Boy! The House is a foxy bunch of rascals! We need pension financing reform and also a number of tax breaks for school tuition and R&D research. However, we do not need any cuts in estate taxes - another one of those "rich get richer" scams.
The House knows this so they bundled the estate tax rollback into a bill along with the ‘good' tax breaks AND even an increase in minimum wage - figuring that the bill just might pass. The problem is that the Senate which has been consistently against the estate tax rollback just might dump the whole package - the baby with the garbage.
So the Senate bosses are considering making certain that the estate tax rollback gets passed separately by the full Senate before they even introduce the very important pension bill.
This sounds like typical Republican manipulation. Can't say that they aren't gamblers! They just may not pass anything before the election - which puts mud on their faces and is fine with me!
I think the Democrats need all of the help they can get so it angers me that the Republicans wait until the last minute to pass any decent legislation which is good for the American people. They know how little the average voter pays attention to what's going on until it is time to vote. Unfortunately, the voter is not part of the Republican constituency - except at election time!
They also know that all it takes are a few words about abortion, gays, illegals or ‘Democracy building' throughout the world to totally distract a huge block of voters and convince them to vote Republican.
As Putin told Bush when the president chided him about Russian democracy and civil liberties, that he most certainly didn't want the kind of democracy which Bush is going to get in Iraq - and apparently, neither does China, our creditor**!
**Reminds me of the silent movies when the damsel in distress begs the snarling man in black with the long mustache to take her body rather than foreclose on the mortgage and throw her family out on the street. Unfortunately, I don't see Dudly Doright with his white hat and sturdy chin coming to our rescue!
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Bush and the NAACP
My goodness gracious!
I watched the President's speech on C-SPAN tonight at the NAACP convention and decided that it was the best speech this man has ever given! Oh, there were several things which I didn't quite agree with, but frankly, it was one of the best ‘motherhood and apple pie' speeches I've ever heard! And this guy is very good at telling us of the great and wonderful things his administration is going to do for us like weaning us away from middle eastern oil and then taking over Iraq. His visions seem wonderful - except, they never seem to happen - or if they do, not quite the way we had hoped...
It was obvious pandering to American Blacks and Condi Rice was very conspicuous in the audience amidst her black brethren nodding and smiling in approval of her boss's choice of words. I was also amazed to see that the very pink Carl Rove was in attendance flanked by the blackest faces one could find in darkest Africa.
I wonder how many votes he won in his act of contrition when he pointed out, "I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historical ties with the African-American community," Bush said. "For too long, my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party."
Of course, the Republican party today is in no way the same radical progressive party of Lincoln's time. Nor is the Democratic party which supported slavery the same party as today's party which caters to the plight of the down trodden and is concerned with social issues. They have, in effect, reversed roles in the last 100+ years.
In this case, I think he was right and being honest. For a Republican, Bush doesn't appear to be a racist. However, his party most certainly is racist - especially his political base, southern white fundamentalists, so he has had to walk a fine line. Perhaps I should say ‘had to walk a fine line' because now, he is a lame duck. They can't hurt him - and it does seem that Republicans in Congress are somewhat in revolt now when they were originally as the Dems say, "in lock-step".
I've noticed here and there that since he was re-elected that he has done things which I approved of on occasion. In my opinion, he did everything wrong during his first term. For example, I approve of his stance on immigration recently as opposed to his catering to oil interests in conquering Iraq when he should have been going after terrorists during his first term.
So, in the final analysis - it was a great speech and to the extent that blacks are gullible may have gotten a few votes for the Republican party this coming November. That, of course, is why he finally attended the NAACP annual conference for the first time....
I watched the President's speech on C-SPAN tonight at the NAACP convention and decided that it was the best speech this man has ever given! Oh, there were several things which I didn't quite agree with, but frankly, it was one of the best ‘motherhood and apple pie' speeches I've ever heard! And this guy is very good at telling us of the great and wonderful things his administration is going to do for us like weaning us away from middle eastern oil and then taking over Iraq. His visions seem wonderful - except, they never seem to happen - or if they do, not quite the way we had hoped...
