BANKS YES, AUTO COMPANIES NO!

Back to looking at the difference between the auto company bailout through bridge loan guarantee and the financial / insurance / Wall Street bailout; Americans appear to resist helping the auto companies but say nothing about bailing out banks and the like.

One easy observation to make is that most Americans grasp what is happening with the auto companies and the reasons they are in a pickle but start talking about derivatives, default loan swaps, toxic investments, and mortgage backed financial instruments and the like and all you get are blank stares. People are not going to get mad over stuff they don’t understand, hell financial types don’t even understand some of this and that is pretty bad.

What people do understand is when their savings are in danger. Even knowing that savings are FDIC insured up to $100,000 and now double that, people lined up for miles to get their money out of banks that failed or were rumored to be failing. They will support anything and everything the government does to keep their savings safe.

People also take notice when their 401(k) drops 50% in value. This is their retirement nest egg and when they see half of it disappear into thin air, they get a little panicky. They want to yank their money out and put it under the mattress. They will support anything and everything the government does that brings back the value of their 401(k).

People know when they are having trouble paying their bills, especially their mortgage. They realize they bit off more than they can chew but they also like to think that they were encouraged to do that by people they trusted to tell them the truth. They will support anything and everything the government does to keep them out of foreclosure.

The problem here is that Joe Blow sees his government handing out billions to financial institutions but he cannot tell or understand specifically why, he can only assume that whatever the reasons the government has for spending those billions of taxpayer dollars, somehow they have something to do with him and his financial situation(s) as mentioned above.

THAT IS WHY PEOPLE DON’T BITCH ABOUT BANK BAILOUTS BUT WILL BITCH ABOUT BAILING OUT AUTO FAT CATS; they don’t benefit when auto companies are bailed out but do when banks are.

Of course there is perception and then there is reality. Michiganders want people to know about the “national” ripple effect that will occur when auto companies go bankrupt and they say the nation cannot handle such a shock.

I say, there is no other choice and if done right, the shock to our economy will not be as great as they want us to believe. THERE IS NO OTHER LEGAL WAY TO TEAR UP UNION CONTRACTS AND MOVE ALL PENSION OBLIGATIONS TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT EXCEPT BY GOING THROUGH BANKRUPCY PROCEEDINGS. The sooner we all realize that, the sooner we can get on the road to recovery.

WHY NO SYMPATHY FOR THE AUTO COMPANIES IN DETROIT?

Michigan’s auto executives went before Congress begging for some money and they got the shit kicked out of them – why? Many people in Michigan are up in arms saying how can Congress give billions after billions to financial and insurance institutions without asking one question of the idiots that ran those institutions into the ground BUT badger the hell out of the auto CEOs who asked for a “loan or bridge loan” of a measly $25 billion?

It appears the whole state went ballistic about this issue judging by the newspaper columns and letters to the editor. My letter suggesting we allow the auto companies to declare bankruptcy and reorganize probably did not set all too well with my fellow Michigan residents. It also did not sit well at the Thanksgiving Dinner table.

But as with any issue, each side has reasons for their actions and their feelings but to truly understand the issue at hand one must put aside all emotion and carefully examine the facts of the matter. I can see that this discussion will take a number of blogs.

The first thing to understand about Congressmen is that they are politicians that want to keep getting re-elected and therefore they will do whatever it takes to get re-elected and that means doing what their constituents want. Obviously the people living outside of Michigan wanted their Congressman to kick the hell out of the auto CEOs and they made sure their Representative knew they were watching hence the sound bites for TV ; but why the lack of sympathy from the nation?

Here in Michigan, we are kind of naïve about how people in the rest of the country perceive us. The majority of Michigan workers are pro-union because a majority of workers in Michigan belong to a union. The rest of the country is “Right to Work” meaning no one can be forced to join a union. You may also say that the rest of the country views unionism as a form of communism and union workers as fat cats that blackmail (strike) their employers to get what they want and that’s why a janitor in a union shop makes $75 hour.

The rest of the country also see auto companies as weaklings that too easily give into union demands and therefore are responsible for their ridiculous labor costs and inability to compete with foreign auto manufacturers in the U.S. that are doing just fine at their plants down South.

