On Religion

I've been thinking for the last month or so about how to write about how profoundly my religious beliefs have enlightened my worldview over the past few years. I haven't written anything about it yet because I can't quite get my arms around the entirety of what I want to say. Since "reverting" to Catholicism several years ago, I've been on an insatiable quest to learn all about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. Along the way I've continued to stay abreast of world events and have noticed that my strong political views have changed dramatically. As a result, I can clearly see both sides, now, and understand the perspectives of so many of those around me sometimes more clearly than they themselves do. It's enormous to take in, like a flash flood of information and new understanding. Trying to put all that into words to explain outwardly is daunting.

One thing I can say at least, at the bottom line, is that I am more convinced than ever that Catholic faith is the key to seeing things in the world for what they really are, and for also understanding how to approach them. This one religion has started with the Word of God and has worked within a single established framework for adding to its official body of knowledge over the last 2,000 years. Today, it remains true to its understanding of specific rules of morality that were established hundreds of years ago, and it's the only Christian religion to have done so. And while people may call the Church and its teachings "old-fashioned" or "out of step" in 2007, I and other devout Catholics would argue that it is those critics who are out-of-step. Morality does not evolve. It just IS. The Catholic Church has always understood that, and uniquely so.

Once I figure out just what I want to say, I'll break it down into pieces and post it here. I hope you'll stay tuned.

L.A. Times Again Bashes Conservatives

Here is an email I sent to Rosa Brooks, who contributed an op-ed to the L.A. Times this morning. You can find this piece of trash here.

I just read your pathetic excuse for an op-ed in today's online L.A.
Times and I have to wonder just what you idiots on the left are
smoking over there at the Times. No wonder the LAT circulation is
dropping like a stone.

I struggle to find a single sentence of this piece of garbage that's
even true, much less compelling. The Swifties were debunked? When did
that happen? Michelle Malkin is inaccurate and unfair? Where? The
conservative PAC is being run by fringe elements? Who? The troops are
deeply critical of the president's Iraq strategies? Which troops? The
U.S. military is getting its back broken? Where on earth did you hear
that nonsense? I suspect the honest answer to all these is, "in
liberals' dreams."

Liberals are so devoid of anything intelligent to bring to the
conversation that they can't even refer to themselves honestly.
"Progressives"? What's progressive about the Democratic party? That
they want to turn the U.S. into an atheist, socialist welfare state?
Why not save yourself some time and energy and just move to China?

The Swifties were effective because Kerry was so obviously an
anti-American nut-job that he couldn't counter their attacks
effectively. Like so many other liberals, yourself included, he comes
off as an America-hater who just can't stand the fact that we're the
most successful nation in history. Why? Who knows.

Part and parcel of that is hatred of the military. You say, "all the
old myths revived: The antiwar left spits on returning troops and
gives aid and comfort to the enemy." Funny thing is, all that
actually HAPPENED. The antiwar left DID and DOES spit on returning
U.S. troops. CNN really DID run footage on national television of a
terrorist sniper killing an American soldier. There's nothing
mythological about any of it. The left in this country is despicable
and dishonest. John Murtha is particularly so. "Redeploy" the
troops? To Okinawa? What a buffoon. If he's so proud of his
strategy, why doesn't he call it what it really is? Withdrawal.
Retreat. Defeat. Any one of those would be more accurate than
"redeployment".

Ridiculous, inaccurate, America-bashing columns and "news" articles
like yours are the reason I cancelled my Times subscription and will
never go back. Reading this online just reinforces to me that I did
the right thing.

Michael Kellogg

A Scary Day

Today, January 4th, marks the day that the GOP finally relinquishes its control of Congress - which it has held since 1994 - and turns it over to the Democrats. The Dem's won a majority in both the Senate and the House in the last election. Everyone seems to have a considered opinion on why this happened, but few people agree. Liberals, of course, say that it was a referendum on President Bush's "lies" and "failed strategy" in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Some have also referred to "corruption". Conservative politicians seem bewildered by the whole thing.