It was obvious pandering to American Blacks and Condi Rice was very conspicuous in the audience amidst her black brethren nodding and smiling in approval of her boss's choice of words. I was also amazed to see that the very pink Carl Rove was in attendance flanked by the blackest faces one could find in darkest Africa.
I wonder how many votes he won in his act of contrition when he pointed out, "I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historical ties with the African-American community," Bush said. "For too long, my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party."
Of course, the Republican party today is in no way the same radical progressive party of Lincoln's time. Nor is the Democratic party which supported slavery the same party as today's party which caters to the plight of the down trodden and is concerned with social issues. They have, in effect, reversed roles in the last 100+ years.
In this case, I think he was right and being honest. For a Republican, Bush doesn't appear to be a racist. However, his party most certainly is racist - especially his political base, southern white fundamentalists, so he has had to walk a fine line. Perhaps I should say ‘had to walk a fine line' because now, he is a lame duck. They can't hurt him - and it does seem that Republicans in Congress are somewhat in revolt now when they were originally as the Dems say, "in lock-step".
I've noticed here and there that since he was re-elected that he has done things which I approved of on occasion. In my opinion, he did everything wrong during his first term. For example, I approve of his stance on immigration recently as opposed to his catering to oil interests in conquering Iraq when he should have been going after terrorists during his first term.
So, in the final analysis - it was a great speech and to the extent that blacks are gullible may have gotten a few votes for the Republican party this coming November. That, of course, is why he finally attended the NAACP annual conference for the first time....
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Ralph Reed...
Doesn't this make you happy that you don't live down there with them colorful folks?
So pretty boy Reed has been sidelined! He's had a very long run in the South lining up the Jesus freaks to his causes quite successfully! However, when you sit at the right hand of God you are expected to be squeaky clean - and I guess, the poor boy was tempted. After all, we're all sinners aren't we? - I read that somewhere.
I've been well aware of Reed for years but I certainly haven't kept up with southeastern politics other than that they have similar ideologies to the Hesbolah.
Thus I browsed around and found a piece on Sen. Casey Cagle, Reed's victorious opponent in the race for Lt. Gov. of GA. It seems that it is no wonder that the Georgia real estate mogul won! After all - even though southerners talk funny, many of them are actually intelligent. (The most interesting article is after the following main post below -- even down to:
Today's Deep Thought:
Better not take a dawg on the space shuttle, 'cause if he sticks his head out when you're comin' home his face might burn up.
And then - Ralph Reed To Casey Cagle:
So pretty boy Reed has been sidelined! He's had a very long run in the South lining up the Jesus freaks to his causes quite successfully! However, when you sit at the right hand of God you are expected to be squeaky clean - and I guess, the poor boy was tempted. After all, we're all sinners aren't we? - I read that somewhere.
I've been well aware of Reed for years but I certainly haven't kept up with southeastern politics other than that they have similar ideologies to the Hesbolah.
Thus I browsed around and found a piece on Sen. Casey Cagle, Reed's victorious opponent in the race for Lt. Gov. of GA. It seems that it is no wonder that the Georgia real estate mogul won! After all - even though southerners talk funny, many of them are actually intelligent. (The most interesting article is after the following main post below -- even down to:
Today's Deep Thought:
Better not take a dawg on the space shuttle, 'cause if he sticks his head out when you're comin' home his face might burn up.
Conservative Reed concedes in Georgia primary
By Matthew Bigg
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Ralph Reed, a poster boy for the U.S. Christian right who helped promote the rise of Republican political power in the 1990s, conceded defeat in Georgia on Tuesday in a primary race for Lieutenant Governor.
Georgia state Sen. Casey Cagle defeated Reed [swamped] in large part because he was unable to shake off links to convicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, making Reed the Abramoff scandal's first electoral casualty.
Reed's role as former leader of the Christian Coalition, and his reputation as a clean-cut conservative with a talent for grass-roots organizing made him an early favorite in his first run at elected office. It also attracted national interest in the race.
