Is the Slope Slippery After All?

Being Roman Catholic, my objection to the legalization of polygamy comes from Catholic teachings concerning the sanctity of marriage -

Christ affirmed and blessed the oneness and profound significance of marriage. Christian tradition, following his teaching, has always proclaimed the sanctity of marriage. It has defined marriage as the fundamental relationship in which a man and woman, by total sharing with each other, seek their own growth in holiness and that of their children, and thus show forth the presence on earth of God's kingdom.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1664)

"Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its 'supreme gift,' the child."

However, this argument, when recently used against those wishing to legalize same-sex "marriage" did not win the day in New York State. Separation of Church and State and all that, we were told. When a moral argument was used to combat homosexual "marriage", we were told that, in our secularist society, civil laws could not and should not be based on religious beliefs.

While Jennifer Pizer, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, assures us that the questions surrounding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry are significantly different from those involved in criminal prosecution of multiple marriages, her argument that the legalization of same-sex "marriage" will not produce a "parade of horribles" - where the legalization of polygamy would be the next logical step - is itself, a logically flawed argument.

There are biological arguments against same-sex "marriage" - obviously, homosexual relationships cannot produce offspring. This biological argument certainly would not apply to polygyny which, from a biological standpoint, would be the most efficient way of producing offspring. The only objections to polygyny (or the less biologically efficient polyandry) come from a moral or religious perspective. As mentioned before, those arguing for same-sex "marriage" tell us we cannot use arguments based on morality or religion.

So then, how long will it be before legal cases come before the various courts, attempting to legalize polygamy?

In a piece for reason.com, Steve Chapman tells us that anti-polygamy laws may very well violate the Constitution.

In Canada, anti-polygamy laws are also being challenged in court.

"People who practice Islam, Wicca and other religions also are adversely affected by the anti-polygamy law, Vancouver lawyers George K. Macintosh, Ludmila B. Herbst and Tim Dickson said in a brief to the court."

In May, 2008, the legal director of Lambda Legal, Jon W. Davidson called the "slippery slope argument" an "alarmist dodge". Three years later, it would appear that he was mistaken.

If Protestantism is True........

When I read a review of Devin Rose's book, If Protestantism is True at the Impractical Catholic blog, I knew that it was a book I'd want to read. When I found that I could purchase the Kindle edition for just $2.99, I realized I had absolutely no excuse not to snatch it up.

Rose's book lives up to my expectations. Mr. Rose does an excellent job of explaining how Christianity couldn't possible make sense if Protestantism is true. The arguments put forth by the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations contradict the Bible, the early Church Fathers and logic itself.

One example:

"If Protestantism is true, then there is no reason why someone today could not remove any number of books from the New Testament and declare that he has come up with the true Bible, made up of whichever books do not contradict his beliefs. After all, the first leader of the Protestant Reformation did just that to a thousand-year-old canon, and most of the rest of his teachings and opinions are now followed by hundreds of millions of Protestant Christians. And certainly countless sects and cults have since then followed his example—adding, deleting, and 'retranslating' to the nth degree. Several (excellent and valuable) Protestant cult-watch groups are kept busy by these modern-day 'reformers.' "

[Rose, Devin (2011). If Protestantism is True (Kindle Locations 1329-1334). Unitatis Books. Kindle Edition].

or this:

"If Protestantism is true, then in the 1500s, for the first time in the history of the Church, a group that left the Church and broke communion with her to form another 'Church' was actually following God’s will. Additionally, because Protestantism was a decentralized set of movements, the Church was 'reformed' by several conflicting groups of Christians who contradicted one another on which of the old doctrines were false and which were true. The mystical Body of Christ, which is a unity, became a disunity in defiance of Christ’s prayer in John 17, but somehow that disunity was willed by Christ instead of being what it always had been in the past: a heretical schism from the Church".

[Rose, Devin (2011). If Protestantism is True (Kindle Locations 1188-1193). Unitatis Books. Kindle Edition.]

And my personal favorite, regarding sola Scriptura :

"If Protestantism is true, then Christians should base their beliefs off of the Bible alone and, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, be able to come to know the fullness of the truth revealed by Christ. But how, then, are we to explain the thousands of Protestant denominations, each with its own biblical interpretation?"

[Rose, Devin (2011). If Protestantism is True (Kindle Locations 1582-1585). Unitatis Books. Kindle Edition].

The only down side I can think of concerning the book is that, by buying the Kindle edition, I am unable to loan the book to friends. However,while I may not be able to loan a physical copy of the book, I can, I hope, encourage people to, at the very least, purchase the book for Kindle.

No Kindle? You can download Kindle for PC for free.

Who's the Cult Member?

Washington Post opinion writer, Richard Cohen - certainly no fan of the GOP - has wandered off into some sort of imaginary world by comparing the Republican Party to a cult. The irony of a Liberal Democrat accusing anyone of being a member of cult seems to have escaped Cohen.

What evidence does he have to back up his notion? In a word, pledges.

Cohen believes that - number 1 - pledging to not raise taxes is a sure sign of insanity. Signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, issued by Americans for Tax Reform, makes one a candidate for a straightjacket in Cohen's world.

The other pledge that Cohen believes elevates the GOP to cult like status is the Susan B. Anthony List's "Pro-Life Leadership Pledge". Cohen is horrified at the thought that all abortions might be made illegal. Cohen simply cannot grasp the idea that all abortions take the life of an innocent human being. The fetus living and growing inside Cohen's hypothetical 12 year old girl made pregnant by incest is never the less a human being - an innocent victim.

Abortion is the sacrament of the religion of Liberalism so Cohen sees anyone who is pro-life as a dangerous lunatic.

Finally, Cohen contends that the Republican Party is "itself significantly responsible for the government deficit that matters most: leadership". This comment is coming from someone who voted for the quintessential example of a President who possesses zero leadership qualities - Barack Obama.

A Right To Kill?

From American Thinker, an article by Fay Voshell entitled A Right To Kill.

"The society that embraces the death of innocents as a solution to its problems will itself inevitably die. It may carry on for many decades after its fatal embrace of the Grim Reaper. But with the moral heart cut out of its body, it becomes a zombie civilization with only the appearance of life."