint. Why would the Church need to have Mother Teresa on a stamp to put her on the "fast-track to sainthood"? The Church can canonize anyone she sees fit to canonize. There is no need for public approval. It's not a popularity contest. To comment on something she knows nothing about shows us how ignorant Ms. Gaylor is.

Then again, what can you expect from the winner of the American Moron of the Day Award for April 07, 2004?

Michael Voris mixes it up with Protestants.

Regular readers of this blog know that, when it comes to cafeteria Catholics, I am proudly intolerant [The Fundamental Question.] . You either believe the teachings of the Church or you don't. You can't pick and choose which teachings you'll accept. It's all or nothing.

I have problems with the various Protestant denominations too, though I haven't spent much time writing about just how dangerous I believe Protestantism to be.

I received a link to the following video from RealCatholicTV. This video is not going to make the Protestants I know very happy. That doesn't alter the fact that this needs to be seen.

As Michael Voris says in the video, Martin Luther opened a "Pandora's box" five hundred years ago.
The most dangerous proposition of the Protestants is their insistence that we do not need an over-riding authority regarding Biblical teachings.....that we can, each one of us, interpret the scriptures in our own way.
That idea has lead to thousands of Protestant denominations - each one with it's own unique interpretation of God's word; it's also lead to the notion that we can pick and choose our own morality as well.

As Pope Benedict XVI has stated;
“We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”

Protestants may not be willing to recognize this, but the ideas of Martin Luther, Calvin and a host of others - up to and including the modern Protestant teachers [Jerry Falwell - Pat Robertson] - have contributed much to this dictatorship of relativism.

Our Loser- in- Chief.

Barack Obama is such a wonderfully, magnificent orator than he needs to use teleprompters when speaking in front of 6th grade students at Graham Road Elementary School in Falls Church, Va.

Atheists Set Up 'Religion-Free' Fund for Haiti.

World famous atheist, Richard Dawkins believes that, when in comes to caring for their fellow human beings, non-believers have been given a bad rap. For Dawkins, you don't need God to be good.

"Spurred by the horrific suffering in Haiti, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) has joined forces with 15 other freethought groups or associates, to collect donations to non-religious relief organizations."
The organization founded by these groups is called Atheists Aren't Assholes.

OK. I made up the name. It's really Non-Believers Giving Aid.

You see, Dawkins and other "freethinkers" would like to help the suffering masses but, heaven forbid, they should donate money to any organization affiliated with a religion.

According to an article from christianpost.com, Dawkins argues that moral action is rooted in biological evolution.

"On Dawkins's schema, one is kind to his neighbor because he's been preprogrammed by his genes to do so (at least some individuals have been so preprogrammed; others perhaps not), and he's been so programmed because acting this way confers evolutionary advantage," Meister summarizes. "It's not that it is a universally binding moral value to be kind. We simply call it 'morally good' because our genes have, through eons of evolutionary struggle, gotten us to believe that it is so."

Many atheists believe that the theories of evolution and the Big Bang show us to be the product of a random collection of molecules with no Creative Intelligence behind it all. If we are all merely a collection of chemicals, then it would follow that humans are no more valuable than any other collection of chemicals. An individual would be no more valuable than a whale or a worm or a water molecule.

Atheists may think they can be good without God, but if you take their atheism to its logical conclusion, there is absolutely no reason to treat your fellow human any differently than you would an insect.

Also from the christianpost article;

"No one is arguing that atheists cannot utter ethical statements or live good, moral lives. Of course they can," Meister writes in God is Great. "Believing that something is right or wrong and justifying one's belief that something is right or wrong are two very different matters."

Atheists cannot justify their belief that any particular action is right or wrong using their own belief system and logic.

A Few Thoughts on Scott Brown.

Very nearly immediately after Scott Brown had won the Senate seat for the State of Massachusetts, Drudge had this question;
"Now.....will he run for President?"



Where is this coming from?
I know this is a stunning defeat for the Obama administration - and for that, I'm very, very happy. Scott Brown's victory is a proverbial thumb jammed into Obama's eye.
But, are we ready to see another relatively unknown politician elected President of the United States? Haven't we learned anything?

I received an email recently from CatholicVoteAction.org with a link to a column entitled Is Scott Brown good for us?

Good question.

There has been a general euphoria in the Conservative camp since Brown's victory, with some of his flaws going unnoticed. Rush Limbaugh has, of course, spoken highly of Brown, but I haven't heard Rush comment on Brown's less than ideal views on abortion. Scott Brown supports legalized abortion ( but not partial-birth abortion).
The Massachusetts Citizens for Life endorsed Brown over Coakley because he does favor some restrictions. While that may be good enough for the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, that's not good enough for me.


