Torture and the Catholic Church

CCC 2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

I have been giving this subject a lot of thought lately. I have actually been thinking about it for a few years, but was a coming and going thought and with the rigors of daily life, I never sat down to read up on the teachings of the Church on the subject. I my heart I knew it was wrong, but so many people were in some ways “pro” torture, so I thought I was missing something. Turns out, the Church comes down on torture much harder than I realized.

I was reading up on the subject during my “quiet time” the other day and came across a blog and this post.

Positions of The Republican candidates on torture and related issues

It has been quite some time since I’ve posted anything on this blog; life has simply been busy, but I hope to remedy things as the 2012 election season heats up.

For today, I’d simply like to post the position of the various Republican candidates on the issue of torture/enhanced interrogation and related issues. I’m drawing my summaries from various sources, so I’ll include a selection of links at the bottom of the post.

The candidates are listed in alphabetical order.

Gingrich: Has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is something America shouldn’t do. Believes that Guantanamo should remain open until the terrorists disappear.

Huntsman: Opposes waterboarding; calls Guantanamo an “imperfect solution” but criticizes Obama for breaking his promise to close it.

Paul: Opposes torture and waterboarding as illegal and immoral; opposes Patriot Act; thinks Guantanamo should be closed.

Perry: Says he opposes torture but approves of enhanced interrogation which includes “any technique” used to save American lives. Supports keeping Guantanamo open.

Romney: Favors enhanced interrogation techniques and will not say whether waterboarding qualifies as such a technique. Has said Guantanamo could be doubled in size if needed.

Santorum: Voted to renew Patriot Act. Would continue using Guantanamo for terror suspects. Says that waterboarding is effective. Said John McCain didn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works, that the object is to break a man so he will become cooperative.

 

The current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI and our former Holy Father, Blessed John Paul II both addressed torture. In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI said,

“In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”

He was repeating what Blessed John Paul II wrote, in 2004,

In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

 

 

 

Filed under: Catholic, General Stuff, Social Commentary

A Link or two…(updated)

I saw this earlier today, but wanted to wait until I had a free moment to blog. Well my waiting paid off because someone else did my work for me 😉

For those who are only going to read this part: Santorum has no problem using your tax payer dollars to fund birth control. He was also on Greta and implied that the birth control pill was not an abortafaciet.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/02/17/santorum-defends-moral-versus-political-stance-contraception-while-caught-crossfire-super

If you are a Santorum supporter, you owe it to yourself to watch/listen to these.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/02/mr-catholic.html

So Rick Santorum does an interview with Hannity where he proudly declares that he votes to spend your dough on contraceptives and abortifacients (jump to the 9:05 mark).  (Note: the link has the audio clip)

Only he doesn’t say “abortifacients” because he tries to snow the audience that the Pill is not an abortifacient, only the “morning after” pill is. But, in fact, the Pill *is* an abortifacient. So Santorum has effectively voted to support abortion.

Meanwhile, that kerrrayyyzy Ron Paul strongly opposes federal funding for birth control. Why? Because it’s not the job of the Feds to provide birth control.

So we have a non-Catholic candidate who opposes compelling people to pay for what other people choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom, and we have a Catholic candidate who is “personally opposed” like Cuomo but who chooses to compel people (including Catholics) to pay for what other people do in the privacy of their bedroom, even when it includes abortifacients. He makes a show of opposing the morning after pill. But that’s not the only abortifacient.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Happily, Santorum is in the groove on the things that *really* matter to the GOP leadership–pre-emptive war, preserving the precious legacy of Bush era torture, and the sacred pre-eminence of corporate profits over the needs of human beings. So his private fetish about being semi-prolife is fine, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the real agenda. And since he’s already shown himself to be a good soldier when the party demanded he prostitute himself for Specter, we can be sure he won’t make a thing about abortion really. So he’ll be useful for suckering the prolifers back on to the reservation again.

I’m leaning back toward just voting third party and refusing to support either of these corrupt machines. Either way, Obama doesn’t get my vote, and I will not feel like I need a shower if I don’t vote GOP.

Filed under: General Stuff

Anniversary, Birthdays, and German Chocolate Cake

Last night we celebrated Joshua’s birthday. He isn’t big on his birthday but the kids would just die if we didn’t have cake 😉 Joshua likes German Chocolate cake so I found a recipe for and was very excited to try it out.

