Showing posts with label ethnicity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethnicity. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Change, Love, and Mass Murder

My weekly schedule has me writing a 'Bible and 'Catechism' post for today. Last week's was "Sin, Freedom, and Toy Monkeys." This week I was going to get started on Catechism, 388-389. I'd started a post about original sin, Catholic style, when I read this:
"Breivik 'cut contact with friends' in run-up to attacks"
BBC News (May 29, 2012)

"Anders Behring Breivik cut himself off from friends in the years leading up to his deadly attacks, according to the testimony of a former friend.

"He became 'more serious and less social' and had 'lost the spark of life', the witness told the court.

"Another former friend told the court Breivik worried about his looks and had a nose job to look more 'Aryan'.

"Four former friends are giving evidence at Breivik's trial for the 22 July attacks, in which 77 people died...."
The trial isn't to determine if Anders Behring Breivik killed several dozen folks. He says he did. The trial will decide whether he's legally responsible for the crimes: or is legally nuts.

The BBC News article brought up some points that matter for Americans: or anybody else who lives in today's world. My opinion.

Coping with Change, Decisions, and Mass Murder

Change is, arguably, one of the few things a person can count on in this world. That's not a new idea:
"Nothing endures but change."
(Heraclitus, 540 BC - 480 BC)
Each human being alive today has free will. I posted about that last week. (May 23, 2012)

We can't always control what happens to us, to the people we know, and the places we call home. But we decide what we think about those events: and how we respond to them. Even 'going along with the crowd,' or letting emotions direct our thoughts are decisions of a sort.

I think it's important to remember that:
  • Change
    • Happens
    • Hurts
    • Can be
      • Good
      • Bad
      • Simply change
  • People
    • Aren't all alike
    • Come in a wide variety of
      • Personalities
      • Abilities
    • Form many different
      • Cultures
      • Ethnic groups
    • Aren't supposed to be all alike
I think I can understand why someone might be upset about new folks moving into a familiar neighborhood. I can even sympathize, a little. But killing innocent people is wrong. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2258)

Judgmental as this may sound, not liking the way new neighbors look or act does not justify murder.

Change Happens

The America I live in today isn't the one I grew up in. I might be more nostalgic about the 'good old days,' if I didn't remember what America was like in my youth. (November 10, 2010)

Things are supposed to change:
"...The universe was created 'in a state of journeying'...."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 302)
Sometimes change can be good, or at least feel good. My children have changed since their birth, growing and learning. I think this is a good thing: and would have been very concerned if these changes weren't happening.

Other sorts of change are, I think, bad: at least in the short term. Getting sick is a 'change' from being healthy: but I don't see it as an improvement. What a person can do with unpleasant circumstances can be good - and that's another topic.

Sometime change is - just change. Again, in the short run. A few days ago it was hot and muggy, today was cool and pleasant here in Sauk Centre. A few days from now, conditions will be different.

Weather changes from day to day: but aesthetics and comfort aside, I don't see it as 'good' or 'bad.' It's just what happens. There are theological and philosophical aspects to weather, but that's yet another topic. Topics.

People: Individuals and the Common Good

As a practicing Catholic, I have to see individuals as important:
"Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone...."
(Catechism, 357)
But we're not just isolated individuals. Human beings are social creatures:
"In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:
"Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25"
(Catechism, 1905)
The "common good," Catholic style, is "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily." (Catechism, 1906-1907) I posted about that earlier this month. (May 13, 2012)

Neighbors and Rules

Like I've said before, fairly often, rules in the Catholic Church boil down to a few very simple ideas:
I said "simple," not "easy." Even if - or maybe particularly since - the sort of "love" involved is an act of the will, not feeling all warm and fuzzy. (Catechism, 1766) I've been over that before. (May 14, 2012)

Race; Idolatry; and Love, Catholic Style

Love, Catholic style, is supposed to affect the way we think and act:
"The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:
"Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.40"
(Catechism, 1935)
"Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, 'You cannot serve God and mammon.' 44 Many martyrs died for not adoring 'the Beast' 45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46"
(Catechism, 2113) [emphasis mine]
I've known a few bigots who are also Catholics. Maybe you have, too. That doesn't change what the Church teaches.

Catholics aren't expected to be perfect. But we're told what "perfect" is: and part of our job is working toward being perfect. (Catechism, 2842) Our work isn't just 'self improvement.' We're expected to make a difference in the world:
"...Consider how [Jesus Christ] teaches us to be humble, by making us see that our virtue does not depend on our work alone but on grace from on high. He commands each of the faithful who prays to do so universally, for the whole world. For he did not say 'thy will be done in me or in us,' but 'on earth,' the whole earth, so that error may be banished from it, truth take root in it, all vice be destroyed on it, virtue flourish on it, and earth no longer differ from heaven.107"
(Catechism, 2825)

Surrounded by Blonde Giants

I grew up in a part of America that was, at the time, almost entirely Scandinavian- or German-American. I was accustomed to facing other young men eye-to-chin. Years later, I learned that I was very close to the American average for male height: and had grown up surrounded by blond giants.

On the other hand, I lived about two blocks from a college campus: and had gotten used to rubbing elbows with folks who didn't look at all Norwegian.

For that matter, my mother didn't 'look Norwegian.' She was five-foot-nothing, with black hair: but was as ekte norsk as you're ever likely to find. She really didn't like it when someone said, 'you don't look Norwegian.'

