Monthly Archives: October 2008

2008: NAACP Los Angeles President Alice Huffman Sells Out Black Families /

Conservatively religious Blacks … and that is about 80 percent of them … are more disturbed about the threat to marriage, family, and society that follows when gay marriage is approved than almost anyone else. That is why they are disgusted by the actions of the leader of the NAACP in the State of California for coming out against Proposition 8 without ever asking any other leaders or members about it. This disturbing story may show that she was paid about 200,000 dollars for the endorsement.

See the original article on the website at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair
NAACP Los Angeles President Alice Huffman Sells Out Black Families
Media Advisory
October 30, 2008
Contact: Chip White, 916-446-2956

LOS ANGELES, CA – Campaign finance records reveal that Alice Huffman, President of the California State NAACP, the only major African American leader in California to endorse legalized gay marriage, has received nearly $200,000 from the NO on 8 campaign in “fees” through her company AC Public Affairs.

African American leaders throughout California were shocked when Huffman, as a member of the NAACP Board, endorsed the No on 8 campaign despite the statewide, unified voices of African American political and religious leaders in support of traditional marriage. Huffman has never taken a vote of NAACP chapters and members, which is customary before endorsing any state measure or proposition. Records show that Alice Huffman, through her AC Public Affairs Company, received $100,000 from NO on 8 on October 2nd of 2008 and another $98,000 on the 14th of October 2008.

Trina Williams, Vice President of Inglewood’s NAACP Chapter, said today that “no endorsement of ANY proposition is ever authorized without a resolution, a vote, and a majority vote of its members.” Williams indicated that to date, “the Inglewood NAACP has yet to receive any word from the national organization telling us to vote NO on Proposition 8.” Huffman appears in print advertising and mailers for NO on 8 along with one or two civil rights leaders supporting NO on Proposition 8.

“Alice Huffman has used her position without support of the vast majority of African American people and interfaith leaders in our communities in Los Angeles or California. It is very disappointing and misleading to say that she is representing the African American community or the NAACP, which is and has always been passionately in support of traditional marriage and traditional families,” said Williams.
Huffman claims to have taken a vote of the “executive board” of the state NAACP, but would still have a conflict of interest in the matter having taken two hundred thousand dollars from the No on 8 campaign. According to an article in the January 18th 2008 edition of the Sacramento Bee Huffman said, “Campaigning and politics is my livelihood….that’s how I make my money to buy my Gucci handbags and other things that enhance my standard of living.”
Black leaders in Los Angeles, including Trina Williams and the interfaith ministers from the large African American congregations in Los Angeles, including Zoe Christian Fellowship, are calling for a national investigation of Alice Huffman’s dealings with the No on 8 campaign.
African American voters formed the largest supportive voting block for traditional marriage when it was on the ballot in California in 2000. Political experts anticipate that the African American vote will weigh in heavily on Tuesday, November 4th, thanks to the candidacy of Barack Obama. YES on Proposition 8 expects the turnout to be very helpful to its campaign.


Filed under Proposition 8

2007: Europe: Its Spiritual Foundation: Yesterday, Today and in the Future / Pope Benedict XVI

I have acquired and read with great excitement the book “Europe Today and Tomorrow” by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, and I agree that his understanding of the problems of Europe and Western Society are largely correct. I think that he is a great leader and great thinker, and is being used by the God we all worship to awaken the people of Europe to their Christian heritage and their current spiritual danger.

He is going about trying to implement his program, especially working with newly-elected leaders in Chancellor Merkur in West Germony and President Sarkozy in France who are religious themselves, and is making important progress, to the disappointment of the secular opinion leaders for whom the separation of church and state has resulted in the disappearance of the church.

This post consists of excerpts from Chapter 1 of that book.

Find the online text of this address on the Catholic Culture Library website at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair
Europe: Its Spiritual Foundation: Yesterday, Today and in the Future
Pope Benedict XVI

Exactly what is Europe? Very much this same question was posed anew quite explicitly by Jozef Cardinal Glemp during the work of one of the language groups at the Episcopal Synod on Europe: Where does Europe begin? Where does it end? Why, for example, isn’t Siberia part of Europe, even though it is also inhabited by Europeans whose way of thinking and living is European? Where do the borders of Europe end in the southernmost reaches of the community of Russian peoples? Where is the border in the Atlantic? Which islands are European and which aren’t? Why aren’t they European?

In encounters such as this one, it becomes perfectly clear that only in a completely secondary manner is Europe a geographical concept. Europe is a cultural and historical concept, not a continent clearly definable in geographical terms.

This becomes rather evident when we make an effort to return to the origins of Europe, which ordinarily means evoking Herodotus (484-425 BC). This historian was certainly the first person to look upon Europe as a geographical concept and he defined it in the following terms: “The Persians consider Asia and the barbarians who live there as their property, while they look upon Europe and the Greek world as a separate country.”

The confines of Europe had not been adopted as such, but it is clear that the lands now constituting the core of Europe lay completely outside the visual field of this ancient historian. In fact, the formation of the Hellenic states and the Roman empire led to the formation of a continent that became the basis for later Europe, but which had completely different borders. These borders encompassed all the lands around the Mediterranean, which, as a result of factors such as cultural bonds, sea traffic, trade and a common political system, together made up a continent in the true sense of the word.

Only the triumphal advance of Islam in the 600s and the beginning of the 700s traced a border through the Mediterranean, thereby cutting it into two. As a result, everything which until then had been a single continent was now subdivided into three: Asia, Africa and Europe.

The transformation of the ancient world took place in the East at a slower pace than in the West. With Constantinople as its focal point, the Roman Empire resisted there — albeit pushed to the outskirts more and more — until the 1400s. While, by the year 700, the southern part of the Mediterranean had fallen completely outside what up to then had been considered a cultural continent, a more decisive expansion northward was underway at the same time. The limes, or what up to then had been a continental confine, disappeared, and the way was opened towards a new historical space that now embraced Gaul, Germany and Britannia as core territories, along with an increasing propensity to reach out in the direction of Scandinavia.

In the course of this process of shifting confines, the ideal continuity with the previous Mediterranean continent — geographically gauged in different terms — was guaranteed by the construction of a theology of history: in line with the book of Daniel, the Roman Empire as renewed and transformed by the Christian faith was considered the ultimate and permanent kingdom of the history of the world in general. Therefore, the peoples and states in the process of coming into existence were defined as the Sacrum Imperium Romanum (Holy Roman Empire).