But his campaign was undermined by accusations of corruption in a series of Cagle TV ads highlighting Reed's links to Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in January to charges of fraud, tax evasion and bribery. [Who said nobody watches TV?]
"Tonight my candidacy for lieutenant governor comes to an end," Reed said in a speech quoted by the WXIA-TV Atlanta station. Cagle later accepted the Republican nomination.
Merle Black, politics professor at Atlanta's Emory University, told Reuters defeat would effectively "end his (Reed's) career as an office seeker." [Maybe he could go to Hollywood and become a model!]
With 60 percent of the votes counted, Cagle had 56 percent, while Reed at 44 percent, according to the WSB-TV Web site at 10:45 p.m. EST.
Cagle's attacks focused on a U.S. Senate Indian Affairs committee report on Abramoff last month that said Reed, in work as a lobbyist, rallied Christian conservatives to stop gambling initiatives. But it said that work was in part funded by competing gambling interests represented by Abramoff.
A recent Cagle ad said Reed took millions of dollars from Abramoff to help casinos. Reed and Abramoff are longtime friends and business partners. Reed has not been charged over the case and denies wrongdoing.
Reed led the Christian Coalition from 1989 to 1997, served as chairman of the Georgia Republican Party in 2002 and worked as southeast regional chairman for U.S. President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.
In a separate Democratic primary for Governor Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor held a solid lead over Secretary of State Cathy Cox, according to WXIA-TV.
And then - Ralph Reed To Casey Cagle:
I'm Gonna Get You, Sucka!
by politicalvine http://tinyurl.com/rhv5l
Rumors have it that the Ralph Reed Campaign for Lt. Governor is laying the groundwork for an all out offensive against Casey Cagle, his primary opponent.
According to an AP story, Reed stated "his campaign will soon turn to defining the differences between him and Cagle."
There are also rumors that the Reed campaign has been conducting phone polls to try to unearth what possible negatives about Cagle his campaign's research team can come-up with that would turn more people against Cagle.
At the PV, we've unearthed some of the questions likely asked by the phone pollsters from the Reed campaign. Questions like:
"As a voter concerned about public officials having a conflict of interest…
"1) If you found out that Senator Casey Cagle, who sits on the committee that regulates banking in the state of Georgia, actually possessed two entirely separate bank accounts, would you be more inclined, less inclined, or indifferent to the prospect of voting for Casey Cagle?"
"2) If you found out that Senator Casey Cagle, who claims to be a conservative Republican, ate dinner at a restaurant in Midtown Atlanta, a place known to be a haven for homosexuals and other people of diversity, would you be more inclined, less inclined, or indifferent to the prospect of voting for Casey Cagle?"
PV's Analysis: Well, you get the point…the Reed campaign is going to have to REACH to
a) find something on Cagle, and
b) since they really won't be able to find anything negative about Casey Cagle, they will make something up.
Anything, you see, to divert attention away from Ralph's obvious disease of pathologically lying about his involvement in scamming Christians into fighting for causes in which he was being paid beaucoup bucks to manipulate those Christians into doing his bidding. (awkward sentence - worse than some of mine)
Monday, July 10, 2006
Sanctity of Marriage
In Sunday's Kingman Daily Miner I read a rather long piece submitted by the pastor of a local Christian Church who discussed his views on the pros and cons of gay marriage.
We all are well aware that gay marriage will again be the big divisive in the November elections if the Republicans have their way - anything to avoid facing the other problems our nation has and the dismal failures in all venues during the Republican administration. And there will be much fanfare as more states amend their constitutions to protect the ‘sanctity of marriage'.
His piece was well written without scriptural quotes and he even seemed to take the middle road of his argument which still ended up with the expected result. Unfortunately the piece was too long for me to copytype and post here but basically it was about the unacceptability of homosexuality in the marriage contract. What he wrote bothered me and I worried about it.
