North Korea. Is America worried?

As our government leaders, on both sides of the isle, continue to discuss the war in Iraq, an exit "strategy," and the lives that are continuing to be lost, they neglect to see the world around us.

So, is anyone really worried about North Korea and the looming threat? Or are they just seriously convinced that diplomacy, money, and a "discussion" will work AGAIN!? Japan invited our ambassadors there today. Really, it was a cry for help.

2,500

2,500. It has now become a number versus a face, a name, a father or son. It's now a number.

We've lost so many in this pointless battle, that the individuals are no longer a person, they've grown into a number. At least, that is, to our government and our administration.

72% of our troops in Iraq no longer have confidence in our fearless leader, nor understand the mission they are presently involved in. They must be frustrated.

English Only?

English Only? Okay. But only so far as it extends to American governmental publicly published documents, laws, etc. Street signs? Okay. Traffic signs? Okay. These make sense.

Spanish as the second language? Not necessarily. But, I don't think the U.S. government should limit what documents and options are available for all its residents.

Chinese? If one were to exam the various China-Towns from New York City to Los Angeles, it seems feasible that the government could provide copies or translators via telephone or internet for such feasible purposes. If we examine the public sector in these regards, we see, also, that there are translations available for U.S. residents in that aspect; HSBC is a perfect example.

French as the second language? "Oh my God, he just said French!" Look at Maine, New Hampshire, or Vermont. There are still small pockets of French-speaking peoples within these particular Northeastern states, it would seem acceptable for these state governments or the national government to provide a suitable option for these residents as well.

I am not saying that English should be eliminated or pushed aside so a 'national second language' could be created. No. I understand, and appreciate that English is the 'unofficial-official' language of the United States. That's fine.

But, when particular owner's of South Philadelphia hotspots insist that English be the only language taught and understood in the United States, I think this creates an issue. There is beauty in foreign language, and there is necessity in it as well. In a field like mine, a liberal arts field, French and German is expected to be understood. It's not exactly a choice.

----

For more on the Philadelphia Cheese-steak shop insisting only on English, check the following blog:

http://hungovergourmet.blogspot.com/2006/06/genos-crappy-sandwiches-arent-their.html

Present Day America

I'm concerned. I'm really worried about America today. Particularly, I am concerned as a young American.

I'm a registered Republican, but I will not, in 2006 or 2008 vote for a Republican leadership. I've been let down by this administration and the proposed platform of the party at this particular era. More so, I've been let down by the mindset of the conservatives who seem to dominate the political forefront and media outlets. Case in point, Ann Coulter. Crazy woman. Then there are those self-appointed "political-theologians" who wish nothing more than to combine both politics and God into the same speech. Grant it, I have no objection to an individual confessing their love, dedication, and admiration to God (Christ, Yahweh, or Allah), but remember one of the Bill of Rights: "Freedom of religion & religious expression." Thus, there is implicit within this amendment the understanding that a person should not be subjected to the religous implications of a political leader elected to a public, secular office. Even more worrisome is the application of the Vatican to all present forms of Christianity to act as the moral compas for all those who declare themselves to be Christian.

Case in point: http://www.republicanvoices.org/homowrong.html

As a Catholic theologian, I am concerned by this author's application of a Pauline letter, a Mosaic law, and subsequent "Vatican sources," of which he conveniently neglects to state his sources.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the basic guide for all practicing Catholics, outlines the following (and I apologize for its length and articulate detail):

PART TWO
THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY

SECTION TWO
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER THREE
THE SACRAMENTS AT THE SERVICE OF COMMUNION

ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

I. MARRIAGE IN GOD'S PLAN

1602: Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of "the wedding-feast of the Lamb."85 Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its "mystery," its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church. [86]

Marriage in the order of creation

1603: "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage." [87] The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, [88] some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."[89]

1604: God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. [90] Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"[91]

1605: Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." [92] The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. [93] "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." [94] The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh." [95]

----[The numbers indicated above (1602, etc.) indicate the paragraph numbers for the Catechism]

Yes, there is a clear indication from this particular document that marriage is intended to be between a man and woman. This development of theology and philosophical though develops out of the creation narrative found in Genesis. Though, Genesis neglects to place one thing: the basic need for human companionship. The basic brotherhood or sisterhood that can be formed between a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

It is Aristotle who points to three types of friendship: one of usefulness, one of pleasure, and one of good. The first two, he explains, is about "me." It is focusing on what "me," the sole individual within the friendship gains, and that's it. But the third friendship, he explains, is that of pure unadulterated goodness. The form of goodness, in antiquity, can best be described as 'admirable love;' yes, even between people of the same sex. If we carry this through*, one can parallel this argument for what a marriage is and what a sacramental marriage is within the Catholic Church; this is the issue that is at hand between those of the Catholic Church and the American government.