Here is Karol, waiting for the cake to be cut into. Pardon the drippy icing, I am still learning how to do cakes w/humidity (in February).

The cake after being cut into, it held up nicely!

Side view, doesn’t it look great!

On Thursdays, we go to 6pm Mass at our Parish. This means that we do not get back home until around 7 or so (last night was 745 b/c we stopped by Lowes). What we generally do is feed the kids before Mass then do bedtime routine when we get home and dinner after they are in bed. Last night, we did cake first, then made dinner for ourselves.

The other night Joshua talked about having a chicken sandwich, something we never have at home, mainly because I don’t buy boneless skinless chicken breasts. I do, however buy chicken thighs. I decided to try my hand at a chicken po-boy. I used a bread recipe I got from my friend Stefanie and kinda put the rest together from things I have seen on cooking shows.

Here is Joshua’s sandwich (well one of three or four that he ate!). He really enjoyed it. So much so that he kept complimenting me on them.

 (Oh, and the anniversary part? Nine years ago yesterday, I met Joshua.)

Filed under: Food, General Stuff

{pretty, happy, funny, real}

~ Capturing the context of everyday life ~

round button chicken

Today I am linking up with Like Mother, Like Daughter for {pretty, happy, funny, real}

{pretty}

IMG_20120216_101440.jpg

My beautiful children, a true blessing from God.

IMG_20120216_101418.jpg

{happy}

Nine years ago today, I met my husband, Joshua. It’s hard to believe we’ve known each other for that long!

{funny}

IMG_20120216_101206.jpg

This is not the day we met, but this is what he was wearing when we met. (a picture of a picture, sorry!)

(Long story made short: We met while I was discerning religious life and he was a religious brother. We became friends and that was it, until the first time we saw each other after he had discerned that he was not called to be a priest.  We knew that day that we would be married and were married a year and two months later, a year and a half from the day we met.)

{real}

 IMG_20120216_110705.jpg

The real beauty that came from the friendship that began nine years ago!
IMG_20120213_191138.jpg
Benedict watching Holy Baby – he covered himself up.
IMG_20120210_105620.jpg
They are really good friends.
Filed under: General Stuff

If I told you…(a guest post)

This is a guest post, submitted by Heath C, a liberty loving, pro-life man from Central Georgia. He also write over at I am the Grandchild. (For years we have heard, “we are writing checks that our grandchildren are going to have to pay.” Well I AM THE GRANDCHILD. That time is no longer generations away it’s now.)

If I told you that a person:

1. Voted to use tax payer money to fund Planned Parenthood (number one provider of abortions in America)
2. Voted to pass legislation used to criminalize and indicted Pro-Life peaceful protesters
3. Endorsed Pro-Abortion candidates over Pro-Life Candidates
4. Has voted in the past to federally fund contraception (birth control) 1

AND you consider yourself pro-life would you vote for that person?

Would you call that person a conservative or liberal?

Anyone want to take a guess at who this describes?

It’s probably not who you are thinking it is. People are probably quick to think of a “liberal” candidate/politician. Someone who has openly said they support a woman’s right to choose. Romney or Obama is a likely first thought.

Well you’d be wrong!

You would never consider it to be the person who casts himself as the “social” conservative, the most “prolife” candidate, or the defender of religious freedom. The person who is described above is Rick Santorum!

He has based his whole conservative image on social issues. Why? Well he knows that his record on fiscal issues, limited government, lower taxes, and privacy issues are liberal NOT conservative 2

So he has hung his hat on courting the Evangelicals and Catholic religious conservatives. He has pandered and catered his message to massage their ears! And they (I should say we because I am an Evangelical) have bought it!

However when you examine his record here is what you’ll find:

