That Most Evil of Holidays

(A speech from a progressive politician in Anywhere, USA)

Attention, everyone! I have an announcement.

It’s that time of the year again—time for the most evil holiday on the calendar.

Christmas.

We must resume our annual battle to prevent the open celebration of Jesus’ birth. Our main point of attack will continue to focus on the notion that Christmas displays create hostile environments for non-believers. Playing the victim card continues to work well. We’ve been able to virtually eliminate Nativity scenes from the public sphere, and we’ve white-washed the term Christmas tree and replaced it with the conventional Holiday tree. Public schools have proven invaluable. Christmas concerts have been replaced by Winter Festivals. Children may sing about Kwanzaa and even Hanukkah, but the only "Christmas" songs allowed are those generic winter songs about sleigh-riding, Santa, and winter wonderlands.

What is that you’re saying in the back of the room? The majority of Americans want Christmas decorations publically displayed? Forget them. We who are offended by Jesus have the final say . . . even if there are only a limited number of us. When you have as many supporters in the judiciary as we have, the number of followers is irrelevant. If those Jesus Freaks want to celebrate his birthday then let them go to a church.

On to the next item: I have in my hand a few of the anti-Christmas strategies that have been put into effect by other towns around the nation. These are just two examples; there are many more that will be enacted over the next few weeks.

Last weekend the town of Patchogue, NY celebrated its 15^th annual boat parade. Formerly the Patchogue Christmas Boat Parade, the name was changed to the Patchogue Holiday Boat Parade because of "complaints that the use of ‘Christmas’ seemed to make the parade less inclusive". (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443785,00.html) Fireworks by Grucci withdrew their fireworks donation to protest the change, but so what? Getting rid of the word Christmas is what matters.

"Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) administration has banned all holiday decorations from common spaces on campus and canceled a popular greeting card design contest, which is being replaced by an ugly sweater competition. In Griffin Hall, the university's giving tree for needy preschoolers has been transformed into a ‘giving garden.’" (http://www.news-press.com/article/20081125/NEWS0104/811250380/1075 )

Pretty good, right?

Yes, yes. I understand you’re frustrated because you still have to confront those offensive decorations on people’s private property. Be patient. Think about how much we’ve accomplished in just the past 10 years. Eventually we’ll be able to concoct some law that your rights are being violated by the very sight of these hateful Christian symbols regardless of where they are displayed.

And remember to look at the total picture. Each year more people accept the minimizing of Christmas. We have succeeded in making them feel powerless to stop our onslaught. Plus, we are now rearing generations of children who are clueless as to how widespread the Christmas holiday once was. In another 20 years our followers will be legion.

Let’s meet again next week. We have much work to be done.

Donald Tremblay

Ecumenism Gone Wild

Once again we see the effects of ecumenism gone wild.

Last week as many as 20,000 Muslims attacked a Coptic Orthodox Church in Cairo, Egypt, yelling slogans such as “Islam is the solution” and “No God but Allah” (http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/egypt-thousands-protest-vandalize-church-17223/). Yet despite this latest example of Christian persecution in Muslim lands, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran–head of the Catholic Church's department for interreligious dialogue–“has thanked Muslims for bringing God back into the public sphere in Europe.” (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36765320081128)

Ecumenists like Cardinal Tauran ignore the injustices committed in the name of Islam, regurgitating the party line that radicals don’t represent the true Islam, that Islam is a peaceful religion. Well, regardless of whether this assertion contains any truth, and there are plenty of examples proving otherwise, the reality is that many of these radicals are the same European Muslims who Cardinal Tauran is thanking. In its July/August 2005 issue, Foreign Affairs magazine spelled out how deeply Europe is infested with these extremists:

Jihadist networks span Europe from Poland to Portugal, thanks to the spread of radical Islam among the descendants of guest workers once recruited to shore up Europe's postwar. . . . The emergence of homegrown mujahideen in Europe threatens the United States as well as Europe.

(http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84409/robert-s-leiken/europe-s-angry-muslims.html)

Ecumenists will argue that supporting Islam is necessary to combat the growing secularism that has overtaken Europe and is threatening to wipe religion from the continent. Yes, atheism is the greatest threat to the human race, as Nazism and Communism proved in the 20^th century; however, embracing the strategy that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is hypocritical--and hypocrisy disgusts the faithful and poisons their trust in Christ’s Church. It’s not coincidental that Christ continually addressed hypocrisy in his teachings. He recognized that a major reason why the children of Israel had turned away from God was because of the Pharisees’ insincerity.

Ironically, if the ecumenists continue along this path, they will be responsible for the very outcome they are fighting against: an irrelevant Church and a global rejection of Christ.

Donald Tremblay

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

It is no secret that a significant share of the USCCB (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) is composed of liberal bishops. These are men who were ordained in the 1960s and 1970s during the greatest social upheaval in American history. This societal tumult combined with the Second Vatican Council’s decision to open the doors of the Church to the world resulted in an entire generation of clergy ignorant to the instruction, “Be in the world, but not of the world”.

