A family of evangelical Christians who said they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs in Germany have been granted political asylum in the US. The couple fled to Tennessee so they could home-school their five children, which is illegal in Germany.
Most asylum seekers in the US tend to flee wars or dictatorships, but one German family moved to the American South in 2008 because they believed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. On Tuesday an immigration judge in Tennessee agreed, and granted them political asylum.
The article asks: "Religious persecution?". I say darned straight. I had been following this story and felt really bad for the parents who simply wanted to prevent their children from being indoctrinated by European secular socialist values. I concur 100%.
As we pass the 40th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae (of human life), the National Catholic Reporter weighs in:
Catholics might recall another 1968 defining moment, the July 29 encyclical called Humanae Vitae, literally "Of Human Life." The encyclical was a sensitively written expression about the sanctity of marital love and the need to nurture life in marriage. But whatever else it stated, it has been remembered for only one thing: the upholding of the Catholic church’s ban on birth control.
Well, that was exactly how it was presented by publications like the National Catholic Reporter and other secular media outlets. NCReporter has long since ceased being an authentic Catholic publication.
Less than a decade after the encyclical’s promulgation, polls showed it was overwhelmingly rejected by Catholics. Eight out of 10 adult U.S. Catholics simply disregarded it. While bishops were largely upholding the document, many priests in pastoral settings, including confessionals, were saying it was a matter for individual conscience.
This was the party line that was read to me when I was getting married in 1985. One of the priests at my Pre-Cana conference explained that in the matter of artificial birth control, we were to use our "consciences". But unfortunately, the good father did not feel it was necessary to inform our consciences in a meaningful (and authentically Catholic) way. So the admonition to "follow our consciences" was a "churchy" way of saying "do whatever you want".
Such cowardice was common when I was growing up. Priests did not want to offend parishioners (especially wealthy parishioners) lest they leave that parish for more "enlightened" venues. That cowardice on the part of that parish priest contributed to my living in unrepentent sin for many years, the scars of which (even after confession), I still bear. I have long since forgiven that priest. God set me on the path I have been following for a reason, which may or may not become apparent before I meet my maker.
By any measure, a gulf between official church teachings and Catholic practice had begun to grow and was to continue to grow and to permeate a host of other Catholic teachings on sexuality and morality from homosexuality to the use of condoms in the fight against the HIV virus. The right of women to have special say in reproduction, then an almost exclusively male terrain, was soon added to the list.
I'm sure that the Reporter editorial team didn't mean to reference the prophetic writings of Paul VI, but he predicted these evils. By being allowed to reject the Church's teaching on artificial birth control, the pandora's box was opened for the following (which are described in an Orwellian, "Ministry of Truth" manner):
The disordered inclination of homosexuality gained wider acceptance, even to the point that people are talking about homosexual "marriage".
The use of condoms to "fight the AIDS virus", when it was the prolific use of condoms and the libertine sexual morality that followed it that caused the almost pandemic spread of the AIDS virus.
"The right of women to have a special say in reproduction". This wins the prize for the most innocuous sounding euphamism for killing one's child in the womb.
C'mon, NCReporter, if you're working for Satan, own it. Tell it like it is. But then I guess you guys have Uncle Screwtape on your editorial board, don't you.
Research conducted by sociologist Fr. Andrew M. Greeley found that the encyclical so shook Catholics that by itself, it would have reduced religious practice by almost one-half. That decline never fully occurred, and the reason it did not, Greeley found, was the favorable impact the Second Vatican Council was having on the lives of most Catholics.
The Church's job is not to "get with the times", it is "preach unpopular truth". If it reduced religious practice by half, so be it. If you are not going to live the Catholic truth, why should you bother to go to church and worship a God you are disobeying, on a daily basis.
But a huge problem with Humanae Vitae was that the truths of the encyclical were not transmitted at the parish level gently and insistently with the help of the Holy Spirit.
One of the impacts of the implementation of the Second Vatican Council, was to blur the distinction between church discipline and God's unchanging Truth. People in the pews (myself included) figured that after Vatican II anything goes. It would be just a matter of time before the Church changed the rules on artificial birth control. We wondered what happened to all the souls in hell because they ate meat on Friday. Did they all get a "get out of hell free card"?
Humanae Vitae is God's Truth. It is transformative for couples if it is given a chance. But to do so, you have to focus less on your material posessions, and look to God to provide what you need. After all, we pray to God "give us this day our daily bread", not "give us enough bread to put some away for the future".
