What is bigotry? From Brutallyhonest.org

What is bigotry?

By way of Matteo, The Weight of Glory defines it for us:

Benedict Groeschel: You and I were talking and you told me an anecdote about when they took the crucifixes down from the classroom walls at Boston College. I think this anecdote is a little bit long, but I think our audience would be very interested to hear it.
Peter Kreeft: Well, I was teaching comparative religions, and during the long break, there was a Jewish student and a Muslim student in the front row. The Jewish student noticed a faint cross painted on the wall behind me, so he asked me, "Is that supposed to be a cross?"
I started to explain that that's where the crucifix used to be, and another student, a Catholic, said "Oh, we took the crucifixes down last year."
"Why did you do take them down?"
"Oh, well, we didn't want to offend people."
"When did you take them down?"
"Well, let's see. 1979."
"Aha," said the Jewish student. "It was the Bundy money."
No one understood that, so he explained that President Carter's secretary of state, McGeorge Bundy, had brokered a deal by which federal money could go to private schools if and only if those schools were not sectarian, divisive, discriminatory... something like that. And - by coincidence - all 21 Jesuit colleges took down their crucifixes from their classrooms in the year following that decision. So when he explained that to the students, the students were rather scandalized, and one said, "Oh, no, we wouldn't do that for money."
And he said, "Of course you wouldn't, but I hope you got more than thirty pieces of silver this time." Rather wicked... some of them were so biblically illiterate that he had to explain to them that Judas Iscariot was the first Catholic bishop to accept a government grant.
But then the student said, "No, we did that to be ecumenical."
And then the Muslim chimed in.
"What is ecumenical?"
So the student said, "Oh, ecumenical means we think we're all equal, and we didn't want to discriminate against others, and offend outsiders."
And the Muslim said, "You mean people like me, and my friend the Jew?"
"Well, yes."
"Well, I am highly insulted."
"Why?"
"Well, you're treating me like a bigot."
"No, we hate bigotry."
"Let me explain. Suppose you came to my country. You enrolled in a Muslim university. Now we don't have pictures or images; we think that's idolatry, but when you are in a Muslim university, you know you are in a Muslim university. Who would object to a Muslim symbol in a Muslim university, except a bigot? Now you expect me to be offended by a Catholic symbol - the crucifix - in a Catholic university, so you are treating me like a bigot."
Everyone was thinking.
He didn't stop. He said to the students, "How many of you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?"
And most of them raised their hand.
He said, "Well, we Muslims don't believe that; the Koran says that's blasphemy, that's ridiculous, but we have a great devotion to Jesus. We hardly ever mention his name without saying, 'Blessed be he' or 'Blessed be his name' and we think he's one of the greatest men who ever lived, and he is a great prophet, and we love him and his mother Mary. And if we had pictures of him, we would never take them down, not for any money in the world. In fact," he said, and he was now waxing eloquent, "what if some soldiers came into our classroom and said, 'We demand that you take down this offensive picture of the prophet Jesus'? Every good Muslim would go in front of that picture and say, 'You will take down this picture of our beloved prophet Jesus over our dead bodies. We would be glad to be martyrs for him.' So I think we are better Christians than you are."

You could hear a pin drop.

That, my blog brothers and sisters, is wisdom.
You would do well to pass it on.

The Origin of Morality

The other day I was thinking about how California's Prop 8 and also about people's views on homosexuality as expressed in conversations I've had with friends. It seems to me that the most common justification for homosexuality goes like this: "There is nothing wrong with being gay. Nobody can help whether they are gay or not; you're either born that way or you're not." And so, if you're born gay, the logic goes, then it is perfectly acceptable to act on your feelings.

The logic is based on the fundamental idea that morality is determined by one's nature: appropriate behavior is whatever comes naturally to each individual.

The problem with that premise is that nobody actually believes it. Even those who purport to hold that belief when it comes to homosexuality do not believe the principle holds true when it comes to other situations, such as cheating on one's spouse, or throwing a temper tantrum, or sharing one's toys with others.

So that brings me to my next segment. What started me thinking about these things a couple of days ago was a show I saw on the Discovery channel the other day. I think the show was called the Science of Sex, or something similar. One of the main topics of the program was an assertion that human males, by their very nature, are driven to have sex with as many women as they can. Male bodies, with their millions of sperm, are naturally suited for reproducing hundreds of offspring during their lives. Thus, it is completely natural for males to sleep around, cheat on their wives, and just be constantly on the look out for the next opportunity to replenish the earth. Women, on the other hand, only produce one seed or egg each month. Women's bodies naturally lead them to stay committed to one male companion with whom to raise her children.

