tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.comments2022-04-30T06:37:52.815-05:00StraightDopeJohn F Robinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-7202044544350962972011-04-04T18:34:10.740-05:002011-04-04T18:34:10.740-05:00Well, the billboards apparently lasted about 4-5 d...Well, the billboards apparently lasted about 4-5 days before the pro-abortion censors attacked. See 4/4/2011.John F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-79410922984722745862009-12-22T12:09:55.940-06:002009-12-22T12:09:55.940-06:00Hello,
Just put up an item on http://senecawrites...Hello,<br /><br />Just put up an item on http://senecawrites.blogspot.com/2009/12/anti-reality-is-everywhere.html<br /><br />and as I was concluding the writeup found Marx echoing in my mind and googling it I found your item.<br /><br />You make good pointsPubliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08948284580440075537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-91834875147625331122009-08-19T21:20:12.954-05:002009-08-19T21:20:12.954-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.John F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-13019608518673281052009-06-29T18:10:41.916-05:002009-06-29T18:10:41.916-05:00Jeff, thanks for Your polite and serious comments....Jeff, thanks for Your polite and serious comments. <br /><br />You wrote, "By your estimation, straight marriage is meant soley for procreation--to carry on society."<br /><br />No, actually I didn't say that procreation is the only purpose of marriage. I said that marriage is equipped by nature for procreation, and that tells us a lot about the nature of marriage. Certainly not every heterosexual couple has the ability to reproduce, but I didn't state that the validity of every marriage depends upon producing children... only that marriage itself is naturally equipped to enable procreation. Homosexual relations, by contrast, are intrinsically infertile. This does not prove but does strongly suggest that marriage, by nature a permanent, two-person partnership capable of producing and raising children- is inherently a heterosexual enterprise, and no law can change that objective reality.<br /><br />As far as a couple that enters marriage with the positive intention of never having children, my belief -consistent with my Catholic faith- is that this intention renders the marriage invalid, as openness to the possibility of children is a precondition for a valid sacramental marriage. Obviously this isn't the view of the law in this country, and my other comments here are purely in the context of marriage as recognized by the law. <br /><br /><br />You wrote, "So, why NOT allow marriage for two consenting adults--no matter their gender?"<br /><br />Your question assumes that "marriage" is something that man can redefine, or should attempt to change by law. That's not the case. Again, marriage is something so intrinsic to human biology, human nature, and human culture as to be beyond man's power to change. Can such a law be passed? Certainly. Should it? Absolutely not, any more than slavery should be legalized, or old people should be euthanized. Such laws violate the nature of man, and are unjust and harmful laws.John F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-71929265428397301822009-06-29T17:45:29.260-05:002009-06-29T17:45:29.260-05:00I understand your argument. I will point out some ...I understand your argument. I will point out some points that I see as flawed.<br /><br />"Homosexual relationships are not equipped to by nature for producing either children or parents," you say.<br /><br />By your estimation, straight marriage is meant soley for procreation--to carry on society.<br /><br />Does this mean that straight people over a certain age--beyond the age allowing them to produce offspring--should be banned from showing their commitment and love for each other by getting married.<br /><br />Further, do infertile straight people also deserve to be discriminated against and not allowed to enter into a marriage.<br /><br />After all, those two groups of people certainly will not produce children.<br /><br />What about consenting adults--straight adults--who enter into marriage with the intention of NOT having children?<br /><br />If your argument is that marriage either must produce or have the ability to produce a child is a bit absurd.<br /><br />Also, parents come in all shapes and functions. Many straight people who biologically produce their children some times are not the best equipped to raise those children.<br /><br />A child is best raised by a stable adult--or more than one stable adult--who shows that child love, respect and stability. Gay citizens can do that just as well as straight.<br /><br />You're correct with your assertion that marriage makes a society stronger.<br /><br />It not only provides individuals with some heightened security in their partnership but it acts as a bond that isn't as easily broken as a simple "break up" in a relationship outside the context of marriage.<br /><br />So, why NOT allow marriage for two consenting adults--no matter their gender?<br /><br />What gay pride shows society is that people should not hide who they are. It shows that the gay community is just as diverse as those in other communities.<br /><br />It shows that we all have more in common with one another than we have different.<br /><br />We all want love. We all want acceptance. We all want to be able to serve our country in the best way possible.<br /><br />Anything less than marriage equality marginalizes people and makes for a less productive society.