The process involving this new historical and cultural identification took place as an intentional pursuit under the reign of Charlemagne. Likewise, emerging once again was the ancient name “Europe,” but with a change in meaning: this title was now used to define the kingdom of Charlemagne, while at the same time expressing an awareness of the continuity and newness with which this new set of states was projecting itself as a force projecting itself into the future. Projecting itself into the future, precisely because it saw itself as the continuation of what had thus far been the history of the world and therefore anchored in what perseveres forever. Likewise expressed in this emerging self comprehension was an awareness of definitiveness, together with an awareness of a mission to be accomplished.

It is true that the concept of “Europe” practically disappeared once again after the demise of the Carolingian reign, while the word itself retained a certain pride of place only in the language of learned persons. In ordinary language, however, it then resurfaced at the beginning of the modem age, as a form of self identification in relation to the threat represented by the Turks, while its widespread and general use brings us all the way up to the 18th century. Independently from this history of the actual word “Europe.” the consolidation of the kingdom of the Franks as the never-faded and now reborn Roman Empire, marked the decisive step towards what we now mean when we speak of Europe.

At the same time, however, we certainly must not overlook the fact that there was also a second root of Europe, a non-Western Europe. As mentioned earlier, the Roman Empire resisted in Byzantium against tempests in the forms of the migration of peoples and the Islamic invasion. Moreover, Byzantium considered itself to be the true Rome because this was where the empire had never passed away. As a result. the “east” continued to advance claims against the other half of the empire. the western half. Now, this eastern Roman empire also expanded northward into the heartland of the Slavic world and created its own world, a Greek-Roman world distinct from the Latin Europe of the West because of a different liturgy, a different ecclesiastical constitution, a different culture and the abandonment of Latin as the common language learned by all.

Certainly the elements that could have made these two worlds a single one, a single and common continent, were more than sufficient. First, there was the common heritage of the Bible and the early Church, which, in both worlds, related beyond itself to an origin now outside Europe, in Palestine. Then there was the common idea of “Empire,” the common and basic comprehension of the Church, and hence a sharing of the fundamental ideas of rule of law and juridical instruments. Lastly among these elements, I would venture to mention monasticism, which, even in the throes of the major upheavals of history, basically remained the bearer not only of cultural continuity but, above all, of fundamental religious and moral values, ultimate orientations of man. As a pre-political and supra political force, monasticism became the wellspring of ever new and necessary rebirths.

Despite this sharing of an essential ecclesiastical heritage, there was still a profound difference between these two Europes and the importance thereof has been highlighted especially by Endre von Ivanka. In Byzantium, empire and Church were practically identified one with the other. The emperor was also the head of the Church and considered himself the representative of Christ. Much like Melchisedek, who was both king and priest (Gn 14:18), as of the 6th century, the emperor bore the official title of “king and priest.”

In the Western empire, however, the departure of the emperors from Rome &3151 begun by Constantine — enabled the autonomous position of bishop of Rome to develop as the successor of Peter and supreme pastor of the Church, in what had been the original capital of the empire. There was, therefore, a dualism of authority, taught already at the outset of the era of Constantine: in effect, Emperor and Pope had separate powers, and neither one of them exercised total authority. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) set forth the vision of the West in his famous letter to Emperor Anastasius and even more explicitly in his fourth treatise, where, in contrast to the Byzantine typology of Melchisedek, he stressed that the unity of authority was to be found exclusively in Christ: “Due to human weakness (pride!), He has separated the two ministries for times to come so no one may become arrogant” (c. 11).

For matters regarding eternal life, the Christian emperors needed Popes (pontifices), who, in their turn, abided by imperial orders regarding temporal affairs. In worldly matters, the Popes had to comply with the laws of the emperor enthroned by divine order, while the latter had to bow to Popes regarding divine affairs. A separation or distinction of powers was thereby introduced, which became of utmost importance for the later development of Europe. We could even say that it laid the foundations for what is specifically typical of the Western world.

Since rebellion against such delimitation was ever vivid on both sides, along with an impulse to concentrate powers and a yearning to impose power over the other side or party, this principle of separation has also become the source of infinite suffering. How this principle should be lived correctly and rendered concrete in both political and religious terms remains a fundamental issue for the Europe of both today and tomorrow.

While on the basis of what has been presented thus far we may consider, on the one hand, the rise of the Carolingian empire and, on the other, the continuation of the Roman empire in Byzantium with its mission towards the Slavic peoples, as the true birth of the continent Europe, the onset of the modem age meant a turning point for both Europes, a radical change affecting both the essence of this continent and its geographical contours.

Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 and O. Hiltbrunner commented upon this event in the following laconic terms: “the last… learned men emigrated towards Italy and to the humanists of the Renaissance handed on the knowledge of the original Greek texts; but the East collapsed in the absence of culture.”

Such an affirmation may strike us as being somewhat uncouth, because the reign of the Ottoman dynasty had its culture as well. It is true, however, that this event marked the end of the Greek-Christian, European culture of Byzantium. Therefore, one of Europe’s two wings ran the risk of disappearing, but the Byzantine heritage was not dead. Moscow declared itself as the third Rome, founded its own patriarchate on the grounds of the idea of a second translatio imperii, and therefore projected itself as a new metamorphosis of the Sacrum Imperium — a form of Europe in its own right which nonetheless remained united with the West, moving closer and closer — to such an extent that Peter the Great tried to turn Russia into a western nation.

This northward shift of Byzantine Europe also meant that the continent’s confines started moving broadly eastwards. The setting of the Urals as the frontier was an extremely arbitrary decision, but the world east of that mountain range was becoming more and more like a sort of substructure of Europe, neither Asia nor Europe; basically forged by Europe as the prime subject, without any possibility of exercising its own rights as a subject and therefore a mere object bereft of any chance to be the bearer of its own history. For all intents and purposes, perhaps that defines the essence of a colonial state.

At one and the same time we witness a dual process of substantial historical significance in the West as well.

First, a large part of the Germanic world separated itself from Rome and a new, enlightened form of Christianity saw the light of day. Therefore, then running through the West was a line of separation which clearly formed a cultural limes, a border between two different ways of thinking and entertaining relations. Within the Protestant world there was also a cleavage; firstly between Lutherans and Reformed believers, who were joined by Methodists and Presbyterians, while the Anglicans tried to assume a middle of the road stance between Catholics and Evangelicals. Then there was the difference between Christianity lived under the form of a state Church, which became the characteristic in Europe, and Christianity lived in the free churches that found refuge in North America. We will return to this at a later point.