It was during this era that the American Church foolishly partnered with the rest of American society in embracing the progressive, morally relativistic, anti-hierarchical, “primacy of conscience” lifestyle promoted by the baby-boom generation. Since then our nation has found itself sliding headlong down an immoral slippery slope toward high abortion and divorce rates, increased violent crime among ever-younger children, and greater demands to expand our Culture of Death to include doctor-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research.

Yet, despite these horrific facts, liberal bishops still refuse to acknowledge the fallacy of their “enlightened” thinking. Worsening matters is that these leftist shepherds are many in number and their clout within the American Church is widespread. Last week Washington Times religion editor Julia Duin referenced the continued influence of this liberal branch of the Church in her column, “Double-Minded Bishops”. (http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/belief-blog/2008/Nov/11/double-minded-bishops/)
“As I have been covering the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops off and on since 1986, I've learned there are small ways of learning who is in and who is out, who is rising in status and who is losing power. One thing reporters have learned to look for is who wins or loses yearly elections as chairman of a variety of USCCB committees. I have noticed, strangely, that the most outspoken bishops on the pro-life issue always lose these elections.”

As examples Ms. Duin cites St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, who was rejected as chairman of the Committee for Canonical Affairs, and Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, who was by bypassed for the position of Washington See. What do the two men have in common? Burke “famously told Sen. John Kerry during his presidential run in 2004 not to try taking Communion in his diocese,” while Chaput “is another key bishop who has spoken out forcibly against pro-choice politicians.”

Some may argue that these men were “punished” not for what they said, but for the outspoken manner in which they said it. It’s possible, but I don’t believe it. Clearly cowards exist among bishops just as they exist among the general populace, and I’m sure there are also those clergy who don’t want to rock the boat out of fear that they’ll lose their comfy lifestyle.
But aside from these men there is also a large section of the USCCB who are at odds with “fire and brimstone” theology. Love everyone; make peace, not war; cast no stones; remember the beam in your own eye . . . and never, ever criticize anyone.
Ironically, anyone who disagrees with them is blackballed.

How pathetic. Bishops punished by their brethren for zealously defending Church teachings.
St. Peter must be furious.


Donald Tremblay

And So It Begins

And So It Begins

Despite being president-elect for less than two weeks, Barack Obama has already made it clear that he “plans to reverse an existing executive order against federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081110/sc_nm/us_stemcellresearch_shares_1) This decision should surprise no one. Over the years Obama has shown complete indifference to the lives of the unborn. Remember this is the same man who as a member of the Illinois State Legislature rejected the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) which “mandate[d] that all babies born alive receive immediate medical attention.” (http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29138) In comparison, when a similar bill was proposed to the House of Representatives in 2000, “no one, even those who had most staunchly supported abortion over the years, wanted to be on record as supporting what was, in effect, infanticide.” (See above link)
With his embryonic stem cell research plans revealed, expect him to next announce his intention to sign the granddaddy of all abortion rights legislation: the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). In July 2007 Obama told guests at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event that “the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." (http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/one_year_annive.html) According to Americans United For Life, below are some of the “550 federal and state laws” that will be nullified by FOCA:
· Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
· Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions)
· Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals
· Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal employees
· Informed consent laws
· Waiting periods
· Parental consent and notification laws
· Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
· Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
· “Delayed enforcement” laws (banning abortion when Roe v. Wade is overturned and/or the authority to restrict abortion is returned to the states)
· Bans on partial-birth abortion
· Bans on abortion after viability. FOCA’s apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman’s “health.” Within the context of abortion, “health” has been interpreted so broadly that FOCA would not actually proscribe any abortion before or after viability.
· Limits on public funding for elective abortions (thus, making American taxpayers fund a procedure that many find morally objectionable)
· Limits on the use of public facilities (such has public hospitals and medical schools at state universities) for abortions
· State and federal legal protections for individual healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions
· Legal protections for Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals who, while providing care to millions of poor and uninsured Americans, refuse to allow abortions within their facilities
(http://www.aul.org/FOCA)

Earlier I stated that Obama’s treatment of the unborn has been one of “indifference”. I was wrong. “Disdain” more accurately describes his treatment. The idea that a fetus is a human life is anathema to him, so much so that in response to the question, “When do babies get human rights?” he sarcastically answered, “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.” (http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29138) Interesting. It’s above his pay grade to know when a baby should get rights, but it’s not above his pay grade to deny a baby those rights. The hubris is sickening.
Considering his track record and his recent statements, it appears our president-elect is targeting the unborn.
I hope I am wrong; I fear I am not.

Donald Tremblay

Screening Out The Unborn

Now that Barack Obama has been elected president, Catholics can expect the battle to defend the unborn to be fiercer than ever. Feminist groups like NOW will demand legislation that removes all restrictions to abortion, and they will find a sympathetic ear in the White House. Pro-life supporters will need to join forces to withstand the onslaught, and one group whose assistance would prove invaluable is the medical community. Unfortunately, this group primarily has remained silent in defense of the unborn.