The truth, as is often the case, is probably nearer the middle. Assertions of the president's lies are no more than despicable insults, thrown out by juveniles, against a man with far too much class to respond. Has the president, however, made mistakes? Serious ones? Without a doubt. If you want to argue that his management of the "War on Terrorism" has been incompetent, I can agree to a certain extent. But that's far different than insulting the man and calling him a liar - or worse.

Yet that is what we've had to endure since practically the day Mr. Bush took office back in 2000. It started with complaints that he had somehow stolen the election (ridiculous) from Al Gore, and it has never died down. Liberals have not just disagreed with this president, they have truly hated the man. And this hatred has produced some of the most disgusting political rhetoric I've ever witnessed.

Today is a scary day because these very same people who have called our president "corrupt", "incompetent", "a liar", etc., in public, are now taking over the Legislative Branch. That means that they will actually have a degree of power that they have not had in recent years; and that they will actually have to be listened-to.

Listening to these kooks is scary because of the times we live in and particularly because of the seriousness of the threats to our country and to our combat troops engaged in the Middle East. Make no mistake -- we are at war with Islamic Fundamentalism, and we must win. They started the war against us in 1979 in Iran, and we simply never responded seriously until after 9/11/2001. Yet the Democrats have difficulty acknowledging this at all. That fundamental "disconnect" between them and reality is frightening because it means they will back us away from the steps we've been taking to fight the war.

Predictions
There are 5 very serious issues that I see right away as direct threats from the incoming congress. Watch the news and see if these don't come to pass within the next two years:

I. Killing the War on Terror
This Democratic congress believes we are not at war with Islamic fundamentalism, and that we face no real threats right now domestically. This means that our current war in Afghanistan and Iraq is a war of aggression and is unjust. They want us out. They dress this desire up as concern for the troops and wanting to get them out of harm's way, but do not be fooled. They are pacifist, isolationist post-modernists and they want us out of the Middle East altogether. They will de-stabilize our mission there by de-funding the war, as they did in the 70's in Vietnam. The results would truly be disastrous for our country and for the world.

II. Amnesty for all Illegal Aliens
The American people seem to be the only people in the country who recognize the threat and the injustice that illegal immigration has wrought. President Bush, who should know better having governed a border state, has done ZERO to address the problem, and the Republican congress made some inroads but didn't solve the serious problems (part of why they got abandoned by conservatives). With the Dem's now controlling Congress, there is nothing stopping them -- truly, nothing at all -- from passing amnesty legislation legalizing all 12-15 million illegal aliens currently in the country.

III. No More Conservative Federal Judges
It has been hard enough for President Bush to get conservative, "originalist" judges appointed to lifetime positions on the Federal Circuit, Appeals, and Supreme courts with a Republican majority. The Dem's, aided by left-leaning Republicans, have effectively stopped up the appointment process. With them in full control, you can forget about getting good judges installed in the high courts.

IV. Higher Federal Taxes
On this point the Democrats don't even try to disguise their position. Many have said openly that they will not renew the president's existing tax cuts, which are temporary and must be renewed every few years. Democrats don't believe that your money is yours and that taxes are what you offer up to run the government. They believe that your money is really theirs, and that they should choose how much or little of it to allow you to keep, based on what they feel like spending it on. Higher taxes are on the way.

V. Endless Hearings
With the majority in Congress comes the authority to conduct investigations and hearings. The Democrats have been spoiling for a fight with the president all along, but have been held down by the Republican majority. Now that they are in power, and with a presidential election looming in two years, look for an immediate creation of panels and investigative committees with the one unifying purpose of going after President Bush. The investigations and hearings will be very expensive and go on forever, and in the end will accomplish exactly nothing, providing just one more example of just how incompetent and irresponsible these Democrats are with our - yours and mine - money.

Watch and see. Other bad things will also happen, but these 5 are the biggies. I honestly believe all 5 will happen, and in pretty short order. What I don't know, or can't bring myself to imagine, is what the net effect on our country will be. Can we sustain all these hits? And assuming we do, what will the country look like when the 2008 election rolls around? And if by some scary stretch of imagination a liberal makes it into the White House in '08, how will the country look in 4 or 8 more years? It truly is scary, and it all begins today.