  • He voted for funding planned parenthood – His defense is that it was included in a much larger spending bill. Well herein is part of the problem. He is for spending in general. If he didn’t mind spending taxpayer money he would have voted no on that principle alone…but to go further if he was SO adamently prolife there is NO WAY he could vote for any spending bill that included funding Planned Parenthood. He will also try to say the money from the government doesn’t go toward abortions. Understand the term fungible and how it works. 3 Basically, if you only have $100 and you need gas but you also want groceries but you couldn’t afford both you are forced to make an either or decision (I like food I’d get food and walk). Now say I gave you $100 and tell you to get some food with my money. You can now afford things that you couldn’t before. You may not ever spend the money I gave you on gas but you are now able to afford gas. The same is the case with government funding of Planned Parenthood. Let alone the fact that the government is giving ANY support to ANY private organization at all…ESPECIALLY one that is providing services that are against the conscience of a large percentage of US citizens.
  • The legislation is The Abortion Clinic Access Bill 4 and Rick Santorum voted Yay. If he’s against abortion so much why in the world is he voting for access to the clinics? Furthermore, many prolife groups warned that this bill would be abused and end up getting peaceful demonstrators arrested. Well it has.5 If you are prolife do you want people to have access to clinics or have them closed down? I am confused.
  • Does the name Arlen Specter ring a bell? It should. He was a liberal prochoice Republican from the same state as Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania. There was a more social and fiscal conservative choice (Pat Toomey) that was in the Republican primary in 2004 against Specter. Santorum, however, endorsed the liberal prochoice candidate. WHAT? Why would a prolife candidate endorse a prochoice candidate if prolife issues are so important to him? Specter won in a close election less than 1%. Here’s more fuel to the fire. Specter later switched to the Democratic Party and cast a crucial vote in the Senate to pass Obamacare. Oh and by the way Toomey may sound like a familiar name to you now because he beat Specter and the democrats in 2010 mid-term elections.6 Imagine if Santorum had endorsed Toomey could that have affected less than 1% to feel comfortable with Toomey over Specter? Now ask yourself, would Toomey have voted for the 1st Amendment trampling (forcing Religious institutions to provide contraception to their employees) and the abortion funding Obamacare? The answer is NO! Santorum essentially helped Obama get through his healthcare legislation by supporting Specter.
  • He previously voted to continue funding for Title X…which funded contraception. Title X is the only existing federal grant program that is completely devoted to providing comprehensive family planning and other related preventive health services to individuals.7

I could keep writing on all the other anti-gun legislation, Endowment of the Arts etc but you get the picture by now.

Here’s my point if he wasn’t so spend happy he never would have indirectly, THOUGH knowingly, voted for Planned Parenthood or Title X. If he was really wanting Abortion clinics closed not easier access; he wouldn’t vote for legislation that leads to the prosecution of peaceful protesters. AND if he was the conservative prolife politician he casts himself has he wouldn’t vote for these OR endorsed Specter out of conscience. Santorum has no problem spending money even when the bills contain pro-death appropriations.

The truth is he is a big government spending Republican who is neither consistent on Fiscal conservatism nor Social conservatism. He isn’t against over spending just Democrats overspending. If and when it’s Republican deficits and debt ceiling increases he doesn’t mind spending. 6 out of 7 times while in Congress he voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling.8

We have a candidate who has NEVER voted for raising taxes, unbalanced budgets, or spending increases. Who has also NEVER voted for funding Planned Parenthood, Title X, did not vote for the Access to Abortion Clinics bill OR endorsed Pro-Choice candidates.

In this election we don’t have to make the often vexing decision between social conservative vs. fiscal conservative. We have a candidate that embodies BOTH.

RON PAUL!

RON PAUL has introduced a bill in the Congress that would effectively end Roe vs. Wade with a simple majority of votes and a presidential signature. The Sanctity of Life Act would return jurisdiction to the states and overturn Roe vs. Wade. This bill would save millions of lives immediately while we work on a Constitutional amendment and/or getting judges in place to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The changes at the Federal level are still years away…and difficult (that’s part of the problem of big centralized government. It is difficult to change once something is enacted.) Why not do stop gap measures in the meantime until the latter is accomplished. Most states would vote to make abortions illegal and immediately end them. WE DEFINITELY wouldn’t have all the states funding abortions!9

Ron Paul is the conservative option to Rick Santorum…on both SOCIAL and FISCAL issues!

1 http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10549-santorum-voted-to-subsidize-abortion-planned-parenthood

 

Filed under: General Stuff

Just so you know…

…there are more than a few people out there upset with Mr. Santorum’s voting record.

Mr. Bill Greene, from Georgia, wrote this in response to Georgia Right To Life’s endorsement of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

Georgia Right to Life’s PAC has announced their endorsements in the Republican Presidential Primary.

THEY BLEW IT.