Matthew Archbold asks the musical question in the wake of the legalization of gay "marriage" in California:
So no matter how you slice it, the joining together of a man and a woman is different than two people of the same sex joining together.
If homosexuals have co-opted the word "marriage" which had been used for thousands of years to denote one thing, I ask what will be the new word we heterosexuals get to describe our very different union?
Problem is, for most of us heterosexuals, what we have is not much different that what the gays have with their "marriages". With a gay marriage, you have a sterile coming together of two people for their mutual pleasure. In most heterosexual marriages, contraception is used to render the procreative act sterile. So what you have is a sterile coming together of two people for their mutual pleasure.
I would propose a different word, and one that is used legally in some states.
Covenant.
Marriage is currently a contract. And as a matter of fact, with the wake of widespread no-fault divorce, a weak contract at that. It provides rights, but it doesn't enforce any of the responsibilities that those rights demand. Today, it's harder to get out of a car lease than a marriage.
A contract is an exchange of promises.
A covenant is an exchange of persons.
You give yourself completely to me, and I give myself completely to you. Without reservation, without holding anything back, including my fertility. You accept everything that is myself that I give to you.
This is something that is uniquely possible only in heterosexual marriages, and in most cases is not taken advantage of.
There has been a lot of discussion about the FLDS polygamist group in Texas. From the date of the article on the link, it looks like this group moved to Texas in July of 2004.
ELDORADO, Texas — Folks around here couldn't be more dumbfounded if a flying saucer buzzed the county courthouse and spooked all the sheep this side of Abilene. Polygamists?
A colony of secretive Arizona and Utah men with two, three or more wives apiece wearing ankle-length, gingham pioneer dresses while working the fields under a scorching West Texas sun?
Ooooohhh... "Secretive" men with their gingham clad wives. Looking at this with perfect 20/20 hindsight, it seems that the folks in this group were right to be secretive.
Now as a Catholic, I am more sensitive than others with regards to child abuse (having been required to take Virtus training before I was allowed to be part of a church ministry involving children) and the meaning of marriage as being between one man and one woman for life. But we live in a country with a plurality of religious beliefs.
Back to Texas. So the State of Texas has decided that these girls are being sexually abused. Federal and State laws prohibit multiple marriages and intercourse with a minor. But this is part of their religion. If America has religious freedom, than these people have been discriminated against by the government.
"But Stacy, what if your religion commands you to kill and sacrifice animals and babies?" That is an entirely different field of play. Don't leave me a comment stating that.
The government has decided what is best for these children. This is the same government that has decided that it is okay to teach kindergartners that families come in all shapes and sizes. That some families have two mommies, some families have two daddies and that it's okay. This is the same government that has decided that boys in 6th grade need to know how to use a condom properly, so they demonstrate it in an sex education class. The same government who sets up birth control clinics in high schools and directs young girls (GIRLS) to Planned Parenthood to kill their baby that was CONCEIVED OUT OF WEDLOCK. The same government who tells our children that it's okay to be homosexual and allows gay/lesbian clubs to meet in public high schools, yet tells the religious kids they cannot have their clubs because it violates the separation of church and state.
Are the girls getting married in the FLDS case too young to get married? Yes, they are. But how many girls are having intercourse before the age of 15 in our society now anyway?
These are a respectable group of people and they raise their children to be polite and thoughtful. These children receive a better education than what the State has to offer. They don't use drugs, they don't drink alcohol, they don't have intercourse out of wedlock. They don't surf for porn on the Internet, they don't download violent music with questionable lyrics, they don't text message at the dinner table and they're not cutters. Crime is virtually non-existent and STD's do not run rampant.
Are they odd regarding the age they marry? Perhaps. Many theologians believe that the Virgin Mary was herself about 14 when she married Joseph. For thousands of years girls have been married off young and it is only in the 20th century that the change had been made. How many of you had grandparents, great grandparents that you know the female was 14 or 15 when she married your grandfather? This happens for the perpetuation of the species.
Back to Texas. The State of Texas (all states) has decided what is and isn't appropriate for our children. They say that the FLDS belief system is warped. In my humble opinion, I believe that State's belief system is warped.
I find myself in agreement with Stacy on this one. If the young ladies were being married to men against their will, then they need to be rescued. If pre-pubescent children of any kind were being touched sexually, the ones responsible need to be brought to justice.
However, with girls as young as 13 being allowed to have abortions without even having their parents notified, let alone requiring parental approval I find it really hard to condemn these Mormons. Logically, if a 13 year old girl can consent to have an abortion after consenting to a romp in the sack with her boyfriend, she can consent to marriage. If she can consent to marriage, then the state needs to stay the heck out of it.