At 4AM I was sleeping beautifully and for once, painlessly - it seems that I had taken the right dosage of pain killers earlier for my arthritis - then I awakened in the midst of composing in my mind a rebuttal to the pastor's arguments. I knew I'd forget it all like a dream by the time I normally get up so I padded from bed into the den and entered my words into the computer.
Then, of course, I went back to bed and slept until eleven AM. Unfortunately by then the pain killers had worn off...
What follows is what I wrote and after a bit of window dressing, e-mailed to the paper for publication:
Gay Marriage?
Pastor Walt Roberts, (Miner, July 9), presented a reasonably balanced account of gays and marriage as far as he went. However, like the iceberg which sank the Titanic, he described the highly visible tip floating in these murky political waters and neglected to tell us, as Paul Harvey would say, "The rest of the story!"
With less than one person in twenty who may be considered gay in either sex, it is hard to believe that this group could, as even the good pastor doubts, "...mean the end of civilization as we know it."
Yet, the perception of homosexuality as a rather disgusting abnormality by the vast majority of voters, has allowed ‘sanctity of marriage' legislation to be passed easily by many states and with more to come. Although it is something like killing a fly with a sledgehammer!
I have yet to read an expose' of this conspiracy even from the so-called liberal press - but then, neither did the crew of the Titanic see their disaster in time.
So what am I talking about?
Every piece of legislation presented and passed so far says in effect that "Marriage" has to be between a man and a woman. This is advocated by Pastor Roberts, most of the religious community and many others. Which is fine! Certainly religion has a 1st Amendment right to believe as it wishes - and it does indeed entertain some interesting concepts!
There is no reason to deny marriage from the churches modeled as they see fit providing that the churches don't promote practices which are culturally out of bounds such as those of the FLDS. However, there still must be secular alternatives codified by law, such that marriage may exist outside the purview of religion.
The problem is that the ‘sanctity of marriage' legislation also very slyly includes prohibition against the secular alternative to marriage generally referred to as "domestic partnership." This prohibition steps on the toes of the secular community and many constitutions which guarantee equal rights to all citizens. With such prohibitions how can government handle the highly economic aspects of social relationships and families? Especially when in recent years and for many reasons, large segments of the mostly heterosexual community has soured on traditional marriage.
This is the most dangerous subsurface part of the iceberg. But lets back up a bit and consider a little bit about our society and some of its biology. For example, I read a few weeks back that about half of all men over forty have erectile dysfunction! That surprised me, but if true, I'd hazzard a guess that more than half of all women in that age group also suffer from erectile disinterest!
Perhaps it is perfectly natural that those below the age of forty are focused upon nest building, family creation and living life to its fullest and those of us well over forty are more interested in politics, genealogy and keeping things the way we think they should be - in other words, the way they were when we were building our nests.
It is not the homosexuals we are actually legislating against but rather those non-voting, under forty, heterosexual nest builders who prefer to cohabit - perhaps because they object to the legalities and servitude imposed by marriage.
It seems to be human nature for people to pair off and create families regardless of religion. After all, babies can't raise themselves. Thus we find a huge community of unsanctioned and therefore uncontrolled families which is growing at the expense of marriage. Couple this with the divorce rate of those who actually try to comply with marriage and the fact that the success of marriage appears to be inversely proportional to the size of the wedding.... obviously, it is the institution of marriage which is in trouble and it has nothing at all to do with homosexuality!
This is the fear of the conspirators mentioned above, both religious and secular alike, that society as we know it is getting out of control. This is the reason for the highly emotional, gay bashing legislation being proposed by many of our states and the federal government. We persist in thinking we can control people through legislation - the problem is that we will end up with revolution instead.
As our children and grandchildren age, they will become the ones in charge and who eventually learn to vote. It will be they who legislate the new society they have created - certainly not the broken one we are busy defending today.
Consider also that in the Massachusetts ruling, the state Supreme Judicial Court said same-sex marriage may be irreversible because it is now part of the "fabric of the equality and liberty" guaranteed by the state constitution. A constitutional lawyer for the state of Massachusetts recently presented his opinion that if the state specifically outlaws gay marriage and domestic partnerships that the state will eventually be required to not recognize any church or secular marriages in the state in order to satisfy the equal rights guaranteed her citizens!