America, Norway, Ethnicity, and Statistics

America is not even close to being as ethnically or culturally uniform as Norway is:
  • Norway (2007 estimate)
    • Norwegian 94.4%
      • Includes Sami, about 60,000
    • Other European 3.6%
    • Other 2%
  • United States (2007 estimate)
    • White 79.96%
    • Black 12.85%
    • Asian 4.43%
    • Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%
    • Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%
    • Two or more races 1.61%
    • Hispanic about 15.1%
      • Including
        • Mexican
        • Cuban
        • Puerto Rican
        • Dominican Republic
        • Spanish
        • Central or South American
      • Of "any race or ethnic group"
        • White
        • Black
        • Asian
        • Whatever
    ("Norway" (last updated April 23, 2012), "United States" (last updated May 9, 2012), CIA World Factbook)
I think America's increasingly broad variety of people is a good thing, but not everybody feels that way.

Two Millennia of Diversity - and Unity

It's not the main reason I converted to Catholicism, but I was attracted to the Church because it's literally καθολικός, universal:
"They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, 'Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans?

"Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,

"Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome,

"both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.' "
(Acts 2:7-11)
I suppose I could take Collossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:28, and claim that I'm a generic human being; not a man who lives in America, speaks English, and has ancestral roots in Norway, Ireland, and Scotland. I could, but I think that would be silly.

I didn't stop being the unique individual I am when I became Catholic. I took what I have, what I am, and began adding to that package. By conforming my will to that of my Lord, I'm becoming more distinctly 'myself.'

Unity and Diversity

The Catholic Church is, literally, universal. For two thousand years we've been working to teach folks about unity: that everybody is my neighbor. We are trying to achieve world unity: and I suspect that's what some folks don't like about us. (March 25, 2012)

An archbishop discussed the ideas of national unity, cultural diversity, and individuality, in a more positive way:
"...'Our efforts at national unity often depend upon bringing peoples' diversity into something of an artificial harmony that seeks to minimize the uniqueness and distinctiveness of people. The Catholic Church on the contrary focuses upon what we all share in common which is our faith and our oneness in Christ,' Archbishop Gregory said.

" 'To be a Catholic one need not abandon one's individuality. In fact, the Catholic Church is most perfectly herself when all of her children display that rich diversity that God has fashioned into the very heart of humanity,' the archbishop said. 'We are most Catholic when we reflect our oneness of faith and worship that is achieved in response to our rich mixture of human variety through the grace of the Holy Spirit.'..."
("Atlanta Archbishop delivers homily at Catholic Cultural Diversity Convocation," USCCB News Release, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (May 10, 2010))
[emphasis mine]

Feet, Ears, and Getting a Grip

"Diversity" isn't just about ethnicity and culture. People have a wonderful array of abilities, like the "spiritual gifts" discussed in 1 Corinthians 12:
"If a foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,' it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.

"Or if an ear should say, 'Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,' it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.

"If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?" (1 Corinthians 12:15-17)
And that's - what else? - yet again another topic.

Related posts:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Adam and Eve and All That

I'm a practicing Catholic, so I believe that Adam and Eve really existed.

Albrecht Dürer's Adam and Eve

Albrecht Dürer's Adam and Eve (1507), Oil on panel, currently at Museo del Prado, Madrid; via The Yorck Project and Wikipedia, used w/o permissionThat doesn't mean I think that they looked like the nice Deutsch paar painted by Herr Dürer, a half-millennia back.

Apart from our habit of wearing more clothing, Dürer's Adam and Eve look like quite a few of my neighbors. That's no surprise, since quite a few of my neighbors' ancestors came from Germany. And Ireland. And, lately, all over the world. And that's another topic.

I'm not upset that Albrecht Dürer 'saw' his Adam and Eve as looking like nice, normal folks: of the sort who lived in his part of the world. I'd be surprised if Herr Dürer didn't paint folks he hadn't seen as resembling folks he had. (May 2, 2012)

Adam, Eve, and Me

If I try to imagine what Adam and Eve look like, I'm likely to imagine them looking somewhat me: melanin-deficient skin, pale eyes, and all. My ancestors, before they came to North America, spent a long, long time in northwestern Europe: and it shows.

I'm pretty sure that Adam and Eve didn't look much like me: and would be surprised if they did. That doesn't bother me. Change happens, and folks haven't always looked the way we do now.

Family Photos and the Big Picture

I'm descended, in part, from the Clan Campbell. The wry mouth (Caimbeul) that gave us our name shows up in some old family photos: but hasn't shown up lately.

Recently, folks have been discovering just how much things have changed since critters started growing on Earth: and how long that's been going on. The last I heard, critters have been leaving fossils to mark their passage for about 3,500,000,000 years, Earth got sorted out from the rest of the Solar system around 4,000,000,000 years back, and the universe is roughly 13,730,000,000 years old.

That's quite a few powers of ten greater than the age that Bishop Ussher insisted on.

If I had designed the universe, I might not have made it quite so big. Or old. But, like I've said before, God's God, I'm not. If current knowledge of God's creation is even close to being accurate: we live in an awesomely huge place.

I'm okay with that.



I've posted before, about the Catholic Church, science, and being willing to accept God's creation:

Faith and Reason

  • The universe is beautiful
    • And may be studied
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 341)
  • Honest research can't contradict faith
    • Because God made the universe
    (Catechism, 159)
  • God created/is creating - everything
    (Catechism, 279, 301, 302-305)
  • It's faith and reason
    (Catechism, 50, 156-159)
I'll get back to Adam and Eve tomorrow.

Related posts:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, December 2, 2011

My Take on the News: The San Jose Articles, Natural Law, International Law, and Getting a Grip

I haven't heard "I got rights!" used as catchphrase in stories for quite a while, and that's another topic. Folks have had odd notion about what sort of 'rights' they have.

Some Things Change

Some 'rights,' like the one defended by the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, aren't fashionable any more. Not it today's America, at least. Others are hot news items. Or should be. Like this week's story:
  1. San Jose Articles: Pro-Life Manifesto
Like I said, some things change, like:
  • Fashions in clothing
  • What folks think is entertaining
  • The location of my hairline
    • On its relentless march down the back of my head
I've been having fun with what Elizabethan-era audiences liked, in my posts about Marlowe's "...Faustus." More topics.

