Sunday, February 28, 2010

Poll: Bright Crushes Roby

http://media.al.com/sweethome/photo/bobby-bright-091005jpg-a5ec285338b4fa76_large.jpg
A poll commissioned by the Bright campaign and done by Anzalone-Liszt Research reveals that Bobby Bright has a commanding lead over all supposed challengers in his race to retain his House seat:
Bobby Bright (D-inc): 54
Martha Roby (R): 30

Bobby Bright (D-inc): 55
Stephanie Bell (R): 29

Bobby Bright (D-inc): 58
Rick Barber (R): 26
(MoE: ±4.4%)

I must say that this surprises me. I have been less than optimistic about Bright's chances for reelection since he won 2 years ago. Regardless, it will be interesting to see turnout numbers on the Democratic side without President Obama drawing voters out in Montgomery. These number probably haven't been factored in, but Charlie Cook and CQ Politics still have the race rated as a toss up.


***Personal rant*** It will be also be quite intriguing to see how the GOP attacks Bright seeing that he is rated the most conservative Democrat and more conservative than some Republicans. My inkling is they will attack him as a "Pelosi" Democrat, which is fine, but maybe it will shut-up some of this people who say they "aren't Republicans" just "conservatives" on a regular basis. It's ok to be partisan, but people who pretend to be so principled and above the fray and then vote partisan no matter what really piss me off.

***Also, I continue to use the above picture because I know the people in it.***

H/T - Political Parlor (For the above link)

Plagiarism?

"The financial ramifications can be considerable. Leong's prints
sell for as much as $25,000, and Burdeny's for up to $10,500.
Confusion between the work of the two artists in the marketplace
could adversely affect those values."


Churchgate Station, Bombay (2004).
Photograph ©Raghu Rai.

Churchgate Station, Bombay (1996).
Photograph © SebastiĆ£o Salgado.

Well, there has been a bit of a dust up in the past week or so about photographers (allegedly) copying photographers. You can find one news report here, an earlier one here. I offer the two images I've lifted above as a suggestion that just maybe this fracas is more than a bit overblown. And, of course, I've posted repeatedly on Geoff Dyer's The Ongoing Moment the primary theme of which is the ways that photographers replicate each other's images. In those posts, as well as in Dyer's book, you can find more examples.

Of course, we worry way more about the implications of "confusion" for markets here than we did in say, thinking about credit default swaps and such totally opaque financial instruments.
__________
P.S.: The opening quotation is from the LA Times news report to which I link in the post.

Shelby Doesn't Know About Qualified Nominees

Richard Shelby spoke to CNN about the holds he put on President Obama's nominees, stating that he "[doesn't] have any idea" if they are qualified:


H/T - Think Progress

New Report Calls for "Religious Diplomacy"


The following article comes from Zenit and was written by a Catholic priest. The report described in the article, however, was drafted by a Chicago think tank totally unconnected to the Roman Catholic church. It points out the United States' deficiency in understanding the role of faith in world politics and recommends that America rethink its approach to dealing with religious communities across the world.

What is the significance of this report to the Roman Catholic church?

For years the pope has been touting the Vatican's unique contribution to politics, attempting to convince the international community that the Roman Catholic Empire can greatly assist in facilitating world peace. As a religious entity, Benedict argues, the Vatican fully understands other religious entities and possesses the logistical ability to engage them. As the world becomes more and more religious, the need for an experienced religious actor like the Vatican to supplement purely secular diplomacy is imperative.

Take, as an example of Benedict's vision, the following quote: "There is. . .an urgent need to delineate a positive and open secularity which, grounded in the just autonomy of the temporal order and the spiritual order, can foster healthy cooperation and a spirit of shared responsibility."

The central terms here are these:
"Positive...secularity," "just autonomy," and "shared responsibility."

In my Working Glossary, I define
"positive secularity" as the "state of society in which the difficult and mundane tasks of governing are given to secular powers while moral, social, and cultural authority remains vested in the church." Essentially, Benedict wants the secular governments of the world to worry about managing the economy (in line with Catholic socialism, of course), feeding the people, providing running water, electricity, etc., while the Vatican itself (or figures connected to the Vatican) conducts the more important tasks of social, cultural, and spiritual development. This would include negotiating with religious groups around the world.

"Just autonomy"
means a separation of church and state--but only to a degree. In the end, the separation would have to be "just," meaning that the spiritual authority (i.e., the church) would quite often "righteously" trump secular authority.

"Shared responsibility"
means that the Vatican gets the good and important jobs, and national governments (or international governments) have the lousy ones.

This, my friends, is the Vatican's view of church-state relations in a nutshell.


The Chicago Council's full report can be read here.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Engaging Diplomacy and Religion

Report Calls for Attention to Faith Dimension of Politics

By Father John Flynn, LC

ROME, FEB. 28, 2010 (Zenit.org).- In recent years, religion has come to be seen as a problem or a threat to national or international security. One strategy for countering religious extremism has been to attempt to banish faith to the purely private sphere. This is a big mistake, according to a report released Feb. 23 by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

The report, "Engaging Religious Communities Abroad: A New Imperative for U.S. Foreign Policy," was authored by a task force of 32 experts, ranging from former government officials, religious leaders, heads of international organizations, and scholars.

Currently, the authors of the report argued, the U.S. government does not have the capacity to fully understand and effectively engage religious communities. There have been improvements in the past years in recognizing the role religion plays in global affairs, but this process is still far from complete.

For better or worse, religion is playing an increasingly influential role in politics, the report observed. The trend to globalization along with new media technologies has facilitated the spread of extremist views. This is not about to go away, the report noted, and it urged the U.S. government not only to improve its knowledge of religious communities and trends, but also to develop better policies to engage believers.

It's important to realize, the report commented, that religion is not some kind of a secondary human experience without any bearing on political developments and that we can therefore ignore. "Religion -- through its motivating ideas and the mobilizing power of its institutions -- is a driver of politics in its own right," the report affirmed.

The report also warned against viewing religion solely through the focus of terrorism, as this would lead to overlooking the positive role of religion in dealing with global problems and promoting peace.

It's also necessary to move beyond a focus just on the Muslim world and to take into account other religious communities, the report said.