If it is natural for men to want to reproduce as much as possible, with as many women as possible, and if whatever is natural is also moral, then why do those who support homosexuality not support men who are players or cheaters on their spouses or girlfriends? Okay, I see the main difference. A man who has married has told his wife that he will forevermore deny himself of his very nature and remain faithful to her and her alone. But that objection does not apply to polygamist relationships, where the man and each of his women already understand the relationship and the commitment that they are in, wherein everyone consents that the male will have multiple wives? According to the logic described above, plural marriage is moral, just as moral as is same-sex marriage is for gay people and marriage is for straight people.

On the other hand, very few people in the United States, even those who support gay marriage, actually believe that plural marriage is moral. This is because each of those people already knows that nature does not define morality. It is not okay for a child to throw a temper tantrum, just because he is a red-head and he, along with every single one of his ancestors, had been born with a tendency toward stubborn behavior. It is not acceptable to drink alcohol excessively simply because one has an inclination to do so. It is not moral to hoard all good gifts at the expense of others simply because one has been born with a selfish gene.

The next time someone tells you they think it is okay to be gay because people are born that way, and that therefore same-sex marriage is moral, ask that person how he or she feels about plural marriage for people who were born with the tendency to be intimate with multiple companions. If that person is opposed to the idea, point out the inconsistency in his or her thinking.

Nature does not define morality. So where does morality come from? It comes from God. We do not decide what is moral and what is not. God decides. Or rather, God decided.

A stimulus package I could live with.

This is a stimulus package I could deal with.  The best part of it is, is the government doesn’t even need to come up with any money.

The National Retail Federation called for three periods of sales tax-free shopping that would last 10 days each in March, July and October 2009. The trade group estimates that it would save consumers about $20 billion, or $175 per family.

 

Cut taxes and people will have more money to spend.

Scientists say Christmas lights hurt the planet.

So now scientists are warning that Christmas lights are hurting our planet because of all the wasted power being used that has been produced by coal burning power facilities. 

Of course your electric car is still fine.  The electricity for it comes from the outlet on your wall.

New York's new Tax plan.

What a plan the New York governor and legislature has come up with.

An "iPod tax" that charges state and local sales tax for "digitally delivered entertainment services" - in other words, that new Beyonce song you download.

State sales tax at movie theaters, sporting events, taxis, buses, limousines and cable and satellite TV and radio.

Costlier driving with the repeal of the 8-cents-per-gallon sales tax cap on motor and diesel motor fuel, plus and increase in the auto rental tax.

Tuition increases at SUNY and CUNY, $620 and $600 a year respectively.

A 50 cent tax on cigars. The current tax is equal to 37% of the wholesale price, or 34 cents a cigar.

No more sales tax break on clothes and shoes worth $110 or less, except during two weeks a year.

Higher taxes on wine, beer and flavored malt beverages. He would also impose an 18% tax on non-nutritional drinks like soda.

The rich would pay more for luxury items through an additional 5% tax imposed on cars costing more than $60,000, aircraft costing more than $500,000, yachts costing at least $200,000 and jewelry and furs costing in excess of $20,000.

In addition, a host of a fees, including those related to motor vehicle licensing and registration, parks and auto insurance, would go up, as would various state-imposed fines.

Isn’t New Jersey just across the river from New York.  What keeps people from crossing the river to do their shopping?

Even with the cuts, the 2009-10 budget would increase a little more than 1%, the smallest hike since 1996-97.

Paterson said the state is facing a $51 billion shortfall over the next four years at a time when tax revenues are expected to drop 6.6% next year.

I would expect tax revenues to drop a little more.  But that is just my uneducated opinion.  I would be interested to see if New Jerseys revenues increase this next year.  We shall soon see.

If people could only understand.

If people could only understand a little bit of how our tax system works we would all be better off.  I first found this at brutallyhonest.org

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, ''I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man.
'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he gotten times more than I!'
''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The lesson continues... go now, learn, and pass on especially to your progressive friends though the caveat at the end applies in a big way:

For those who understand, no explanation is needed
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

NoMobVeto.org

The following is an ad ran in the New York times by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.  Visit nomobveto.org to add your name in support.