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-45798410820966458442009-06-25T20:05:11.437-05:002009-06-25T20:05:11.437-05:00FSM, I should "leave people alone"?? I&#...FSM, I should "leave people alone"?? I'm not holding a parade down the streets of Chicago to advertise, justify, and defend to the world my sexual inclination and behavior -deviant or otherwise. Nor do I pressure the government, as some of the more extreme homosexualists do, to redefine marriage to mean something other than what it naturally is: the permanent union of a man and wife, a union equipped by nature for the procreation and education of children.<br /><br />But since You ask... yes, I do think that the Bible is a pretty authoritative source when it comes to human nature and morality. However, one does not have to appeal to the Bible to conclude that homosexual acts are disordered.<br /><br />And no, the Bible does not defend or condone slavery, although it does address how slaves and slaveholders should act toward each other.John F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-56418844889150852562009-06-25T20:04:00.702-05:002009-06-25T20:04:00.702-05:00JFR, The only thing immoral is the fact that peopl...JFR, The only thing immoral is the fact that people like you can't just get over things and leave people alone. Why is being gay immoral? Because the bible says so? The bible also states many other things that I am willing to bet you would think are immoral but are perfectly fine. Do you believe that owning slaves is moral? The bible does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-27786519523915768822009-06-21T16:33:09.444-05:002009-06-21T16:33:09.444-05:00AJ, Your online profile says You're in the eng...AJ, Your online profile says You're in the engineering industry. So am I. Suppose Your national high court decided that the "law of the land" is that massive objects are not subject to gravitation. With Your scientific and engineering background surely You would recognize that this silly and bizarre civil law conflicts with a preexisting physical law, a natural law that would continue to have effect despite the court's proclamation.<br /><br />In the U.S. the Supreme Court has found that women may legally kill their unborn children. This law conflicts with a higher law that all human persons have a right not to be killed arbitrarily. This law is affirmed by the Christian faith, but also by right reason: it is "self-evident", in the words of the Founding Fathers of this country. This higher law does not "trump" civil law, but it does demand that civil law rightly conform to it.<br /><br />You misrepresent abortion. In practice it is not a simple refusal to "stop providing nourishment to a fetus". It often involves a brutal procedure in which an unborn child -yes, in Your words, "an actual human being"- is chemically burned and dismembered. In late term abortions, the baby's head often is deliberately crushed and his brains vacuumed out. The law that protects such unprovoked attacks on millions of children annually is an unjust and barbaric law.<br /><br />I'm glad You recognize my right to "work to change [the law] legally". That's exactly what I support, and I condemn acts of civil violence used to achieve political changes.<br /><br />Your questions about religious wars are meant to imply what? That people with religious beliefs should keep out of the political process? Sorry, I'm not falling for that one. Your implication that Christians are particularly prone to warfare and violence is comical. You, AJ, with Your engineering background, should have no problem doing a simple tally. How many lives would You lay at the feet of supposedly Christian nations during the past twenty centuries? Compare those to the tens of millions killed by totalitarian atheistic regimes during just the past century.John F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-49466071263392412992009-06-21T05:29:53.559-05:002009-06-21T05:29:53.559-05:00The problem is that you believe your religious vie...The problem is that you believe your religious viewpoint on the subject trumps the law of the land, which currently says that a woman has the right to stop providing nourishment to a fetus inside of her. She doesn't have to prove she was raped by her brother or uncle, or that her fetus is incapable of surviving, or that bearing a child may lead to permanent disability or death to any religious Mullah or Christian minister to exercise her right to cut the cord that ties the fetus to her body. <br /><br />That's the law of the land. You can work to change it legally or you can commit acts of terror and murder to get your way, just as Islamic-extremists do when they feel that various legal actions (such as publishing cartoons of Muhammed) are worthy of death.<br /><br />How many corpses are a direct result of religious wars? How many are a direct result of religious wars involving Christians or Catholics? How many bombs in Belfast left a trail a corpses? How many children died because of religious fanaticism during the Crusades? How many continue to die because of George W. Bush's new self proclaimed Crusade in the Middle East?<br /><br />Religious indignation with corpses seems to be mighty sparse when it refers to actual human beings rather than fetuses.AJ Simkatuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09727636341890095865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-21010722182043861542009-04-29T11:28:00.000-05:002009-04-29T11:28:00.000-05:00What a wonderful, wonderful doggy Buddy was. I'm s...What a wonderful, wonderful doggy Buddy was. I'm so sorry for the two-legs in the family, but so glad they had their four-legged friend in their lives. Love, Dorothy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-51403449413104334522009-04-28T19:39:00.000-05:002009-04-28T19:39:00.000-05:00I am so sorry for the whole family. DianeI am so sorry for the whole family. DianeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-54436477600123149852009-04-21T12:57:00.000-05:002009-04-21T12:57:00.000-05:00This, received today...