Global

While attention is often focused on the Middle East when it comes to the interaction between religion and politics the report pointed out that religion is a factor in many other countries.

China, for example, has a number of indigenous new religious movements such as Falun Gong as well as a rapidly-growing sector of legal and underground Christian churches and Muslim communities.

Buddhist monks have justified, and even promoted, conflict against Tamils in Sri Lanka, as well as marching against a repressive regime in Burma. Tensions between Christian and Muslims exist in Nigeria, and Indonesia, but also in European cities like London, Amsterdam, and Paris.

In India political debates are often influenced by different visions of Hinduism and the proper relationship of Hindus to other ethnic and religious communities.

The rise of Pentecostalism in Latin America and of Christian churches and preachers in Africa and Asia are other important religious developments that warrant attention, the report added.

And while religion has fomented bloody conflicts in countries such as Bosnia and Sudan, it has also promoted peace and forgiveness in South Africa and Northern Ireland. Alongside religious extremists there are other figures such as Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama, the report noted.

"The many examples of religious contributions to democratization and of religious leaders who help provide foreign assistance, implement development programs, and build peace are emblematic of how religion can play a positive role everywhere in the world," the task force affirmed.

Patterns

The members of the task force identified six principal patterns in the role religion plays in international affairs.

1. The influence of religious groups -- some old and others new -- is growing in many areas of the world and affects virtually all sectors of society.

2. Changing patterns of religious identification in the world are having significant political implications.

3. Religion has benefited and been transformed by globalization, but it also has become a primary means of organizing opposition to it.

4. Religion is playing an important public role where governments lack capacity and legitimacy in periods of economic and political stress.

5. Religion is often used by extremists as a catalyst for conflict and a means of escalating tensions with other religious communities.

6. The growing salience of religion today is deepening the political significance of religious freedom as a universal human right and a source of social and political stability.

In more concrete terms the report pointed out how these trends can present challenges in making policy decisions. For example, while the United States supports the spread of democracy, in some countries the introduction of popular elections could give greater power to religious extremists who often have anti-American views. So there needs to be a reconciliation between the promotion of human rights and democracy with protecting national interests, according to the task force.

The report also pointed out that the promotion of religious freedom as part of the foreign policy of the United States needs to be done in a way that is not seen as some kind of challenge by Western society on local religions or customs.

Recommendations

In dealing with religion's role in public affairs the report advocated that the best way to counter extremism is through a greater engagement with religion and religious communities.

This means listening carefully to the concerns and fears they have and then entering into a substantive dialogue with them. At the same time it's important not to overstep this dialogue by intervening in theological disputes or by trying to manipulate religion, the task force warned.

One of the most important things the United States must do, the report noted, is to learn how to communicate effectively. Therefore, in addition to listening to what religious communities are saying government needs to be more effective in presenting America's own views. It's also vital to keep in mind that actions often speak louder than words, so government policies must back up its media strategy, the report added.

Among the measures proposed in the report was the need to give a comprehensive instruction to diplomats, military personnel and other officials, on the role of religion in world affairs.

The report also recommended that the United States continue to promote religious freedom. "Imposed limitations on religious freedom weaken democracy and civil society, poison political discourse, and foment extremism," the task force commented.

Healthy cooperation

Religion's role in politics was a theme touched upon by Benedict XVI in his Jan. 11 address to the members of the diplomatic corps.

"Sadly, in certain countries, mainly in the West, one increasingly encounters in political and cultural circles, as well in the media, scarce respect and at times hostility, if not scorn, directed towards religion and towards Christianity in particular," he commented.

Echoing the views expressed in the Chicago Council report the Pontiff said that: "It is clear that if relativism is considered an essential element of democracy, one risks viewing secularity solely in the sense of excluding or, more precisely, denying the social importance of religion."

Such an approach, however, only creates confrontation and division, the Pope pointed out. "There is thus an urgent need to delineate a positive and open secularity which, grounded in the just autonomy of the temporal order and the spiritual order, can foster healthy cooperation and a spirit of shared responsibility," he urged. A cooperation that will greatly benefit efforts to promote peace in the world.

Bill Maher: Buddhism is a Crock and Outdated.

The Worst Horse as usual is on its game in reporting another example of just how foreign Buddhism still is to many in the West. Bill Maher, the American comedian and t.v. show host (who I usually find hilarious) recently said some pretty uninformed things about Buddhism. His comments are in red and mine in yellow:

Maher: [Buddhism] really is outdated in some ways — the “Life sucks, and then you die” philosophy was useful when Buddha came up with it around 500 B.C., because back then life pretty much sucked, and then you died – but now we have medicine., and plenty of food

(James::Not all of us Bill, a lot of people in this world don't know where their next meal will come from. And medicine? Americans can't even afford medicine these days let alone impoverished countries. Go to Africa where I lived for two years and tell me there's enough food and medicine for everyone. Then tell me that thus there isn't much suffering from it.)
,

Maher: and iPhones, and James Cameron movies – our life isn’t all about suffering anymore.


(James: And life wasn't all about suffering back in Buddha's time either)


Maher: And when we do suffer, instead of accepting it we try to alleviate it,


(James::Buddhists seek to alleviate suffering too but we also have had the revelation that no amount of "relieving" can end the suffering. What Buddhists are more interested in other than alleviating suffering is to END suffering once and for all through, what I would consider to be the first "12 Steps" program that is the Eight-Fold Path).
If Buddha saw life as hopeless as Maher believes he taught then why would he have even tried to develop a system to deliver himself from it?

Maher: Tiger said, “Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves” makes us unhappy, which confirms something I’ve long suspected about Eastern religions: they’re a crock, too. Craving for things outside ourselves is what makes life life

(James: And despite its highlights, life is full of a lot of suffering Bill. There isn't enough money--even for a lot of millionaires who won't be "satisfied" until they get a BILLION dollars. Even those that spend their money can never buy enough houses, clothes, boats, vacations to feel satisfied for long. We lust after something until we get it and then quickly become bored with it and we return again to enslaving ourselves to crave once more. Buddha didn't say that we couldn't enjoy life but that we should enjoy life in moderation to reduce our suffering, and he laid out a path that many people have followed over the millennia toward lasting peace of mind and happiness.