Quite rightly, CatholicVote did not endorse Brown, or urge voters to elect him. The group does, however, see one ray of hope shining through. CatholicVote described Scott Brown’s win was a victory for subsidiarity. They write:

"Subsidiarity simply means that issues ought to be solved by the smallest and least centralized competent authority. Families, charities, churches and local communities, and even states ought to be the primary instruments of political change — as opposed to a massive bureaucratic centralized federal government.
And thus, while Scott Brown is ultimately wrong about abortion, he is definitely right in urging us to think anew about the proper size and role of government in a free society. And for this reason, CatholicVote is happy he won."

and:

"Make no mistake, we need leaders willing to stand for the principle that every life is sacred. Scott Brown is not that candidate. At least not yet!"

No question about it; we definitely do need to "think anew about the proper size and role of government in a free society."
Smaller government. More power in the hands of the people on a more local level.

No, Scott Brown is not the ideal Presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2012. He would be, however, far and away better than the current occupant of the Oval office.

Cleaning Up the Mess.

I have my own little pet theory as to why we Americans elect the particular President that we do. Many people erroneously believe that it’s the "issues" that will be the determining factor in who wins the election. While I admit, issues can be important, in the end, the winner will be chosen in spite of his stance on any given issue.

There is a small group of folks, who will always, no matter who the candidates may be, vote Democrat. These people wouldn't vote for a Republican under any circumstances. And, of course, there are others who will only vote Republican. These two groups are the ones who vote the issues. They have picked one party over the other because of that party's views on abortion, or the environment or whatever issue is most important to that particular group.

There’s a third group who’ll vote according to issues..... usually, it’s the issue of the economy. These people don't have any particular allegiance to one party over the other; they'll vote according to their "pocket book". It will depend on whether or not that voter is happy with his or her financial situation at the time and which party they believe will benefit them most monetarily.

In the end, however, the election depends on an ever growing portion of the populous who pick the candidate based strictly on the personality of the candidate. These folks usually only manage to get out to vote during a Presidential election. They can't be bothered to get out during the mid terms. This group will make their decision on who should have the most powerful job in the world based on something as elusive as "likeability", charm and charisma. This group can often be the determining factor that gives a candidate just enough votes to edge out.

How else can we explain why Americans will pick Presidents as different politically as day and night? Bill Clinton and George W. Bush come to mind. Whether you agree with his politics or not, you have to admit that Clinton had more charisma than Bob Dole. And, despite his shortcomings, George W. Bush certainly has more "personality" than those two walking wallpapers - Al Gore and John Kerry.

This theory explains why we have Barack Obama in office today. Absolutely no one could vote for John McCain because of his charisma. Obama was such a fresh and charismatic personality that people who would not have otherwise voted came out to vote for him.

In most cases, this method of picking the president isn’t a complete disaster. Die hard politicos may disagree, but the country didn't crumple under the terms of Clinton and Bush. With Obama, however, picking a President this way has proven to be a horror of unimaginable proportions.

Now, during the mid terms, it's up to the issue driven voters to overturn the gross mistake of November, 2008. The air headed Kool aid drinkers that pushed Obama over the top aren't going to go out and vote.... they seem to only come out during the Presidential election. It's now up to the responsible folks to fix this mess. This is why New Jersey and Virginia chose Republican Governors last go round and why Massachusetts voted in their first Republican Senator in 31 years.

Obama will be Obama. He will continue to infuriate the common sense, responsible American voter. We'll see massive Republican victories in 2010. What happens in 2012 will depend on two things. First, how well will Obama's charismatic aura hold up after four years of abuse. Secondly, if the Republicans nominate a dullard - someone on the order of a Bob Dole, John McCain or Jerry Ford type - we'll be in for another disastrous Presidency.

A Break in the (non) Action.

Let's be honest; my writing hasn't really been up to snuff lately.
Most days, I spend hours on end pouring over the Internet, looking for something news-worthy to write about. As anyone can plainly see, my output for this month has been less than spectacular.

It doesn't help that I'm having to spend more time at work (at my real job). Today's one of those days when I'll be putting in a sixteen hour day at work. So, there's no time to come up with a top-notch post.

That being the case, I'm going to recommend that my readers reader click on the link I've provided and take a look at steelingspoons.blogspot.com written by Amanda West. She's a much better writer than I.

Adios,muchachos, until tomorrow. Or the next day.

Obama Heckled at Coakley Rally.

