How much time do we have?

To find out, read this article

http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/06/19/112901/

A friend recently asked: “How long do we have left as a society?” In answer to that question I informed her about an interesting and comprehensive study that a renowned British anthropologist, Joseph Unwin, PhD., presented to the British Psychological Society in 1935. Unwin sought to prove that the traditional monogamous model for marriage was not essential to the maintenance of a healthy society. After studying 86 different cultures, across time and continents –and much to his surprise — he came to the inescapable conclusion that the traditional male-female monogamous model for marriage was indeed the best foundation for a healthy and productive society.

Unwin found that societies that adopted this model typically took about three generations to reach their peak of productivity and progress. After that, frequently, a gradual development of complacency and licentiousness would take place and what he described as an ”outburst of homosexuality” would sometimes occur. When that happened, and the society started to move away from the traditional model of male-female monogamous marriage as its foundation, it would begin to unravel. It would then take another three generations of deterioration from that point for the society to collapse.

It is my opinion that between the end of the American Civil War and the Reconstruction of the South, proceeding through the Industrial Revolution, and continuing up until about the end of World War II in 1945, the U.S. reached its zenith. Then came the U.S. Supreme Court’s Everson decision in 1947 which imposed an unconstitutional “Wall of Separation” between Church and State. This directly contradicted the vision of the founding fathers. Upon his farewell address to the nation, George Washington tried to impress upon his fellow countrymen that it was “Religion and Morality” that served as the foundation for our young nation.

Our thinking about human sexuality was transformed in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s by Alfred Kinsey, using false and fraudulent statistics — including the 10% myth concerning the number of homosexuals in the population. His work was based largely on the deviant sexual practices reported by those in prison. His flawed conclusions were not surprising since 86% of convicted child molesters against males describe themselves as being either homosexual or bisexual. A young college student at the time, Hugh Hefner, was influenced by Kinsey’s work and started what was to become the Playboy empire which in turn helped launch the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold in 1965 (which found a new constituitional “right to privacy” for contraception) was the next big judicial construct. This in turn helped fuel the feminist revolution of the 1970’s since women were no longer “chained to their homes” by babies to raise. But, since contraception does not always work, the U.S. Supreme Court had to find a new application for the constitutional right to privacy, which it did in Roe v. Wade in 1973. This travesty of a judicial decision allowed for abortion on-demand. With the new influx of contracepting and “liberated” women in the workplace, having more extramarital affairs than ever, it was of course necessary to adopt liberal No-Fault Divorce laws. In this way, the cheating spouses could easily get out of their lifelong marital commitments with little or no legal penalty or social stigma.

This in turn created the situation where there were far more little boys growing up with no strong male role models at home and far more little girls being raised with no father or by step-fathers more likely to sexually abuse them (e.g. Ellen DeGeneres). In either event, we increased the number of male and female homosexuals by enhancing the risk factors for developmental gender confusion and the psycho-social deficits which eventually lead to the same-sex attraction. Hence, the need for yet another constitutional right to privacy to be announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the horrific Lawrence decision in 2003 — this time for homosexual sodomy. Thus, what started with the uncoupling of sexuality and procreation in the Griswold (contraception) case has now reached its unnatural conclusion with the legalization and normalization of homosexual sodomy in the Lawrence case. After all, if sex is only about adult emotional attachments, and not procreation, then why not homosexuality?

Of course, the downward slide of our society has been greatly accelerated by the explosion of pornography on the Internet which has weakened the natural romantic attraction between young people and replaced it with unbridled selfish sexual gratification. This has further lessened the natural resistance and even revulsion to various sexual perversions. Indeed, just this past week we have witnessed the sitting Chief Appellate Justice of the largest federal judicial district in the nation, posting disgusting sexual images on his website (involving people and animals) while presiding over a pornography trial involving beastiality and extreme fetishes. Where does all of this lead us — to same-sex “marriage,” of course. And how much time do we have left by Unwin’s standards — I would say that we are at least at the end of the second generation of deterioration, if not already well into the final third generation before the collapse.

Can we stop this societal suicide — possibly, but not if we can’t stop same-sex “marriage” in California in November 2008, and not without supernatural help. Without the foundation of Religion and Morality that George Washingoton and the other founding fathers provided for us, there is simply no real hope for the future of this country.

Finally, since it is only in our maleness and femaleness that we are made in the image and likeness of God, the destruction of the concept of gender is perhaps Satan’s greatest accomplishment. Moreover, since the sacramental marriage of a husband and wife is used to image the relationship of Christ and His Church, even the idea of same-sex ”marriage” is a sacrilege. Therefore, separate and apart from the seemingly accurate prognastications of Professor Unwin, I just don’t see how a God of Justice can tolerate such a diabolical mockery of His divinely ordained instituion of marriage for very long. Indeed, the same man to whom our Lord entrusted the Keys to the Kingdom warned us that: “…in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts… ” (2 Peter 3:3). In conclusion, I informed my friend that although we have had the privilege of living in the greatest nation in the history of the world, based on the foregoing, we may very well be seeing it in its waning years. May the God of our fathers have mercy on us and our beloved country.

Charles LiMandri is the General Counsel for the National Organization for Marriage (www.NOMCalifornia.org). In that capacity he has been very active in the effort to pass a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in California which will be on the ballot in November 2008. He is a member of the Religious Liberty Committee of the California Catholic Conference of Bishops and he serves on an advisory committee to the White House on issues of importance to Catholics.