And Buddha didn't command any of this, which is what I think separates Buddhism from many of the traditionally defined, "religions." Buddha encouraged seeing for oneself if his techniques do indeed bring about a greater peace and a life of less suffering by direct experience, which isn't unlike the scientific method where direct observations are the basis of knowledge. Pursue a life of constant seeking for the next "buzz of pleasure" and then live life for at time following the Buddha's guidelines and see, which way gives you the strongest feeling of satisfaction and happiness of life. If you find you think Buddhism is only causing you more problems then best of luck. Sincerely. A lot of people come and go with Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't want to force anyone to do anything. Buddhism would rather let the people come to it so that they are making a choice of their own free will and feel ready to follow such a path).

Maher: — I don’t want to learn to not want, that’s what people in prison have to do

(James: We're in a prison, now, Bill--look around you--We Want a better job, want a new car, want our body to heal quicker or look sexier, want our spouse to change to how we think they should be, and on and on. It's a prison without bars that lures us with shiny new distractions to keep us from finding a way out of the suffering. However, it doesn't have to be an either or proposition as you're stating. You're saying Buddhism says "life sucks, it has no meaning, purpose or value" but that is a common misconception. That isn't Buddhism--that's nihilism. Buddhism teaches that there is a way to live in balance with things of the world yet reduce your long-term suffering. That is what Buddhism offers).

Maher: And reincarnation? Really? If that were real, wouldn’t there be some proof by now? A raccoon spelling out in acorns, “My name is Herb Zoller and I’m an accountant.” …something?

(James: First of all not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. A lot of Buddhists believe in rebirth and yet still others believe in neither. As for proof? Even science says that energy never disappears but simply changes form. There are many Buddhists who say that it doesn't really matter much what happens after death (if anything) because the only moment we have is this one. For these Buddhists they focus on the rebirth that happens within this lifetime. For example, I am a completely different person from who I was 10-12 years ago when I was an ardent Mormon who was politically conservative. Now I am a Liberal Buddhist!!

But the point of rebirth, in my view, isn't so much about whether we are reborn a slug, or even reborn at all but rather that we realize how our actions affect our future. It's about becoming aware of how we alone are the architects of our own life and what our life becomes is directly influenced by our actions. So, for me, it comes down to what you reap is what you sow. And if all you water are seeds of hatred, greed and delusion then you will reap a lot of misery but if you water seeds of love, compassion and patience then you will reap the opposite and leave a better world behind then when you were born into it.

Maher: People are always debating, is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy: it’s a religion. You’re a religion if you do something as weird as when the Buddhist monks scrutinize two-year-olds to find the reincarnation of the dude who just died, and then choose one of the toddlers as the sacred Lama: “His poop is royal!” Sorry, but thinking you can look at a babbling, barely-housebroken, uneducated being and say, “That’s our leader” doesn’t make you enlightened. It makes you a Sarah Palin supporter.

(James: Bill, I like you--I really do, and while I think your usually well informed, on Buddhism you're quite ignorant. Only one school of Buddhism believes that their teachers are reincarnated, and that's Tibetan Buddhism. If you have a problem with Tibetan Buddhism then take that up with the Dalai Lama, but I would have expected you to know better than to lump all Buddhists together. I didn't want to write this to defend Buddhism so much as to explain it, as best as a common practitioner like myself can to those who aren't familiar with Buddhism so they, can hear both sides).

~Peace to all beings~

Their Criminals, and Ours

"China has no 'dissidents' . . . There is only the difference
between
criminals and those who are not criminals."
~ Ma Zhaoxu, Spokesman Chinese foreign Ministry

This is a remark, reported here at The Guardian, by a Chinese government official commenting on the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo. It might seem comical to hear regime mouthpieces, with a straight face, parsing words in hopes of rationalizing their oppressive actions. But, as I have noted here repeatedly, it makes a difference. It makes a difference to individuals like Liu Xiaobo. It has consequences for the debasement of language and thereby of politics. And it does not, of course, happen only in those despicable far away authoritarian places like China. After all, just this week David Margolis, an official at the U.S. Justice Department, engaged in the very same practice. He announced that when John Yoo and Jay Bybee flouted - systematically and knowingly - domestic and international law in their quest to rationalize the torture of people being held in U.S. custody under suspicion of partaking in terrorist activity they simply exercised 'poor judgment' instead of professional misconduct. The distinction Margolis draws basically is between being morally obtuse and being legally culpable. The news reports are here and here. We don't have war criminals in the United States, we just have eager, if slightly flawed, public servants operating under circumstances of extreme stress.*

Just to be clear about the political consequences of all this - Margolis not only lets the Bush minions off the hook here, he gives cover to the 'let's ignore the past and hope for the future' strategy that Obama is pursuing on this matter. And, not to be overlooked, he allows countries like China to continue thumbing their noses at sanctimonious rhetoric from Americans.
___________
* But of course, as subsequent news reports make clear, we have dramatically incomplete record for making that assessment because large numbers of official emails to and from Mr. Yoo during the relevant time period mysteriously are missing and unrecoverable.

P.S.: And if you want to see that this language game is being played not just in the halls of justice but in the mainstream media, see this post and this follow-up by Glen Greenwald at Salon.com . . . We don't have Terrorists in the U.S., we just have deranged 'tax protesters.' (Meaning, presumably, that we cannot torture the latter if they are captured?) Just ask the folks at Newsweek. Pretty remarkable!

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Communications from the "bizzaro universe" . . .

So, I came across this profile of Keli Carender, darling of the 'tea-baggers,' in The New York Times*; it just goes to show that you can be hip & trendy (nose-ring), creative (actress), smart (math teacher), and young and still be a conservative ideologue. In other words one need not be a dour old reactionary to be, well, a reactionary.

Poor Ms. Carender, who attended a public university, whines and complains that someone might 'take her money' to pay for health care, and seems wholly seems oblivious to the irony. I guess taxpayer subsidies are outrageous affronts to liberty only when they benefit someone else? Ms. Carender's 'intellectual' inspiration, old Tom Sowell is a crackpot all of whose work is supported by the right wing Hoover Institution. But enough of the ad hominem observations. Ms. Carender finds them offensive having in the prior breath dismissed those who disagree with her as purveying "the usual hyperbole and empty, hateful rhetoric of people who presume themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to anyone who does not share a liberal, progressive or left-wing ideology." Irony upon irony, I suppose.