In their endorsement announcement, they stated: “Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum today received the endorsement of the Georgia Right to Life Political Action Committee (GRTL PAC)… [GRTL President Dan] Becker noted that both Gingrich and Santorum have signed the ‘Personhood Pledge.’ In it, they agree to support a personhood amendment to the U.S. and state constitutions. Such an amendment would guarantee a constitutional right to life for every human being, from the moment of conception until natural death.”

They went on to say, “The organization did not endorse Governor Mitt Romney or Congressman Ron Paul because of their compromise on life issues. Referring to Romney and Paul, Crozier said ‘Governor Romney still supports abortion in the case of rape and incest, and Congressman Paul recently indicated in certain cases, he does as well.’ While Congressman Paul did sign the personhood pledge his recent interview on CNN invalidates his claim, Governor Romney has publicly declined to sign any prolife pledge.”

Well, at least they got it right on Romney, the “father of the $50 state-funded abortion” in Massachusetts. But they blew it on Santorum and Gingrich — and they REALLY blew it on Paul.

Rick Santorum is not only NOT conservative on issues of limited government and following the Constitution; his claims to be “pro-life” fall short as well. As a United States Senator, Santorum voted to subsidize Planned Parenthood with federal taxpayer subsidies:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10549-santorum-voted-to-subsidize-abortion-planned-parenthood

Santorum also voted to federally prosecute peaceful pro-life protestors demonstrating outside abortion clinics:

http://thenewamerican.com/culture/family/7374-doj-targets-pro-life-activists

And let’s not forget how he repeatedly endorsed pro-abortion candidates over pro-life candidates, such as former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Santorum-Haunted-Pro-abortion-Specter/2011/12/31/id/422684

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10562-evangelical-leaders-endorse-qtrue-conservativeq-santorum

Sorry, GRTL: those are NOT pro-life positions. They’re not even conservative, Constitutional positions. You blew it on Rick Santorum.

As for Newt Gingrich, whom you also endorsed, he claims that he had a solidly pro-life voting record while he was in Congress. Well, so does Ron Paul; in fact, he almost always scored a big fat ZERO PERCENT with NARAL, one of the leading pro-abortion groups in the nation. At their http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/ website, they wrote about Paul, “During his years in Congress, Rep. Paul voted 106 times on choice-related issues. Ninety-three of those votes were anti-choice. On the occasions he voted pro-choice, Paul often made speeches on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to explain why and to reaffirm his anti-choice views.” (I’m sure you understand that “anti-choice” is the pro-aborts’ term for “pro-life”.)

And let’s not forget that Paul introduced legislation that would have REVERSED Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through his “We the People Act.” AND that he introduced legislation, the “Sanctity of Life Act,” defining life as beginning at conception.

Paul’s signing of the “Personhood Pledge” is consistent with his strong pro-life stance, as laid forth at http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/ where he states that his “experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception.” But Georgia Right to Life says that Paul’s pledge and clear beliefs are “invalidated” by his one interview on CNN, where he stated that, as a strong pro-life obstetrician, he believed that giving a rape victim an immediate contraception is acceptable because there’s absolutely no scientific or medical way to know if a baby was conceived during the rape.

Really, GRTL? That’s why you didn’t endorse Paul – because, despite clearly stating his belief that life begins at conception, you felt that this statement shows that somehow, he isn’t really pro-life?

THEN HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR YOUR ENDORSEMENT OF GINGRICH?

Gingrich goes much further than you purport Paul does on this issue of when life begins: He doesn’t even believe life begins at conception, despite signing the Pledge:

GINGRICH BELIEVES LIFE BEGINS AT “IMPLANTATION”:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/12/02/gingrich_life_begins_at_implantation_not_conception How do you justify endorsing Gingrich, who would obviously agree with the idea that giving a rape victim an immediate contraception is acceptable — SINCE LIFE BEGINS AT IMPLANTATION, in his mind — but you reject Paul?

My friends at Georgia Right to Life, YOU BLEW IT. You endorsed Rick Santorum, who voted to subsidize Planned Parenthood with federal taxpayer subsidies, voted to federally prosecute peaceful pro-life protestors demonstrating outside abortion clinics, and repeatedly endorsed pro-abortion candidates over pro-life candidates; you endorsed Newt Gingrich, who believes that life begins at “implantation,” NOT at conception; and you rejected Ron Paul, a 100% consistent pro-life obstetrician who introduced legislation that would reverse Roe v. Wade, has delivered over 4,000 babies, and believes life begins at conception.