This realization struck me yesterday as I read the Wall Street Journal’s “Letters to the Editor” section. Two doctors had responded to an October 25 Wall Street Journal article entitled, “The Toughest Test”, which discussed how prenatal genetic testing is influencing parents’ decisions on whether to abort their children. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238185398776759.html) Below are the two doctors’ letters in their entirety:

· “For-profit companies that offer prenatal genetic testing services are shameful; they play upon the fears of expectant parents, gladly accept testing fees, and then leave these parents and their (ill-equipped) doctors to deal with the aftermath.

I loathe the day that my daughter shows up at her first prenatal visit, only to be handed a list of "diseases" to test for, just to make sure that "everything is OK with the baby." This represents a giant step backward for modern medicine. We should remember that it is genetic diversity that is essential for the survival of all species, including human beings.”

Timothy P. Madion, M.D.
Fellow, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Chief of Surgery
Munson Medical Center
Traverse City, Mich.

· As a physician who daily performs ultrasounds and has delivered many babies over the years, I read with sadness that physicians "tried, but failed to persuade" a couple to terminate a pregnancy that they felt wasn't worthy and that 80% of women choose to terminate their pregnancies after receiving a positive diagnosis of Down syndrome ("More Prenatal Testing Brings New Worries," Oct. 25).

As one who took the original Hippocratic oath that directs physicians to "first do no harm" and "never proscribe abortion," I find myself trying to persuade couples of the value of each human life whether disabled or not.

Prenatal testing itself may put a physician in material cooperation with the destruction of a human life whose future is uncertain. Let us give the unborn the benefit of life and support through possible cures or through hospice until natural death.

Mark Druffner, M.D.
Hudson, Wis.

Granted there are physicians who would disagree with the above assessments. Yet, I suspect there are many more who would agree but who remain silent.

Someone needs to remind them that the unborn cry out for their voices.

Donald Tremblay

THE REAL COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

We have been inundated with presidential campaign propaganda for well over a year. Over the past six months we have been told repeatedly that this is the most important election of our lifetime. And an Obama victory now means that Catholics will be facing unprecedented pressure to abandon the teachings of Christ and His Church. Make no mistake about it: we will be facing “dominions and principalities” empowered like never before in this nation’s history. We will all need to accept the mantle of “Soldiers of Christ”.

Yet despite the inevitable trials, we must not forsake Hope. If we truly believe in the Lord, then we cannot despair.

Perhaps the single most important article I’ve read on the presidential election and America’s future appeared on www.spiritdaily.com . It is only 13 lines in length and is titled, “No Matter Who Wins”. Here it is in its entirety:

Top 10 Predictions No Matter Who Wins the Election

1. The Bible will still have all the answers.

2. Prayer will still work.

3. The Holy Spirit will still move.

4. God will still inhabit the praises of His people.

5. There will still be God-anointed preaching.

6. There will still be singing of praise to God.

7. God will still pour out blessings upon His people.

8. There will still be room at the Cross.

9. Jesus will still love you.

10. Jesus will still save the lost.

ISN'T IT GREAT TO KNOW WHO IS STILL IN CONTROL?

(Amen!)

That says it all.

Donald Tremblay

Three-Card Monte, Anyone?

Shysters can be found in all religions and ethnicities. For ex., according to The Swazi Observer a Christian group called “God's Purposed Kingdom Ministries” is selling bottled water under the name “Jesus”. (http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=48184&section=Business) Themba Magongo, the co-director of the aforementioned ministry claims that the water “will not [just] quench your physical thirst but also meet the need of a soul.”

Ministry members insist that they distribute the 500 ml bottles to spread the Word of God; yet, one has to question their motives since this “miraculous” H20 is not freely offered to people, but instead sold for $0.50. This would be comparable to bottling the waters of Lourdes and selling it alongside Evian or Deer Park. When approached by fellow-Swazis about the difference between Jesus water and the traditional Swazi cleansing water (siwasho), Magongo responded, “My brother this is not siwasho. If you are a Christian you will understand this well. The Holy Spirit will tell you what this water is, but if you use your own understating you will get it all wrong and start to think this is siwasho”.

Perhaps “God's Purposed Kingdom Ministries” does truly want to spread the Word . . . but I find their intentions highly suspect, especially considering the part of the world they operate in. In 2005 the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) released the FAO Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture World Food Programme. In the report FAO revealed that “over the past decade, Swaziland has repeatedly experienced droughts or inadequate rainfall and resultant poor harvests.” (http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/J5512e/J5512e00.htm)

What better product than water to sell to people all too familiar with droughts? Offer them “holy” water and you not only sate their physical thirst, but their spiritual one as well.

Sorry, but this sounds like a scam.

Donald Tremblay