What is problematic for Catholics, then, is not necessarily the union in pure goodness with a person of the same sex; rather, it is a prolem with the ruimentary Catholic understanding of what a marriage is intended to create. Life. Marriage is not for pleasure, usefulness, or a sexual act that, in fact, is encouraged only within a Catholic sacramental marriage (though, I am in no way excluding other Christian denominations and their understanding of marriage). Marriage is, however, for the primary purpose of procreation; adding to God's creation. That's it. The secondary purpose of marriage, one may then say, is for the pure 'goodness,' friendship, and pleasure (not merely sexual) that can develop out of this.

What is frustrating, is for the aforementioned Republican author, via his website, communicating a message of homosexuality as being wrong, when he neglects to comment on issues of adultry, lust, greed, envy, factions, dissension, all of which Paul includes within his letters as well. It is frustrating as there is no commentary from this particular author regarding the state of America in regards to those particular aspect. Nor does he comment about the rising divorce rate in America; a subject that not only the Pauline letters discuss, but Christ Jesus himself argues against. In 1993, the divorce rate of America circled around 40% of all marriages ending in divorce. Since then, the rate has grown steadily toward 50%. This speaks volumes to me as a young American that our media outlets and politicians have done nothing to curtail the home-life that once was envied by others throughout the world. Instead, we have allowed families to fall to the wayside, where families communicate via cell phone to convey dinner time, if they are so fortunate to eat together as a family unit. And no, there is no conclusive psychological or sociological explanation as to homosexual relations being the primary cause behind the 'erosion' of the family unit.

The Democratic Senator from Minnesota the other day had it right when he mentioned that giving a Bible to a politician was like giving a match to a pyromaniac. The results do not always turn out positive. In this case, I believe he is right. Feeding information via the Bible and politics does not bode well for the personification of "freedom of religion and freedom of religious practice."

As a straight male, Catholic theologian, who has had a healthy relationship over the past three and a half years, I do NOT reject the idea of the United States Senate and the U.S. President calling for a national ban on homosexual marriage; though, I do not embrace it. Rather, I believe the language needs to be changed for clarification purposes. As I have attempted to outline, marriage is instituted in the creation narratives found within Judaism and Christianity (as well as Islam and other non-Christian religions), articulates the call for a man and a woman to be unified in marriage. I do NOT reject the idea of the United States government providing an amendment for homosexual civil unions or partnerships, whatever non-religious language is employed, so that those of that particular sexual orientation may live together and recieve the same tax and government benefits that married men and women recieve.

The Catholic Church will remain steadfast in its understanding of what marriage is: a bond of admirable friendship and goodness between a loving woman and man, which intends to produce offspring (if biologically, socially, and economically possible). The Catholic Church will not identify a homosexual relationship in the same sacramental manner, as it cannot produce a child. The Catholic Church, subsequently, has no place in the governing of the United States of America. It has no place in governing any sovereign nation. The Catholic Church in previous documents, including its Catechism, states clearly that nations are to govern unto themselves. The Pauline letters, further, argue that a person is subject not only to the laws of God, but also to the laws of the state, insofar as they do not interfere with a persons regular religious practice. Therefore, the application of Vatican documents and/or Christian scripture in the name of the Catholic Church, is therefore faulty, false, inaccurate, unacceptable, and idiotic.

Let the government create an amendment that allows for men and men or women and women to be bound in a union of good friendship, admirable love, and mutual agreement with one another. But do not allow the government to infuse its conservative Christian values into yet another issue as to overcloud the issues that America really faces. Let's bring our troops home and love them. Let's start caring more for the poor and the socially oppressed. Let's start providing for those who are losing jobs to foreign companies. Let's start caring for the single mother of three who can hardly pay for groceries, because she needs her paycheck to pay for gas to get to work. Let's start caring for the everyday Americans, all of whom are part of God's grand creation.

----
*Lawler, Michael. Marriage and Sacrament: A Theology of Christian Marriage. The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, MN; 1993.

----
For more on the Catholic Church's OFFICIAL stance on homosexual persons and 'legal unions,' refer to the 2003 document

"Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formally headed by the now, Pope Benedict XVI):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

**It is important, however, that one read carefully the language inclusive within the document. The document specifically treats the homosexual act as being wrong. The Church, clearly, in this document and others, does NOT reject the persons who are homosexual.**

The Church. Part I.

[The picture to the left is the first-century Christian church's hierarchical structure described by Sts. Peter, Paul, James, John, et al. Since the pastoral letters were written, the church's structure has clearly changed.]