They also blame the auto execs for a lack of foresight, making gas guzzlers and not investing and planning enough for fuel efficient cars. They resent people like John Dingell, a powerful Democrat from Michigan that blocked all government efforts to force the auto companies to increase the fuel efficiency of their auto fleets. Recently, the rest of the Democrats in Congress kicked his old ass out of that powerful position; something they should have done some time ago. But you can’t blame him; he was only doing what the auto companies wanted him to do and that goes for the rest of the Michigan Congressional delegation.

Obviously the people outside of Michigan don’t know the whole story but it seems, they know enough not to like what they see coming out of Detroit especially when what is coming out flies on private jets and makes millions; not your average beggar.

Next, why don’t we see the same aversion to bailing out financial institutions as we do to helping the Detroit auto companies?

CATHOLICS DEFEND GAY JESUS PLAY

Recently I wrote about a big hubbub caused by the Catholic Church’s reaction to the play “Corpus Christi” which portrayed Jesus as a gay man. I was surprised that the main objection they had to the play was that it suggested Jesus was sexually active; they did not care if it was heterosexual or homosexual. At the time, I suggested it had something to do with priestly celibacy.

This week, a Catholic letter writer, objected to her Church’s criticism of the play and said: “Christ was not a Catholic, and he is not the property of the Catholic Church”, Susan Nial, Charleston, SC.

I take those words to be profound. I will take it even further by pointing out that not only was Jesus NOT a Catholic, he was NOT even a Christian; he was born a Jew and he died a Jew. The Christian Gospels were written to somehow connect Jesus to Christianity but the bottom line is that there is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus left his Jewish faith to start a NEW religion.

Ms. Nial has every right to point out the utter arrogance of the Catholic Church to even suggest that they know anything at all about Jesus’ sexuality or for that matter, anything about Jesus’ life; the Gospels are not history books.

Susan Nial’s statement that Christ is not the property of the Catholic Church speaks volumes and it reinforces my speculation that many Catholics in America do not recognize Catholic leaders in America or in Rome, as the final authority on the “truth” about Jesus or even the Christian faith.

Reading some of the other letters on this subject I was informed that there are many gay Catholics and that they viewed the play as a form of dissent from within the Church and not an attack on the Church. That explains to me partially why Catholics that disagree with the Church on fundamental issues continue to remain observant Catholics.

HOW ABOUT SPIRITUALITY?

Recently, I have encountered another very interesting article describing a poll about religious feelings here in the United States. The poll questioned close to 7,000 Americans that were between 12 and 25 years of age.

A majority said that they were HIGHLY SPIRITUAL BUT NOT AT ALL RELIGIOUS. What do it all mean?

93% said they believed there is a spiritual aspect to life. The survey also revealed that there is a definitive “disconnect” between spirituality and religion with most respondents saying they “don’t trust organized religion”.

I have mentioned before that my wife is a self-proclaimed spiritualist even though she totally enjoyed her upbringing in the Church of Christ Christian denomination.

Living with me for over 37 years, she does not doubt me when I tell her that civilizations produced gods and creation stories to give themselves a beginning and an explanation for why things are the way they are. So if organized religions are just perpetuating self created myths, how can we satisfy our need for something spiritual or supernatural in our lives that we can actually believe in?

There are probably many definitions of spirituality and I do know that spirituality is a growing field with many books published on the subject so far. What I have been able to glean from my wife and other sources is that at its basic level SPIRITUALITY IS A STRONG BELIEF IN THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF THE WORLD.

In simpler terms, we imagine Mother Earth as a single entity with everything and everyone as part of this single entity; we are all one with Mother Earth and share in the force that is earth.

George Lucas of Star Wars fame studied various eastern philosophies and incorporated many of them in his films. His use of “the force” in his Star Wars series is how he perceives of spirituality and the force it generates.

My wife feels that this earth force does exist and is made stronger when many people gather for a single purpose.

When asked where people feel their spirituality the most, the respondents said: 1. spending time in nature, 2. listening to music, 3. helping others or their community.

Emmanuel Kant (old time philosopher) tried to describe a feeling of awe when looking at ultimate beauty as in nature. He came up with the word “sublime”, we just say spiritual experience.