Some Things Don't Change

Some things, on the other hand, don't change, like:
  • Human life
    • Is sacred
      (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2258)
    • "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception...."
      (Catechism, 2270)
      • Even people who are
        • Sick
        • Handicapped
        (Catechism, 2276)
  • God
    • Transcends all creatures
      (Catechism, 42)
    • Lives
      (Catechism, 205)
    • Matters
      (Catechism, 268-274)
    (Not even close to a complete list)
  • Natural law
    (Catechism, 1952, 1954-1960)
How can I possibly say that those things don't change? If Congress passes a law making it legal to euthanize folks who are sick, or ugly, or have annoying habits, won't that make it okay?

Actually, no. I've discussed natural law, crime and/or evil and Chicken Man, before.

Some acts are always bad, including:

Natural Law?

I think most folks accept the idea that if you drop something, it will fall toward the center of the Earth. Unless something like buoyancy, inertial effects, electromagnets, or prestidigitation is involved.

Assuming that you're on Earth, of course. Some folk aren't, at the moment. I've written about the International Space Station in another blog. Good grief, more topics again.

Like I said, I think most folks accept the notion that physical laws like gravity aren't subject to legislation or protest petitions. Natural law isn't quite so widely accepted: maybe because the consequences aren't as immediately apparent as the ones of dropping a brick on your foot.

Basically, natural law is a set of rules that haven't changed, and won't. They were valid when Hammurabi had his laws carved into a block of black stone, a little over 37 centuries back.

They're valid today, whether we like them or not: and they'll be valid 37 centuries from now. Assuming that creation's clock doesn't run out before then.

Odds are pretty good that clothing styles will be different in the year 5711, when our time will be as far back as Hammurabi's is today. But natural law will be the same:
"The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
"Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11"
(Catechism, 1958)

Zoot Suit Theology and Getting a Grip

"Natural law" doesn't mean that we're never supposed to change any of our laws or customs. That would be as silly as thinking that Deuteronomy 22:5 means the way some Americans dressed in the 1940s was divinely ordained to be the dress code for all time. I've been over that before. (September 26, 2009)

Personally, I like some of the styles of the '40s and '50s. But I'm pretty sure that God the Almighty didn't ordain that man should for all time wear zoot suits.

Being Alive is Important

"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life...."
(2270)
"Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible."
(2276)
I'm inclined to agree with that. Which is just as well, since as a practicing Catholic I have to accept the idea that human life must be respected. Even if it's the life of someone who's sick, ugly, or annoying.

Here's the news item that got me started:

1. San Jose Articles: Pro-Life Manifesto

Folks who don't want 'the wrong sort' to have 'too many' babies won't like this. I think it's good news:
"Pro-Life Manifesto Spreading"
ZENIT (November 28, 2011)

"A pro-life document by the name of the San Jose Articles is being publicized in many countries around the world. The most recent countries where it has been presented are Italy, Uruguay and the Philippines.

"The Articles contain a series of affirmations regarding the inviolability of human life and the fact that there is no international 'right' to abortion. It is meant to be an aid to counter affirmations by agencies and representatives of the United Nations who continue to insist such a right does exist.

"The document has been signed by leading academics, such as Robert George of Princeton, John Haldane of St. Andrews, and John Finnis of Oxford. It is also supported by prominent politicians, including Anna Zaborska of the European Parliament and former French Cabinet Minister Christine Boutin...."
What impressed me as much as the San Jose Articles spreading around the world, was that "leading academics" would risk sign the document. Maybe they're simply trying to salvage some credibility from the wreckage left by political correctness and other ideological storms in academia. I hope that Robert George, John Haldane, and John Finnis, signed the San Jose Articles because it was the right thing to do.

Back to that article:

Genetic Imperialism?

One of the oldest ways to deal with unwanted ethnic groups was to kill their young. (Exodus 1:7-9, 15-16) 'Ethnic cleansing' is a relatively new term. The basic idea is anything but.

The odd notion of sabotaging your own nation's birthrate seems to be a new wrinkle. It's fairly clear that the old idea of keeping foreign populations in check is still - - - is 'alive and well' appropriate in this context?
"...'The San Jose Articles are primarily meant to shut down the false claim of an international right to abortion; but they constitute one of the biggest boosts so far to our fight against foreign-dictated contraception and sterilization,' Tatad told the Friday Fax....

"...Earlier in November the Rome launch took place. Among the Italians present were Giuseppe Benagiano of La Sapienza University of Rome, who is also the secretary general of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and Luca Volonte, president of the European Popular Party group in the Council of Europe...."
That "foreign-dictated contraception and sterilization" sounds pretty bad. Sadly, it's not always 'the other guy' who's trying a variation on the Pharaoh gambit:No rants, just an observation. America has national elections coming up in a year. We've got an opportunity to swap out leaders who support lethal policies.

I haven't heard outcry from America's 'better sort' about the sort of 'genetic imperialism' we seem to be involved in. I think a possible reason is that they're the ones who are worried about Africans having too many babies, and I've been over that before, too. (May 6, 2010)

The trick will be to find out which candidates are against making a sort of ethnic cleansing a condition for American cooperation, and which like the status quo.

As for whether or not America should be involved with foreigners? That's another topic, probably for another blog. My ancestors were all 'foreigners,' not all that far back: so I'm biased.

This post would have been shorter: but it's been a hectic week, and I didn't have time to edit it properly.

Related posts:News and views:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 11, 2011

My Take on the News: 'There Oughtta be a Law?'

The threat of Islamic laws forbidding blasphemy has been in the news. So has hostility toward any religion. I think both are really bad ideas.

'There Oughtta be a Law?'

I remember the 'good old days,' when "America: Love it or leave it!" was a popular slogan. Along with "hell no, we won't go!" On the whole, I'm glad that 'the good old days' aren't coming back.