_______________________
M...This, received today...<br />_______________________<br /><br />Mr. Robin, <br />DHS agents, along with members of your local law enforcement agencies, will be stopping at your home later today to chat with you and your family about your rather controversial views. DHS respects your legitimate right to free speech, within the limitations imposed by the Constitution and federal sedition statutes. We are committed to making our review brief and with a minimum of disruption to your home.<br /><br />Pursuant to the executive order, “Constitutional Fair Speech”, signed by President Obama earlier this year, we must ask that, at today’s initial review, you submit all personal computer equipment and written notes belonging to you, to a “Fair Speech” compliance audit to be conducted by agents of the Department of Homeland Security. The outcome of this review may provide the DHS sufficient grounds to authorize continuance of your use of the internet and publishing media to disseminate your personal views and opinions.<br /><br />The Department of Homeland Security thanks you for your cooperation.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Janet Napolitano<br />Director of the DHS Central CommitteeJohn F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-51354057999618899602009-04-12T16:51:00.000-05:002009-04-12T16:51:00.000-05:00Dear Anonymous Minnesota Catholic,Thank You for Yo...Dear Anonymous Minnesota Catholic,<BR/><BR/>Thank You for Your comment.<BR/><BR/>I don’t know where the Archbishop Nienstedt was when George Bush gave any of his speeches, but I know that is not the issue on the table. War, that bringer of tragedy and devastation, sometimes is justifiable and necessary, but the deliberate killing of the innocent unborn never is justifiable. <BR/><BR/>Whether Archbishop Nienstedt ever shared his view on the morality of any particular war, I don’t know. But it’s certainly fitting for him to publicly denounce elective abortion and rebuke Catholics who honor those who, like President Obama, enthusiastically support its continuation, expansion, and funding with public money. The bishop would be negligent not to openly proclaim the truth on such a basic moral issue.<BR/><BR/>The Catholic Church openly teaches regarding war, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2309.htm), that:<BR/><BR/>_________________<BR/>2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: <BR/>- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; <BR/>- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; <BR/>- there must be serious prospects of success; <BR/>- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. <BR/>These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. <BR/>The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.<BR/>_________________<BR/><BR/>Therefore, it is possible for armed conflict to be morally justifiable and necessary, but only under strict criteria. Personally, I believe it is doubtful that the Second Gulf War met these requirements, and I know that Pope John Paul II strongly disapproved of that particular conflict. <BR/><BR/>The Catechism also teaches regarding abortion (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm), that:<BR/><BR/>_________________<BR/><BR/>2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:<BR/><BR/>'You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.'<BR/><BR/>'God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.' <BR/>_________________<BR/><BR/><BR/>They are badly mistaken who try to draw a moral equivalence between elective abortion and war in general.John F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-20109116196279736992009-04-10T23:40:00.000-05:002009-04-10T23:40:00.000-05:00Where was the archbishop when George W. Bush gave ...Where was the archbishop <A HREF="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hY9EJOvoVv2Mwr_gn_bKdoVG5MGQD97432Q80" REL="nofollow">when George W. Bush gave the Notre Dame commencement speech</A>? A president, as commander in chief, can declare war, as Bush did in Iraq, based on deeply flawed intelligence. Some estimates put the civilian death toll in Iraq at more than 200,000 people. Barack Obama has declared no wars and while he supports abortion as a reproductive health measure when selected by doctors, he has no power to overturn Roe v. Wade, a U.S. Supreme Court decision. To be clear: George W. Bush's choices resulted in the death of innocents, just as the court that decided Roe's choices did. But Barack Obama? He can't reverse a SCOTUS decision, and he hasn't declared war. <BR/><BR/>Nienstadt can and should speak out about moral issues and Catholic doctrine. But the fact that he didn't when Bush -- or his father, who launched the first Gulf War and also gave a Notre Dame commencement speech -- addressed Notre Dame graduates speaks volumes.<BR/><BR/>A Minnesota CatholicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-33288874507312604222009-03-24T16:25:00.000-05:002009-03-24T16:25:00.000-05:00Dear Anonymous,Thank Your for Your thoughts.We liv...Dear Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Thank Your for Your thoughts.<BR/><BR/>We live in a time when those who defend the defenseless unborn are often accused of hatred, sometimes by anonymous accusers.<BR/><BR/>I'm speaking not with hatred, but with passion for what I believe true and important. Jesus also did this, and many took offense at His words of truth. Sometimes people are offended by truth, even when it comes from one like me, a very inadequate and imperfect defender of self-evident truths.