They Have Eyes to See, but They Don’t See; They Have Ears to Hear, but They Don’t Hear

Yesterday I attended “One Life LA,”  the first Los Angeles, California, Walk for Life.  The event started at Olvera Street, the IMG_0067 famous Downtown Pueblo de Los Angeles historic monument dating back to Spanish California.  About 15,000 people attended.  The purpose of the walk was to show Los Angeles that life is precious and should be protected from conception to natural death as Archbishop Jose Gomez, and many other speakers mentioned in their talks.  As I predicted, the main stream media completely ignored it.  EWTN, a Catholic Television Network, televised the talks live, but no other media showed up.

Later that evening, as I was heading to church, I was listening to KNX News Radio in my car.  Among the things of the day that they reported was that about two dozen marched in honor of Martin Luther King Holiday in Long Beach,  No mention of the 15,000 people in Downtown Los Angeles marching for life.  This morning, the Los Angeles Times failed to even mention the event.  Now, compare this to when a couple of dozen anarchists, bent on violence and destruction, showed up in Downtown Los Angeles, not long ago, demonstrating against the Police killings of two black men in New York and Ferguson, Missouri.  For a month the nightly news was filled with marauding hoodlums and news reporters interviewing people on the street about why they were there.  But, when an event that the leftist media (all media except Fox News Channel), disapproves of or does not comport with their world view, then they just ignore it. Whenever  a few hundred people gather for an immigration rally, something the leftist media loves, they’re all over it, but when 15,000 pro-life people have and event, they just look the other way.  They have eyes to see, but they don’t see; they have ears to hear, but they don’t hear.


Do What I Say, not What I Do

After the death of Governor Mario Cuomo of New York this past week, the press was reporting on his controversial stand on abortion, even though he claimed to be a faithful Catholic.  His response was that, although he personally opposed abortion, he would not make a law banning it.  This is the position of liberal Catholics and Christians.   This position is also the most senseless, illogical and mind-bending position that shreds any sense of logic.  Cuomo defends his position by claiming that his pro-choice supporters are the same people who do the “social justice” that the Catholic Church promotes.  What?  As long as you do some good, you can do some bad and it’s ok?  By that measure Hitler did some good too.  He revived Germany from a defeated, starving nation to a booming economy; do we forgive him for the evil that he did then?

The magazine, First Things, has a fine piece on Cuomo’s position on abortion. Cuomo is apologetic about his position, stating  “that as a legislator he was not responsible for passing laws to protect those lives. In an address at the University of Notre Dame, he said: “What is ideally desirable isn’t always feasible, that there can be different political approaches to abortion besides unyielding adherence to an absolute prohibition.”  This is pure gobbledygook.  It makes no sense.  By this logic you could say that although murder is wrong, I would not want to legislate against it, because there are people out there who don’t think that murder is wrong, that it’s just “women’s health.”   Legislation is all about making value and moral judgements.  Why do we have a law against drunk driving?  After all, many people enjoy drinking. The piece on First Things debunks this reasoning in detail and is well worth reading.  Click here to read it.

Stephen Hawking and the Dignity of the Human Person

Last week I saw the movie “The Theory of Everything,” the story of the great British scientist, Stephen Hawking.  As a young man out of college, Hawking got the shocking news that he has what is now known as ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease.  The movie has an emotional scene where the doctor explains to Stephen Hawking the bad news.  The doctor tells him he has no more than two years to live and he can do nothing for him.  Hawking, not only has a brilliant mind, a genius, if you will, he has lots of courage.  He is not defeated.  He gets along as best he can.  He marries, has children, and becomes one of the world’s best scientists.  The disease takes its toll on him, rendering him completely paralyzed and unable to speak.  He not only did not die in two years, as the doctors predicted, but 50 plus years later is just as prolific a scientist as ever.  He is still alive today.

While watching the movie I could not help but think of the recent case of a young 29-year-old woman, Brittany Maynard, who committed suicide via euthanasia in Oregon, after moving there for this purpose.  Brittany made her case very public and indicated that she chose this path voluntarily, with no regrets.  Doctors had given her six months to live.  Who is to say, that something could not have happened in the next six months that would have mitigated her condition, as unlikely as it was?  Certainly, Stephen Hawking’s condition was just as serious.

The question that we must answer is, do we have the right to take our own lives?  Why or why not?  I would want to err on the side of doing the right thing.  Committing suicide, under any circumstances, does not seem to me to be the right thing.  Who gave us life?  Those of us who believe in a supreme being, believe that it was God.  It then follows that only God can take a life.  Indeed, in the 6th Commandment, God orders us not to kill; this includes ourselves, in my view.

In an earlier piece on this blog, I wrote a piece on “Pascal’s Wager.”  In short, Pascal’s Wager, is a hypothetical bet.  If you bet that there is no God and lose, you’re finished.  If you bet that there is a God and it turns out there is, you end up on the right side and save your eternal life, if you lose the bet, you’re in darkness forever.  When it comes to ending a life, I want to bet on the right side of things and not on my own understanding or ease of things.

“The War on Women”?

During the last election cycle in the United States, the Democratic Party promoted what they called “the war on women.”  For example, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, and Wendy Davis, who ran for Texas Governor,  based their entire campaign on this false narrative of “the war on women.”  One of my favorite speakers on the pro-life circuit, Greg Kokul, is fond of what he calls “the Columbo method.”  The Columbo method is based on the old TV character of the 1970s, Columbo, starring the great actor, Peter Falk.  Columbo is famous for always asking the crucial question.  After stumbling thorough questioning  a suspect, he turns to leave, but has “just more thing” – then he asks the crucial question that brings final clarity.