I am happy to see that young people and older people are finding satisfaction for their religious craving in spirituality; a unifying philosophy and belief system, something they did not get out of organized religion.

THE SEVEN APHORISMS VS TEN COMMANDMENTS

Our Supreme Court has an interesting case to resolve.

The case involves the city of Pleasant Grove City, Utah which has in its town park a statue of the Ten Commandments; been there since 1971.

In come a religious group from Salt Lake City, Utah called SUMMUM. Founded in 1975 with a belief system based on the “THE SEVEN APHORISMS OF SUMMUM” which they claim was also given by god and brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses. Moses destroyed the Seven Aphorisms tablets when he saw that his people were not ready for them.

If you go online and read the Seven Aphorisms of Summum, you will understand why the people of Moses were not ready for these laws; you may even think that we (today) are not ready either.

Anyway, that is beside the point; the issue here is if a definitely religious symbol like the statue of the Ten Commandments is allowed in a “public” park (even though donated) why can another religious statue (also donated) from a “different” religion be denied space in the “public” park.

As you know, we have some pretty conservative justices on the current Supreme Court all of whom are pretty religious. Their duty is to interpret our Constitution and rule according to our Constitution but reality begs to differ.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked his juvenile questions like just because we have a Statue of Liberty, must we have a Statue of Despotism? Or, do we have to put a new face on Mt. Rushmore, just because a president asks for one? I told you he is juvenile.

Justice David Souter, older and wiser, asked how the Ten Commandment statue is allowed but under the same circumstances, the other one denied? Is it because of the different religious message and if so, does that not violate the First Amendment?

A lower court already said that if you accept one donated statue for the park, you must accept the other one also.

To overturn a lower court’s ruling usually requires some pretty heavy legal rationale and so I cannot wait till they submit their decision(s). I am just so glad a Democrat is in power and can or will be able to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court to balance it in the middle and not let it shift way to the Right.

BE GOOD FOR GOODNESS SAKE!

It seems I cannot get out of issues dealing with religion; there are just too many juicy ones around.

A very interesting one is about the American Humanist Association and their decision to buy an ad ($40,000) that will appear on buses serving Washington, DC throughout the holiday season. The ads will say:

“WHY BELIEVE IN GOD? JUST BE GOOD FOR GOODNESS SAKE”.

I find the statement pure genius. I belong to a number of “humanist” associations who promote a “progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity”.

This organization is made up of agnostics, atheists and other types on non-theists or people with no religion in their lives. These people firmly believe that you don’t need religion to be a good citizen of society and earth in general.

The idea behind the ad is not to argue that god does not exist, especially at a time where millions celebrate the birth of god. The idea is to address the non-religious folk during Christmas and urge them to do good works during the Winter Solstice celebration for no other reason than it is the right thing to do if you care about humanity in general; this in contrast to religious people who are threatened with eternal damnation if they don’t do good things or behave kindly towards their brothers and sisters.

The Humanists as opposed to religious people believe that mankind is inherently good and behaves ethically and morally due because that is the logical thing to do if one values their lives and the lives of other humans.

Attacks on these ads appeared immediately. The Christian Right stated that how do we know what is good if we do not believe in god. God through the Bible tells us what is good or bad and right and wrong. If everyone is free to define what is good or not, the world would be a crazy place.

The argument that the Bible tells us how to behave and without those instructions, we would be in chaos is total bullshit. Students of Christianity point to passages in the Bible that command you to kill your children if they are disrespectful to you, one among many similar absurdities found in the holy bible.

You cannot tell me that without the Bible people would think that murdering someone is good, or stealing from someone is proper behavior, etc; that just does not compute!

Anyway, I am glad others challenge prevailing superstitions and stimulate thinking and hopefully, discussion about this subject, if that is at all possible. I find that people are not open to critical thinking about religion and the human race but I salute the Humanists for at least trying.

AMERICAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS PLAN AN ATTACK

I promise to leave this subject alone but I just ran into another article about the American Catholic Church and the election of the Obama/Biden ticket.

It appears that American Catholic Bishops are planning to “forcefully confront the Obama administration about its support of abortion rights”.