Another catchphrase from my youth is 'there oughtta be a law!' Back then, 'regular Americans' occasionally said that when 'those crazy kids' said or did something they didn't like.

I've felt the same way, sometimes, when another person said or did something that I didn't like. Maybe wanting everybody to be 'like me' is part of being human. Or, maybe not.

I've noticed that many folks act as if it's their duty, or right, to force others to act 'correctly.' I remember the trailing edge of McCarthyism, endured American academia when political correctness was in flower, and didn't particularly like what either philosophical fad did to personal freedoms.

'Everybody Knows What Those People are Like'

On the whole, I'm glad that I've never been part of a self-identified group of self-righteous do-gooders who had the power to make others act the 'right' way. Not being part of 'the establishment' can be an advantage.1

If that doesn't sound like what 'one of those religious people' should say: I'm not surprised. I'll get back to that.

I've been told that racial/ethnic and religious biases follow a fairly predictable pattern. I think there's something to that.

Bias Made Easy

It's as if there's a 'menu' of assumptions about 'those people.' Imagine completing the next paragraph by checking off two or three of the items on this list, and I think you'll see what I mean.
'Everybody knows' what they are like. Those people over there. The ones who are:
  • Stupid
    • But occasionally cunning
    • And sometimes too smart
      • You can tell, because they always wear glasses
  • Lazy
    • Or never stop working
  • Dishonest
  • Violent
  • Dangerous

Bias: An Equal-Opportunity Affliction

"They" can be almost any identifiable group:
  • Folks whose ancestors mostly lived in
    • Europe
    • Africa
    • East Asia
    • The Americas
    • Wherever
  • Citizens of
    • America
    • Germany
    • Italy
    • Japan
    • Wherever
That sort of ethnic/national/racial bias has been unfashionable for several decades now in America. For the most part, anyway.2 For which I'm duly grateful.

I'm also glad that freedom of religion is part of this country's system of laws and values. We're free to worship as we see fit, or not worship at all.

Which brings me around to what I've seen in the news lately.

Religious Freedom

"Book outlines threat of Muslim blasphemy laws to free speech"
Michelle Bauman, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (November 10, 2011)

"A new book on blasphemy and apostasy laws shows the dangers that intolerant policies pose to freedom of speech in both Muslim countries and the Western world.

" 'The freedom to discuss religion, the freedom to discuss faith, even to disagree, to argue, to criticize—this is at the heart of a free democratic politics,' Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, told CNA.

"Marshall said that free speech is particularly important in countries such as Iran where politics and religion are intertwined.

"His new book 'Silenced: How Apostasy Laws and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide' (Oxford University Press, $35.00), examines laws punishing blasphemy and apostasy in the Muslim world and how those laws are affecting the Western world, including America...."
I'm a practicing Catholic, so I have to support freedom of religion. It's in the rules (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2104-2109)

Freedom: For Everyone

That freedom is not "freedom to worship my way." Even if I could, I wouldn't be allowed force someone to 'act Catholic:'
" 'Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits.'34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it 'continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.'35"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2106)
Does this mean I liked it, when an associate professor at a Minnesota university tore a page from the Quran, and another from some atheist's book; desecrated a consecrated Host; threw all three in the trash; published a photograph of the result; and bragged about it?


(from PZ Myers, Pharyngula (July 24, 2008), used w/o permission)

No. I did not like it.

But I'm glad that I live in America, where the professor is still alive, and the university hasn't been set ablaze.

It's not that Catholics around here don't care. I think the non-violent response is partly due to America's culture: I hope that it's also because Catholics in this area understand our faith.

Catholics living in Minnesota expressed their displeasure with the professor's actions by writing letters of protest. There are other possible approaches to an insult like that:

Familiar Response to 'Humor'

"Offices attacked after magazine mocks Islam"
CNA/Europa Press (November 3, 2011)

"The attack against the offices of the French satirical magazine, 'Charlie Hebdo,' has been unanimously condemned in France.

"The front-page of the latest issue, subtitled 'Sharia Hebdo,' a reference to Islamic law, showed a cartoon-like man with a turban, white robe and beard smiling and saying in an accompanying bubble, '100 lashes if you don't die laughing.'

"The magazine also 'invited' the Prophet Muhammad to be its guest editor for the week.

"The offices of the magazine were firebombed with Molotov cocktails early on Nov. 2. Computer hackers also posted pictures of a mosque on Charlie Hebdo's website with the words: 'There is no god besides Allah.'..."
Do I think that "100 lashes if you don't die laughing" was in good taste? Or appropriate?

Not really.

Do I think torching the magazine offices was a good idea?

Not really.

As I've said elsewhere, "with friends like these, Islam doesn't need enemies."

Are all Muslims arsonists? I don't think so.

Does what happened if France, and the 9/11 attacks, 'prove' that religion is bad?

No.

"Atheocracy:" Bad Idea

"Bishop Conley sees 'atheocracy' as major threat to pro-life cause"
Kevin J. Jones, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (November 8, 2011)

"Increasing hostility to religion and growing restrictions on religious expression are 'the biggest challenge the pro-life movement faces,' Bishop James D. Conley told a benefit for a Dallas pro-life group.

" 'If we think it's been hard over these past four decades, I think the biggest challenges we face lie ahead of us,' the apostolic administrator of the Denver archdiocese said Nov. 5.

" 'America today is becoming what I would call an atheocracy - a society that is actively hostile to religious faith and religious believers. And I might add - the faith that our society is most hostile toward is Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular.'..."
Well, Bishop Conley has religious beliefs. And 'everybody knows what those people are like.

Like I said earlier: I remember the trailing edge of McCarthyism. That particular effort to enforce conformity won't be back.

