Thanks, Mark!

Thanks, Mark. Hey, I just learned a new word. "RandBusting". :-)
http://lisagraas.com/2011/06/15/randbusting-verse...

I prefer Mariah Carey to Ayn Rand. :-)

My word, Mark, you go postal so naturally...I'm kinda worried!

Thanks, David. :-)

Thanks for clarifying. Glad we agree! :-)

First of all, the letter you refer to at NCR is FAKE. The Pope did not write to John Boehner.
See: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/01/did-pope-benedict-bless-speaker-john-boehner/1

Secondly, in regard to abortion, it is illegitimate under Catholic teaching to claim that a level of government has no role in defending life. As soon as a politician makes that claim, he's in opposition to Catholic teaching. Rerum Novarum says that it is the duty of government to uphold the good or it is not a government "rightly apprehended". In other words, to take a position as a matter of "principle" that it is "wrong" for a certain level of government to uphold the good, defies Catholic teaching. It is not "wrong" for a level of government to uphold the good. Ron Paul, Sarah Palin and others would claim, for example, that it is "wrong" for the federal government to "get involved" in the abortion issue. That is fundamentally against Rerum Novarum.

I wrote in the article that economic programs at the federal level are detrimental to the development of "initiative" and "responsibility" in people. When we get into the area of abortion, we are talking about the intentional destruction of human life, and this reaches a different level of evil.

The catechism says: "no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."

And: " Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. "

And: "The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance."

And: "The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger."

And: "The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation"

Clearly, murder reaches a different level of gravity and requires all efforts to prevent.

In the decision about who Catholics should support in an election, it doesn't matter if a candidate is a Republican or a Democrat, or if he/she is okay with a lot of abortion or a little bit of abortion, neither can be supported. It is not legitimate for Catholics to support candidates who do not support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. Nor is it legitimate to support candidates who do not support the Fourteenth Amendment's protections, as well, when there are candidates who are competent and who do support those things. Direct and indiscriminate killing can never be approved by Catholics. And again, to claim that some level of government has no role in ending abortion, can in no circumstances, be justified under Catholic teaching.

Look, here's something you don't seem to understand. Just because I believe something is wrong does not automatically mean I think there should be a law against it, okay? I'm not a theocrat. I reserve the right to say "that's wrong" about something without being falsely accused of desiring that a law be passed.

Anyone who feels the need to burn the things he hates needs therapy, not encouragement. Does he have the right to do it? Of course! Should there be laws against it? Of course not! Does that make it okay? Nope. If you want to burn something you hate....you've got some serious anger issues going on there that you need to correct. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not sure how choosing not to burn something that is sacred to them could be characterized as "coddling".

Let's look at this a bit differently. Let's say I burned the flag of the United Kingdom. Of course, Brits wouldn't go around killing Americans if I did that, but they would certain get angry about it. I wouldn't be in favor of burning the flag of the United Kingdom for the simple fact that it serves no good purpose but to anger people. It doesn't do anything but anger people. Really. No other purpose.

Same with Pastor Jones' Qur'an burning. It serves no good purpose other than to anger people and to make people who hate Islam wallow in their own anger. For the record, I hate Islam........but unlike people who feel the need to set things on fire that they hate, I am a grown-up.

I didn't blame Pastor Jones. They're doing what their religion teaches them to do. You are the one assuming that they are "infantile", not me.

I appreciate this very much, Rob. Thanks for writing it. I agree. I will say that even though I agree that people have the right to burn a religious book of any kind, when Pastor Jones burned the Qur'an, a church in Pakistan was burned in direct response to that. Again, I agree that he had the right to do it...but he should understand what happens as a result of his actions. They were wrong to burn that church, of course. It wasnt' theirs to burn....but just know, Pastor Jones, if you burn a Qur'an, there's retaliation. I don't recommend burning Qur'ans.

Maybe Rob agrees with me on that. Anyway, excellent article and I commend you for it.

Blessings!