Obama did promise “to reduce abortion rates” but the Church said that did not count and it was anti-Catholic to vote for him. Can you see the lack of any common, human sense here; it is not OK to lower the amount of abortions in this country, an all out ban is the only acceptable path. That stance is not only stupid it flies in the face of reason and in the face of reality; how can lowering abortion rates be a bad thing?

They plan on confronting Joe Biden and his statement that he learned his values as a young man growing up Catholic in Scranton, Pa. The bishops will say that his values are unacceptable if they run contrary to Catholic teaching. They obviously assume that only their value system has merit.

Another bishop said “you just cannot check your principles at the door to the legislature”. What about the principle of freedom to live your life according to your desires and wishes; since when does the Church know what the hell is right for us to do. Their arrogance must be thrown right back in their faces.

Another bishop is attacking Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius saying she should stop taking Communion until “she changes her stance” on abortion.

Dr. Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats said the Church leaders need to tone their stance down because it was counterproductive and would alienate even more Catholics.

I say let them try their intimidation, real Catholics have principles and values and they sure don’t always match those of the Catholic Church, the Church they grew up in because their Church has lost its way when it comes to the rights of the individual. They cannot treat Catholics as just sheep in a very large herd.

CATHOLICS AND POLITICS IN AMERICA

Back to talking about the Catholic Church, Communion and politics.

During the recent election, abortion rights advocates (Democrats) beat the hell out of right-to-life, anti-abortion Republicans. In the State of Michigan, a majority of Catholics voted against the Church. So, does the Church excommunicate them, deny them Communion or what.

The first thing to understand is that the Catholic Church is not a democracy; it is a Vatican dictatorship – they make the rules and that is that. The only option Catholics have if they disagree with the Church is to leave and join another, more progressive, religion as many Catholics already have or remain silent and vote their conscience.

There is another option that is actually taken by quite a few Catholics and that is to remain in the Church but actively campaign for change. There are a number of Catholic groups that advocate for the right of priests to marry as well as allowing women to become priests. There is even a Catholic group that calls itself Catholics for Choice (pro-choice).

Recently, the American Anglican / Episcopalian Church suffered a number of defections on the issue of allowing gay priests; they already allow women to be priests. The defections were by those that do not support the Church’s gay position. I guess American Catholics could also form a separate Catholic Church but I have never heard of that happening or even being discussed; the tie with the Vatican appears to be crucial for all Catholics since the Vatican teaches that the Vatican (Popes) have ties all the way to Jesus (Peter being the first Pope) which is untrue but most Catholics believe it.

So what am I trying to say, that a majority of Catholics are basic hypocrites? They want to remain part of the Catholic Church but not follow the Church’s teachings? I must logically assume that these Catholics do not believe that the Vatican speaks for God and therefore any and all of the Church’s pronouncements can be challenged as the views of mere mortals that are also old and celibate men with no worldly experience with normal life on this planet.

This does not mean that all Catholics feel the same way and many are just sheep or lemmings if you prefer, but in my experience with Catholics, especially the old ones, I do not detect a belief in the need for absolute obedience to Vatican teachings. The Church has not helped itself in this matter by reversing some of their long held beliefs and practices after centuries. Remember the no meat on Friday rule; all children that die before being baptized go to either hell or purgatory, purgatory no longer exists (did it ever?) and how about cremation is not allowed because you will need your body intact for Judgment Day (bodies rot don’t they?).

I guess what all this comes down to is that the Catholic Church in America has a huge presence but that the members belong only out of habit because they were born into it. They attend Mass out of habit, standing and kneeling and accepting Communion, all out of mindless habit and because they were taught that if you didn’t attend the mind numbing Mass every week, you would go to hell – so there.

OBAMA SUPPORTERS GET NO COMMUNION!

SOUTH CAROLINA PRIEST: No communion for Obama supporters.

The story ran in our local paper. A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because he supports abortion and supporting him “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.”

The Catholic Church, as well as other churches, has been very active in the last election. I mentioned proposal 2 (stem cell research) here in Michigan and how the church spent millions fighting the proposal in a underhanded, even downright dirty lying, way. The proposal passed anyway with a majority of Catholics voting for it despite priestly harangues against it at Sunday Mass.