What is the crucial question about the so called “war on women”?  You have to ask for clarity from anyone using this false moniker.  Excuse me, but what do you mean by “war on women”?  Only after you get an explanation can you address the issue.  What the left defines as “a war on women” is shorthand for:  abortion for any reason, contraceptives paid for by someone else, free sex as you want it and no rules barring whatever you want in these areas.

Now, those of us who are for protecting the unborn child, the most vulnerable human being in the world, or if we have objections on religious grounds against paying for contraceptive drugs, we are considered to be waging a “war on women.”  We want to protect unborn children from being ripped apart by abortion, piece by piece from a woman’s womb, because this causes the death of a human being.  In our culture, killing another human person is considered murder and a crime, not a personal option, nor “women’s health,” as the left calls it.  Not giving you free contraceptives is not a “war on women.”  We are not saying we’re against you buying your own, which you can do for no more than $9 per month at Target. The cost is not the issue, the issue is why do I, or anyone else, have to pay for your choice of taking contraceptives, something that is totally elective on your part?  Why should an employer owe this to an employee?  The “war on women” is a false narrative, pure and simple.

Why the Left is Anti-Christian

The recent Hobby-Lobby Supreme Court case highlights why it is a contradiction to be a Christian and a leftist or a liberal Democrat.  Immediately upon hearing the court decision the left went nuts.  Let’s back up and pretend that we’re Lt. Columbo.  What is the issue here?  The issue here is simple:  nobody should be forced to violate their religious beliefs by paying for an abortifacient.  Simple as that.  Nobody is preventing anyone from getting these drugs.  As a matter of fact you can get this drug at Target for no more than $9.00 per month, even if you don’t have insurance.  Who is forcing whom?  I say that the political left is trying to force their view on everyone else.

To add insult to injury, the political left, in the name of the Democratic Party, and Senator Patty Murray proposed a law that would override the Hobby-Lobby case.  Click here to see the story on the very leftist Huffington Post.  What more smoking gun do you need that left is anti-Christian and anti-religious freedom.

The Arrogant Delight in Their Arrogance

I often wonder how intelligent and educated people can be so fooled and refuse to see or even investigate some of their beliefs.  I’m speaking of “pro-choice” people.  Many of my friends and my fellow Catholics who are “pro-choice” are also intelligent and well-educated people.  How can they fail to see the logic of the dignity of the human person?  How can they fail to understand, as does science, that life begins at conception?

I’ve come to one conclusion, although I cannot prove it, and that it that these people who are “pro-choice” simply refuse to investigate the issue..  They simply want to believe what they’re comfortable with.  I know this from my experience with my “pro-choice” friends.  whenever I mention science, logic, or reason, it just goes over their heads.  A common response is “I just think that every woman should choose for herself.”  A rhetorical question I have is what is she choosing?  She’s choosing the death of a human being.  Can this be a choice?  To put it in plain terms, can you choose whether you can kill your children who are under two, for example, as long as it’s your choice?  What is the difference?

In the Book of Proverbs Chapter One states it this way:  “The arrogant delight in their arrogance, and fools hate knowledge,” Pv 1:23.  You have heard the phrase, “don’t bother me with facts.”  This reminds me of this example.  You see, I was that person for the first 40 years of my life.  I was “pro-choice” but could not tell you why except that I thought we should be able to make such decisions ourselves.  It was not until I investigated the issue that I found I had no basis for such beliefs, indeed, the evidence was totally against me.

The Phony War on Women

How many times have you heard the hackneyed phrase from the political left, “the war on women”?  I think I hear it on a regular basis.  Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace, had a Democratic spokesman, Xavier Becerra, on to discuss the pending SCOTUS ruling related to religious freedom, otherwise known as “the Hobby Lobby Case.”  When Mr. Wallace asked Mr. Becerra how can the Democrats defend forcing people to pay for something they believe violates their religious freedoms, he answered by saying that Obamacare does not violate a woman’s religious belief (apparently they have another definition of what is a violation of religious beliefs) and that “no one has the right to discriminate against a woman’s beliefs.”  As Lt. Columbo would say:  just one more question:  what does a woman’s beliefs have to do with the violations of a person’s religious beliefs ?  This is what the left does, it cannot answer a direct question and they instead, change the question.  Click here for a video of this interview – this particular question starts at about the 11:50 minute mark of the video.

Former Hewlett Packard Executive, Carly Fiorina has started a campaign to counter this phony “war on women” that the left is promoting.  Click here for more information on this issue from Ms. Fiorina.  The classic on this phony “war on women” was when a supposed Catholic girl, Sandra Fluke, a law student at a Catholic University, Georgetown University Law School, testified before a Congressional committee.  What she was complaining about was that an employer should pay for her birth control insurance coverage.  As it turns out you can get this type of drug for no more than $9 per month at Target.  This, to the left, is the burning issue; sexual satisfaction should be guaranteed by and paid for by your employer.  So, the left invents a “war on women” unless an employer pays for his employees sexual pleasures.  What right does that come from?  Where do these rights come from and why should an employer be forced to pay for these costs?  An employer pays an employee for work provided.  Why does he have to pay for anything else, unless it is negotiated freely between the two?  Do you pay for your Plummer’s insurance just because he fixed your faucet?  You pay him for the work and nothing else.  Does the word hedonism come to mind?  I think it does, but then this is the world of the left.