Despite what she might have surmised from reading Sowell, there are good reasons why deficit spending is the proper response to a depressed economy. And, of course, far and away the primary cause of the deficits that she so dreads is the hair-brained tax policies and foreign adventures initiated by the Bush administration. Ooooppps! Is it that Ms. Carender is simply not smart enough to figure this out? Or does she inhabit not a reality based but an "alternative bizzaro universe"?
__________
* I've just come across this profile at npr too.

The Official Slanderer



Looking to find one emblemmatic villain behind America's decision to slam its doors against immigrant refugees in the early 1920s -- especially Jewish people from Eastern Europe like my grandparents for whom failure to escape would mean death in the Holocaust? Look no further than this man: Brigadeer General Marlborough Churchill, head of American Military Intelligence (MID) from 1918 through 1920. During this time, Churchill's MID generated a parade of reports painting Jews as undesirables, subversives, and Reds, as slanted as any Anti-Semitic propagrada of the era.

These became the chief ammunition xenophobic Congressmen used to justify imposing quotas in 1921 and 1924 designed to block all but a tiny trickle of immigrants, aimed primarily at Jews and Italians. Italy, which sent over 270,000 to Ellis Island in 1913, was restricted after 1924 to 3,845 per year. Poland, which had sent 174,000 -- including about 100,000 Jews -- was cut to 5,982 per year.

The American public backed restrictive quotas by a large margin. And for his part, General Churchill was probably not even a bigoted man. A distant relative of England's Winston Churchill, product of Andover Academy and Harvard, he was a rigorous professional and brilliant staff officer. His job demanded that he protect the United States, which in 1919/1920 included two key points:
  • First, America was committed to supporting the new country of Poland, created in 1918 at the close of World War I and thrown immidiately into a life-or-death military struggle against Bolshevik Russia. Saving Poland was critical to stabilizing Europe after the War.
  • Second, Americans demanded safety against saboteurs and subversives, primarily leftists and Socialists who in 1919 had driven the country into the deliriums of the First Red Scare. The large majority of leftists were Eastern European immigrants.
Both these missions led Churchill and MID to focus on The Jews. It is alarming that today there survives a thick file of memos written by MID under General Churchill containing a barriage of slanders against Jews people as a group. They focus on Eastern Europeans but include surveillance of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, financiers Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff, and western Zionist leaders Chiam Weizman and Theoodore Herzl. The reports finger Jews as instigators of the Bolshevik Revolution and rulers of the Western Press, a secret conspiracy ready to subvert any country. They describe Jewish people as personally filthy and non-hygenic and, if allowed into the US, "a serious menace to our civilization."
To Churchill's MID, stories of violent anti-Jewish riots -- pogroms -- in Poland and the nearby Ukraine in 1919 were simply slanders spread by Jews to undermine Polish independence.
Think I'm exaggerating? Make a visit some time to the National Archives in College Park, Maryland, and ask them to show you Record Group 165 (Military Intelligence), file 245-15. That's the Jewish File. Hold on to your socks while you read it!
Having recently discovered how the restrictive immigration policies of the 1920s almost cost the lives of my own grandpatents and family, I've now spent time studying these old archive records trying to figure out how intelligent and well-meaning professionals like General Churchill could do so much damage in the world. More on this to come....

Friday, February 26, 2010

Blockbuster A Memory?

http://i.thestreet.com/files/tsc/mainstreet-photos/photo-gallery/art-gallery/2010bankrupt6.jpg
In this part of the country most people are Movie Gallery patrons, but regardless it is entirely possible that blockbuster could become a thing of the past in 2010. Personally, I think they will survive, but their last quarter was miserable and the stock currently trades at $10 cheaper than it did 5 years ago:
The 21% revenue decrease was mostly due to a 14% decline in same store sales. The firm’s net loss was $114 million compared to a $19 million loss in the same period in 2008. Blockbuster has only $141 million in cash and cash equivalents.

The market value of the company is only $125 million. Blockbuster has bought itself some time by refinancing a large part of its debt and it has been aggressively closing stores

A bankruptcy will do almost nothing to improve Blockbuster’s prospects. Blockbuster does have over $1.7 billion in assets, not all of them saleable, but the firm will almost certainly face liquidation in the relatively near future.

The Swiss Have The Lowest Crime Rate

Especially with the Supreme Court hearing a 2nd amendment case next month, it might be healthy to guess as to what expanded or redacted gun laws in the U.S. would mean. The Swiss have some interesting ideas:


LINK

Awesome Wedding Photographs

http://www.comedycentral.com/tosh.0/files/2010/02/129038029362958554.jpg
http://www.comedycentral.com/tosh.0/files/2010/02/dirtyroset1.jpg
http://www.comedycentral.com/tosh.0/files/2010/02/photobomb-that-guy-love-is-patient.jpg
MORE HERE

Spanish Bishops Will Not Try to Depose King


This news from a few days ago. The bishops of Spain, as much as they want to overthrow the ruling Zapatero government, will not go so far as to indict the ruling monarch for supporting abortion.

Here we find evidence of yet another double standard crafted by the church to preserve its political capital.


The article can be found at the
Catholic News Service.
----------------------------------------------------------

Bishop says king will not be sanctioned for signing abortion law

By Catholic News Service

MADRID, Spain (CNS) -- If King Juan Carlos of Spain signs a new law easing restrictions on abortion, as he is constitutionally required, the country's bishops will not take action against him, the general secretary of the Spanish bishops' conference said.

As the law was being debated, Spain's bishops had said Catholic members of parliament who vote to liberalize abortion would place themselves outside the church and should not receive Communion.

"That his majesty the king must sanction this law with his signature is a unique situation. No other citizen would encounter this," and so "general principles" cannot be applied, said Auxiliary Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino of Madrid, conference general secretary.

Bishop Martinez spoke to the press at the end of a meeting of the permanent commission of the bishops' conference Feb. 25, which also was the day after Spain's Parliament narrowly approved a law easing longstanding restrictions on abortion.