A follow-up article mentioned that protesters outside this church were split into those who said the priest was anti-American for using religion to affect how people vote and then the ever present fetus worshipers praising the priest for his bold action against a person advocating personal “choice” when it comes to abortion.

Our Constitution spells out a legal separation of Church and State where the U.S. Government is prohibited from meddling in religion(s) in any way. The Constitution does not mention if Churches can meddle in the government. An IRS law does say that tax-free institutions cannot campaign for a specific candidate or they will lose their tax-free status. Just this year, several churches tested that law by specifically endorsing McCain against Obama. They are being sued by a number of institutions including Americans United for Separation of Church & State of which I am a big supporter. We shall see how the courts handle this.

The various churches that want to be involved in politics, state that politics or political candidates and political actions are an integral part of their religious practice so they are bound by their religion to engage in politics.

The Catholic Church, as an example, is hell bent on defeating any law or any candidate that allows for abortions; it is their religious duty to act. Of course they don’t feel as strongly about being a haven for pedophiles and doing something to protect children from their perverted priests.

The law states that individual priests and ministers can be politically active but not when they are representing the Church (at the pulpit). I really don’t know if you can realistically prohibit churches from meddling in politics and I am not sure if the government should, after all, they have been meddling in politics throughout history.

Lets look at the Catholic Church prohibiting accepting Communion (Eucharist) to Catholics that go against Church teachings; this will absolutely come up again because Vice President Biden is a staunch Catholic that supports “choice” when it comes to abortions.

More on the flip side…

IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE BACK ON THE TABLE?

During the election, the Republicans were scaring voters by saying the Democrats will institute universal health coverage administered by the federal government and we know how that will work! Well that is scary and would be totally stupid and irresponsible but, after all, the Democrats have always called for socialized medicine like in Europe. Remember Hillary tried it under Clinton and was really slammed at the time; hope Democrats are not thinking of resurrecting that plan.

Obama did not advocate socialized medicine for this country, smart move during the election, but is he seriously considering it now that he has won? With no Republican opposition, he actually could get away with it but would the country stand for it?

If you have followed my thinking on this subject, you will remember that I supported a program that would offer a huge variety of health insurance plans that would be available nationwide. In this way, young people could get affordable catastrophic coverage and older, sicker people could still get affordable coverage because they could not be denied coverage. The only think needed was a mandate for “universal coverage”. This means you HAVE to be covered just like you have to carry auto insurance to drive.

You can go to my previous blogs for more detail but suffice it to say many believe this is the only way to go. Remember Romney instituted the plan in Massachusetts and we can learn from his early mistakes before we go nationwide.

Just recently, I saw an article in the paper saying that health insurance companies will support a universal coverage plan and will be willing to accept all customers, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions like cancer, etc.

The health insurance industry is huge and they were the ones who defeated Hillary’s socialized medicine plan by airing scare ads warning about the dangers of such a plan; they can do it again cause’ the nation does not like “socialized” anything.

Obama was not for mandated coverage for all but he was for mandating coverage for children. I am hoping that his original plan was designed to appease opponents of socialized medicine but give liberals at least something.

We shall see…

AUTO EXECS COME BEGGING!

Many people have been watching Detroit’s auto execs and UAW’s Gettlefinger, begging Congress for a bailout or what they call a “bridge loan”.

Members of Congress from both parties basically let them have it, right on the chin. Did you hear how House members scolded the auto Ceos for coming to Washington begging for money in the private jets?

I was happy to see that I was not alone in not wanting to give the auto companies tax payer funds. I have argued consistently that the auto companies should be allowed to restructure under bankruptcy protection and come out leaner, more viable and therefore sustainable.

Giving the auto companies’ money right now, without any restructuring, will be just throwing the money away since they will just need more and more to prop up an unsustainable business model.

That business model has to collapse; there is no other way. This is the only way UAW labor contracts can be voided and pension costs moved to the U.S. government for payment. Pension plans should disappear altogether and 401(k) s used instead.

Of course, Michigan politicians are fighting for a bailout because most of their supporters are car people. Mitt Romney, whose father was president of American Motors, has called for a “managed bankruptcy” and outlined how it can happen without “too much” damage to the economy.

