'May the odds be ever in your favor.'
That is what is inscribed on the metal braclet that I wear around my left wrist. Not only is it one of my favorite quotes, it is a phrase that seems to resonate deeper within me. Espeically today.
As I write this I await to hear who the next President of the US of A will be. With my faith changellened and my religious freedom threatened I find myself praying that the odds will be in favor of right and just.
Over the past few weeks I have been reminded of a strange dream I had when I was in high school. At the time I thought little of it, but now I find my mind lingering over it more than I would like. In my dream there was a strange turn of events in the 1960s that allowed the Ku Klux Klan to become a very powerful force in the government in the present time. As such Catholicism became illegal and those who were Catholic were closely monitored by the government since they did not want those 'damn Papists' contaminating the purity of the American people. In the dream I am walking in the streets of the town I live in; little has changed, except for the fact I have to carry a passport with me constantly as I am often harassed by the police demanding to know my business. I inform them that I am on my way to the Catholic Church that was downtown. In the dimensions of the dream the Vatican, in effort to protect the faithful in the United States made the agreement in which the land that every Catholic Church stood was an extension of the Vatican and thus considered like an embassy of sorts with all the extraterritoriality that went with it.
I will not bore you with the details of the rest of the dream - they're rather depressing.
The dream scared me then and it unsettles me today.
Mostly because it feels like the reality that I dreamt of is not too far
off. Especially in light of the recent going ons of the political atmosphere. As I look back at the dream I'm surprised at the age I dreamt myself - it was the age I am now.
Whoever gets to sit in the Oval office come January, when they're sworn in, please God, let them respect life (before and after birth), let them respect the Catholic religion which seems be under attack from all sides and let them realize what is intrinsically good and what is intrinsically bad.
'May the odds be ever in your favor.'
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
A Morbid Connection to Heaven:
An Investigation of Relics & The Modern Need for Them
Chapter Two: Relics Today and Their Defense
In
the movie Singing in the Rain there is a moment near the
beginning in which fan-girls start attacking the lead male character
and rip his clothing in an attempt to have a piece of him to keep
as a memento. It is interesting to note that a culture filled
with autograph hounds and with those who become star struck whenever
a celebrity comes by can consider the Catholic veneration of relics a
joke. A lovely dish is just a lovely dish, but one owned by your
grandmother is a special treasure. A pocket-watch gotten at a pawn
stop is just a time piece, but one given to you by a grandfather is
one you dread losing and would mourn if that were to happen. People
are willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money for an article of
clothing worn by some famous person, faint at Beatles concerts, and
engage in riotous behavior to get their hands on an article of
clothing or some other item belonging to a new pop icon; but when a
relic of Saint Catherine is mentioned, people snicker.
Especially
today, in a world filled with atheists and misinformed Catholics, the
snickering gets louder. In the year 2009, some of the relics
of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux
went on tour around England, even going to a correctional facility,
after visiting forty other countries. Many English pilgrims came to
see and touch the remains of the French saint. Simon Jenkins, a self
proclaimed “Dawkins-ite”, wrote an article concerning the saint's
visit to his country. Jenkins finds the whole event rather
distasteful, crediting the frenzy that the faithful display towards
the relics as “brainwashing of unreason.” But Jenkins decided to
be gracious towards the less rational of his fellow man and take up
the mantle of courtesy, the same he “would show a Hindu elephant
worshiper or a Polynesian medicine man.” Such a mantle is hard to
see in the rest of his article, which consists of a rather snarky
description of how the relics came across the English channel and
what the faithful would do once in reach of the relics. He blatantly
states that relics are nothing more then “jujus, [or] religious
placebos for the credulous classes” while most rational people
“find them ghoulish.”
One
of the members of the committee which arranged for Saint Thérèse to
visit England, Father Stephen Wang, quickly responded to Jenkin's
article. Wang quickly goes into an explanation of why so many come
to the relics. People “come to pray; to find inspiration in the
life of an extraordinary woman; to deepen their sense of community
and belong; to connect with a person they love”;
basically people are coming because they are seeking spiritual help.