Today's threat to freedom isn't just 'those terrorists over there.' I think Americans should be at least as concerned about folks in today's establishment who seem determined to protect us from religion.

'For our own good,' of course.

I've posted about America, religion, and getting a grip, before:
News and views:
1 When I was growing up, America's 'establishment' was mostly male, looked 'Anglo,' and somewhat-uncritically embraced a selection of conservative social and political values. That was then, this is now, and I've posted about it before:
2 Concerns, rational and otherwise, about "illegal aliens" remind me of the 'good old days,' when 'separate but equal' was a moderately popular political slogan. Pigeonholing people into a few simple categories doesn't always make sense, but folks do it anyway:
Posted by 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 4, 2011

My Take on the News: Condoms; Incredible Shrinking Countries

I might be surprised at how tenaciously folks can cling to assumptions that keep being proven wrong. But I grew up seeing one 'End Times prophecy' after another run past its deadline; and 'true believers' lining up behind the next wannabe prophet. Being the sort of person I am, I dug into Christianity's records, learned about religion in general - and became a Catholic. Which is another topic.

Other folks, who'd never get taken in by a prediction of a coming Biblical Apocalypse, show remarkable faith in equally odd notions. Which brings me to my pick from this week's news:
  1. Condoms, AIDS, and Getting a Grip
  2. Population Crisis, Maybe: Big Changes Coming

1. Condoms, AIDS, and Getting a Grip

"Leading AIDS researcher defends Pope Benedict, criticizes condoms" Catholic World News, via CatholicCulture.org (November 2, 2011)

"Edward Green, the former director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard School of Health, has again defended Pope Benedict’s 2009 remarks on AIDS and condoms. While traveling to Africa, the Pontiff told journalists that AIDS 'cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics. On the contrary, they increase it.'

"In a recent interview, Green said that his new book, Broken Promises: How the AIDS Establishment Has Betrayed the Developing World, is 'an extended vindication of Pope Benedict, at least as far as the so-called generalized HIV epidemics of Africa are concerned.'..."
The positive correlation between using condoms and getting AIDS is old news. What caught my attention was that someone involved with AIDS research came out and said that conventional wisdom was wrong. Condoms have been pushed as a cure-all for society's problems: from AIDS to angst over teen sex.

On the other hand, Edward Green is the former director of Harvard's AIDS program. If he's retired, he may figure he has less to lose by telling the truth. I realize that sounds cynical: but the last time I did time in American academia, political correctness was in bloom. I'm still washing the taste out of my mind.

2. Population Crisis, Maybe: Big Changes Coming

"Population worldviews clash as 7 billionth baby arrives" Marianne Medlin, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (November 2, 2011)

"As the world welcomes the seven billionth baby this week, experts are divided over whether the planet faces overpopulation or the opposite problem of countries not sustaining their birth rates.

"Despite warnings from groups such as the United Nations who spoke of the 'challenge' posed by billions of people using global resources, Texas A&M University's Dudley Poston warned that many countries are actually failing to sustain their populations.

" 'Almost half of the world today lives in countries where the fertility rates are at 2.1 or less children per woman,' Poston told CNA on Oct. 31, explaining that 2.1 is the minimum replacement rate for a society.

"Poston, a professor in sociology who specializes in demographics, said the numbers show how these countries have no choice but to 'allow more immigrants in or raise the birth rate to keep their population size stable.'..."
This is speculation on my part, but I think part of the reason that some melanin-deficient folks are so concerned about African birthrates is that some 'civilized' countries are shrinking. Population growth:
  • Poland
    -0.062% (2011 est.)
  • Germany
    -0.208% (2011 est.)
  • Russia
    -0.47% (2011 est.)
    (Source: CIA World Factbook)
That's negative growth. It's not just a European problem: which makes the United Nations' position so - odd.

7,000,000,000 Neighbors

I discussed why I'm "not alarmed" about having about 7,000,000,000 neighbors earlier this week. Bottom line: we're nowhere near the limits of agricultural production, even assuming that agronomic research stopped dead in its tracks in 1975. (It didn't: North Dakota State University is one of many places around the world where folks improve food production techniques.)

So, why do some folks still take Paul Ehrlich's doomsday predictions1 seriously?

I doubt that there's just one reason why so many folks are so eager to believe the latest forecast of impending doom. On the other hand, maybe there is a reason why wackadoo doomsayers come with both religious and secular trappings. And that's another topic, probably for another blog.

Overpopulation has been a remarkably popular apocalyptic prediction for the secular set. And is hard to explain, now that that the 'baby boom' is history.

Besides a sort of sublimated xenophobia, I think many 'sophisticated' folks are scared silly of overpopulation because they believe human beings are a whole lot simpler than we really are.

Human Beings: We're Not Stupid

It's possible to view us as alimentary canals on legs: biological machines which have no function other than to consume food and reproduce. Or, a bit more realistically, to view us as a sort of advanced animal: with the same functions.

As I pointed out on Wednesday, in our 'natural state,' each human being needs about 7 square miles of territory: under ideal conditions. By that standard, we're about 1,000 times over Earth's 'carrying capacity' for our species.

The reason we aren't all dying of starvation today is that, quite a few thousand years ago, folks learned to plant and harvest crops. I see no reason to assume that we'll stop doing so. I'm also fairly confident that we have not become too stupid and unimaginative to develop new technologies.

Silly Ideas, Then and Now

The 19th century notion that science and technology would solve all our problems was silly. I think it's equally silly to assume that folks are too stupid to improve on techniques for growing food.

I also think that right now the problem isn't growing food: it's getting it past corrupt officials and ineffective distribution systems. And that's yet another topic.

Big Demographic Changes Ahead

I'm on the same page as what the fellow said, about two dozen centuries back
"Nothing endures but change." (Heraclitus, 540 BC - 480 BC)
That's one reason that I'm not in a panic over the fact that the world today isn't the same as it was a half-century ago. Which is okay: It'd be disturbing if things stopped changing.