Let’s take a close look at the second event, the discovery of America, which shaped the situation during the modern age of Latin Europe. Corresponding to the eastward extension of Europe, as Russia moved closer and closer to Asia, was Europe’s radical egress from its geographical confines towards America, towards that world on the other side of the ocean. The subdivision of Europe into a Latin Catholic half and a Germanic Protestant half also crossed those waters and had an impact in that part of the planet colonized by Europe. Initially, America was also a colony, a part of an expanded Europe, but, with the upheaval of Europe brought about by the French Revolution, America took on its own stature as an independent subject. Even though marked so deeply by its European birth, from the 19th century onwards America began to assume a position of equality with Europe.

In an effort to learn more about Europe’s profound and innermost identity by looking back over its history, we have considered two fundamental turning points in that history. First, the dissolution of the old Mediterranean continent caused by the creation of the Sacrum Imperium located farther north, where, beginning with the Carolingian epoch, Europe began to be formed as a Latin-western world. Together with this there was the continuation of the old Rome at Byzantium with its expansion towards the Slavic world. As a second step in this process, we looked at the downfall of Byzantium and the subsequent shift of a part of Europe northwards and eastwards, as well as the internal division of Europe into a Germanic-Protestant world and a Latin-Catholic world. This was then followed by the leap towards America, which also felt the impact of that internal division, but ended up assuming a position as an independent subject vis-a-vis Europe.

At this point we must focus our attention on a third turning point, whose readily visible beacon was the French Revolution. It is true to say that the Sacrum Imperium was already considered close to its natural demise as a political entity, beginning with the late Middle Ages. It had become increasingly fragile also as a sound and unchallenged interpretation of history. Only now was this spiritual framework formally crumbling into pieces, however; the spiritual framework without which Europe would never have become a reality.

This was a process of considerable magnitude in terms of both politics and ideals. From the viewpoint of ideals it meant that the sacred foundation of history and the existence of a state was rejected.

History was no longer to be gauged on the basis of an idea of God which preceded it and gave it form. Statehood was looked upon in purely secular terms, based on rationality and the will of citizens.

Witnessed for absolutely the first time in history was the emergence of a completely secular or non-denominational state, which abandoned and set aside the divine warranty and divine regulation of the political element, considering such elements as belonging to a mythical vision of the world. In addition, such a state declared God Himself to be a private matter, belonging to neither the sphere of public life nor the common formation of civic volition. The latter was considered to be solely a matter of reason, with respect to which God did not appear clearly knowable.

In other words, religion and faith in God belonged to the sphere of feelings and not that of reason. God and His will ceased to have any relevance in public life.

Towards the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century this gave rise to a new type of schism, whose seriousness we see only now in clearer terms. There is no real name for it in German, because it spread among German-speaking peoples at a slower pace, but in the neo-Latin languages it was identified as a division between clergy and laity or laypersons. During the last two centuries this laceration penetrated into the “Latin” nations like a deep wound, while Protestant Christianity initially had an easier time in granting freedom of expression to liberal and enlightenment ideas cropping up around it, without causing any destruction to the framework of broad Christian consensus. The realistic political aspect inherent in the dissolution of the old idea of empire can be described in the following terms: the nations or states which had become identifiable as such, following the formation of unified linguistic areas, appeared as the only true bearers of history, thereby obtaining a status unheard of or impossible in the past. The explosive and dramatic gravity of what had now become an historical subject in the plural may be seen in the fact that the major European nations knew they were the stewards of a universal mission. This mission had, of necessity, to lead to conflicts among them and we were the ones who suffered the mortal impact thereof in the century which recently ended.

We must now consider a further process which ushered the history of recent centuries into a new world. Prior to the modem age, the old Europe with its two halves basically knew only one “next door neighbor,” with whom it had to deal in matters regarding both life and death; in other words, the world of Islam.

Then there was the turning point of the modem age with the expansion of Europe towards America and parts of Asia essentially bereft of major cultural subjects. Now coming into the picture was a movement towards two continents thus far on the outskirts of Europe’s focus of interest: Africa and Asia. Here as well, efforts were made to transform them into branches of Europe, into colonies. To a certain degree this was a successful endeavor, since both Asia and Africa now pursue the ideal of a world forged by technology and its ensuing prosperity. As a result, ancient religious traditions struggle in the throes of crisis there as well, and expressions of purely secular thinking are becoming increasingly dominant in the public arena.

Equally evident, however, is an effect to the contrary. The rebirth of Islam is connected not only with the new material wealth of the Islamic countries, but is nourished by Islam’s ability to offer sound spiritual grounds for the life of peoples, grounds which seem to have slipped out of Europe’s steady hand. Therefore, despite its lasting political and economic might, Europe is increasingly looked upon as condemned to decline and downfall.

In addition, the major religious traditions of Asia, above all its mystical component expressed in Buddhism, are emerging as spiritual powers against a Europe in the process of denying its religious and moral foundations. The optimism regarding the victory of the European factor which Arnold Toynbee was still able to sustain at the beginning of the 1960s now seems strangely outdated: “Out of 28 cultures we have been able to identify … 18 have died and 9 of the remaining 10 — actually all of them except ours — reveal that they have already suffered a death blow.”

Who would dare to repeat such words today? And, perhaps in more general terms, what is our culture? What is there left of it? Is European culture that civilization of technology and trade so victoriously widespread through the world? Or didn’t that civilization come into being in a post European world following the end of the early European cultures? What I see here is a paradoxical synchrony: with things like the victory of the technical-secular/post-European world and the globalization of its model of life and way of thinking, people all over the world, especially in the non-European worlds of Asia and Africa, have the distinct impression that the values, culture and faith of Europe — the very bases of its identity — have reached their end and exited life’s stage, while now the center stage is being taken by the value systems of other worlds, such as pre-Colombian America, Islam and Asian mysticism.

At this time, when Europe seems to have reached the pinnacle of success, it seems like it has become empty within, paralyzed by a crisis of its circulatory system, paralyzed by a crisis threatening its very survival, which is entrusted to transplants that cannot help but alter its identity.

Corresponding to this interior sapping of its constituent spiritual forces is the fact that Europe seems to be taking its leave in ethnic terms. In Europe, there is a strange shortage of future-oriented willingness. Offspring represent the future, but children are looked upon as a threat for the here and now. They take something away from our life, people say and think. Children are considered a limitation on the present and not a source of hope for the future. Necessary here is a comparison with the fading Roman empire: it continued to work as a huge historical framework, but was actually living off those who were to dissolve it, because it had no life-giving energy at all.

This brings us to current problems and issues. Regarding Europe’s possible future there were two opposing diagnoses. On one hand there was the thesis propounded by Oswald Spengler, who believed he could set a sort of natural law for the major expressions of culture: there were the moments of birth and gradual growth of a culture, its moment of full bloom, followed by its slow corpulence, ageing and death. Spengler enriched this thesis of his in a most impressive manner, using documentation drawn from the history of cultures which depicted this law of natural destiny. His thesis sustained that the West had reached its final epoch, and was hastening towards its demise, despite all the efforts to avert it. Quite naturally, Europe could hand on its gifts to a new and emerging culture, as had already transpired in previous declines of a culture, but its life span as a subject had come to an end.