The damage to Michigan would be great but once done, a re-birth would bring prosperity back. In the meantime, Michigan can diversify its economy from decades of an auto-only economy that did provide prosperity for many (in my family) but now cannot sustain a whole state.

My only fear is that in the new Democratic dominated Congress under Barack Obama, the Democrats will again open the money spigots without demanding “fundamental restructuring”, in essence, supporting a dying horse.

Since many Democrats currently are against an auto company bailout, my hope is that those same Democrats will remain fiscally responsible and not sink into their intrinsic socialism. I am also betting that Obama is just not a knee-jerk socialist but someone that gives these issues some serious thought and consults heavily with people in the know.

NO TO DETROIT AUTO COMPANIES!

To: The Canton Observer
Re: “Save the Big 3”, Nov. 13 Letters.

I have been purchasing and leasing Ford / Mercury products on an exclusive basis starting with my first car in the 1960s. I started with Ford because most of my family worked for Ford in some capacity or another and I stayed with Ford because I liked the product they offered. Unlike Jim Drozdowski in his letter “Save the Big 3”, I would never shame anyone into buying autos only from the Big 3 based on some specious sense of patriotism.

I would also go so far as to suggest that the Big 3, in their present business model, should not be saved because ultimately, they cannot be saved; it just makes bad economic sense to prop up companies that are no longer viable. To do so would be to reward gross mismanagement, incompetence and greed by both management and labor.

What would make sense is to allow the companies to reorganize under bankruptcy protection into viable, sustainable business models. Taxpayer money could be used to speed the process along.

Some critics are even saying that the management currently in place at the auto companies is incapable of performing the restructuring steps that are needed to make the companies viable again and are calling for an independent authority to step in. That may be another option to consider but pouring taxpayer money into firms burning through cash because they are not selling their products, is just plain irresponsible.

Big 3 AUTO needs to go bankrupt

Monday, November 10, 2008

To: The Detroit News
Re: “Big 3’s hopes rest with Washington”, Nov. 10.

The excellent article by Daniel Howes, “Big 3’s hopes rest with Washington”, Nov. 10, asks some very hard questions. Giving taxpayer money to companies that are burning through cash seems pointless at this time. Allowing the companies to radically reorganize under bankruptcy protection and then spending taxpayer money to help the new Small 3 get off the ground, makes a lot more sense.

A PLAY ABOUT A GAY JESUS?

Another Catholic moment…

In the New York Times (11-9-2008) an article appeared titled “THE PERILOUS INTERSECTION OF ART & RELIGION” by Clark Hoyt and concerned a Broadway or off Broadway play entitled “CHORPUS CHRISTI” by Terrence McNally.

The play is not new but the first time it was to be produced it drew death threats and threats of bombing of such intensity that the play was cancelled out of fear.

The play portrays Jesus as a gay man that had sex with his gay apostles but other than that conducted himself according to the Gospel stories in the New Testament.

This time around, there were no death threats but there was condemnation of the play by the Catholic Church but also anger at the New York Times for even reviewing the play; favorably at that.

A play is considered a “work of art” and is an expression of the artist and may or may not be liked by all but hey, it’s his expression and he has the freedom, by law, to express it.

What is the Church objecting to? Well, the Church considers homosexuality a sin and therefore cannot have its main man a homosexual even though the Catholic priesthood is reported to be rife with homosexuals attracted to the priesthood for obvious reasons (pedophiles are also attracted to the priesthood for obvious reasons).

BUT the Church’s official objection stated that it is IRREVERANT TO DEPICT JESUS AS SEXUALLY ACTIVE WITH ANYONE. This made me stop and think.

The Church objects to Jesus having sex? OK, maybe sex outside of marriage? I don’t think those rules applied in those days and remember, there was no Catholic Church to make rules in those days.

Does it have something to do with priestly celibacy? If Jesus was sexually active does their insistence on priestly celibacy take a nosedive? I think historically, priests were allowed to marry but abstain from sexual acts during certain times (remain ritually pure) but when rich bishops started leaving Church property to their heirs, the Church ended the practice and celibacy became the law of the land.