"Demographic" is a fancy word meaning "a statistic characterizing human populations (or segments of human populations broken down by age or sex or income etc.)." (Princeton's WordNet) America's demographics have changed noticeably since I was a child.

Between immigration, and some folks having more children than others, neighbors don't look quite the same as they did a half-century back. For example, the small central Minnesota town where I live isn't as solidly Irish and German as it was when I moved here with my family in 1986.

I don't mind that at all: particularly since the changes are probably what encouraged a local grocery to start carrying prayer candles and corn-flour baking products.

I strongly suspect that we'll see even bigger changes, as folks who didn't have children grow old and die: and folks who did have children keep track of their grand- and great-grand-children. Even in the world's shrinking countries, I doubt that everybody isn't having enough kids to fill the gap after they die. If acceptance of children is linked with ethnicity, some of these countries won't 'look the same' in a hundred years.

I think that's part of what bothered the fellow who shot up a Norwegian youth camp earlier this year. And that's yet again another topic.

Related posts:
In the news:
Background:
  • Genocide is bad
    • Even if you're just
      • Following orders
      • Obeying the law
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2313)
  • The government may "intervene to orient the demography of the population"
    • "By means of objective and respectful information"
    • "But certainly not by ... measures" which are
      • Authoritarian
      • Coercive
      (Catechism, 2372)
  • Parents
  • Sex is
1 Paul (and Anne) Ehrlich's book, The Population Bomb, was a best-seller in the late '60s. The butterfly expert and his wife weren't the only folks at the time who were appalled at the post-WWII baby boom, but I think they helped convince 'serious-minded' people that we'd have mass starvation in the '70s and '80s. We got disco instead, and that's - again - another topic. I've discussed emotion trumping reason before, in another blog:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 25, 2011

Oslo, Utoya, and Assumptions: Norwegian Tragedy as a Rorschach Test

The Oslo bombing and shootings on Utoya island, near Oslo, have been called a terrorist attack. I think that's accurate: although the point could be debated.

I've read that Anders Behring Breivik's decision to kill a great many of his fellow-Norwegians is an example of a dire threat. Depending on who's writing, it's an example of the threat of:
  • The West
  • Globalism
  • Multiculturalism
  • Neo-Nazis
Also depending on who's writing, the (perceived) threat is either spelled out in detail; or implied.

If I dug around, I'd probably discover folks who believe that Muslims are 'really' behind the killings - somehow. Or that perennial favorite, the CIA.

A Strange Way to Save Norway

Breivik apparently thought he was saving Norway - by killing Norwegians. I've got few words to say about that.1

Ellis Island and 'American' Names

Maybe you've read about the infamous 'Ellis Island' renamings, where someone decided that Mirek Svoboda, for example, should be Mark Smith: an "American" name.

Which is an example of what multiculturalism is not.And I'm not getting off-topic so much as ahead of myself.

Names, Ethnicity, and the News

What I've seen in the news doesn't say much at all about the ethnicity of the victims. My guess is that most of them are the (usually) blue eyed, melanin-deficient folks I descended from.

We're not all tall and blond, by the way - which is another topic.

Judging from some online search strings I've run into, there's a story going around that the teens and young adults killed on Utoya island were Asian. Or African. Not 'ethnic Norwegian,' anyway. An official list of victims hasn't been released, as far as I know: but names that are in the news of people killed or missing and feared dead include:
  • Trond Berntsen
  • Johannes Buø
  • Tore Eikeland
  • Syvert Knudsen
  • Hanne Kristine
  • Tarald Mjelde
Those are not exactly Asian-sounding names. But maybe folks who emigrated to Norway gave their kids Norwegian names - in an effort to fit in?

Maybe.

Norway Massacre as a Rorschach Test

I think the appalling killings in Norway are a sort of Rorschach test, where what folks say they see tells more about what's happening in their minds than what happened in and near Oslo.

And no: I do not think that an international cabal of psychologists arranged for the killings, as part of some depraved experiment.

The three posts I wrote on Saturday reflect - strongly - my assumption that killing all those folks was wrong. And, as news of who had done the killing - and why - my view that the mass murder/terrorist attack was an appalling example of chauvinism:
I still think that I'm right about that, but: I would, wouldn't I?

Let's take a look at some of the 'real meaning' that folks see in the Norwegian tragedy.

The Threat of the West?

A fellow who saw the attack - and news coverage - as an example of 'the threat of The West' was convinced that descriptions of the "conservative Christian Nationalist" as a "madman" was "airbrushing" the incident. (July 23, 2011)

I'm sure he is quite sincere.

The Threat of Globalization?

"Globalization" is something that a fair number of folks are interested in, concerned about, or scared silly of.

So: What's "globalization?" Depending on who you read, globalization is:
  1. "Growth to a global or worldwide scale"
    (Princeton's WordNet)
  2. "...the increasing unification of the world's economic order through reduction of such barriers to international trade as tariffs, export fees, and import quotas"
    (Wikipedia)
  3. "A global movement to increase the flow of goods, services, people, real capital, and money across national borders in order to create a more integrated and interdependent world economy" (Glossary, International Education, Faculty of Education, York University)
My take on "globalization," at least in the second and third meanings in that list, is that - it's happening. And has been, for hundreds of years. Thousands.

Not steadily, of course - but as centuries pile up, folks have tended to trade with each other faster, over longer distances. And governments have gone from clans and families to nations and the occasional empire. Now we've got leagues and coalitions, and more terms that mean 'a bunch of nations cooperating.'

We've come along way since the days when Jericho got started.