My recommendation? Retract your endorsements altogether — and stay out of the presidential primaries this year. Let’s save babies right here in Georgia.

Filed under: General Stuff

This Week in Saints

This week there are only two saints on the calendar in the United States, St. Cyril, Monk and St. Methodious, Bishop. The Collect from the Mass on Tuesday, the Feast of St. Cyril and St. Methodoious:

“Father, you brought the light of the Gospel to Slavic nations through St. Cyril and his brother St. Methodius. Open our hearts to understanding your teaching and help us to become one in faith and praise. Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.”

Brothers, Sts. Cyril 827–869 and Methodious  827–885 are celebrated for brining the message of Jesus to the Slavic worlds, starting first with Morovia (current Czech Republic) in 842. There until 856, they perfected the Cyrillic alphabet then translated both the bible and the liturgy.

In 867 the two brothers came to Rome, were met by Pope Hadrian II (867-872) and the whole papal court. They gave a report of their labors but encountered opposition on the part of jealous clergy who took offense, it was said, because of their liturgical innovations. Cyril and Methodius explained their methods and from the Pope himself received episcopal consecration (868). Soon after, Cyril died at Rome, only forty-two years old, and was buried in St. Peter’s; later his body was transferred to San Clemente, where his remains still rest. His funeral resembled a triumphal procession. (From catholicculture.org)

St. Methodious went back to Moravia and continued his mission of spreading the Gospel to the Slavic people. He was called back to Rome at some point to defend his use of the Slavic language during the liturgy. At that time, the Pope made him an archbishop and he returned to Moravia. There he continued to convert Slavic people, including the Duke of Bohemia and his wife. Legend has it that he travelled as far as Moscow and erected the diocese of Kiev. He returned to Bohemia and died in 885. When he was buried, the funeral liturgy was held in Latin, Greek, and Slavic.

They were made co-Patrons of Europe, along with (our beloved) St. Benedict of Norcia, by Blessed John Paul II in 1980.

To celebrate this great feast, you can: make (and feast on)  španělské ptáčky, Pierogi, dumplings or even an apple strudel. Also, take a moment to learn about the Slavic people and the persecution they experienced under Communism. Pray for the conversion of all Slavic people to the truth of the Gospel.

Sts. Cyril and Methodious are patrons of: Bohemia; Bulgaria; Czech Republic; Czechoslovakia; Europe; Moravia;  Yugoslavia;  ecumenism;  and unity of the Eastern and Western Churches.

Filed under: General Stuff, this week in saints

Potty Training

Seeings as God sees fit to make me wait for another child (I am learning to be patient and trust in God’s will, even when it comes to the “I want another child” side of fertility…no charting either way) we are getting a move on potty training Benedict.

I usually put a snap diaper or training pants on him during the day. Yesterday, during a trip to T.arget, I purchased him some more training pants, ones with cute little dinosaurs on them. We put them on him today and he seemed to do pretty well, accidents left and right, but it is more the point that we learn his cues for bathroom needs.

I learned one of them this afternoon. If he crawls all over me and tries to sit on my lap, remove anything in his way and sit in the middle of my belly/chest, that means he is poopy.

Thanks Benedict.

I am looking forward to having him potty trained though. We don’t put time limits on the kids and we are content with however long it takes and are more than willing to deal with the messes, so I know this may be a long road.

*As a side, it is COLD here in South Georgia. We have a hard freeze warning for tonight and tomorrow. Guess who did their out door planting and has little seedlings to go cover up tonight. I might actually turn the heat pump on tonight to keep the house warm.

Filed under: General Stuff

FYI

I just want all my readers to know that I write this blog and I approve all content before things are posted. Joshua, my husband, has posted only one time on this blog and I asked him to do so.

I received this comment on my blog, in response to a post I wrote :

 

Joshua, I feel so sorry for you small-minded haters. You certainly aren’t following the teachings of Christ by going around judging and bashing good men like Rick Santorum. You give Ron Paul all sorts of room to double-back on his word. You insist that the readers see what Ron Paul “really meant” by twisting his words to fit your agenda, yet you don’t give any room for explanation with Rick Santorum. He is a good, Catholic man. He is, as the rest of us (yourselves excluded of course), on a journey to the truth. Aside from the Facemyers, the rest of us are not perfect and don’t have ALL the answers to EVERYTHINNG. We are learning and growing in our faith – not perfectfly formed. You people need to stop the self-righteous hate campaign you have going against anyone who remotely disagrees with you. It’s ugly, anti-Christian and sad. This used to be a nice blog to read before Joshua turned it into his personal soapbox of hateful assaults. Man up, respect your wife and let her get back to sharing the beauty of motherhood with us. We are sick of your political views.