In a vote of 132-126, members of Parliament passed the law removing all restrictions on abortion up to the 14th week of pregnancy and extending legal abortion to 22 weeks of gestation if the life of the mother is at risk or if the fetus shows signs of serious malformations.

Asked repeatedly about church sanctions against the king and against Catholic members of Parliament who voted for the law, Bishop Martinez said the bishops "have excommunicated no one," but those who actively supported the law have seriously separated themselves from the church and should not receive Communion.

The situation of a politician who can vote and the king who must sign the law "are different considerations," he said.

Pro-life Catholics have begun an Internet-based petition drive to convince King Juan Carlos not to sign the law.

"Please, Your Majesty, do not sanction this new holocaust with your signature," the petition said. "Without your signature the law will not go into effect. In this way, the pain and suffering of thousands of women will be avoided and, more importantly, an infinite number of defenseless lives will be saved."

By noon Feb. 26, the Internet site reported receiving almost 57,700 signatures.

The late King Baudouin of Belgium faced a similar dilemma in 1990 when his nation's Parliament passed a bill liberalizing abortion.

Saying his conscience and Catholic faith would not allow him to sign the bill, he worked out an agreement with parliament allowing him to resign for less than 48 hours. During his temporary abdication, the country's council of ministers assumed the king's powers and signed the bill. Parliament then reinstated the king.

Ending their spring meeting Feb. 25, members of the permanent commission of the Spanish bishops' conference said Spain's new law takes "attacks on the life of those about to be born, converting them into a right."

The new law marks "a serious step back in the protection of the right to life" and an abandonment of pregnant women who need assistance and support in bringing their pregnancies to term, the bishops said.

The statement also said the bishops wanted to remind "women tempted to abort or who have already experienced this tragedy that they always will find mercy and comfort in the Catholic community. As a mother, the church understands their problems and will not leave them on their own."

Sarah Palin =....George Wallace???

http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/George%20Wallace.jpg
Jonathan Rauch at the National Journal is drawing some parallels for Sarah Palin and it isn't the, lip-service good kind like Barry Goldwater gets, it's the populist George Wallace kind. I don't know if I buy what he has to say, and I certainly don't buy that she is as appealing but here are the highlights:
Palin: "Voters are sending a message." Wallace: "Send them a message!"

Palin: "The soul of this movement is the people, everyday Americans, who grow our food and run our small businesses, who teach our kids and fight our wars.... The elitists who denounce this movement, they just don't want to hear the message." Wallace: "They've looked down their noses at the average man on the street too long. They've looked [down] at the bus driver, the truck driver, the beautician, the fireman, the policeman, and the steelworker...."

Palin: "We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern." Wallace: "We have a professor -- I'm not talking about all professors, but here's an issue in the campaign -- we got these pseudo-theoreticians, and these pseudo-social engineers.... They want to tell you how to do."

Palin: "What does he [Obama] actually seek to accomplish...? The answer is to make government bigger; take more of your money; give you more orders from Washington." Wallace: "They say, 'We've gotta write a guideline. We've gotta tell you when to get up in the morning. We've gotta tell you when to go to bed at night.' "

Byrne Finally Has A Respectable Ad

After the last 2 debacles Bradley Byrne has finally released a respectable ad:


H/T - Parlor

Vatican Wealth: Chapter Four


Here is the fourth chapter of Avro Manhattan's book, Vatican Billions. It explains how the Roman Catholic church took it upon itself to claim all of Europe as its rightful inheritance.
------------------------------------------------------

The Church Claims Ownership of the Western World

Once rooted in tradition and strengthened by the credulity of the times, the dubious seedling of the Donation grew into a mighty oak tree under the shadow of which papal authoritarianism thrived. From the birth of the Carolingian Empire in the year 800 onwards, the gifts of Pepin, the Donation of Constantine, and the False Decretals were assiduously used by the pontiffs to consolidate their power. This they did, until , with additional forgeries and the arbitrary exercise of spiritual and temporal might, these documents became the formidable foundation stone upon which they were eventually to erect their political and territorial claims, the rock upon which stood the whole papal structures of the Middle Ages.

The Donation was given increasingly varied meanings by the succeeding generations of theologians. Notwithstanding the disparity in their views, however, they all agreed upon one fundamental interpretation: the Donation gave the widest possible power and authority to the papacy. Thus, for instance, whereas Pope Hadrian I stated that Constantine had "given the dominion in these regions of the West" to the Church of Rome, Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, asserted about the year 868 that as Constantine had declared that two emperors, the one of the realm, the other of the Church, could not rule in one city, he had removed his residence to Constantinople, placing the Roman territory "and a vast number of various provinces" under the rule of the Apostolic See, after conferring regal power on the successors of St. Peter.

The Popes acted upon this, using the argument as a basis to increase their territorial sway, with the inevitable new accumulation of wealth which went with it. Gregory VII (1073) directed all his energies to that effect. He concentrated spiritual and political jurisdiction in himself, the better to administer the Western Empire as a fief of the papacy. That implied the extension of his temporal dominion over the kings and kingdoms of the earth and therefore over their temporal riches.

Indeed, Gregory had no qualms in openly asserting temporal supremacy over the whole of the Byzantine Empire, including Africa and Asia. He went even further by declaring that his ultimate goal was simply the establishment of the universal temporal domain of St. Peter. Hence his continual exertions to take possession of, in addition to Rome and Italy, all the crowns of Europe, many of which he succeeded in placing under his direct vassalage.

Although his vast scheme only partially materialized during his reign, his successors continued his work. Pope Urban II, following in his footsteps, decided to bring under subjection the churches of Jerusalem, of Antioch, of Alexandria and of Constantinople, with all the lands wherein they flourished. Under the pretext of liberating the tomb of Christ, he simply mobilized the entire western world into an irresistible army which, leaving the shores of Europe, plunged into Asia Minor like a tornado, creating the greatest military, political and economic commotion in both continents.

The capture of Jerusalem and the success of the First Crusade gave incalculable prestige to the pontiffs. While the nations of Europe attributed this vicotry to manifest supernatural power, the Roman Pontiffs were quick to transform the great martial movements of the Crusades into powerful instruments to be used to expand their spiritual and temporal dominion. This was done by employing them as military and political levers which never ceased to yield territorial and financial advantages throughout the Middle Ages.