I Timothy 3:1ff:

"Here is a saying that you can rely on: To want to bea presiding elder is to want to do a noble work. That is why the president must have an impeccable character. He must not have been married more than once, and he must be temperate, discreet and courteous, hospitable and a good teacher; not a heavy drinker, not hot-tempered, but kind and peaceable. He must not be a lover of money..." [The Jerusalem Bible]

Replace the word president, above, with the word bishop (as found within the newer translations such as the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible), and the idea of what a bishop is to be today, is completely different. This frustrates me. Very much.

To think that in the first century, the time closest to Jesus' life and death, the early Christian Church began its organizational structure based on the teachings of Sts. Peter and Paul which, from above, seems to have indicated that a priest could be married during the early Church. Fast foward to the twelfth century: The Constitutions of the Legate Otho in 1237 C.E., ordered (following two earlier periods of celibacy) that all priests should hence forth be celibate and unmarried, as priests were passing down their inheritance to their children (who in turn became priests, or squandered the parish's land and people) and causing political scandal within the Church and within the secular states the particular parish was within. History points to instances when and where the priests of a parish were more focused on the amount of money they brought in than the spiritual needs of the parishoners. Grant it, this was not the case in all parishes.

But, where biblically, is there reason from Jesus or through his teachings where this is evident? According to I Timothy 3, the priests should be allowed to be married and be allowed to have a child and manage his own house. Not to mention, in other areas of the epistles, there is mention of, at the very least, female deacons (deaconesses).

Faith.

That's what we are told to have in these instances. When I crave to be more than just a lay theologian, but a husband and priest at the same time, reading the Christian Letters such as these from Paul, makes me frustrated that I cannot play a role in both during the twenty-first century. Certainly, I know, there is much spiritual "excercising" and cleansing that I must do before committing to either vocation, but I would love nothing more than the opportunity to do both within my life.

It's January 26, 2006. For two-thousand plus years the Church has stayed on task, for the most part - with little deviation, in portraying who Christ is and what Christ wants of us. For more than seven centuries now, the Roman Catholic priests have been celibate (except for those converts from the Eastern Rite or Anglican faith). Can we not, now, change again to allow the Roman Catholics the same? Oh, how I'd be happy to see that change.

~MJM

The democrats are setting themselves up for a win this coming year in the United States Senate and then in 2008. Rightfully so.

Al Gore. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 2006: The former Vice President speaking in Washington, DC at a Liberty Coalition conference aimed at recalling the strengths of America, criticized the Bush administration. The strengths that Dr. King stood up for -- which admittedly, would not happen for a generation after his death, of which we struggle with today -- and the strengths mentioned by such former presidents as Lincoln; the president who started the move for equality amongst all people: black, white, red, yellow, whatever. Humanity as a whole. America as a whole.

The White House's Response: 'Al Gore's hypocrasy knows no bounds.' Spokesman Scott McClellan, today, stated that the president is within his legal rights, pointing to former president Clinton's role in one particular incident during his tenure as president. Still, if one, as suggested by Air America personality, Randy Rhodes, were to do their homework, Clinton had set up a completely legal warrant search/spying-system for foreign personal, foreign interest, or foreign operations on U.S. soil. The tasks set up by Clinton and his administration were completely legal and completely viable under congressional law as well as executive orders decreed by the Clinton administration.

[Vice President] Gore [in his statements on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day] said the use of the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without court approval shows that President Bush "has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently."

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," he said.

So where are the legal egg-heads to help the everyday Americans out? Rhodes, today in her broadcast, stated to a democratic caller, that they're subdued by the Republican majority. The Republican White House, the Republican Congress, and the [now] Republican-based Judiciary system, seems to block every attack that a Democratic minority could posses. She's right. Democrats are blocked. At least within the House, Senate, White House, and Judiciary system. But, can Americans, 52% of which [according to a recent Zaggot or Zogby poll] hope to see President Bush impeached within the coming months, do something as a whole? I think so. But it's going to take time and development. Certainly, we cannot, as Americans, go through the court system. There's no 'fair' system of checks and balances anymore. It certainly, I believe, does not represent the system of government of which our fore father's set up to create. So, then, can we turn to our grass-roots hero, the long-forgotten Howard Dean? I think so. He and Al Gore. Those two, and I thought I'd never say this, but Hillary Clinton too. Don't forget her husband, Bill. I think we need to put as much pressure on the White House as we can, and how we do that, is through these Washington-inside-powerheads. Really.

Sen. Clinton too also stated, today, that the White House is perhaps the 'worst' ever, and will be marked in history as such.

I'm worried about this country, its future, and where I'm going to be within it all. I started off this blog last week stating I was a moderate seeing good on both sides of the isle. But, more and more, I don't think I can play a part in American politics any longer. It's discouraging to see what's taking place under the Republican regime and I don't think it's going to get better under the democrats...because, when it comes to election time, people tend to forget all of these issues, and remember one: abortion.