Wang explicitly states that relics are not, as Jenkins says, 'jujus',
which are magical charms. A common misconception about relics held
by non-Catholics and some Catholics is that relics possess magical
powers; there is a supernatural aspect to relics, but there is no
'hocus-pocus' involved with them. The relics are part of the
physical aspect of the faith, it is “not just about abstract
spiritual truths.”
The very act of the Incarnation confirms this – people were able
to touch the Word of God and interact with Him. It is of little
wonder then that Christianity developed with tangible ways to express
the faith; this includes church architecture, polyphonic music and
statues alongside of relics.
Today,
relics are found in several different states in general. The first
is relics lost and forgotten in a museum, where people gawk and
wonder why there is a skull in a glided box. Next, the relics become
a tourist attraction, like Pope Blessed John XXIII; the Swiss guards
usher people along as they take pictures of a partially decomposed
man under an altar. The last state, which is probably the most
common, is that of relics in some form of a storage room, whether it
be in a church or in a museum's back closet; they are hidden away out
of sight, and the only way to see them is if one knows somebody with
connections to the relics. But above all these states is that in
every altar in the churches there has to be a relic, inside according
to Cannon Law.
There
are three classes of sacred relics depending on the closeness of the
object to the saint. The first class are instruments of the Passion
of Christ or a part of a saint's body. The relics found in church
altars are first class, most likely one of a martyr. Then, the
second class relics is a piece of the saint's clothing or something
used often by the saint, such as the letters written by Saint Teresa
of Ávila.
Lastly, third class relics are objects touched to first class
relics.
To
venerate the relics of the saints is a profession of belief in
several doctrines of the Catholic faith. The first of these is the
belief in everlasting life for those who have obediently witnessed to
Christ and the Holy Gospel whilst on earth. Next is the truth of the
resurrection of the body of all persons on the last day, which
relates to the doctrine of the splendor of the human body and the
respect which all should show toward the bodies of both the living
and the deceased. Also, there is the belief in the special
intercessory power which the saints enjoy in heaven because of their
intimate relationship with God. Last is the truth of our closeness
to the saints because of our connection with the communion of saints,
since we are all part of the same Church.
To
understand how to venerate relics, one must understand the difference
between latria,
dulia and hyper-dulia. Latria is sacrificial in
character, and may be offered only to God. Catholics offer other
degrees of reverence to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the Saints;
these non-sacrificial types of reverence are called hyper-dulia
and dulia,
respectively. Hyper-dulia is essentially a heightened degree
of dulia provided only to the Blessed Virgin since she is the
revered Mother of God.
End of Part One.
To Be Continued............
(Copyright: Belongs to the Wanderer)
(If interested in research please contact me.)
To Be Continued............
(Copyright: Belongs to the Wanderer)
(If interested in research please contact me.)
The Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street
I am glad smarter people than I can explain something in such a fun way. Thank you!!
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
'Singing in the Rain' for Today
Some of you may recall a post I did about a year and a half ago concerning a cover of one of my favorite songs, 'Singing in the Rain'. The only thing I will repeat about that post is that the writers and music arrangers for the show 'Glee' should still die.
Anyway, I found a cover of the song done by another popular singer, Usher. I'm not a huge fan of him, but I'll listen to him when he comes on the radio and I find him a good singer I'm not embarrassed to listen to. In my roaming on Youtube I found his cover and I thought it was a very good homage to Gene Kelly. What do you think?
Please enjoy!
Anyway, I found a cover of the song done by another popular singer, Usher. I'm not a huge fan of him, but I'll listen to him when he comes on the radio and I find him a good singer I'm not embarrassed to listen to. In my roaming on Youtube I found his cover and I thought it was a very good homage to Gene Kelly. What do you think?
Please enjoy!