If it's against the law to discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry, then how can you discriminate against these women who all happen to want to marry the same man? Besides, since no sexual activity is verboten, all these folks need to do is cohabitate and state that they are married within their church. We have no laws against a man shacking up at the same time and having sex with multiple women.
We have to address the cognitive dissonance in our society between allowing (and even encouraging) young girls to have sex, with the horror of finding out that young girls were getting married.
...For allowing his daughter to pose topless for Vanity Fair magazine. Well, let's be fair. You couldn't see any "naughty bits", but as Mike Church said on his radio show, "they 'bedroomed her up'".
Her father was with her on the shoot, and could be seen in some of the photos. What was he thinking? What dad in his right mind would allow his 15 year old daughter to be publicly sexualized in this way?
Vanity Fair defends their choice to shoot her this way. They call it "tasteful" and "artistic". I call it soft child porn.
What has happened to all the wholesome heroines for our young girls? First Zoey 101 (Jamie Lynn Spears) gets pregnant at 16, and now "Hannah Montana" poses topless.
Dads, guard your daughters. And do it better than Billy Ray Cyrus.
Whenever I go to the mall, I am accosted by soft porn. Either some half dressed girl barely covering her breasts with her hands at Victoria's Secret, or the shirtless male models at Abercrombie and Fitch.
In NYC, 111 guys descended on Abercrombie and Fitch on 5th avenue with the intention of shopping for shirts, and took all of their shirts off. They then wandered the store shirtless, looking at shirts to buy.
The funniest part of the whole thing was that Abercrombie and Fitch was not amused. Security guards were making the men without shirts leave the store without allowing them to buy a shirt (one would think if they didn't have a shirt on they needed one).
This is funny. The best part is most of the guys are not model material :)
Adoro te Devote has discovered the game show "Moment of Truth". This is a show where the contestant is hooked up to a lie detector, and is asked questions about themselves. A certain number of true answers advances you to the next level of money. As you "advance", the questions get more personal and intimate. You have an opportunity to win a million dollars.
Tonight I watched the show, "Moment of Truth". When I first heard the premise of this show, I wondered how far we as a society have descended...to hear and watch the reality of the deepest, darkest secrets of others.
But I watched it tonight, in a sort of horror that made me want to look away...but I couldn't. Because I was the person in the hot seat.
Not because what she was confessing was what I would confess or what I lived, but rather, because I realize the "contestant" is a reflection of us all. I could not condemn her, because I AM her. We all are.
I was on a business trip in NYC and was in the hotel room watching the TV when the show came on. I was curious about it, and watched. Like Adoro, I became horrified as I watched it, and the man with a big goofy grin on his face admitting sending flirtatious text messages to a woman not his fiancee. The camera panned to the hurt look on her face as he admitted to this. It hurt me to watch it. The man admitting he stole tips from his fellow waiters, did things in the marines he was ashamed of and admitting to other things that might, in the future ruin his relationships with his friends and family, and possibly damage his chances of future employment.
He had one question to go until he made the $1000 level and locked in that amount. The question was: "You used to be an underwear model. During your stint, did you ever stuff your underwear". He answered: "No", and the sexy female voice of the lie detector said: "that answer is FALSE".
So he got nothing. He could admit to "cellular infidelity", stealing, and a host of other things, but not that he faked the size of his Johnson in an underwear ad.
Pitiful. It was the only question that he was asked that really didn't matter to anyone but his ego.
I will never watch this show again. I have decided that the premise is evil. I wouldn't go on that show for a million dollars.
Jennifer at Et Tu? is one of my favorite reads. Her insightful, articulate prose usually surprises me. She writes:
At the time, I was part of the segment of society where traditional feminine qualities are disdained. As a woman you could express any desire, show any side of your personality, so long as it didn't involve behaviors that humans have always associated with women, like maternal instincts, the longing to nurture others, feeling sentimental, having fluctuating emotions based on your body's rhythms, wanting to be cherished by men, etc. Probably due to a lot of the recent changes in modern society -- high on the list being the constant touting of contraception as a good thing, making us start to feel that what it's "curing" must be a bad thing -- all the nurturing, life-giving aspects of being a woman were scorned. This left a huge elephant in the room around which we had to maneuver, and the result was that the two main options for acceptable behavior from women were either to act like a sex object or a man [ed.- I'm going to correct Jen here by replacing her word "man" with "male". Real men don't go for no-strings-attached sex] (or both, a la Sex in the City).