People, Globalization, and Problems

I think that "globalization" could be a problem. So could capitalism, democracy, or monarchy. If done the wrong way. I've posted about that sort of thing before:
The Catholic Church has been looking at globalization. Here's what I found, after a quick look through the Holy See's website:
  1. "Globalization - Ethical and Institutional Concerns" (pdf)
    The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (2001)
  2. "Intervention by the Holy See Delegation at the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference"
    (June 17, 2002)
  3. "Final Declaration of the Symposium on: The economic and social development of Africa in the age of globalization"
    Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004)
Here are samples from the second and third items:
"...Globalization must not be allowed to become an ideology, neither a pro-Globalization ideology nor an anti-Globalization ideology. We must rather attempt to verify objectively where globalization has worked for the benefit of broad sectors of society, and where it has not. We must identify why and how Globalization has worked well or worked badly. We must identify what is the optimum mix of elements that leads to a socially favourable integration into the globalization process, and which are the elements that foster marginalation...."
("Intervention by the Holy See Delegation at the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference")
"...Those taking part in the Symposium are unanimous in believing that the African peoples should be the subjects and protagonists of their own future and their own cultural, civil, social and economic development. The right of the African Peoples to development should be pursued as a new path for their development. It is a matter of a fundamental perspective, widely emphasized for its considerable moral, cultural and political importance which must influence every approach to the question of African development.

"Africa as an object of assistance must indeed become the subject of a convinced and crucial partnership..."
("Final Declaration of the Symposium on: The economic and social development of Africa
in the age of globalization")
I'm pretty sure that some folks won't like that. Particularly those who cherish a "pro-Globalization ideology" or "anti-Globalization ideology."

What do I think of "globalization" - in the economic, political, and cultural sense?

I'm a practicing Catholic, so I can't support a globalization ideology: pro- or anti-.

I think trying to stop globalization makes about as much sense as trying to stop language from changing. It can be done - but I think we all have more to gain from continuing to deal with each other. I also think that - know that - there are ethical concerns with globalization. And just about everything else people do.

Do I think globalization is all good or all bad? No.

I don't think globalization is good or bad. I think it's got parts that work, and parts that don't work. Which is pretty much what the Holy See delegation to the 90th International Labor Conference said: "...We must identify why and how Globalization has worked well or worked badly...."

The Threat of Multiculturalism?

Definition time again. "Multiculturalism" is a term that seems to have had its meaning changed in the last few decades. Today, the term apparently means:
  • "the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country" (Princeton's WordNet)
I can see how that sort of multiculturalism could look like a dire threat to someone who is part of a nation's majority - or dominant - culture. Accepting multiculturalism would mean that 'those people over there' couldn't be forced to wear the 'right' clothes, or go to the 'right' church, or watch the 'right' television programs.

Multiculturalism and Me

Although more that 1,000,000,000 Catholics are alive today - here in America, we're a minority. As someone in a relatively small (in this nation) counterculture - I don't necessarily see multiculturalism as a threat.

Which is just as well, considering what the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People said in January of 2003:
"...Nation-states would consider them [immigrants] a threat to cultural homogeneity. Thus, historically, they very often tried to control the formation of ethnic communities either through assimilation or segregation. Sometimes they were pressured to give up their original culture and acquire the culture of the host country...."2
Maybe that sounds 'un-American.' I don't think so: but then I've long since noticed that this country is much more like a crazy quilt than a melting pot. Culturally, that is. I think that one of America's great strengths is that we often let folks bring new ideas, and improve old ones. Even if "we've never done it that way before." And that's yet another topic.

The Threat of Neo-Nazis?

I acknowledge that there are folks who pattern their beliefs on those of the national socialist party of Germany - the one that made Dachau possible - and that they can legitimately be called "neo-Nazis."

On the other hand, I'm dubious about calling every national chauvinist with pale skin a "neo-Nazi." Do I think such a person is parochial? Probably. Dangerous? Possibly. A Nazi, neo- or otherwise? Unless the person claims allegiance to the German national socialists of the '30s and '40s - unlikely, in my opinion.

Photos of Breivik hint that he's as prone to sunburn as I am. His actions - which he makes no secret of - are deplorable. But - "neo-Nazi?" That sounds like an emotionally-charged slogan, calculated to increase newspaper sales: not necessarily a verifiable fact.

Related posts:
Sort-of-related posts:
News and views:
1 Saving Norway - By Killing Norwegians? I am not making this up.
Anders Behring Breivik apparently thought that Norway, and Norwegian culture, were threatened by Muslims, and multiculturalism, and globalism and foreigners, and stuff like that. There's probably an element of truth to that.

Do I think it makes sense to
  • Save Norway by killing Norwegians?
    • No: I do not
    • Even if it's in the allegedly-noble cause of starting a race war in Europe?
      • Emphatically no
  • Kill anybody in order to start a war against people who don't look like Anders Behring Breivik?
    • No: I do not.
Do I think war is the ultimate evil? No: I do not. And I've posted about that before:
What Breivik seems to have wanted is the sort of thing that folks are allowed to meet with armed force. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2309)

Which, for some folks, might 'prove' that the Catholic Church is a warmonger oppressor. Which isn't quite another topic.

2 Excerpt from "Renewal Movements and the Evangelization of Families in the Diaspora*"
Archbishop Stephen Fumio HAMAO President Pontifical Council, Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People (January 2003):
"In today's world characterized also by human mobility, families who leave their homeland, due to severe economic conditions, environmental pressure, natural calamities, wars or persecutions for reasons of race, ideology, culture or creed, may find themselves in a context of geographic and/or social diaspora.[1] Migrant and refugee families may therefore be forced to live in a country which is quite far from their own, different in language, culture and even religion. Suddenly they are among people who find them strange and they may feel, in varying degrees, unwelcome.