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
The Problem of Human Shields in Combatant Situations and the Morality of Possible Solutions
Human shields is a term that describes civilians present in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It also describes civilians in a combat situation being forced to walk or march in front of soldiers literately being used as a shield. Killing civilians always causes problems for whoever shot them, whether it be by accident or on purpose. An enemy's own people can be used as human shields to deter an enemy. International humanitarian law forbids using civilians as human shields by placing them next to soldiers, or next to military facilities, with the intention of gaining immunity from attack, or by forcing the civilians to carry out dangerous military assignments. The very basic concept of the human shields is immoral because it reduces a human being to nothing more than an object to be used. Human shields also gives the impression that the person is not worth keeping alive, which is true because the person using human shields only cares about his own life. He does not care who he uses, women, children or the elderly, anybody as long as he escapes.
Captain Daniel P. Schoenekase of the Air Force gives many examples of how human shields have been used in recent military history. The most recent and most notable violator of international law against the use of human shields has been Iraq in every major conflict they have had since the 1980s. Cambodia, during the Vietnam War, used ethnic Vietnamese civilians as human shields against their own government. During the civil war of Sierra Leone in the 1990s people of the Revolutionary United Front would regularly kidnap children and used them as human shields against the government forces. In these few examples one can see the moral repulsiveness of forcibly using civilians as shields against attack of any form.
There are several types of human shields -- proximity, involuntary or hostages, and and finally willing human shields. The first kind, the proximity shields, are near military target, and the presence of these people present a great likeliness of high civilian causalities. The civilians causalities could then be used by the opposing force in propaganda to put their enemy in a more bitter opinion of their people, thus preventing the enemy from gaining allies within their borders. Most of the time the proximity human shields do not even know that they are being used as shields. Usually they are people who are in a neighborhood or even hopitals. For example, during the Gulf War Saddam Hussein would station his weapons near hospitals, knowing that the American forces would not fire so close to civilians, especially the sick and injured. At the time nothing could be done effectively to get at the weapons. Aiming with the missiles at the time was pointing in the general direction and hope that it would hit close enough to the target to cause some damage. Today targeting systems are much better, so the military can fire a drone guided missile and direct the missile to hit the target, and the surrounding areas take minimal damage.
The next type of human shield are the involuntary, also known as hostages. a hostage is defined as "a person given as a pledge or taken prisoner as by an enemy or terrorist, until certain conditions are met." Any civilian in a combat situation are at risk of being taken and used b soldiers of either side. However, the taking and using of hostages is strictly forbidden by the fourth Geneva Convention.
Finally there are the voluntary shields, who are a recent development in the war with Iraq. A voluntary human shield is someone who is usually a foreign peace activist who comes and stand in the way of military in peaceful protest of the war. Captain Schoenekase explains in his article that in recent years debates have arisen on "whether voluntary human shields have become a form of quasi-combatant by their active participation." The Human Rights Watch says that since that these voluntary shields are not actively engaged in hostile behavior towards either sides, they should be treated as non-combatants and retain civilian status. Some scholars say that voluntary human shields have forfeited their immunity of being civilians. This argument states that anyone who has willing taken positions at the location of a military target has acted knowing the risk they were taking and they have little right to be considered as a non-combatant
When dealing with a situation involving human shields, there are several options that are available. The easiest option is to kick down the door and go in guns blazing and shoot everyone in sight. Both shields, willing or not, and the bad guys are dead, but the problem is solved. It is similar to surgery when the doctor has to remove a tumor. The healthy cells are removed for the greater good of the whole. But one cell and a complete human being has a great deal of difference in importance. The option of guns blazing is mostly condemned by international law and by most people in the world. it is immoral because it violates the persons' dignity; no care is given to the non-combatants who most likely did not want to be in a fighting situation. Killing everyone in sight also is a failure of a soldier to fulfill his purpose which would be fighting for the good of the citizens of that country.
Then there is the option of negotiation, which is used in situations with hostages, especially when the situation is not a full-out combat. This option's morality can go either way. There is a risk of the enemy getting away in the process of negotiation, and they might kill the hostages even if they get all they demanded. But one must also consider what to do if the enemy demands and entirety of several large banks for the lives of a few hostages. It is a hard choice between bankrupting the city, affecting thousands of people's lives, or saving the life of a handful of people.