Such policies went a step further when, basing papal claims on an even more daring interpretation of the Donation, it was stated that the secular rulers should be made to pay tribute to the papacy. A vehement advocate of this was Otto of Freisingen, who in his Chronicles composed in 1143-6, did not hesitate to declare that as Constantine, after conferring the imperial insignia on the pontiff, went to Byzantium to leave the empire to St. Peter, so other kings and emperors should pay tribute to the popes.

For this reason the Roman Church maintains that the Western kingdom have been given over to her possession by Constantine, and demands tribute from them to this day, with the exception of the two kingdoms of the Franks (i.e. the French and German).

Such advocacy was made possible because only a century earlier, in 1054, Pope Leo IX had declared to the Patriarch Michael Cerularius that the Donation of Constantine really meant the donation "of earthly and heavenly imperium to the royal priesthood of the Roman chair."

From all this it followed that soon Lombardy, Italy, and Germany began to be reckoned, in the eyes of Rome, as "papal fiefs," the popes declaring ever more boldly that the German kings had possessed the Roman Empire, as well as the Italian Kingdom, solely as a present from the pontiffs. Such claims, of course, did not go unchallenged, and they often caused the profoundest political commotion - for instance, the one that broke out in Germany in 1157, when a letter from Pope Hadrian to Frederick Barbarossa spoke of "beneficia" which he had granted to the Emperor, or could still grant, and expressly called the imperial crown itself such a beneficium - i.e. a feod, as it was understood at the imperial court. Hadrian said, on the strength of the fact that it was he who had placed the crown on the Emperor's head, that the pope was the real owner of Germany.

It was not only the princes who rebelled against the papal pretensions. Men otherwise devoted to this religious system spoke in no uncertain words against papal infringement upon civil power. Provost Gerhoh of Reigersburg, for instance, commenting upon the custom (which, of course, rested for support on the Donation of Constantine) of the emperor were represented as vassals of the popes, concluded that this besides causing the embittered feelings of temporal rulers, went also against the divine order by allowing the popes to claim to be emperors and lords of emperors.

A few years later Gottfried, a German educated in Bamburg, chaplain and secretary to the three Hohenstaufen sovereigns, Conrad, Frederick, and Henry IV, building on what Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, had already said, went a step further than Pope Adrian and included France in the Donation. In his Pantheon, which he dedicated to Pope Urban III in 1186, he stated that in order to secure greater peace for the Church, Constantine, having withdrawn with all his pomp to Byzantium, besides granting to the popes regal privileges, had given dominion over Rome, Italy and Gaul, with all the riches therein.

With passing of the centuries, the popes, instead of abating their claims, continued to increase them by declaring that, by virtue of the Donation, emperors were emperors simply because they permitted them to be so the sole ruler in spiritual and temporal matters being, in reality, the pontiff himself.

Such pretensions were not left to wither in the theoretical field. They were directed to concrete territorial, political, and financial goals which the pontiffs pursued with indefatigable pertinacity. Pope Innocent II (1198-1216), the most energetic champion of papal supremacy, thundered incessantly to all Europe that he claimed temporal supremacy over all the crowns of Christendom: for, as the successor of St. Peter, he was simultaneously the supreme head of the true religion and the temporal sovereign of the universe. His tireless exertions saw to it that papal rulership was extended over sundry lands and kingdoms. By the end of his reign, in fact, the Vatican had become the temporal ruler of Naples, of the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, of almost all the States of the Iberian peninsula such as Castile, Leon, Navarre, Aragon and Portugal, of all the Scandinavian lands, of the Kingdom of Hungary, of the Slav State of Bohemia, of Servia, Bosnia, Bulgeria, and Poland. A proud list!

He became also the true de facto and de jure sovereign of England, after having compelled John to make complete submission. During the last years of that king's reign and the first few of Henry III, Innocent governed the island effectively through his legates. That was not enough, however, for Innocent proclaimed himself the temporal ruler of the Christian states founded in Syria by the Crusaders. Indeed, he went even further. Taking advantage of the Franco-Venetian Crusade of 1202, he planned the annexation of the Byzantine Empire. A Latin Empire came into being in the East, and while the Byzantine became the temporal vassals of the pope, the Greek Orthodox Church was compelled to acknowledge Roman supremacy. Later on, such immense dominion was extended by his successors through the conversion to Roman Catholicism of the pagans of the Baltic.

At this time, as in the past, one country more than any other opposed the irresistible ecclesiastical absorption: the powerful German Empire. But the pope, in spite of many setbacks, never recognized Germany as being outside this formidable papal imperium, on the familiar ground that she was an integeral part of the patrimony of St. Peter.

Not content with the Donation of Constantine, Innocent IV asserted that when Constantine gave to the Church had not belonged to him at all, for Europe has always belonged to the Church. In an encyclical published shortly after the close of the Council of Lyons in 1245, Innocent expressly stated:

"It is wrong to show ignorance of the origin of things and to imagine that the Apostolic See's rule over secular matters dates only from Constantine. Before him this power was already in the Holy See. Constantine merely resigned into the hands of the Church a power which he used without right when he was outside her pale. Once admitted into the Church, he obtained, by the concession of the vicar of Christ, authority which only then became legitimate. "

After which, in the same encyclical, Innocent fondly dwelt upon the idea that the pope's acceptance of the Constantine Donation was but a visible sign of his sovereign dominion over the whole word, and hence of all the wealth to be found on earth.

Belief in the Donation and in the wide extent of territory which Constantine included in it grew ever stronger. Gratian himself did not include it, but it was soon inserted a palea, and thus found an entry into all schools of canonical jurisprudence, so that from this time on the lawyers were the most influential publishers and defenders of the fiction. The language of the popes also was henceforward more confident.