At the same time, we men were placed under the same pressures. Deference to women, such as holding doors for them, is interpreted as condescension. The desire to provide and protect their families is interpreted as patriarchy. Men are discouraged from being stoic. They need to be emotional, communicative and become in touch with their "feminine side". The competetive spirit, expressed either in a love of professional sports, hunting, fishing, golf, etc., are discouraged. Little boys have their toy guns taken away from them and are given dolls (though an interesting thing is that many boys, when handed a Barbie™ will bend her at the waist, grab her legs and shoot people with her head while saying 'bang!, bang!').
At the advent of "a woman's right to choose", men were absolved of responsibility with regard to any children they fathered. They were not held to the standards of previous generation where you took responsibility for their wife and children. The new sexual permissiveness in society, guaranteed that there would be a huge crop of children born to unmarried women. Men did not feel invested in their children, nor was there pressure from other men to do the right thing.
First, no-fault divorce frequently means unilateral divorce: One party wants a divorce against the wishes of the other, who wants to stay married. This fact means that the divorce has to be enforced. The coercive machinery of the state is wheeled into action to separate the reluctantly divorced party from the joint assets of the marriage, typically the home and the children. Involving the family court in the minutiae of family life amounts to an unprecedented blurring of the boundaries between public and private life. People under the jurisdiction of the family courts can have virtually all of their private lives subject to its scrutiny. If the courts are influenced by feminist ideology, that ideology can extend its reach into every bedroom and kitchen in America. Thus, the social experiment of no-fault divorce, which was supposed to increase personal liberty has had the unintended consequence of empowering the state.
The old "nobody ought to have to stay in a marriage if they are not 'happy'" canard. Oh, sure, and I know that there are many cases of abuse, both physical and emotional against wives by husbands, but there are also cases of boredom on the part of wives who want a more "exciting" husband, and like the idea of taking half of what the current guy owns before she moves on.
The state currently supports the spouse who wants to leave. This, as far as I know, is the only "contract" in which that is the case. In every other case, it is incumbent on the person who wishes to get out of the contract to prove that the other party breached it. If they can't prove that, they need to either 1) stay in the contract until its natural termination, or 2) unilaterally break the contract and suffer the penalties spelled out within.
In my opinion, if our society is to survive, the focus needs to be placed not on what is best for the individual in all cases, but what is best for the family, town, state and country. Basically this usually means that the state stays out of our business, unless someone else is violating our rights. In a marriage, this means stay out of it until provable abuse happens, adultery, or something that breaches the marriage contract.
One of my absolutely favorite reads, Francis Parretto from Eternity Road has a challenge for American men:
I call upon black (70%) and white (25%) American men who father children and then, for whatever reason, do not marry the moms, to step up to the plate, flash the middle finger at the government give-aways and say, "We are men and we will take responsibility for our children. These children are our future - the future of our nation. I want my children to carry my last name by law."
I know American men can do this. And clearly 75% of white fathers and 30% of black fathers are being fathers in the most legal and legitimate ways possible. Cut down on the unwed mother population, cut down on the bastard population. Since the women seem not to want to be responsible, then American men must become a dominant force again and say, "No babies UNLESS we are married!"
In other words, men saying to the women, "You can't use me as a sex object to give you a child and keys to the welfare trough then kick me to the curb. No marriage, no babies!"
Now, wouldn't that be a great switch? Male dominance, birth control (not abortion), and the men putting their foot down - No marriage, no baby!
What a switch. Let me add to this. "I will not trust you to use artificial birth control. I will not use a condom that might break. I will not have sex with you and take a chance on producing children until we are married".
What also needs to happen is a change in "no fault" divorce laws. We need to stop single party (usually the woman) action against men, sometimes with unprovable allegations of "emotional abuse" just to kick him out of his house and take him to the cleaners, stealing his money and not allowing him appropriate access to his children.
Government is culpable in this problem. If men step up to the plate and get married, they need to be protected. What a strange juxtaposition of the way marriage used to be, a financial protection for a woman who gave up her earning potential to take care of a man's home for him. But currently, marriage is a danger for a man, and many men are not stepping up to the marriage plate because of the financial danger he puts himself in by doing so. Beside, in todays "sex and the city" society, why should a man "buy the cow when he's getting the milk for free".
Because it's the right thing to do for the woman, and any children she and he produce.
Update: Mea culpa. It wasn't Fran Parretto who wrote this, it was Conservative Beach Girl (who writes at Eternity Road sometimes). I've been meaning to talk to Fran about the fact that the authors of the articles don't appear in his RSS feed which I use to do most of my blogging.