The Church has a hard time defending their “tradition” of priestly celibacy. They keep referencing St. Paul but he did not know Jesus and really did not know much about Jesus so if he counseled celibacy it is because of his own weirdness.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE about Jesus or his life. All we have are Gospel accounts which are theological pieces and not historical pieces so we have no idea if Jesus was married or had sex or children etc.

When the DaVinci Code book and movie came out there was a big hubbub about Jesus, his wife Magdalene and his child. I remember clergy being interviewed about the subject of Jesus’ marital status and the answer was always “we just don’t know – everything is possible”.

So getting back to the play; what does the Catholic Church object to and why?

THE WAR ON BRAINS

This Sunday’s NEW YORK TIMES carried a lot of stories about the recent election as was expected; they were a pleasure to read. One caught my eye “OBAMA AND THE WAR ON BRAINS” BY Nicholas D. Kristof.

It was a continuation of what I brought up recently from an article in the Wall Street Journal about how Obama will hopefully end the anti-intellectual basis of Republican rule in Washington. I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that President W. Bush is the antithesis of an intellectual and based his rule on a perceived sense of moral superiority that he thought gave him a mandate from god and to hell with smart people and their stinkin’ expertise.

Kristof writes that many intellectuals in Politics tended to hide their brains so as to appear less elite and more like an average Joe. He also points out that intellectuals don’t always make good rulers either but he feels we should start changing the anti-intellectual tone in this country away from ‘I don’t need to know where every country is’ to one of “it’s good to be smart’ and ‘it’s good for this country if its citizens were smarter than they are now’.

And I agree wholeheartedly. My parents urged us all to get as much education as possible even though they themselves had little because they had little to no opportunity to get one. They prided themselves on knowing their geography and history unlike Sarah Palin that confused the continent of Africa with a country named Africa?

A recent poll in Michigan found that a majority of parents did not see a college education as necessary for success in life; they believed their kids deserved to be happy and have fun in life and not labor at getting a higher education other than their required by law, K-12 education.

In Michigan you could go to an auto factory job right out of high school and live a “guaranteed” good life and retirement life. It worked for a long time UNTIL NOW!

Obviously I do not think everyone should have a college education or even need one; Bill Gates never finished college. But I do think that our K-12 educational system is woefully lacking and lagging schools in Europe and Asia; a high school diploma does not even guarantee that the graduate can read or write.

I think there has been a dumbing down process in place in our society for quite a few years now and that definitely needs to be reversed. Barack Obama will be a great role model to blacks in this country instead of just basketball players and pimps but also to all Americans who hopefully will feel a need to inspire their young people to get smart and smarter still.

Mr. Kristof, even though inspired and optimistic about changes to come, still laments that we live in a country where people still believe the world in only 6,000 years old and that evolution is still just a theory and a bad theory at that and that the sun orbits the earth and not visa versa. I guess there is a lot of work yet to be done to get us all smarter than the average bear.

PALIN AS ANTI-INTELLECTUAL?

I know I said I would leave the political campaign we just went through, alone and move on to other things BUT there are some things that need discussing, possibly for future use.

I read the ultra conservative WALL STREET JOURNAL because, after all, I am very conservative when it comes to finance and economy issues. The Wall Street Journal has also amazed me by the amount of “other” viewpoints it allows into it’s pages.

This Saturday I read the article by Mark Lilla entitled “THE PERILS OF ‘POPULIST CHIC’ “; it definitely caught my attention.

Professor Lilla talks about “conservative intellectualism” of the past with such iconic figures as William F. Buckley, Irving Kristol and Jeane Kirkpatrick and he laments the demise of this conservative intellectualism with the Sarah Palin debacle.

The turn towards “populist chic” aka Sarah Palin, has taken conservatives away from elitist intellectuals to Joe the Plummer type of “anti-intellectualism”; Joe and Sarah know better how to run the country than someone with an elitist education or with any type of education at all.

Professor Lilla, a liberal, is sad to see this shift in conservative politics because it makes the country, as a whole, poorer for it.

To all my friends that saw Palin as their next president and battled all suggestions of her incompetence, all I have to say is that these scholars and other observers of our political society are basically saying what I have been saying from the start; picking Palin and then defending her was dumb. Not just a stupid move but an unintelligent move, meaning that real simpletons have taken over the Republican Party.