Hopefully blogs like this, Bobbo2's, and the others started by such websites as www.algore-08.com [and others], can start a sort of 'year book' to remember such events as this so that when it comes to election time, we'll remember more than just one social topic, but many social topics.

Let's go Gore. It's your turn now.

This says it all. No doubts.

America, the home of the 'ideal' democracy, the ideal form of politics, and the more-recent home of 'freedom for the over-seas-oppressed' (AKA: Iraq).

It's frustrating to hear our president, not so recently but in the past, state that our main objective is to bring peace and democracy to a once oppressed country; Iraq. Yet, it seems we cannot do it here ourselves.

Abrahmoff is the most recent account of the government, at least in my eyes, faltering to the wayside, when it is called to be something better. America was a beacon of light, a sign of freedom, and the source of democracy prior to and during WWII and the Cold War. People looked to America because of our democratic ideals. Has it gone to our head?

I saw last night a History Channel expose on Siberia, Russia. The story profiled three middle-aged adults who at one time or another were so interested in freeing themselves from Communist Russia in order to live the 'American dream,' to the point where two of the three left Russia (a dangerous task) during the Cold War to study in the U.S.A. The third: an American entrepeneur.
The first man is an engineer who studied and returned to Siberia to start a now upandcoming corporation. The second man escaped and came to America. He worked a number of odd jobs (cooking, cleaning, painting, etc.), taught himself English, and decided he wanted an American education. He earned a master's in computer engineering/programming. The third man is an American who saught opportunity in America and carried his business to Siberia. All three work in Siberia as Russian Citizens. They left America.

The point is to say that maybe we're not as strong as we think we are. Sure, we have a decent economy (but everyone forgets that $1+ billion defecit). Sure, we have a very good army (but we're still losing soldiers daily [no matter what Bill O'Reilly says]). Sure, we have (at times) a good education system, good health-care, and good social security (but that's failing). All of this is true. All of it. But, we still don't seem to get the basic understanding that we're all equals, we're all part of this wonderful experiment called America, and we're all part of the planet earth.

Aren't our politicians supposed to be the ones who understand this better than all of us? Especially those, like me, who are not in the political trenches faced with daily facts and statistics regarding the 'average' American? I mean, in my mind, the politicians that we elect are supposed to be the ones to solve the defecit problem, not keep spending money. They're supposed to be the ones to protect our citizens from harm; particularly, those who, yes, volunteer for our armed forces. Are our politicians supposed to also ensure that we each receive a good education, decent health-care, and a way to survive after retiring (and paying taxes to the government)? I think so. Instead, we have tax benefits that help out less than 10% of the nation's population and continue to place citizens in harms way.

Now, my friends on the 'right' will say that we do protect the citizens, provide for our elderly/unemployed/poverty-stricken/etc. and support our teachers and educational systems. Sure. But, what about protecting our inherent rights as citizens as well? Have we done so by allowing for the President to have unprecidented super-powers that violate the rights of the individuals through sly spy tactics? Hasn't he violated the rights of individuals by superceding the need for public warrants and skipping so-called 'secret courts?' I think so.

But 'W.' is not the only one to blame. We have other players in this game. Republicans. Democrats. Independents. The government's corrupt. At least though, we still - for the meantime - have freedom of speech in outlets such as this.

One last word. Bill O'Reilly, David Letterman kicked your @$$ the other night on his show. I agree, about 60% of what you say, is probably crap.

~M

It's a Blog!

It's a Blog. This is my first attempt, so cut me some slack.

After reading my good-friend's blog (www.bobbo2.blogspot.com), I thought I'd start my own. I know Bob's going to give me crap because of that, and I know he'll continue to give me crap about my blog because of our differing views on different subject areas...at least it'll keep us good friends.

Whether or not Bobbo2 believes it (our our old college professor, Dr. O), I am a moderate. That means that I find good and bad on both sides of the isle. I agree with certain issues of the Liberal-Democrats and certain issues with the Republican-Conservatives. I can't help it, it's just the way it is. The more I listen to Randi Rhodes and the Air America Radio personalities, I can't help but agree with a lot of what she (and others) have to say. I have long disagreed with President Bush and the war in Iraq & Afghanistan, and more recently my-registered-party's lobbying/money scandal. It's disgusting (and by the way, about 16 Democrats between the House and Senate are also accused of carrying out such acts).

In my 'spare time,' I'm a full-time teacher at a Philadelphia private school and a part-time graduate student of Theology at a local university. Any extra time I have, is spent sleeping. Literally.

So much of an introductory, I'll close this now.

As this blog evolves, I hope that it'll be an opportunity for me to express my views on things I learn, things I read, and things I watch/read/listen to in the news. Maybe, you'll have the opporunity to respond along the way.

Thanks,

M