Branded as “biological,” this thesis met with numerous and impassioned opponents during the period between the two world wars, especially in Catholic circles. The most impressive opponent of all was Arnold Toynbee, even though he used postulates which wouldn’t find much of an audience today. Toynbee highlighted material-technical progress on the one hand, and, on the other, real progress which he defined as “spiritualization.” He admitted the fact that the West — the western world — was in crisis and saw as the cause of that crisis the lapse from religion to the worship of technology, nationhood, military might, etc. In the final analysis, he considered the crisis to be “secularism.”

Having ascertained the cause of the crisis, he felt it was possible to suggest the cure, which meant once again introducing the religious factor. In his mind this entailed the religious heritage of all cultures, but especially “what there is left of western Christianity.”

Opposed here to the biological vision is a voluntaristic one counting on the force of creative minorities and outstanding individual personalities.

Here comes the question: is this diagnosis correct? And if it is, do we have the power and means to once again introduce the religious moment, in a synthesis of residual Christianity and the religious heritage of humankind? Basically speaking, the issue at stake between Spengler and Toynbee remains an open one, because we are unable to see into the future.

Besides that, however, it is our task to ask ourselves what may guarantee the future, what is able to continue nourishing the interior identity of Europe through all its historical metamorphoses. Or, in much simpler terms, what promises, today and tomorrow, to bestow human dignity and life in conformity with that dignity.

In order to find an answer to such queries we must once again look within our present and, at the same time, keep ever in mind its historical roots. Earlier on we had reached the point of the French Revolution and the 19th century. That was the time characterized especially by the development of two European models. Adopted in the Latin nations was the secular model, where the state was clearly distinct from religious entities, which were attributed to the private sphere. The state itself rejected any religious foundation and considered itself based solely on reason and its insights. In the face of the frailty of reason, these systems turned out to be fragile and easily fell the victim of dictatorships. Where they did survive, it was because parts of the old moral conscience continued to persevere even without the previous foundations, thereby making basic moral consensus possible. In the Germanic world, on the other hand, there were various expressions of models of liberal Protestant state churches, in which an enlightened Christian religion — essentially considered as moral life, but with forms of worship guaranteed by the public authorities — guaranteed a moral consensus and a broad-based religious foundation, to which the individual, non-state religions had to adapt. In Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries and, initially also, in Prussian-dominated Germany, this model guaranteed national and social unity for a long time. In Germany, however, the decline of Prussian state Christianity created a vacuum which became an open space that was soon occupied by a dictatorship. Nowadays, state churches have fallen the victim of sheer wear and tear everywhere. Religious entities which are derivations of the state are no longer generating any thing akin to moral force. Then again, the state itself cannot create moral force, but must presuppose it and then construct upon it.

Between these two models we have the United States of America. Formed on the basis of free churches, it began nationhood with a rigid dogma of separation between church and state. Then again, above and beyond single religious denominations, it was molded by an underlying Protestant-Christian consensus not forged in confessional terms, which was linked to a particular awareness of a religious-type mission towards the rest of the world. This bestowed special public weight upon the religious factor, which, insofar as a pre-political and supra-political force, could be a determining element for public life. Certainly, it is quite evident that in the United States, as well, the dissolution of the Christian heritage continues inexorably, while at the same time the rapid increase of the Hispanic element and the presence of religious traditions from all over the world changes the general picture.

Perhaps we should also remark that the United States is actively promoting the spread of Protestantism in Latin America, and consequently the decline of the Catholic Church as a result of inroads made by free churches. This endeavor is based on the conviction that the Catholic Church could not guarantee a stable political and economic system, thereby failing in its duty as an educator of nations. Conversely, what people expect is that the model of free churches would pave the way for a moral consensus and a democratic formation of public volition similar to those in the United States. In order to complicate the picture even more, we must admit that the Catholic Church now forms the largest religious community in the United States and is resolutely on the side of Catholic identity in its life of faith. Regarding the relationship between church and state, however, American Catholics have embraced the traditions of the free churches, in the sense that a church clearly separate from the state constitutes a better guarantee for the moral foundations of everything.

Therefore, the democratic ideal appears as a moral duty in profound alignment with the faith. There are ample grounds for interpreting such a position as an updated continuation of the aforementioned model sustained by Pope Gelasius.

Let’s return to Europe. The two models illustrated earlier were joined by a third one in the 19th century; that is to say, socialism, soon subdivided into totalitarian socialism and democratic socialism. Beginning from its point of departure, democratic socialism was able to enter the mainstream of the two existent models as a healthy counterweight to radical liberal positions, both enriching and correcting them. Here, as well, it turned out to be something above and beyond confessions: in England it was the political party of Catholics, who didn’t feel comfortable in either the Protestant-conservative camp or the liberal party. In Wilhelm’s Germany the Catholic “center” felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly conservative Prussian and Protestant forces. In many ways, democratic socialism was, and is, close to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and, in any case, did contribute quite a bit to the formation of a social conscience.

The totalitarian model of socialism, however, went hand in hand with a rigidly materialistic and atheistic philosophy of history. History, in this model, is understood deterministically as a process of progress passing through the religious phase to the liberal one, in order to reach the absolute and definitive society, where religion is transcended as a relic of the past and the correct interplay of material conditions can guarantee the happiness of all. The apparent scientific basis of this approach, however, conceals an intolerant dogmatism: spirit is produced by matter; morals are produced by circumstances and are to be both defined and practiced in keeping with the aims of society; everything which helps to foster the advent of the final and felicitous state is moral. The overturning of the values which had constructed Europe is complete here. Moreover, here is a complete rupture with respect to the overall moral tradition of humankind. No longer are there such things as values independent from the pursuits of progress. At a given moment in time, everything can be permitted and even necessary, can be “moral” in the new sense of the word. Man, as well, can become an instrument. The individual counts for nothing at all and the future becomes the one and only terrible divinity deciding every thing for everyone.

In the meantime, the Communist systems had run aground and sunk on the reefs of their false economic dogmatism. However, people all-too-readily overlook the fact that they sank, even more deeply, due to their scorn for human rights, for their subordination of morals to the requirements of the system and its promises of a glorious future. The real catastrophes they left in their wake are not economic in nature, but rather the drying up of the soul, the destruction of moral conscience. In this I see an essential problem for Europe and the world at large.