Islamo-fascists Turn Up the Heat

Pope Benedict, in an address on my anniversary (!), 9/12, talked a lot about how the West is not able to communicate effectively with the East because the West has become so secularized. Because the West has elevated "reason" above "faith" in all discourse, it's no longer on the same plane of reference when dealing with other countries (often Islamic countries).

In the course of these remarks, the Pope referenced a conversation from the 14th century in which a Byzantine emperor complains to the Ottomans in his company at the time that Mohammed has basically brought nothing new to the table that isn't "evil and inhuman". He goes on to speak specifically about Islam's propensity for "conversion by the sword," wherein people are forced to either convert to Islam or die. Benedict also included the part of the conversation where the emperor correctly asserts that conversion by the sword is incompatible with the nature of God, since it involves violence and God disdains violence. Faith is born in the soul, not in the body, and thus the ONLY legitimate way to convert someone is through an intelligent argument for the faith, that appeals to the person's soul, from which all decisions emanate.

Predictably, Muslims throughout the world have gone completely berserk, calling for the pope's death by beheading, and warning that they will come into the Vatican and burn it down to the ground. Some Islamic leaders have also called for Muslims to kill Christians wherever they find them. And this morning, we are hearing reports that this has already begun. A nun in Somalia was murdered -- shot in the back 4 times -- while walking from one building to the next. She was a schoolteacher and had worked to serve God there for over a quarter-century. Her bodyguard was also gunned down. There are other reports of violence, but this one stands out to me as the most prominent and immediately obvious as a direct link to the Holy Father's comments.

You can see the transcript of the Pope's lecture here, but it's quite long and would take a couple of hours for even smart theologians to digest. Here is a nice breakdown by a priest that explains what the Holy Father said, what he meant, and throws in a number of commentaries about the Muslim reactions. It is a must-read.

The repeated wild Muslim over-reaction to comments about their religion is eventually not going to be taken seriously any more as a real reaction to offensive comments, and instead for what it really is: an excuse to wreak more havoc and violence.

This kind of violence could not come from God. It is theologically impossible. Therefore, one of two possibilities is the actual truth: Either 1) These people are not worshipers of God, they are just pretending to be so they have an excuse that people are supposed to have to respect; or 2) They are sincere when they worship 5 times a day, but they are worshiping Satan, not Our Lord. For, all these acts are of course condoned by Beelzebul.

I would also note that, at this time, I have (as usual) yet to read of a single Muslim sticking up for the Pope or at least condemning the calls for violence from other Muslims. As usual, it has been left to others -- Christians -- to apologize on behalf of Muslims with statements like "these views, of course, are embarrassing to millions of Muslims". To me, this failure among rank-and-file Muslims is almost as big an indictment of that religion as the Jihadis' rantings.

Jihadis around the Islamic world are screaming for a full-blown war with Christianity over these comments, and have already killed an innocent elderly nun over them. If they lay a hand on the Pope, they just may get it. We should all pray for the enlightenment and empowerment of people who can prevent such a war.

Kelblogg to Ex-Presidents: SHUT THE HELL UP!

I just got done reading the German magazine Der Spiegel's interview with former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, and after I picked my jaw up off the floor, all I can say is, when will Democratic ex-presidents shut the hell up already?

Look around and tell me how much political commentary you see out there from ANY former Republican ex-president. Then look at the two Democratic ones: Carter and Clinton. They are both all over the news endlessly. This used to be an unwritten rule, that you stay out of the limelight once you're out of office. Let future administrations do their thing without your comments to muck things up. Former presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush NEVER made comments about anything political once they'd left office. But apparently megalomaniac socialists Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton cannot help themselves.

Now Carter is off in Germany, bashing President Bush and American society. His commentary is truly incredible. This is a former president of the United States! Take 5 minutes and read this interview with Mr. Carter. It truly is a must-read.

I hardly know where to begin as far as criticism. Besides the "keep a low profile" mantra that Carter should have been keeping, his factual misstatements and outrageous opinions, given and published OVERSEAS, during a time of war, are beyond belief. I have lost what tiny amount of respect I still had for this joke of a president. I remember his presidency, and it was an abject failure on every front. High inflation, gasoline rationing and long lines, American hostages being taken in Iran, you name it.