<BR/><BR/>I neither hate nor wish evil upon anyone, not even upon those who defend the killing of the unborn. However, I can not ignore in silence the lethal injustices being perpetrated under the name of "choice". It is not loving to refrain from denouncing evil while Your nation commits suicide while killing its young, any more than it was loving to remain silent about slavery when the state sanctioned it.<BR/><BR/>The defenseless unborn have an inalienable right to the protection of law, and people of good will should speak and work openly to accomplish this. I'm an abortion abolitionist, and am not ashamed to say so.<BR/><BR/>You make a good point in highlighting the "need to help others". But if the fundamental human right to life is denied, and individuals' lives are extinguished even before taking their first breath, how would You suggest we "help" them?John F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-40774232617632278122009-03-24T13:57:00.000-05:002009-03-24T13:57:00.000-05:00Thank God, Jesus didn't speak with the hatred you ...Thank God, Jesus didn't speak with the hatred you write with in your blog.<BR/><BR/>Please look inside yourself and try to accentuate the need to help others above all else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-22165788009215421012009-03-10T08:44:00.000-05:002009-03-10T08:44:00.000-05:00Here is an interesting comment from an Associated ...Here is an interesting comment from an Associated Press article from today: "Princeton University politics professor Robert George, a Catholic and another member of the Bush-era Council on Bioethics, said the moral argument over embryonic stem cell research is not rooted in religion but in ethics and equality. He said research shows that an embryo is a human being in its earliest form of development, so we have to ask ourselves whether all human life should be treated equally, with dignity and respect. <BR/><BR/>"I don't think the question has anything to do with religion or pulling out our microscope and trying to find souls," George said. "We live in a pluralistic society where some people believe there are no such things as souls. Does that mean we should not have moral objections to killing 17-year-old adolescents?" <BR/><BR/>It's amazing how science has presented the facts, and we have a window to the world in utero through amazing 3-D ultrasound images, and yet we can still debate when human life begins. The reality is that everyone, in their hearts, must know that human life begins, at, well, the beginning! The developing embryo is not one day some meaningless clump of cells, and the next day, voila! Human! Having seen my baby that I miscarried at 12 weeks, I was stunned by the full and wondrous development of this obviously human little being....So, people believe what they want to believe, when they want to believe it. If they want the child, it's human. If they don't want the child, it's a clump of tissue, easily discarded. That's schizophrenic!<BR/><BR/>The reality of the true science behind all this stem-cell debate, is that stem cells drawn from human embryos are utterly unnecessary to stem cell research. Adult stem cells are the ones that have shown promising potential to effect cures....people must do the research and be fully informed about this issue.<BR/><BR/>One last word from a Creator who made every reader of this blog: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose." Psalm 139Marianna Robin Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16204071898709508863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-56795149609837147292008-08-19T21:41:00.000-05:002008-08-19T21:41:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.John F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-10398213214464050282008-08-19T21:34:00.000-05:002008-08-19T21:34:00.000-05:00Professor Charo replied to me via email. Her enti...Professor Charo replied to me via email. Her entire response was: <BR/><BR/>____________________<BR/>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9219-rhythm-method-criticised-as-a-killer-of-embryos-.html<BR/>R. Alta CHARO<BR/>____________________John F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-1141421412512717822006-03-03T15:30:00.000-06:002006-03-03T15:30:00.000-06:00No, I don't think that if something "is OK for Can...No, I don't think that if something "is OK for Canada" it's necessarily OK for the U.S. <BR/><BR/>It's up to Canadians to decide who should operate their ports. If Canadians do not feel they are in the crosshairs of terrorists, then perhaps they can feel comfortable with such an arrangement.<BR/><BR/>For my part, I don't think it's safe to have U.S. ports operated by foreign interests which have strong connections to hostile states -such as Iran and Syria- and very plausibly may be infiltrated by terrorists.John F Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06919503781887624705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-1141394120762038062006-03-03T07:55:00.000-06:002006-03-03T07:55:00.000-06:00The Dubai company runs the port in Vancouver, site...The Dubai company runs the port in Vancouver, site of the 2010 Olympic Games. It is also the main port into Canada from China (i.e. port of entry of most of our goods).<BR/><BR/>If it is OK for Canada, it should be OK for the USA, eh?<BR/><BR/>Better Arabs than the Mafia. United Emirates is an Oil rich country desperatly trying to diversify befor the taps run dry. They should be comended. Of course, it would be nice if they were democratic. But neither is China.Altavistagooglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301901043837306524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18183590.post-1138688037649652872006-01-31T00:13:00.000-06:002006-01-31T00:13:00.000-06:00truetrueBlah Blah Blahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01513078325422203358noreply@blogger.com