Here in the western states such as Arizona which are influenced by Spanish law rather than English, the elimination of marriage for example, would among other things, force the elimination of community property laws. Remember that as couples age, they usually acquire valuable estates such as a home and savings. Community property rights are obviously very important to an aging widows' financial independence.
So my question is: Are we going to recognize the deeper problems our society faces involving marriage and family or sink into the muck - like the unsinkable Titanic? Are we going to continue blaming minorities for the misfortunes we bring upon ourselves? Are we going to trample the rights of others only to face the ultimate loss of our own?
We all are well aware that gay marriage will again be the big divisive in the November elections if the Republicans have their way - anything to avoid facing the other problems our nation has and the dismal failures in all venues during the Republican administration. And there will be much fanfare as more states amend their constitutions to protect the ‘sanctity of marriage'.
His piece was well written without scriptural quotes and he even seemed to take the middle road of his argument which still ended up with the expected result. Unfortunately the piece was too long for me to copytype and post here but basically it was about the unacceptability of homosexuality in the marriage contract. What he wrote bothered me and I worried about it.
At 4AM I was sleeping beautifully and for once, painlessly - it seems that I had taken the right dosage of pain killers earlier for my arthritis - then I awakened in the midst of composing in my mind a rebuttal to the pastor's arguments. I knew I'd forget it all like a dream by the time I normally get up so I padded from bed into the den and entered my words into the computer.
Then, of course, I went back to bed and slept until eleven AM. Unfortunately by then the pain killers had worn off...
What follows is what I wrote and after a bit of window dressing, e-mailed to the paper for publication:
Gay Marriage?
Pastor Walt Roberts, (Miner, July 9), presented a reasonably balanced account of gays and marriage as far as he went. However, like the iceberg which sank the Titanic, he described the highly visible tip floating in these murky political waters and neglected to tell us, as Paul Harvey would say, "The rest of the story!"
With less than one person in twenty who may be considered gay in either sex, it is hard to believe that this group could, as even the good pastor doubts, "...mean the end of civilization as we know it."
Yet, the perception of homosexuality as a rather disgusting abnormality by the vast majority of voters, has allowed ‘sanctity of marriage' legislation to be passed easily by many states and with more to come. Although it is something like killing a fly with a sledgehammer!
I have yet to read an expose' of this conspiracy even from the so-called liberal press - but then, neither did the crew of the Titanic see their disaster in time.
So what am I talking about?
Every piece of legislation presented and passed so far says in effect that "Marriage" has to be between a man and a woman. This is advocated by Pastor Roberts, most of the religious community and many others. Which is fine! Certainly religion has a 1st Amendment right to believe as it wishes - and it does indeed entertain some interesting concepts!
There is no reason to deny marriage from the churches modeled as they see fit providing that the churches don't promote practices which are culturally out of bounds such as those of the FLDS. However, there still must be secular alternatives codified by law, such that marriage may exist outside the purview of religion.
The problem is that the ‘sanctity of marriage' legislation also very slyly includes prohibition against the secular alternative to marriage generally referred to as "domestic partnership." This prohibition steps on the toes of the secular community and many constitutions which guarantee equal rights to all citizens. With such prohibitions how can government handle the highly economic aspects of social relationships and families? Especially when in recent years and for many reasons, large segments of the mostly heterosexual community has soured on traditional marriage.
This is the most dangerous subsurface part of the iceberg. But lets back up a bit and consider a little bit about our society and some of its biology. For example, I read a few weeks back that about half of all men over forty have erectile dysfunction! That surprised me, but if true, I'd hazzard a guess that more than half of all women in that age group also suffer from erectile disinterest!
Perhaps it is perfectly natural that those below the age of forty are focused upon nest building, family creation and living life to its fullest and those of us well over forty are more interested in politics, genealogy and keeping things the way we think they should be - in other words, the way they were when we were building our nests.