Another option is the use of mob control weapons that police have used in the United States. The police use things like rubber bullets and tear gas to subdue and disperse a crowd without needing to pull out a gun that uses bullets to kill. The most damage that rubber bullets do is give anyone that it strikes a big and painful bruise, but they are alive, and tear gas mostly likely leaves stinging eyes and a bad tastes in one's mouth, Also, in the confusion of the tear gas, a soldier can get closer to the enemy to get a clearer hit. Captain Schoenekase also explains that "soldiers can be trained to deal with human-shields tactics through advance marksmanship training that emphasizes target detection, acquisition, discrimination, and engagement." The morality in these options is actually positive, the dignity and lives of the people used as human shields is preserved.
Human shields are an ugly thing that has arise because of war. Innocent women, children, and elderly are forced into combat situations in which they do not know if they are going to live or die. The immorality of human shields is unquestionable with the way human shields are treated. The dignity of the lives of the non-combatants becomes worthless when used as a shield -- they become nothing more than a tool. Soldiers, when they fight, try to minimize the amount of collateral damage to protect civilians as much as they can and is a requirement set before they by their commanding officers. The solutions presented above each have something to offer when dealing with human shields and each have a different degree of morality.
Captain Daniel P. Schoenekase of the Air Force gives many examples of how human shields have been used in recent military history. The most recent and most notable violator of international law against the use of human shields has been Iraq in every major conflict they have had since the 1980s. Cambodia, during the Vietnam War, used ethnic Vietnamese civilians as human shields against their own government. During the civil war of Sierra Leone in the 1990s people of the Revolutionary United Front would regularly kidnap children and used them as human shields against the government forces. In these few examples one can see the moral repulsiveness of forcibly using civilians as shields against attack of any form.
There are several types of human shields -- proximity, involuntary or hostages, and and finally willing human shields. The first kind, the proximity shields, are near military target, and the presence of these people present a great likeliness of high civilian causalities. The civilians causalities could then be used by the opposing force in propaganda to put their enemy in a more bitter opinion of their people, thus preventing the enemy from gaining allies within their borders. Most of the time the proximity human shields do not even know that they are being used as shields. Usually they are people who are in a neighborhood or even hopitals. For example, during the Gulf War Saddam Hussein would station his weapons near hospitals, knowing that the American forces would not fire so close to civilians, especially the sick and injured. At the time nothing could be done effectively to get at the weapons. Aiming with the missiles at the time was pointing in the general direction and hope that it would hit close enough to the target to cause some damage. Today targeting systems are much better, so the military can fire a drone guided missile and direct the missile to hit the target, and the surrounding areas take minimal damage.
The next type of human shield are the involuntary, also known as hostages. a hostage is defined as "a person given as a pledge or taken prisoner as by an enemy or terrorist, until certain conditions are met." Any civilian in a combat situation are at risk of being taken and used b soldiers of either side. However, the taking and using of hostages is strictly forbidden by the fourth Geneva Convention.
Finally there are the voluntary shields, who are a recent development in the war with Iraq. A voluntary human shield is someone who is usually a foreign peace activist who comes and stand in the way of military in peaceful protest of the war. Captain Schoenekase explains in his article that in recent years debates have arisen on "whether voluntary human shields have become a form of quasi-combatant by their active participation." The Human Rights Watch says that since that these voluntary shields are not actively engaged in hostile behavior towards either sides, they should be treated as non-combatants and retain civilian status. Some scholars say that voluntary human shields have forfeited their immunity of being civilians. This argument states that anyone who has willing taken positions at the location of a military target has acted knowing the risk they were taking and they have little right to be considered as a non-combatant
When dealing with a situation involving human shields, there are several options that are available. The easiest option is to kick down the door and go in guns blazing and shoot everyone in sight. Both shields, willing or not, and the bad guys are dead, but the problem is solved. It is similar to surgery when the doctor has to remove a tumor. The healthy cells are removed for the greater good of the whole. But one cell and a complete human being has a great deal of difference in importance. The option of guns blazing is mostly condemned by international law and by most people in the world. it is immoral because it violates the persons' dignity; no care is given to the non-combatants who most likely did not want to be in a fighting situation. Killing everyone in sight also is a failure of a soldier to fulfill his purpose which would be fighting for the good of the citizens of that country.