POPE PIUS XII: Saint or Nazi?

Another Catholic subject in the news is about Pope Pius XII also known as the WWII Pope and the Hitler Pope. My father who was a soldier fighting at Monte Cassino, Italy during WWII said that he actually carried this Pope on his Papal throne during a victory ceremony in Rome.

Pius XXII has been in the process of being made into a saint. The process takes a long time and after which, the person is deemed a saint and Catholics can then pray to this person with the expectation that this person is closer to god than your usual shmuck and can potentially, be in a better position to ask god to grant you the wishes of your prayer.

Anyway, this particular pope has some people questioning his behavior and actions during WWII that may indicate some collaboration with Hitler and his Nazi regime especially with regard to Jews and their treatment before and during the war.

I know that a number of books both critical and supportive of Pius XII’s actions during WWII have been written. I believe that the charge against the Pope is that he COULD HAVE DONE A LOT MORE TO SAVE THE JEWS FROM EXTERMINATION.

The whole point here is that Pius XII’s wartime archives (16 million documents) have not been cataloged by the Vatican and are not available to the public; the Vatican calls them secret.

Jewish groups are asking Pope Benedict to “freeze” the sainthood proceedings for Pius XII until these archives can be examined by the public to make sure that Pius XII is innocent of all war time charges of not doing enough to protect Jews from being taken to death camps for extermination.

I think that is a very logical request but the Vatican has already responded by saying that cataloging the archives would take up to seven (7) years and I guess they feel that making Pius XII a saint somehow cannot wait that long? That is total baloney and shows how the Vatican manipulates evidence and therefore history itself to place itself in a better light.

This is tantamount to “spinning” history by keeping facts secret, something the Vatican has done for centuries and even tried to do here in the States recently with their pedophilic priests.

I think Catholics should demand that the Vatican come clean!

CATHOLICS WANTING CHANGE?

It seems I am getting into a lot of Catholic issues all of a sudden.

Remember when I mentioned that a Catholic mass I had to attend (my father’s death anniversary) and how I said that the religious ceremony (mass) was so mind numbing that only brain dead people could attend every Sunday.

Well, this morning’s paper carried a lengthy article about Catholics that feel just like what I felt when I attended a mass. Here is what is more amazing, these people were not liberal Catholics but actually super conservative Catholics – what does that mean?

The article titled “Real catholic TV offers religion with edge” in the Detroit Free Press, Nov. 3, described a new “web-only” TV station produced in Ferndale, Michigan and found at:
http://www.realcatholictv.com/.

The main guy behind this effort is Michael Voris (47) who is very adamant about the fact that many Catholics and especially, catholic youths are leaving the faith in droves because it is so boring and lacks a relevant message. He blames it all on old people who control the Church and are unwilling to change anything to make it more exiting and appealing to young people.

Don’t get me wrong, Voris is not trying to reform the stale and unprogressive teachings of the Church; no he wants to present the age old teachings and beliefs in a new and hopefully, more exiting way.

I feel that Catholics are starting to feel jealous about all those mega-churches that attract thousands mainly because they have a message for them as individuals instead of repeating the same ole physical movements at mass, Sunday after Sunday after Sunday…

That was my point exactly and I am glad someone else is seeing what I am seeing but Mr. Voris is correct in believing that “The beauty and truth of the Catholic faith has been denied this generation by an older generation…of hedonistic, immoral egomaniacs with no moral compass”. That is pretty strong language but the Catholic Church has heard this stuff for thousands of years and it still muddles on and on and on…and prides itself for lasting this long.

I am in the midst of a new learning DVD course about religion that is not “about” religion but studies how the subject of religion among peoples has been studied. I have always studied the theology of a religion, how it started, how it developed and why but this new course is about why does religion exist and why do people desire religion.

This article about Catholics trying to change how their religion delivers its message is exactly what this course is about; what humans need out of their religion.

This is a big deviation from the old secularist campaign to show how religion is absurd and just superstition and cannot ever be justified by reason or science. This new approach admits that religion is a human construct because it is a human necessity and will not be negated in our society by convincing people it cannot possibly be real or in anyway true. More on this later but it has got me exited about a new approach to why is there religion.