Holding a sign that read "Jesus Loves All Babies", a man protesting Obama at a Marcia uh, Martha Coakley rally was removed by security as alleged supporters of free speech booed the protester and cheered the Messiah.

A realclearpolitics.com video shows an overwhelmed Obama unable to react to the heckler. Sadly, I can't embed that video here, but I can embed the video of the protester being led away by security.

Happy Birthday, Captain Beefheart.

Happy Birthday, Captain Beefheart.
Born January 15,1941

Avatar: "Last of the Mohicans" meets " A Midsummer Night's Dream".

Until just a few months ago, I was in what many might consider an enviable position. Before his going to teach in Taiwan, a friend worked at a movie theater as he worked on getting his degree. While working for the theater, our friend was able to get us endless free passes for any movie my wife and I wished to see.
In all the years that our friend work for the theater, we may have taken advantage of his generosity once. I'm just not a big movie fan.

I haven't always been that way. There was a time long ago when I was a regular movie goer. Not any more. Getting me to a movie today is a Herculean task. One of the problems I have with movies is the whole "movie star" thing. It's nearly impossible for me to get involved in a story when the main character is a well known face. If, perish the thought, I were to attend a movie starring - let's say - Tom Hanks, I couldn't lose myself in the action because I could never forget that I was watching Tom Hanks on the screen.

I suppose that's just a way of saying that movie stars are just that.....movie stars - not actors.

You'd think, then, that I'd have little problem with the latest blockbuster of the year - Avatar.
After all, it's been so long that I've been to a movie that, other than Sigourney Weaver, I have no clue as to the identities of the other folks in the movie.

Everyone says the special effects and visuals are amazing. I've seen the trailer and, frankly, the Navi creep me out. They look a bit like "Last of the Mohicans" meets " A Midsummer Night's Dream"; like Native American fairy-lizards with blue green skin.

As far as what I can gather, the greatest weakness of the film is the story. My blogging buddy, Dominique Cimafranca rightly complains,
"It is always some effin' enlightened WHITE DUDE who has to come and save the natives."

A reviewer on moviesonline.ca comes right out and says,
"Yes, the graphics were amazing and the tall smurfs didn't bother me too much, but the story sucked."

L'Osservatore Romano and Vatican Radio conclude that, despite groundbreaking visual effects, the story is simplistic and "[flirts] with modern doctrines that promote the worship of nature as a substitute for religion."

As I mentioned earlier, I no longer have access to free movie passes. Even if I did, it seems unlikely that I'd waste my time standing in line to see this movie. I'm certainly not going to spend money to see it.

Thoughts on American Buddhism.

Fox News analyst Brit Hume set off a bit of a firestorm recently, when he suggested that Tiger Woods would be unable to find forgiveness and redemption in Buddhism (Tiger's professed faith) but rather, Tiger should embrace Christianity.

Hume said. "So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.' "

Naturally, Hume's statement greatly upset the secular humanist slash atheists in the media who believe that Christianity should not be mentioned in the public arena unless one is criticizing and denigrating the faith. There's really no surprise in that. As Ann Coulter points out,
"Someone mentioned Christianity on television recently and liberals reacted with their usual howls of rage and blinking incomprehension."

Washington Post writer,Tom Shales, went so far as to say that Hume had "....dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet..." as if Shales really gives a rat's patootie about anyone's religion being dissed. Shales says that Hume should apologize for his remarks. That's nonsense, of course. From his viewpoint, Hume made a legitimate argument. We can agree or disagree with any or all religious arguments. Disagreeing with a tenet of a particular religion is not an insult to that religion. It isn't like Hume submerged a statue of the Buddha in a container of urine or spread elephant dung on a likeness of the Bodhisattva.

What was surprising to me was the reaction of some Buddhists. [Comments by Fox's Brit Hume upset some Buddhists.]
I would suspect that those Buddhist who have their robes in a tangle aren't authentic Buddhists, but American New Age Buddhist wannabes that make up a goodly portion of the Liberal fringe. I can't imagine the Dalai Lama being too upset with Hume.

A good many, so called, "Buddhists" are simply pretenders. Many have concluded that there is a spiritual component to this life, but, heaven forbid - if you'll pardon the expression - that they would look to something as provincial as Christianity. They can, more than likely, name the eightfold path or the five precepts, but actually observing these tenets is something altogether different.

We all know that many American Catholics are only Cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what they wish to believe. There are American Buddhists who are exactly like that as well. ( "I believe in Buddhism. Not every aspect, but most of it," Woods told Sports Illustrated in 1996. "So I take bits and pieces. I don't believe that human beings can achieve ultimate enlightenment, because humans have flaws." )
Yes, there are Cafeteria Buddhists too; we just don't have a clever alliteration to describe them.

