Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Of Popes and Filibusters
I feel like I am going to be out of the news cycle for the next few days. I know little of things Catholic, and would feel uncomfortable commenting even if I did simply because I am not one. So, I'll have to leave it to the experts. Hugh Hewitt, a former Catholic, points to several good reads on the new guy. Most notable is this peice by John Allen. Allen is the go-to guy on Ratzinger. I googled "Allen" and "Ratzinger" -- Allen has been writing about him for years.
The most amazing thing I have seen is Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan describes himself as "in shock," apparently because the dared elect a Pope that considers homosexuality sinful. I just cannot understand people that think religion is some sort of maleable thing, subject to whims and fads, trends and ideas. Of course, this thinking reflects the very relativism that the new Pope spoke of so eloquently the day before he was elected. Nonetheless, it astonishes me. Such thinking is so backwards. Religion is about what God says, not what we think. I am not sure "relativism" properly covers it -- I think "idiolatry" is better because it really is about putting us in front of God.
Which brings me to the filibuster and judicial appointments. Apparently since the left senses the truth in the accusation of religious bigotry that has been thrown at them, they are going to switch gears and claim they are standing on religious ground themselves. The Christian Science Monitor gives them the idea -- But Jesse Jackson and Howard Dean perfect it by quoting scripture at us. How come they can quote scripture to tell us to be quiet, but when we do it, we are improperly asserting religion into the political conversation?
I have a headache.
The most amazing thing I have seen is Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan describes himself as "in shock," apparently because the dared elect a Pope that considers homosexuality sinful. I just cannot understand people that think religion is some sort of maleable thing, subject to whims and fads, trends and ideas. Of course, this thinking reflects the very relativism that the new Pope spoke of so eloquently the day before he was elected. Nonetheless, it astonishes me. Such thinking is so backwards. Religion is about what God says, not what we think. I am not sure "relativism" properly covers it -- I think "idiolatry" is better because it really is about putting us in front of God.
Which brings me to the filibuster and judicial appointments. Apparently since the left senses the truth in the accusation of religious bigotry that has been thrown at them, they are going to switch gears and claim they are standing on religious ground themselves. The Christian Science Monitor gives them the idea -- But Jesse Jackson and Howard Dean perfect it by quoting scripture at us. How come they can quote scripture to tell us to be quiet, but when we do it, we are improperly asserting religion into the political conversation?
I have a headache.