It is not the homosexuals we are actually legislating against but rather those non-voting, under forty, heterosexual nest builders who prefer to cohabit - perhaps because they object to the legalities and servitude imposed by marriage.
It seems to be human nature for people to pair off and create families regardless of religion. After all, babies can't raise themselves. Thus we find a huge community of unsanctioned and therefore uncontrolled families which is growing at the expense of marriage. Couple this with the divorce rate of those who actually try to comply with marriage and the fact that the success of marriage appears to be inversely proportional to the size of the wedding.... obviously, it is the institution of marriage which is in trouble and it has nothing at all to do with homosexuality!
This is the fear of the conspirators mentioned above, both religious and secular alike, that society as we know it is getting out of control. This is the reason for the highly emotional, gay bashing legislation being proposed by many of our states and the federal government. We persist in thinking we can control people through legislation - the problem is that we will end up with revolution instead.
As our children and grandchildren age, they will become the ones in charge and who eventually learn to vote. It will be they who legislate the new society they have created - certainly not the broken one we are busy defending today.
Consider also that in the Massachusetts ruling, the state Supreme Judicial Court said same-sex marriage may be irreversible because it is now part of the "fabric of the equality and liberty" guaranteed by the state constitution. A constitutional lawyer for the state of Massachusetts recently presented his opinion that if the state specifically outlaws gay marriage and domestic partnerships that the state will eventually be required to not recognize any church or secular marriages in the state in order to satisfy the equal rights guaranteed her citizens!
Here in the western states such as Arizona which are influenced by Spanish law rather than English, the elimination of marriage for example, would among other things, force the elimination of community property laws. Remember that as couples age, they usually acquire valuable estates such as a home and savings. Community property rights are obviously very important to an aging widows' financial independence.
So my question is: Are we going to recognize the deeper problems our society faces involving marriage and family or sink into the muck - like the unsinkable Titanic? Are we going to continue blaming minorities for the misfortunes we bring upon ourselves? Are we going to trample the rights of others only to face the ultimate loss of our own?
Saturday, July 08, 2006
The Pope Invades Spain
My comments are embedded in the following Reuter's article:
Pope stresses family values in Spain, PM booed
By Philip Pullella and Jane Barrett
VALENCIA, Spain (Reuters) - Pope Benedict urged Spain to defend the traditional family on Saturday as he began a lightning trip to the country which has clashed head-on with the Church over the legalization of gay marriage.
The Pope said there were certain things to which the Church must just say "No," [a Nancy Reaganism?] and that the family based on heterosexual marriage was "a unique institution in God's plan." "We want to make people understand that according to human nature, it is a man and a woman who are made for each other and made to give humanity a future," he added.
[How simplistic can you get? Actually, according to all mammalian, reptilian and even some floral natures, it is a male and female who ‘are made for each other and made to give [life] a future'. That is a "duh..." Does the man think he is preaching to morons?
What does that have to do with gay marriage and other laws involving society? The laws certainly don't outlaw procreation or sexuality - I don't see Christian churches addressing any of the more serious problems involving sexuality including health and over population. ...AG]
As well as the gay marriage law, which gives gays the same adoption and inheritance rights as heterosexual couples, the Church has criticized new Spanish laws making divorce and fertility treatment easier and cutting religious education.
[‘religious education' is certainly a misnomer! It is religious indoctrination actually. True religious education would be courses in comparative religion and philosophy. ...AG]
The 79-year-old Pope received a tumultuous welcome in the coastal city of Valencia, where he will spend little more than 24 hours at a global gathering of Roman Catholic families.
But Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose government legalized gay marriage last year, was whistled as he arrived at the archbishop's residence for an audience with the Pope, which lasted just 15 minutes. The crowd booed Zapatero while he was inside and when he left. [Reminds me of the fable of Daniel in the lion's den"]
FAMILY RALLY
In an address, the Pope paid tribute to historical Spain, once ruled by the Catholic kings, and urged bishops to hold firm "at a time of rapid secularization."
[Is he actually advocating the return of the Inquisition?...]