Old line Communists admit the extent of their economic failures and that’s why they’ve all become economic liberals. And yet the moral and religious issue that constitutes the very core of the problem is almost completely swept aside. Therefore, the problem left behind by Marxism is still with us in the dissolution of man’s primordial certainties about God, himself and the universe. The dissolution of the awareness of intangible moral values is once again our problem right now and could lead to the self-destruction of the European conscience. Apart from Spengler’s vision of cultural decline, we have to begin looking upon this as a real danger.

This brings us face to face with the following question: how must things forge ahead? In the violent upheavals of our time is there an identity of Europe with hopes of a future? An identity for which we can commit ourselves, heart and soul? I am not prepared to delve into a detailed discussion on the future Constitution of Europe. I would just like to indicate the constituent moral elements which, in my opinion, should be included.

A first element is the “unconditional manner” in which human dignity and human rights must be presented as values preceding any and all forms or expressions of state jurisdiction. These fundamental rights are not created by lawmakers, not are they conferred by citizens, “but rather exist by proper law, are always to be respected by lawmakers and are given to them beforehand as values of a superior order.” This validity of human dignity prior to any political deed and any political decision ultimately evokes the Creator. Only He can establish values based on the intangible essence of man. The fact that there are values which may not be manipulated by anyone is the real and true guarantee of our freedom and of human greatness. The Christian faith sees in this the mystery of the Creator, and the condition of the image and likeness of God which He has conferred upon man.
Nowadays, practically no one would directly contest the precedence of human dignity and fundamental human rights with respect to any political decision; all too recent are the horrors of Nazism and its racial policy. In the concrete area of the so-called progress of medicine, however, there subsist very real threats for these values: when we think of things such as cloning, or the conservation of human fetuses for purposes of research and organ donation, or the vast field of genetic manipulation, the slow consumption threatening human dignity cannot be disregarded by anyone at all. Added to this, in ever-increasing magnitude, is the trafficking of human beings, the new forms of slavery, the trafficking of human organs for transplants. Ever trumpeted are “good ends” in an effort to justify what can in no way be justified.
Regarding sectors such as these, the Charter of Fundamental Rights does enshrine a series of firm points which deserve applause. Regarding important points, however, the draft of the Constitution is still all too vague, while hanging in the balance there is the principle at stake and its seriousness.
In summary, inscribing the value, dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity of man in the basic affirmations of democracy and rule of law implies an image of man, a moral option and an idea of law, all of which are by no means obvious, but which are fundamental factors in the identity of Europe; an identity which should be guaranteed likewise in the concrete consequences of those factors and which can be defended only if there is a corresponding moral conscience formed, over and over again.
A second important point revealing the identity of Europe concerns marriage and the family. Monogamist marriage as the fundamental structure between man and women, as well as the basic cell in the foiniation of the state community, was forged on the basis of the Biblical faith. This is what bestowed upon both Western and Eastern Europe its particular countenance and humanness, also and precisely because the form of fidelity and sacrifice projected therein always had to be gained anew with great hardship and suffering. Europe would not be Europe if that basic cell of its social edifice were to disappear or be altered in any essential way. The Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates the right to marriage, but fails to express any juridical and moral protection for it and doesn’t even define it in more precise terms. And we all know, the extent to which marriage and the family are threatened — on the one hand by the emptiness inflicted upon their indissolubility through increasingly easier forms of divorce and, on the other, by an increasingly widespread form of behavior involving domestic partnerships between men and women without any legal form of marriage.
In glaring contrast with all that is the request for the life communion of homosexuals, who, rather paradoxically, are now asking for a legal form which should be tantamount to marriage. Such a trend or propensity takes us completely outside the confines of the moral history of humankind, which, despite all kinds of juridical forms of matrimony, always knew that marriage in its essence is the special communion of man and woman open to offspring and hence to the family. It is not a matter of discrimination here, but rather the question of what is the human person insofar as man and woman. as well as how the “being together” of man and woman may receive a juridical form. If, on the one hand. their being together draws farther and farther away from juridical foi ns and, on the other, a homosexual union is increasingly considered as being of the same status as marriage, then we are face to face with a dissolution of the very image of man, whose consequences cannot but be extremely grave.
My final point has to do with the religious issue. I wouldn’t want to get involved in the complex debates so recurrent over the past few years, but rather highlight just one aspect fundamental for all cultures: respect for what is sacred for someone else: most especially, respect for sacredness in the loftiest sense, respect for God. If this respect fails to be observed, something essential in society is lost. In society at present, thanks be to God, whoever dishonors the faith of Israel, its image of God and its great personages is liable to punishment in the form of a fine. The same applies to anyone who publicly insults the Koran and the fundamental tenets of Islam. When it is a matter of Christ and what is sacred for Christians, however, freedom of opinion emerges as the supreme good and any limitation thereof is said to threaten or even destroy tolerance and freedom in general. And yet this is exactly where we see the limit of freedom of speech: it may not destroy the honor and dignity of anyone else. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to voice falsehoods or destroy human rights.
Here in the West there is a strange form of self-hate we can only consider pathological. Yes, in a rather praiseworthy manner, the West does strive to be open in full to the comprehension of external values, but it no longer loves itself. All it sees in its own history is what is disgraceful and destructive, while it no longer seems able to perceive what is great and pure. In order to survive, Europe needs a new, critical and humble acceptance of itself; but only if it really wishes to survive. The multi-culturalism now being encouraged and fostered with such passion comes across at times as mostly an abandonment and denial of what is one’s own, a sort of flight from self.
Multi-culturalism, however, cannot subsist without shared constants. without points of reference based on one’s own values. Part thereof involves reaching out with respect to elements sacred for others, but we may do this only if the Sacred One, God, is not extraneous to us.
We obviously can and must learn from what is sacred in the eyes of others, but before others and for others it is our duty to nurture respect within ourselves for what is sacred and reveals the face of God which has been revealed to us: the face of the God who has mercy on the poor and the weak, widows and orphans, foreigners; the face of the God who is so human that He Himself became man, a man who by virtue of His own suffering bestowed dignity upon distress and filled it with hope.
We would be denying the identity of Europe if we do not do this, but we would also fail to accomplish a service to others, which they have a right to receive from us. In the eyes of the cultures of the world, the absolute profanity gradually assuming form in the West is something profoundly alien. These cultures are convinced that a Godless world has no future. Therefore, multi-culturalism itself summons us to return within ourselves.
We have no idea how things will evolve in Europe. The Charter of Fundamental Rights may be a first step, a sign Europe is once again consciously seeking its soul. In this sense we have to agree with Toynbee that the destiny of a society always depends on creative minorities. Believing Christians should look upon themselves as such a creative minority and help Europe espouse once again the best of its heritage, thereby being at the service of humankind at large.