In reality, they need much more understanding than we realize because, at least initially, families in general move only when it is their very survival that is at stake. According to Patrick Taran, an ILO migration expert, 'it is less the absolute differences between countries that motivate most migration; rather, people tend to move only when their situation and that of their families falls below a critical threshold of tolerance, below which they no longer perceive possibilities of survival according to local norms of safety, dignity and well-being.'[2]

"Under these conditions, the starting point for these families, at departure, is already a traumatic experience. Their hope for a better future may grow even dimmer in the destination country where they are met with enormous difficulties. A document produced by Caritas Internationalis identified the following problems:

"The cultural differences which the family is forced to confront without any preparation, the difficulties of learning other languages, the intergenerational problems often tied to the difficult mix of traditions and customs of the countries of origin and those of the new places, psychological trauma, the sense of insecurity and uncertainty about the future: these are some of the problems which must be confronted by a family forced to migrate. These problems which often develop in conditions of extreme poverty can be exacerbated with migration, whether it be through internal displacement, in refugee camps or on the periphery of large cities. Such migration often is undertaken in an atmosphere of a total lack of privacy and in an absence of support services of any type. Thus migration often results in the accentuation of such negative phenomena as begging, the sale of minors, and usury, all of which end up causing greater vulnerability among those who are already weak.[3]

"There is still another reason why migrant and refugee families and ethnic minorities, in general, have been relegated to the diaspora. Nation-states would consider them a threat to cultural homogeneity. Thus, historically, they very often tried to control the formation of ethnic communities either through assimilation or segregation. Sometimes they were pressured to give up their original culture and acquire the culture of the host country. Fortunately, assimilationist practices were later on dropped in favor of multiculturalism. This means that immigrants are now encouraged to integrate into the host society while retaining their cultural distinctiveness. [4]...."
("Renewal Movements and the Evangelization of Families in the Diaspora)
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Like it? Pin it, Plus it, - - -

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Popular Posts

  • A 'Saint Brian,' Sort of
    My name is Brian Gill. In keeping with the customs of my culture, the first name is one which my parents chose for me, the last is the name ...
  • Blind Mice; Heroism During the 'Batman' Killings
    The London 2012 Olympics start today: but instead of analyzing the significance of a South Korean flag being displayed with a North Korean...
  • A Catholic Citizen in America: New Location
    The good news is still that Blogger's changes haven't made images in my posts here unviewable. ( May 6-16, 2016 ) Instead of jumpi...
  • Mass Murder in Orlando
    I'd be writing a longer, more detailed, post about this; but still haven't resolved some technical issues. ( May 6, 2016 ; updated M...
  • Elijah and Pushing a Rock
    10th Sunday in Ordinary Time, 2016: 1 Kings 17:17 - 24 Galatians 1:11 - 19 Luke 7:11 - 17 Third Sunday of Easter, 2016 by Deacon L...

Label Cloud

1277 abortion ADD ADHD-Inattentive Adoration Chapel Advent Afghanistan Africa America Amoris Laetitia angels animals annulment Annunciation anti-catholicism Antichrist apocalyptic ideas apparitions archaeology architecture Arianism art Asperger syndrome assumptions asteroid astronomy Australia authority balance and moderation baptism being Catholic beliefs bias Bible Bible and Catechism bioethics biology blogs brain Brazil business Canada capital punishment Caritas in Veritate Catechism Catholic Church Catholic counter-culture Catholicism change happens charisms charity Chile China Christianity Christmas citizenship climate change climatology cloning comets common good common sense Communion community compassion confirmation conscience conversion Corpus Christi cosmology creation credibility crime crucifix Crucifixion Cuba culture dance dark night of the soul death depression designer babies despair detachment devotion discipline disease diversity divination Divine Mercy divorce Docetism domestic church dualism duty Easter economics education elections emotions England entertainment environmental issues Epiphany Establishment Clause ethics ethnicity Eucharist eugenics Europe evangelizing evolution exobiology exoplanets exorcism extremophiles faith faith and works family Father's Day Faust Faustus fear of the Lord fiction Final Judgment First Amendment forgiveness Fortnight For Freedom free will freedom fun genetics genocide geoengineering geology getting a grip global Gnosticism God God's will good judgment government gratitude great commission guest post guilt Haiti Halloween happiness hate health Heaven Hell HHS hierarchy history holidays Holy Family Holy See Holy Spirit holy water home schooling hope humility humor hypocrisy idolatry image of God images Immaculate Conception immigrants in the news Incarnation Independence Day India information technology Internet Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jesus John Paul II joy just war justice Kansas Kenya Knights of Columbus knowledge Korea language Last Judgment last things law learning Lent Lenten Chaplet life issues love magi magic Magisterium Manichaeism marriage martyrs Mary Mass materialism media medicine meditation Memorial Day mercy meteor meteorology Mexico Minnesota miracles Missouri moderation modesty Monophysitism Mother Teresa of Calcutta Mother's Day movies music Muslims myth natural law neighbor Nestorianism New Year's Eve New Zealand news Nietzsche obedience Oceania organization original sin paleontology parish Parousia penance penitence Pentecost Philippines physical disability physics pilgrimage politics Pope Pope in Germany 2011 population growth positive law poverty prayer predestination presumption pride priests prophets prostitution Providence Purgatory purpose quantum entanglement quotes reason redemption reflections relics religion religious freedom repentance Resurrection robots Roman Missal Third Edition rosaries rules sacramentals Sacraments Saints salvation schools science secondary causes SETI sex shrines sin slavery social justice solar planets soul South Sudan space aliens space exploration Spain spirituality stem cell research stereotypes stewardship stories storm Sudan suicide Sunday obligation superstition symbols technology temptation terraforming the establishment the human condition tolerance Tradition traffic Transfiguration Transubstantiation travel Trinity trust truth uncertainty United Kingdom universal destination of goods vacation Vatican Vatican II veneration vengeance Veterans Day videos virtue vlog vocations voting war warp drive theory wealth weather wisdom within reason work worship writing

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.