 

This is my response to it (in addition to the one my husband has posted as a reply to the comment, as it attacked the both of us):

How are we haters? When, in any of my posts, have I said anything other than that facts to be considered?

Am I going around bashing and judging good men (and by this we all know it means Santorum)? No, I am simply putting out his own words and trying to figure out: How is he considered the best pro-life candidate? and How is he in line with the teachings of the Church regarding just war?

I have never once in any of my posts “twisted” Dr. Paul’s words to make him sound better or to fit my desires of what I want him to be.

I too am on a journey for truth. I am also tired of being lied to. I am tired of candidates standing up and saying they are pro-life, then voting to fund organizations like planne.d paren.thoo.d. For example, just last night, I was reading up on bills that Dr. Paul and Rick Santorum have voted on. (Yes, I do things like that, cause I am a political geek.) While my research on the subject is not completed yet, I did discover that George W. Bush increased funding for Title X and signed budgets over his years in office that continued that funding. I was horrified. I campaigned for that man, I voted not once, but 3 times for him (Michigan Primaries 2000, General Election 2000 and in the General Election of 2004.) While I wasn’t a fan of him by the time 2004 rolled around (mainly because of the war in Iraq) I voted for him because I thought he was a pro-life (in terms of abortion) man who would defend life in our country. Now I just want to shower and get the 12 hours I spent making phone calls and working a meet and greet and my three votes back.

As far as getting an explanation for Santorum, how does one justify saying: “On occasion, if scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead I think that is a wonderful thing. I think we should send a very clear message, if you are a scientist… working on nuclear weapons, you are not safe”. And how does one justify, really justify, voting for a budget that has funding for PP in it? Doesn’t that just insult all of us who have prayed in front of clinics, prayed rosaries, held rallies, working for the protection of the most innocent lives?

I am far from perfect, by the way; ask my husband, ask my children, ask my confessor, ask God. (Go ahead, I give you permission.) Again, I am on the search for truth. I am not perfectly formed in my faith either, that is why I work hard and pray for direction from God. I seek counsel of good, holy priests and ask hard questions. When on retreat last month, I asked our retreat master if he could talk to me about just war, I posed questions and he answered them. I learned a bit but over all I was confirmed in the knowledge that we cannot go around hurting/attacking other people, we are not allowed to preemptively attack a country because they might be doing something bad. And yes, this priest was solid, not wishy washy, not liberal, just a good solid priest.

I am hurt that anyone would think that I have a “self-righteous hate campaign” toward anyone who disagrees with me. You know me, you know I am not that kind of person, nor is Joshua.

“This used to be a nice blog to read before Joshua turned it into his personal soapbox of hateful assaults. Man up, respect your wife and let her get back to sharing the beauty of motherhood with us.” This is probably the most laughable, and sad, line. If you look at my posts you will see that I seldom post about politics and often post about the children and our activities. If you do the math, in the past six months 13.6% of my posts have been about Dr. Paul or Rick Santorum, hardly anything to get that upset about.

Also, as I said in the first line, I write my own posts. Furthermore, the person who wrote this hid behind a fake name and email address, so if we do want to talk about manning up, use your real name and information, or, since you know us, send an email or a letter or call us. Finally, are you saying that I am not allowed to have a mind or thoughts of my own? That if I am doing something other than diapers, folding laundry or making dinner, that must come from Joshua and not me? That is just insulting.

“We are sick of your political views”. Interestingly, I have had people thank me, both here  and  here and via email/facebook for standing up and speaking my mind about Dr. Paul and against candidates who are not what they say they are.

Lastly, let me say that I am not the only person who has noticed this and who is standing up against the idea that Santorum is the most pro-life candidate out there. Many people in the pro-life movement here in Georgia find it insulting that Santurum was endorsed, along with Gingrich, by the Georgia Right to Life group. This isn’t a campaign by us Facemyers to bash or judge Rick Santorum, it is a campaign for me (Beth Facemyer) to get people to wake up to the fact that Rick Santorum is not all he claims to be.

 

Filed under: American Liberties, General Stuff, Social Commentary