Leave a comment

Filed under Western Civilization

2008: Panic at "No on 8": Prop. 8 still trails, but margin narrows / San Francisco Chronicle

This report, worded as favorably of gay marriage as possible because of its origination in the San Francisco Chronicle, still clearly reveals the opposition to Prop 8’s panic, and with good reason. The fact is that, in Proposition 22, the Yes vote in the election surpassed the final poll by 8 percent, and by 15 percent among our wonderful Catholic brothers and sisters, who have a stronger conscience against destroying the civilization that they substantially created and preserved in the ballot booth than they do when called by pollsters who treat those who are against gay marriage with disdain.


The pattern of many undecideds automatically voting “NO” on Proposition Measures is real (and a stupidly-arbitrary power in the hands of the politicians who assign Proposition numbers). But if our opponents are counting on it helping this time, a larger factor comes into play when the subject is a law or amendment banning gay marriage; in those cases, without fail, a type of Bradley effect makes it so that a sizable percentage of people who told pollsters they would permit it, and then vote to ban it. Thus our glee among Proposition 8 supporters, and the meltdown and panic from the opponents.

Pastors, Priests, and Rabbis will be encouraging people to vote one way or the other. Because of the growth of conservative Evangelicals, Catholics, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian (Chinese, Korean, and Filippino), Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics coming here from predominantly Muslim countries where they are being persecuted and killed, and orthodox Jews, who will be suggesting a YES vote, and the shrinking to the point of disappearance of their liberal counterparts who will be suggesting a NO vote, the demographics have caught up with you. 2008 is the turning point between Secularists and Conservative Religionists, in California, in the United States, and starting now, in the rapidly-declining Europe, Canada, and Australia.


See the original of this article in the San Francisco Chronicle at this link.

thanks much,
Steve St.Clair
Prop. 8 still trails, but margin narrows
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2008

The struggle over Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in California, has tightened dramatically in the past month, with opponents holding a slim 49 to 44 percent edge among likely voters, according to a new Field Poll.

“The ‘Yes’ campaign has raised some doubts and moved people over to their side,” said Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director. “A relatively large segment of voters are in conflict over this measure.”

But the same-sex marriage battle is the top California issue on the ballot and the new poll suggests the final margin could be razor thin, with victory within reach for either side.

Opponents of Prop. 8 saw their 17-point lead in the September Field Poll melt away in the face of a multimillion-dollar onslaught of TV ads, leaving them hanging on desperately to their lead.

They still have a lead, however, with Prop. 8 supporters running out of time.

“I like the fact that the ‘Yes’ side is stuck in the mid-40s,” said Steve Smith, political consultant for the opposition effort. “The other side is clearly having trouble crossing the 50 percent barrier.”

History suggests that Prop. 8 supporters have a tough road ahead, DiCamillo said.

“Undecided voters in proposition races tend to come down on the ‘No’ side,” he added. 

But Prop. 8 supporters were pleased with the new numbers.

“We’re moving in the right direction,” said Chip White, a spokesman for Yes on Prop. 8. “Momentum is clearly on our side in what’s going to be a close race.”
The poll showed just how divided voters are over same-sex marriage. Sixty-five percent of likely voters agreed that traditional marriage is “one of the cornerstones of the country’s Judeo-Christian heritage” and 50 percent agreed that Prop. 8 restores the institution of traditional marriage without taking domestic partnership rights from gay or lesbian couples.

But 61 percent also agreed that Prop. 8 would deny one class of citizens “the dignity and responsibility of marriage” and 58 percent believe that domestic partnership laws don’t give same-sex couples “the same certainty and security that marriage laws provide.”

With individuals forced to deal with their own conflicting views on the same-sex marriage issue, “voters are giving this a much more nuanced look” in the days before the election, DiCamillo said.

The poll found that 22 percent of those surveyed already have voted and that this group backed Prop. 8, 50 to 44 percent. But the early voters are older and somewhat more conservative than those who will cast ballots at the polls, DiCamillo said.

Voters 65 and older is the only age group that supports Prop. 8, while people in California’s populous coastal region oppose the measure, 54 to 39 percent.

Minority groups, expected to come out strongly for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday, could play a key role in the Prop. 8 vote. Latino voters are split almost evenly, 46 to 48 percent, on the measure, while black voters back the same-sex marriage ban, 49 to 43 percent.

Catholics, who make up nearly a quarter of likely voters, also could make a difference, DiCamillo said. Catholics opposed Prop. 8 by a 48 to 44 percent margin, but that’s down from 55 to 36 percent a month ago.
When the Proposition 22 same-sex marriage ban was on the ballot in 2000, Catholics were split almost evenly in the final pre-election poll, DiCamillo said. But exit polls showed Catholics actually voting for Prop. 22 by 15 points.

“The Sunday before the election could be important, since people may hear priests and ministers preaching against same-sex marriage,” he said.


The survey is based on a telephone poll of 966 likely voters, taken between Oct. 18 and 28. Polls on ballot measures other than Prop. 8 were divided into random subsamples of 481 and 485 likely voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points in the overall sample and plus or minus 4.6 percent in the subsets. 

E-mail John Wildermuth at

This article appeared on page B – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Leave a comment

Filed under Proposition 8

2008: Pope restates gay marriage ban after California Supreme Court Decision / Reuters

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is, in my opinion, exactly right on the issue of gay marriage and the evil of homosexual relationships. I would be in favor of them having less rights than full civil unions, and not able to adopt children in any case. The three taboo’s or bans on incest / poedophilia, adultery, and homosexuality that societies have always had and which in my opinion should have, have their best defense in an article by a Hoover Institution scholar , found on my blog at this link. 2003: The Libertarian Question: Incest, Homosexuality, and Adultery / Stanley Kurtz
Taboo’s are not on things that no one does; they are on things that too many people do, and that societies need to strongly discourage or the family breakdown destroys their successful operation as a society and their future.

See the original article on the Reuters News website at this link.

Thanks much,
Steve St.Clair

Pope restates gay marriage ban after California Supreme Court Decision
Fri May 16, 2008 10:22pm BST
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church’s position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.

Benedict made no mention of the California decision in his speech to family groups from throughout Europe, but stressed the Church’s position several times.

“The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions,” he said.

The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, “founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life”.

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages in a major victory for gay rights advocates that will allow homosexual couples to marry in the most populous U.S. state.

Last year, Italy’s powerful Catholic Church successfully campaigned against a law proposed by the previous centre-left government that would have given more rights to gay and unmarried couples.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is not sinful but homosexual acts are, and is opposed to gays being allowed to adopt children.