"Omne regnum Occidentis ei (Silvestro) tradidit we dimisit," said Innocent II (1198-1216)

Gregory IX (1227-41) followed this out to its consequences, in a way surpassing anything that had been done before when he represented to the Emperor Frederick II that Constantine the duchy and the imperium to the care of the popes forever. Whereupon the popes, without diminishing in any degree whatever the substance of their jurisdiction, established the tribunal of the empire, transferred it to the Germans, and were wont to concede the power of the sword to the emperors at their coronation. By now, this was as much as to say that this imperial authority had its sole origin in the popes, could be enlarged or narrowed at their good pleasure, and that the pope could call each emperor to account for the use of the power and the riches entrusted to him.

But the highest rung of the ladder was as yet not reached. It was first achieved by Gregory's successor, Innocent IV, when the synod of Lyons resulted in the deposition of Frederick, in which act this pope went beyond all his predecessors in the increase of his claim and the extent of the authority of Rome.

The Dominican, Tolomeo of Lucca, author of the two last books of the work De Regimine Principum, the first two books of which were by Thomas Aquinas, went even further and explained the Donation as a formal abdication of Constantine in favor of Sylvester. Connection with this other historical circumstances, which were either inventions or misconceptions, he thence drew the conclusion that the power and wealth of all temporal princes derived its strength and efficacy solely from the spiritual power of the popes. There was no halting half way, and immediately afterwards, in the contest of Boniface VIII with Philip of France, the Audutinian monk Aegidius Colonna of Rome, whom the pope had nominated to the archbishopric of Bourges, drew the natural conclusion without the slightest disguise in a work which he dedicated to his patron.

The other theologians of the papal court, Agostino Trionfo and Alvaro Pelayo, surpassed all previous claims and declared, that if an emperor like Constantine had given temporal possession to Sylvester, this was merely a restitution or what had been stolen in an unjust and tyrannical way. (1)

Emperors and kings were compelled very often, not only to acknowledge such claims as true, but to swear that they would defend them with their swords; to cite only one before his coronation. Pope Clement V made this monarch swear that he would protect and uphold all the rights which the emperors, beginning with Constantine, had granted to the Roman Church - without, however, stating what these rights were. (2)

The power given by the Donation to the Roman Church was further enhanced by that inherent in the papacy itself. As the direct successors of Peter, the popes were the only true inheritors of the might of the Church, and hence of whatever and whoever were under her authority. The theory ran as follows:

'Christ is the Lord of the whole world. At his departure he left his dominion to his representatives, Peter and his successors. Therefore the fullness of all spiritual and temporal power and dominion, the union of all rights and privileges, lies in the hands of the pope. Every monarch, even the most powerful, possesses only so much power and territory as the pope has transferred to him or finds good to allow him.'

This theory was supported by most medieval theologians. (3) It became the firm belief of the popes themselves. In 1245, for instance, Pope Innocent IV expounded this doctrine to none other than the Emperor Frederick, saying that, as it was Christ who had entrusted to Peter and his successors both kingdoms, the heavenly and the earthly, belonged to him, the pope: by which he meant that the spiritual dominion of the papacy had to have its counterpart also in papal dominion over all the lands, territories and riches of the entire world.

Not even the most ambitious emperors of the Ancient Roman Empire had ever dared to claim as much.

Lego Roundheads and Boye the Dog


Thanks to everyone for their help during Stuart Week. We've had historians and costumes, a debate a film and a battle! Tying up a few loose ends, Boye the dog wasn't really given the attention he deserved this afternoon. This giant hunting poodle was Prince Rupert's loyal accomplice across several battles, and people thought he had magical powers because of his ability to survive the fighting - he was even promoted to Sergeant-Major General! Sadly Boye's luck ran out during Marston Moor. He was tied up a safe distance from the battle but managed to escape and went looking for his master, but was killed whilst doing so, as depicted in the picture below. Prince Rupert's career after the battle is equally fascinating, and deserves its own blog post at a later date.


Meanwhile, some of you may have seen this picture of Thomas Fairfax depicted in Lego. To see further creations, including Charlemagne, Abraham Lincoln and Gandhi - click here (but sadly this doesn't work at school)

Johnny Cash (26 February 1932 - 12 September 2003)

There were many reasons to admire Johnny Cash. Here is one. And here is another:
Man in Black
Johnny Cash

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.

I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.

Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.

I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.

And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.

Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.

Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black.

Lutherans Prepare to Receive Pope

Court of the Gentiles--Opened for Business


.- The Pontifical Council for Culture has announced that it is creating a foundation to focus on relations with atheists and agnostics. The president of the Council announced the initiative on Wednesday as a response to Pope Benedict's call to "renew dialogue with men and women who don't believe but want to move towards God."

Speaking with the Italian Bishops' Conference's Avvenire newspaper, Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture (PCC), outlined the objectives of the foundation, called "The Courtyard of the Gentiles."

"Firstly," he said, it is "to create a network of agnostic or atheistic people who accept dialogue and enter as members into the foundation and, as such, into our dicastery."

Archbishop Ravasi listed further objectives of starting relations with atheistic organizations, studying the "spiritual place" of non-believers and developing "themes of rapport between religion, society, peace and nature."

"With this initiative, we would like to help everyone to step out of a poor conception of believing, (and) promote the understanding that theology has scientific dignity" and a founding in nature, he continued.

These themes, said Archbishop Ravasi, would be addressed in a yearly conference, the first of which will take place in "the second half of this year, probably in Paris."

Thursday, February 25, 2010

To Kill a King


"To Kill a King" was shown in Stuart Week and it was interesting to see a different take on the Civil War compared to the familiar scenes from "Cromwell". It focused on the increasingly strained relationship between Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, the principal Parliamentary generals, as well as giving plenty of time to Fairfax's relationship with his royalist-inclined wife, Lady Anne. Here is a review of the film, and here is some insight into the problems made making it - basicly they ran out of money twice!

We would like to repeat the "History Film Club" experience in the future. What other films would you like to see shown?

Davis Hits The Air Tomorrow

Artur Davis will be hitting the airwaves tomorrow with the first ad from the Democratic side:


LINK

Marston Moor


The Battle of Marston Moor will take place on Friday lunchtime! This was the bloodiest battle of the war, where Prince Rupert's Royalist troops, having successfully relieved the Siege of York, tried to wipe out Cromwell and Fairfax's Parliamentary army. Did they succeed? What role did Prince Rupert's dog have in all of this? You'll have to come along to find out! (Or click here if you're a bit impatient)

PS: There will also be a brief Stuart Quiz so get revising!