Then there is the option of negotiation, which is used in situations with hostages, especially when the situation is not a full-out combat. This option's morality can go either way. There is a risk of the enemy getting away in the process of negotiation, and they might kill the hostages even if they get all they demanded. But one must also consider what to do if the enemy demands and entirety of several large banks for the lives of a few hostages. It is a hard choice between bankrupting the city, affecting thousands of people's lives, or saving the life of a handful of people.
Another option is the use of mob control weapons that police have used in the United States. The police use things like rubber bullets and tear gas to subdue and disperse a crowd without needing to pull out a gun that uses bullets to kill. The most damage that rubber bullets do is give anyone that it strikes a big and painful bruise, but they are alive, and tear gas mostly likely leaves stinging eyes and a bad tastes in one's mouth, Also, in the confusion of the tear gas, a soldier can get closer to the enemy to get a clearer hit. Captain Schoenekase also explains that "soldiers can be trained to deal with human-shields tactics through advance marksmanship training that emphasizes target detection, acquisition, discrimination, and engagement." The morality in these options is actually positive, the dignity and lives of the people used as human shields is preserved.
Human shields are an ugly thing that has arise because of war. Innocent women, children, and elderly are forced into combat situations in which they do not know if they are going to live or die. The immorality of human shields is unquestionable with the way human shields are treated. The dignity of the lives of the non-combatants becomes worthless when used as a shield -- they become nothing more than a tool. Soldiers, when they fight, try to minimize the amount of collateral damage to protect civilians as much as they can and is a requirement set before they by their commanding officers. The solutions presented above each have something to offer when dealing with human shields and each have a different degree of morality.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Random Fun Quotes
"A woman uses her intelligence to find reasons to support her intuition."
--G. K. Chesterton
"Fun is good."
-- Dr. Seuss
"I never lose sight of the fact that just being is fun."
-- Katharine Hepburn
--G. K. Chesterton
"Fun is good."
-- Dr. Seuss
"I never lose sight of the fact that just being is fun."
-- Katharine Hepburn
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Lady Egad!!
Give me the allowance to indulge myself in a small rant. I have often verbally ranted and I have found it to be very therapeutic. I'm sure many of you girls know what I mean. Well, here it is!!
I very strongly with a passion, dislike, yes dislike for hate is too strong of a word, dislike Lady Gaga.
I now duck for a moment as some readers will most likely throw something at their computers. If everyone has calm down, I shall proceed.
When she debut on radio she was singing techno and has gone on to join the collective 80s throwback. Neither genres of music I particular clamor to listen to. But when she first appeared everyone fell head over heels infatuated with her. Which meant more songs for me to suffer through. Truth be told Lady Gaga is one of the man reasons I stopped listening to the radio altogether, but that is a story for another time.
The more songs I heard of hers the more I realized that I did not like her style of music. Just a personal touch. Than I saw her . . . a little part of my artistic soul was hung, drawn and quartered, twice, than buried in unconsecrated ground.
Do not get me wrong, I support people who express themselves through their manner of dress. I applaud the man who can pull off a kilt or waist coat. I cheer the woman who can carry a parasol down the street without a second thought.
At first I thought the outfits were for her music videos, but I was sadly mistaken. She wears the over the top and, quiet frankly, unflattering clothes all the time.
A moment of silence please for another part of my artistic soul that has been tortured to death.
**Moment of Silence**
Moving on.