Let's just tackle a few of the president's comments:

I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

Wow, what a whopper. He's a bigger fool than I thought. First of all, Israel holds NO political prisoners. Name ONE. Any prisoners they hold are criminals who were caught in the act (of things like murdering innocent people in cold blood) and put through a fair trial before imprisonment, just like in the U.S. Why should Israel return these folks? By contrast, Hezbollah (a terrorist group, by the way) has been attacking Israel across internationally-recognized and guarded borders ever since the day Israel vacated southern Lebanon. They've used rockets and soldiers to do this, and when Israel finally attacked a month ago, it was in response to a massive rocket barrage and an illegal crossing by Hezbollah where they killed 7 Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another before crossing back into Lebanon. What was Israel supposed to do? So Carter is a liar and an appeasing fool.

SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?

First of all, in my opinion the stupidity at Abu Ghraib happened precisely because of a lack of religiosity there. Chaplains were told to stay out of everyone's way at Abu Ghraib. Keep to themselves. They did, and look what happened. When the new administration there came in, they put the chaplains front and center as one of their first orders of business. As far as torture at Guantanamo, that is so ridiculous as to be funny. Prisoners at Gitmo are treated better than any other prisoner in the history of warfare. They're given 3 squares a day and allowed to pray and given copies of the Koran to use. In addition, soldiers are told never to speak of or treat the Korans disrespectfully, out of respect for their prisoners. In return, they get prisoners faking illnesses to draw the soldiers in close, then get pelted with human feces and urine, and generally mistreated by these barbarians under their care. Furthermore, the "torture" the interviewer speaks of is nothing of the sort. We're not pulling guys' fingernails off or raping them or anything else even remotely close. Instead, they're subjected to such horrors as having to listen to annoying sounds, being kept awake for days at a time, etc. Boo hoo. So the statement and question itself is already idiotic.

Now consider Carter's response:

Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history.

I don't disagree with Carter very much on his characterization of fundamentalists. He goes overboard when he talks about "sub-humans," as no fundie that I've met thinks like this. They just believe the rest of Christianity (and everyone else) is seriously misguided and headed for Hell. I disagree, but it's a position I can at least respect.

However, more importantly, President Bush is NOT a fundamentalist. Not even close. Bush is an Evangelical, and there is a significant difference. In addition, Carter is asserting, here, that Bush's religion is somehow infecting the entire government and crossing that all-important (and made-up) wall between church and state. This is ridiculous, and so Carter's reasoning totally falls apart from the get-go. He is claiming that Bush refuses to negotiate with Hezbollah and the Palestinians because he's religious and looks down on both groups. Here is the truth: Bush, as a devout Christian, recognizes Evil when he sees it and stands up to it, instead of appeasing it, understanding that you can't legitimately negotiate with evil terrorists. Their goal is to wipe out Israel and the West, period. You don't negotiate that because it's an immoral and illegitimate position. That Carter, who at the time of presidency was the most overtly religious president in decades, doesn't see that is a real question mark.

I can't keep up with all the ridiculous and outrageous positions stated in this interview -- or even comment on the photographs of Carter alongside his Communist dictator buddy Fidel Castro -- but get a load of this:

SPIEGEL: You've been called the moral conscience of your country. How do you look at it yourself? Are you an outsider in American politics these days or do you represent a political demographic that could maybe elect the next US president?

Carter: I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country. I think there is a substantial portion of American people that completely agree with me.

If that's true, then this country is headed down the toilet quickly.

Setting aside the absolutely preposterous comment that Jimmy Carter is the "moral conscience of the country," the immediate response is, of course, it's not true. There's no doubt many people think like him. However I don't believe the "vast majority of Democrats" agree with him, and I guarantee not a single Republican does. And I'll say this: Truman Democrats, a dying breed, should get on their knees and pray to God that the extreme left in this country, which has been taking over their party, loses its foothold and the party again becomes serious and respectable. The sooner the Democrats get serious and stop pandering to these insane atheist left-wingers, the sooner the country can again get back to have legitimate respectful debates on political questions.