The California court found laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are at odds with rights guaranteed by the state’s constitution.

U.S. President George W. Bush, who is opposed to gay marriage, prayed “for the family” with the pope at the White House last month during the pontiff’s visit there.

Last year, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, made headlines with comments that critics said equated homosexuality with incest and paedophilia.

After he made the comments — which Bagnasco said were misunderstood — graffiti reading “Shame” and “Watch Out Bagnasco” appeared on the door of the cathedral in northern Genoa, where Bagnasco is archbishop.

The pope, who backed Bagnasco, will visit Genoa his weekend.

Opponents of gay marriage in the United States vowed to contest the ruling with a state-wide ballot measure for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

1 Comment

Filed under Same Sex Marriage, Strengthening Families

2008: Claims by No on Prop 8 grow more Desperate as Polling Numbers Sink /

See this original of this post of the Protect Marriage website at this link.

Thanks very much,

Steve St.Clair
Claims by No on Prop 8 grow more Desperate as Polling Numbers Sink
October 30, 2008
Contact: Chip White, 916-215-4392

SACRAMENTO— Polls continue to slide for No on Prop 8 Equity for All, as reports leak out that the campaign’s management structure is in utter disarray. A series of orchestrated, factually false press statements have been issued alleging the sky will fall if Proposition 8 passes on Tuesday.

“Clearly, this is nothing more than a floundering campaign grasping at straws to save its effort,” said Chip White, – Yes on 8 campaign spokesman. “It’s quite sad because those who are hurt most are voters.

We invited the No on Prop 8 campaign to debate Proposition 8 this weekend in a live, televised format, but it declined our invitation. If the No campaign is so confident in its arguments, why refuse the debate?”

Claims reporting Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools, to Proposition 8 will cause a high-tech brain drain, are being passed off as fact. These claims are nothing but noisy rhetoric and last minute campaign stunts aimed at confusing voters instead of educating them.

Claim One: Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools.
Truth: A few weeks ago children in a 1st grade class attended their teacher’s gay wedding in San Francisco on a school-organized field trip. The principal called it a “teachable moment.” That sure sounds like same-sex marriage instruction in schools.

This week kindergartners at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, CA, were

asked to sign pledge cards saying they would not use anti-LGBT language. Parents who felt their children were far too young for such a discussion, most at an average age of 5 who are just learning the basics of reading and writing, were not permitted to opt-out, but instead had to keep their children home from school.

As we have clearly demonstrated, California Education Code Section 51933 states schools “shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” According to the California Department of Education website, 96% of schools teach this curriculum. And under the Supreme Court’s ruling, current California law means teaching about marriage includes instruction on gay marriage. Thus, gay marriage is already part of the curriculum. Perhaps because of these simple facts, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell refuses to debate..

Claim Two: Proposition 8 would have no effect on a church’s tax-exempt status.
Truth: The No on 8 campaign used a classic lawyer trick, rolled out a group of lawyers yesterday to falsely state our concern about the impact of same sex marriage on religious freedoms, and then saying our concerns are false. For the record, the Yes on 8 campaign has never said that churches, acting as churches, would be forced to perform gay marriages. However, it is clear that where churches interact with the public square, in providing social services or even conducting business, their tax exempt status is at risk.

In one well publicized case, Catholic Charities in Boston ran adoption facilities that managed 700 cases since 1987, most involving children with special needs. Catholic Charities placed such children into parents in traditional marriages, according to their faith. After gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the state told Catholic Charities it had to place children with gay marriage couples as well. Faced with such a decision, Catholic Charities reluctantly decided to stop providing adoption services.

Another religious non-profit, Ocean Grove Campground in New Jersey, lost a portion of its tax-exempt status on a rental pavilion because it refused to rent the facility to a lesbian couple for a civil commitment ceremony.

Claim Three: Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians.
Truth: Under California’s current domestic partnership law, (Family Code Section 297), gay couples are awarded the same legal rights and privileges as married couples. California has the strongest civil union/domestic partnership law in the nation, and Proposition 8 does not take away any of those rights.

Claim Four: If Proposition 8 passes there will be a brain drain to gay-friendly Massachusetts.
Truth: Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for five years and California still remains the epicenter of technology, biomed and other science-based industries. If a “gay brain-drain” was going to happen, shouldn’t it have started 5 years ago?

“The claims being disseminated by the No on 8 campaign are preposterous,” said White, “and have no basis in fact. We realize the No on 8 has a new team that has to justify their hiring, but cheap campaign stunts and false claims do not serve the public.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Proposition 8

2008: Stoning Mormons for standing up for their values by funding Prop. 8 is Wrong / Manteca Bulletin

This is an outstanding reaction to people upset the the Latter-day Saints’ involvement in the Proposition 8 issue.