Shelby Upsets The Banking Committee

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF7b38tb2i73Cf96UKuQw-_0UdhSnANgxBsiwB_B5_oS_YcGDRGOlh92J6fZF5bWkZ85JxIOfLcHYxfPC0f4y1r2ZjLRieP1Kru-rvmp165JVZguAcj5Z3LbPQTT3QsKvFT1-S0t5z8Ws/s200/Richard_Shelby_5.jpg
Some members, of both political parties, are upset at Richard Shelby for not being a team player on banking regulations:
...the panel’s ranking member is largely sitting on the sidelines — as he has for many of the key committee debates in recent years.

GOP colleagues of ranking member Richard Shelby (Ala.) insist he’s relevant to the debate and predict a bipartisan outcome will prevail.

...[but] privately, some Republicans and Democrats have said Shelby’s handling of the issue has caused tension on the panel.

...sources said there was frustration on both sides of the aisle about Shelby’s negotiating style. Republicans felt he was not keeping them in the loop on the status of negotiations, and Democrats felt he was moving the goal posts on deals that had already been made.


Patriot Act Extended Without Debate

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/iphone-apple-sold-out/Ad_apple_1984_2.jpg
The USA Patriot Act had certain expiring provisions extended by the Senate yesterday on a voice-vote:
One provision authorizes court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. A second allows court-approved seizure of records and property in antiterrorism operations. A third permits surveillance against a noncitizen suspected of engaging in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group. In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act. The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote with no debate. It now goes to the House.

Byrne, A Democrat?

Someone put a small handout in front of me Monday, and in my laziness didn't get it posted, but Left In Alabama & the Tuscaloosa News did my work for me. Anyway, there is a card going around that is paid for by "Alabama Conservatives" (?) that trashes Bradley Byrne for being a Democrat. Here is the flier:
CLICK TO ENLARGE
http://politibits.blogs.tuscaloosanews.com/files/2010/02/byrne11-246x600.jpg
It basically trashes Byrne for giving a few hundred buck to Bill Clinton and for being a delegate. Also it mysteriously attacks Byrne for not believing that the entirety of the Bible is meant to be "literally true."

H/T - Left In Alabama, Tuscaloosa News

Obama Layeth The Smacketh Downeth

Amid the highlights everyone will see from the "Health-Care Summit" will be President Obama reminding Se. McCain on who won the election:


LINK

US Bishops to Congress: "Health Care Our Way"

Who thought the bishops would let the health care debate go away?

Not me.


Here is the USCCB's latest press release urging bipartisan cooperation toward the rebirth of the health care nightmare. Not surprisingly, the bishops want it their way or the highway. It will be interesting to watch as Obama--if he wants to get his bill passed--will likely fold to the bishops' pressure and do whatever they say. It will be the only way his legislation will get out of Congress alive.

[I have marked several sections of the bishops' letter for emphasis.]

This release comes from the
USCCB website.
----------------------------------------------------------------

USCCB News Release

10-035
February 24, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Bishops Call for Bipartisan Action to Advance Health Care Reform That Protects Human Life and Dignity

WASHINGTONOn the eve of the White House Health Care Summit, the U.S. Bishops urged Congressional leaders “to commit themselves to enacting genuine health care reform that will protect the life, dignity, consciences and health of all.” In their February 24 letter to Congressional leadership, the bishops also cited their longtime support of adequate and affordable health care for all, calling health care a basic human right.

The letter was signed by Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairs of the bishops’ committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development, Pro-Life Activities and Migration, respectively.

The bishops urged the House and Senate to adopt legislation that ensures access to quality, affordable, life-giving health care for all; retains longstanding requirements that federal funds not be used for elective abortions or plans that include them; effectively protects conscience rights; and protects the access to health care that immigrants currently have and removes current barriers to access.

“We hope and pray that the Congress and the country will come together around genuine health care reform that protects the life, dignity, consciences and health of all,” said the bishops.

For more information about the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ teaching on health care reform, visit www.usccb.org/healthcare.

Full text of the bishops’ letter follows.

February 24, 2010

The Honorable Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader

Dear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we strongly urge the congressional leaders from both parties meeting on February 25, 2010 to commit themselves to enacting genuine health care reform that will protect the life, dignity, consciences and health of all. It is time to set aside partisan divisions and special interest pressures to find ways to enact genuine reform. We encourage the Administration and Congress to work in a bipartisan manner marked by political courage, vision and leadership.

The Catholic bishops have long supported adequate and affordable health care for all, because health care is a basic human right. As pastors and teachers, we believe genuine health care reform must protect human life and dignity from conception to natural death, not threaten them, especially for the voiceless and vulnerable. We believe health care legislation must respect the consciences of providers, taxpayers, purchasers of insurance and others, not violate them. We believe universal coverage should be truly universal and should not be denied to those in need because of their condition, age, where they come from or when they arrive here. Providing affordable and accessible health care that clearly reflects these fundamental principles is a public good, moral imperative and urgent national priority.

The U.S. Catholic bishops continue to urge the House and Senate to adopt legislation that:

  • Ensures access to quality, affordable, life-giving health care for all;
  • Retains longstanding requirements that federal funds not be used for elective abortions or plans that include them, and effectively protects conscience rights; and,
  • Protects the access to health care that immigrants currently have and removes current barriers to access.

For details on the bishops’ positions on health care, please visit www.usccb.org/healthcare.

We will continue to work vigorously to advance true health care reform that ensures affordability and access, keeps longstanding prohibitions on abortion funding, upholds conscience rights, and addresses the health needs of immigrants. Dialogue should continue and no legislation should be finalized until and unless these basic moral criteria are met. Without commenting on specific proposals that may be brought to the summit, we will work to ensure that legislation meets these criteria and will oppose legislation that does not meet them. We hope and pray that the Congress and the country will come together around genuine health care reform that protects the life, dignity, consciences and health of all.

Sincerely,

Bishop William F. Murphy
Diocese of Rockville Centre
Chairman
Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo
Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston
Chairman
Committee on Pro-life Activities

Bishop John Wester
Diocese of Salt Lake City
Chairman
Committee on Migration