"Acting as if (God) did not exist or relegating faith to the purely private sphere, undermines the truth about man and compromises the future of culture and society," he said.
Tens of thousands of pilgrims have swarmed into Valencia for the family rally and lined the streets cheering and waving yellow and white Vatican flags as the Pope made his way from the airport to the town center. On his way, the Pope stopped at the site of an underground train crash that killed 42 people on Monday. Bowing his head in silence toward the pavement outside Jesus station, Benedict made the sign of the cross, laid a wreath of flowers and asked the Madonna to console the bereaved.
Later on Saturday, the Pope was due to preside at a huge rally with families at a futuristic arts and science complex near the sea which will also be the venue of a mass dedicated to families on Sunday morning before he returns to Rome.
A senior Vatican source on the plane said there was a "certain irritation" within the Pope's entourage over Zapatero's decision not to attend the Sunday mass. The source noted that in the past, Cuba's Communist leader Fidel Castro, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and former Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski attended masses presided over by the late Pope John Paul II when he visited their countries. [How else do you make a point?]
Pope stresses family values in Spain, PM booed
By Philip Pullella and Jane Barrett
VALENCIA, Spain (Reuters) - Pope Benedict urged Spain to defend the traditional family on Saturday as he began a lightning trip to the country which has clashed head-on with the Church over the legalization of gay marriage.
The Pope said there were certain things to which the Church must just say "No," [a Nancy Reaganism?] and that the family based on heterosexual marriage was "a unique institution in God's plan." "We want to make people understand that according to human nature, it is a man and a woman who are made for each other and made to give humanity a future," he added.
[How simplistic can you get? Actually, according to all mammalian, reptilian and even some floral natures, it is a male and female who ‘are made for each other and made to give [life] a future'. That is a "duh..." Does the man think he is preaching to morons?
What does that have to do with gay marriage and other laws involving society? The laws certainly don't outlaw procreation or sexuality - I don't see Christian churches addressing any of the more serious problems involving sexuality including health and over population. ...AG]
As well as the gay marriage law, which gives gays the same adoption and inheritance rights as heterosexual couples, the Church has criticized new Spanish laws making divorce and fertility treatment easier and cutting religious education.
[‘religious education' is certainly a misnomer! It is religious indoctrination actually. True religious education would be courses in comparative religion and philosophy. ...AG]
The 79-year-old Pope received a tumultuous welcome in the coastal city of Valencia, where he will spend little more than 24 hours at a global gathering of Roman Catholic families.
But Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose government legalized gay marriage last year, was whistled as he arrived at the archbishop's residence for an audience with the Pope, which lasted just 15 minutes. The crowd booed Zapatero while he was inside and when he left. [Reminds me of the fable of Daniel in the lion's den"]
FAMILY RALLY
In an address, the Pope paid tribute to historical Spain, once ruled by the Catholic kings, and urged bishops to hold firm "at a time of rapid secularization."
[Is he actually advocating the return of the Inquisition?...]
"Acting as if (God) did not exist or relegating faith to the purely private sphere, undermines the truth about man and compromises the future of culture and society," he said.
Tens of thousands of pilgrims have swarmed into Valencia for the family rally and lined the streets cheering and waving yellow and white Vatican flags as the Pope made his way from the airport to the town center. On his way, the Pope stopped at the site of an underground train crash that killed 42 people on Monday. Bowing his head in silence toward the pavement outside Jesus station, Benedict made the sign of the cross, laid a wreath of flowers and asked the Madonna to console the bereaved.
Later on Saturday, the Pope was due to preside at a huge rally with families at a futuristic arts and science complex near the sea which will also be the venue of a mass dedicated to families on Sunday morning before he returns to Rome.
A senior Vatican source on the plane said there was a "certain irritation" within the Pope's entourage over Zapatero's decision not to attend the Sunday mass. The source noted that in the past, Cuba's Communist leader Fidel Castro, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and former Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski attended masses presided over by the late Pope John Paul II when he visited their countries. [How else do you make a point?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)