See the original of the article on the Manteca Bulletin website at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair
Stoning Mormons for standing up for their values by funding Prop. 8
Managing Editor
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The scariest thing about Proposition 8 isn’t what passage or failure to pass the measure will do.
It is the unrelenting attack on Mormons for having the courage to not just espouse their beliefs and values but to put their money where their principles are.
Mormons – unlike Catholics and others who are contributing to the campaign to pass Proposition 8 on Tuesday’s California ballot – are getting the Full Monty.
One such effort is the web site ran by those opposing Proposition 8 who are against the concept of marriage being strictly between a man and a woman. The site lists the name and hometown of every Mormon who has contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign.
The site is used by the Daily Kos – it definitely isn’t a conservative blog – as part of a campaign to look into the personal lives of those Mormons backing the measure. It has led to incidents such in San Jose where the Sundstrom family that exercised their right to donate to the campaign had two women parked in front of their home in a SUV that had “bigots live here” painted on the windshield.
In the early going, those adamantly opposed to Proposition 8 attacked all religious groups that had contributed money including the Catholic Church. But as the election draws closer, they are showing their true bias and denouncing only Mormons.
Anti-Prop. 8 groups have taken to calling for the denouncing of the church for supporting a measure that basically reflects their values. Gee, is anyone denouncing the opponents of Prop. 8 who fund that campaign for their actions reflecting their values?
There have been efforts afoot to have the IRS delve into the church’s tax status.The Mormons haven’t crossed the line. Even so, separation of church and state in the context of this nation’s founding wasn’t to prevent churches from being active in politics but to keep the state from creating a church such as Henry VIII did when he created the Church of England because the Pope wouldn’t change the tenets of the Catholic faith to fit his decrees.
Its not a good idea to have a government in control of secular and spiritual thoughts unless, of course, you loved the old USSR model. The only way those two can work in concert is to suppress the idea of individual freedoms. And when you’re doing that, you can’t just take away the right of religious freedom to make it work.
Even so, it’s a free country. Those who oppose Proposition 8 are free to harass and do what they want as long as they don’t cross the line. The goal of their campaign, obviously, is to make people fearful of expressing their views and doing so in the public arena that counts – elections.
Lecturing the Mormon Church, though, about the importance of the separation of church and state is like lecturing Jews about the dangers of totalitarian regimes.
The Mormons are historically the most persecuted religion in the United States.What brought down the wrath of Congress to pass a law going after the Mormons? Yes, polygamy was part of it but when push came to shove it was the entire faith that irked the powers that be.
The Mormons had been chased from New York and Illinois.
The church’s Relief Society – long before it was the fashion -campaigned for women’s rights. In 1870, Utah became the first state to give women the right to vote. The Mormon faith blossomed with one important caveat – not all Mormons by far were polygamists.
Congress in 1882 passed the Edmunds Act to outlaw cohabitation with more than one woman. President Arthur sent federal agents to Utah. In clear violation of the U.S. constitutional law forbidding de facto laws, all Mormons who practiced polygamy were disenfranchised, stripped of the right to vote and many jailed. Idaho in 1885 put in effect a loyalty oath requiring all residents to swear they opposed polygamy or any organization that taught it in order to vote to effectively disenfranchise all Mormons even if they didn’t practice polygamy.
Congress in 1887 passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act to break up the Mormon Church and seize all of its property. It required loyalty oaths from local officials, which kept even Mormons not practicing polygamy from holding office, and gave the government the say in what textbooks could be allowed in classrooms. Many thousands of Mormons were imprisoned.
Congress sent the U.S. Army to attack the Mormons. Why? Because 140 non-Mormon settlers – many who had abused local Indians – were massacred by the Indians at Mountain Meadows. Newspapers urged the government to invade Utah on the false assumption the Mormons were behind the attack.
Yes, the Mormon Church excommunicates gays.
Mormons in the 19th century – and by many today – aren’t cut slack for their faith and are painted with a wide brush. The church has never advocated the stoning of gays. And under Proposition 8, they are expressing their belief marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the church’s right as to the status of the openly gay in their own church. It’s call free association. It’s called freedom of religion.
Branding Mormons for the practice of polygamy that was abandoned over a hundred years ago by all but a handful of fringe former church members who believe they’re the true Mormons makes them an easy target in the mind of some.
It is no different, however, than those who bash gays on old premises and prejudices.Unless the highest court in this land or Congress itself makes it clear that it isn’t the case, the issue of defining a marriage is a right reserved to the states.
Bashing the Mormons for doing what is clearly legal within the framework of the laws of this land – campaigning to protect a marriage as they define it – is just plain wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Proposition 8

2008: Pro-family group ends McDonald’s boycott / Christian News

This is certainly the most productive, and the most effective, way to protect our civilization and our families: by hitting the companies involved where it hurts — their bottom line. I proudly participated in this action against McDonalds, and I’m certain I’m healthier for the change.
Tens of millions of conservative Christian and orthodox Jews eat a lot more hamburgers, watch a lot more movies, go to a lot more concerts, buy a lot more i-phones, do a lot more google searches, than almost any other group.

Doing this act, in concert with others, and TELLING THE STORES, RESTAURANTS, WHY YOU ARE DOING IT, will work wonders.

I can’t help but think that many family-values people will carefully note companies that have become hyper-active in the gay marriage movement and other attacks on families and children, and will act accordingly. For example, I will move my blog to WordPress when the election season is over.
See the original of this article on the website of the Christian Post at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair

Pro-family group ends McDonald’s boycott
by Eric Young, Christian Post
Posted: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 8:37 (BST)

Pro-family groups this week lauded the recent decision by McDonald’s to no longer support activists working to advance the homosexual agenda. “The Big Mac attack on family values is finally over,” exclaimed Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, to supporters Friday. “After a five-month boycott, Americans finally got what they ordered – McDonald’s agreement to stop financing the homosexual agenda.”
In late March, McDonald’s sparked controversy after the company’s vice president of communications joined the board of directors of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) – an organisation “dedicated to expanding the economic opportunities and advancements of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender/Transsexual (LGBT) business community.”
The American Family Association, in response, said that the move – combined with a $20,000 donation McDonald’s handed over to the NGLCC and the fast-food chain’s frequent and boastful support in sponsoring gay pride parades – was detrimental to pro-family causes and the sanctity of marriage.
The AFA requested McDonald’s to remove its name and logo from the NGLCC website and drop the vice president of communications’ endorsement of the organisation. When McDonald’s rebuffed the requests, AFA began asking its two million supporters to boycott the popular fast-food chain. “[T]he company has ramped up its support of the gay agenda and it leaves us no option but to call for a boycott,” said AFA Chairman Don Wildmon in a statement earlier this summer.
Whilst some criticised AFA’s efforts, accusing them of being “haters”, the pro-family group emphasised that the boycott was not about hiring homosexuals, or homosexuals eating at McDonald’s, or how homosexual employees are treated. “Our concern was: Here is a family-friendly company that has, all of a sudden, joined hands and became a partner and ally with an organisation that is absolutely attacking the moral foundation of our nation; trying to redefine marriage in our nation,” recalled Buddy Smith, executive assistant to AFA’s chairman.
“All we were asking is that they just simply be neutral in the culture wars and focus on doing their business and remain neutral,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times. Supporters of the boycott further noted that McDonald’s could have chosen to support efforts such as those against poverty, hunger or child abuse rather than controversial issues.
After the months-long boycott, McDonald’s eventually informed AFA of their decision to remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual “marriage”, reporting that they have no plans to renew their membership in NGLCC when it expires in December. Furthermore, in a September 23 memo revealed this week to AFA, the nation’s No 1 hamburger chain told franchised owners that its policy is “to not be involved in political and social issues”.
“McDonald’s remains neutral on same sex marriage or any ‘homosexual agenda’ as defined by the American Family Association,” the memo stated.
Following McDonald’s report to AFA, group chair Wildmon told supporters that the boycott of McDonald’s was ending. “We appreciate the decision by McDonald’s to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organisations,” he stated in his message on Thursday.
Earlier this year, AFA ended a two-year boycott of Ford Motor Co, saying the company had met most of its demands, which included ending donations to groups that support same-sex “marriage”. Other companies that have been the targets of AFA boycotts include 7-Eleven, the Walt Disney Company, and Abercrombie & Fitch. Most recently, on August 25, the AFA announced its boycott of Hallmark Cards for their decision to start selling same-sex wedding cards.


Filed under Same Sex Marriage, Strengthening Families