Despite all this I was willing to just not really care about along with a bunch of other 'singers' out there. Not actively seeking out or outright ignoring them. Oddly enough when a song of hers came on and I did not know it was Lady Gaga I still did not like it (proof I have taste). It was not until I saw one of her music videos for one of her more recent songs (I now use that term loosely in regards to her) that took her to my 'strongly dislike' category.
I won't say which one, but I will say that the imagery was confusing and pornographic. Yes, I accuse Lady Gaga of making readily available porn. Defend yourself!!!!! In that same music video you can see her holding what looks like a rosary or something close enough to it, dressed similar to a nun of some sort, puts the pseudo-rosary in her mouth and makes mockery of the symbol of the cross. Yeah, be surprise that I still have a computer to update this blog on. It took all that I had not to burst out into tears because, to be perfectly honest, that music video felt like it was slapping me in the face, stabbing me in the gut, twisting my arm, mocking my faith, and all around doing everything it possibly could to make me hurt.
Now many of you may think that's over reacting to an artistic vision of a music video. Well, see it from my side for a moment: Imagine that something that is very essential to you and is part of who you are is taken to the public square and everyone in town throws knifes at it and insults it for everything it's worth reducing it down to rubble. After that everyone proceeds to stamp it into dust as they drunkenly dance on the remains, desecrating it and then throw all sorts of trash and muck on it. All for the sake of art.
That, my readers, is not art, it's bullying plain and simple.
I very strongly with a passion, dislike, yes dislike for hate is too strong of a word, dislike Lady Gaga.
I now duck for a moment as some readers will most likely throw something at their computers. If everyone has calm down, I shall proceed.
When she debut on radio she was singing techno and has gone on to join the collective 80s throwback. Neither genres of music I particular clamor to listen to. But when she first appeared everyone fell head over heels infatuated with her. Which meant more songs for me to suffer through. Truth be told Lady Gaga is one of the man reasons I stopped listening to the radio altogether, but that is a story for another time.
The more songs I heard of hers the more I realized that I did not like her style of music. Just a personal touch. Than I saw her . . . a little part of my artistic soul was hung, drawn and quartered, twice, than buried in unconsecrated ground.
Do not get me wrong, I support people who express themselves through their manner of dress. I applaud the man who can pull off a kilt or waist coat. I cheer the woman who can carry a parasol down the street without a second thought.
At first I thought the outfits were for her music videos, but I was sadly mistaken. She wears the over the top and, quiet frankly, unflattering clothes all the time.
A moment of silence please for another part of my artistic soul that has been tortured to death.
**Moment of Silence**
Moving on.
Despite all this I was willing to just not really care about along with a bunch of other 'singers' out there. Not actively seeking out or outright ignoring them. Oddly enough when a song of hers came on and I did not know it was Lady Gaga I still did not like it (proof I have taste). It was not until I saw one of her music videos for one of her more recent songs (I now use that term loosely in regards to her) that took her to my 'strongly dislike' category.
I won't say which one, but I will say that the imagery was confusing and pornographic. Yes, I accuse Lady Gaga of making readily available porn. Defend yourself!!!!! In that same music video you can see her holding what looks like a rosary or something close enough to it, dressed similar to a nun of some sort, puts the pseudo-rosary in her mouth and makes mockery of the symbol of the cross. Yeah, be surprise that I still have a computer to update this blog on. It took all that I had not to burst out into tears because, to be perfectly honest, that music video felt like it was slapping me in the face, stabbing me in the gut, twisting my arm, mocking my faith, and all around doing everything it possibly could to make me hurt.
Now many of you may think that's over reacting to an artistic vision of a music video. Well, see it from my side for a moment: Imagine that something that is very essential to you and is part of who you are is taken to the public square and everyone in town throws knifes at it and insults it for everything it's worth reducing it down to rubble. After that everyone proceeds to stamp it into dust as they drunkenly dance on the remains, desecrating it and then throw all sorts of trash and muck on it. All for the sake of art.
That, my readers, is not art, it's bullying plain and simple.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Don't Worry, Be Psycho
This made me smile. I hope it does the same for you.
By the ever fantastic Piano Guys!
Enjoy!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)