The Fundamental Question.

There is an article in Life Site News concerning Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent interview with Eleanor Cliff where Pelosi defends her views on abortion and homosexuality as being consistent with Catholic teaching.

It matters not to Pelosi that her Archbishop (and several other Bishops) tell her that her understanding of Catholic teaching is seriously flawed and filled with error. Like far too many people, she believes herself to be a faithful, practicing Catholic while ignoring what the Church has to say on a wide variety of issues.

The list is staggering; from abortion, to gay "marriage" to women in the priesthood, Left leaning Catholics will, on the one hand, tell us of their deep and abiding faith and then regale us with a number of "church errors".

Unfortunately, this cafeteria style Catholicism isn't limited to the Left. The Right can be just as guilty in picking and choosing what to accept or reject. For every liberal Catholic who attempts to justify abortion, there is a conservative attempting to justify capital punishment.
Those otherwise conservative Catholic who do not follow the Church's teaching on artificial contraceptives number in the millions.

It really boils down to one fundamental question.
Is the Catholic Church the one true, Holy and Apostolic Church as founded by Christ? Naturally, if you don't believe it is, then claiming to be a Catholic is an absurdity beyond words. If you do not believe the Catholic Church is Christ's true Church, then calling yourself Catholic is to live a lie.

On the other hand, if you do accept the Church as Christ's Church, it behooves you to take a second look at those areas where you are in disagreement with the Church - be it abortion, birth control, capital punishment or immigration. This includes your views on divorce, or war or women priests.

Many will argue that to do this is to give up our free will and blindly allow someone else to tell us what to think. It would be more accurate to say that the Church gives us the truth and we are free to reject this truth at our own peril.

Walking in a Winter Wonderland.

According to Weather Underground, the normal high temperature for this date, January 04, in Rome Ga. is 51°F. As I write this at 11:30 AM, the temperature is 26°F with the expected high to be 34°F.

Five years today, in 2005, the high was 75°F. If it reaches the expected high the temperature will be 17 degrees below normal and 41 effing degrees lower than the record high.

Ain't global warming wonderful?

Interesting Screenshot.

New Years Day.

I can see countless area where I can stand a bit of improvement.
It would be nearly impossible to list them all; so many things I should resolve to change in the upcoming year.
Naturally, being a better husband and father is high on the list.
I'd like to spend more time writing; not only on this blog, but on more serious work as well.

Rather than go through an entire list of resolutions, I believe it would be more productive to resolve to do one thing which should help take care of all the others.

I want....no, I need to begin this year by pledging to say a Rosary every day; during the evening when I am off from work and home with the family, and early mornings on those days when our work schedules prevent my wife and I from doing the Rosary together.

I can't think of a better plan for the new year.

2009 In Review.

Being the last day of the year, December 31 seems a logical time to review what (if any) progress I've made with this blog in 2009.
This post is number 222 for the year; compared to the 356 posts of 2008, my output is down considerably. The number of visitors from 1/1/09 to 12/31/09 is down by nearly 1000 compared to 1/1/08 to 12/31/08.

Still, the totals for this year look OK.
15,029 unique page views from 141 countries ( with hits from 3712 cities worldwide - 2221 of those being US cities ).

A look at my five most popular posts shows just how disorganized this blog can be from a "content" point of view. Saying the content is "varied" could be a polite way of looking at it.

The fifth most popular post is the first installment of my Kelvin Williams series.
[Kelvin Williams-Part One.] With 195 unique page views from 155 cities it may be fifth overall but it's bounce rate is above and away the best of the group, showing that readers of that post went on to read more posts.

Number four is a post that published in 2007 [Dumaguete City Street Map.] 232 unique page views from 110 cities.

With 262 unique page views from 160 cities, the third most popular post is from Oct. 2008 - Spring-Summer 2009 Fashion Collection. I have the feeling that visitors to that page were expecting something a bit different.

The 2nd most popular post on this blog comes from Nov. 2008. Recess at the Asylum received 577 unique page views from 349 cities.

Far and away the most popular post for Sorry, all the Clever Names are Taken is my Feb. 2008 post on Bernadette Soubirous.

If there's anything to be learned from this, I think it shows that this blog might be more successful if I were to turn this into two blogs instead of one -one blog poking fun of the popular culture,while the other blog deals mainly with the Catholic Church and Her teachings. Trying to do both on one blog isn't working as well as I'd like.