The Grass is alway greener over the septic tank

I know, you're thinking: What a disgusting parable!" There is a point to it though, and those of you who are enlightened should see it clearly. There are a lot of people these days who are drinking from a proverbial septic tank. Our society is in a state of despair. Everything the world tells us will make us happy, actually makes us more miserable than before, and yet we keep drinking from the septic tank the world gives us to drink from, and never ask the questions we should be asking: Why isn't this making me happy? Why do I keep drinking from the septic tank when it tastes so horrible? Why won't I listen to the people who, like Freddy, keep telling me they can give me real water to drink! Why do so many people keep drinking from the septic tank and insisting that the people with the fresh water are persecuting them, judging them, intolerant of their way of life, etc.... etc..... etc....? Why do they ultimately end dying of septic shock or committing suicide in their last despair, rather than listen to reason? Even when they know how horrible the septic tank tastes... how horrible it makes them feel, they keep drinking and won't take the fresh water being offered them? The definition of insanity, by the way, is doing the same thing over and over while expecting to get a different result. Why don't people like Johnny realize they are insane, and why would anyone in their right mind try to stop someone from preventing another human being from making himself sick! Is this where we are at now as a society? Sitting back and letting someone harm themselves for fear of offending them rather than trying to help them?

A Parable for the enlightened

Johnny was so thirsty. He felt like he could drink a river. He was finally out of the desert and back to civilization after his car engine burned itself out. First the light on the dashboard flashed, and then the engine burned out. He couldn't explain it. He specifically fled into the desert so he could remove the oil without any bigots trying to stop him. He had walked so long, and seen many mirages, but now he was finally back, and what does he see? He sees a yard with the hugest tank of---water! Surely whoever lives here won't mind if he takes a drink? Ohh... That water is going to taste so good, so cool, so sweet as it sooths his parched throat. If he could only find the valve quickly, he could kill that killer thirst in a millisecond. There, the valve is off, he could hear gurgling and flowing. The smell of dog poop on the ground alerted him to watch where he stepped, and suddenly he put his mouth over the valve and began to drink. Freddy, alerted to the fact that someone was in his backyard, and seeing what Johnny was doing ran out and tried to stop him.

"Stop, can't you see you're drinking from a..." Freddy warned.

"Leave me alone," Johnny said as he stopped drinking for a moment. "What's with you molassaphobes! You're always criticizing me! My car broke down and I've...."

Suddenly Johnny became aware of a horrible taste in his mouth

"What is this?" He yelled as he began to vomit.

"It's my septic tank!" said Freddy. "If you're thirsty, come inside... when you stop pewking... I'll get you some real water if you want it!"

"Leave him a lone, Bigot!" Says Joey and the neighbors, armed with clubs as they enter Freddy's yard. If he wants to drink from that sceptic tank let him. "Johnny, you keep drinking, we'll make sure he doesn't bother you. Don't worry about the taste, it's just a mirage created by the guilt people like Johnny make you feel.

"That Makes sense," Freddie says as he continues to drink. "I've seen lots of mirages in the desert. Over my teeth and through the gums... lookout tummy here it comes! Anyone got a spooful of sugar to help the medicine go down?"

Truth expelled

In the name of Academic Freedom a curious phenomenon has developed. Teachers are unwilling to teach the truth. They claim there is no truth. They claim the truth is whatever you want it to be-whatever feels good to you is your truth. However, those same teachers stack the deck against free and honest inquiry. There is something very wrong at schools I've heard of an been to. Imagine attending a school and discovering that they have a religion department, and the classes on Buddhism are taught by a Buddhist Monk, the classes on another popular religion by a representative of that faith, the classes on Judaism by a Rabbi, and the classes on Catholicism by an atheist.

This isn't funny. I have nothing against recieving an alternate viewpoint on a given subject. Yet this sort of thing happens not only with religion, but also Philosophy, Science, and even in Law schools. It is as if the people who run the school are afraid to let students think for themselves. They claim that their whole purpose in doing such things is to allow people to think for themselves, but have you seen the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?" It's one thing to say "I believe that evolution is true, and this is why...." It is another thing to try and prevent students from exploring other possibilities by telling them there are no other possibilities, and persecuting teachers who say otherwise. This is not academic freedom-this is forced indoctrination.

If Evolution is true, let the students find out by eliminating other possibilities, for that is the scientific method in all its glory. Likewise, if a particular religion is seen as false by an atheist, why does the atheist need to teach students about that religion instead of letting a more qualified representative who actually believes what they are teaching? The only reason to do this is that the atheist in question is interested in controlling the minds of the students. If that atheist fears that students might take a religion they are prejudiced and intolerant of seriously, he's not going to hire someone who actually does take it seriously to teach about it.

In philosophy, few universities teach metaphysics anymore, yet Nietzsche, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Sarte are well read. Again, the idea here is to control people's minds, control the dissemination of truth. If Metaphysics, or... forbid it it no... Ethics, were taught, people might actually start thinking there is truth. (Shhh..... hussssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh) We can't have that... after all the honorable Nietzsche said there is no truth. If there isn't any truth, we can't have people saying there is truth, except Mr. Nietche who claims that it is true that there is no truth. Remember that: His truth is "there is no truth." But, if there is no truth, how can it be true that "there is no truth?"

Well... as long as no one let's the students think, we won't have to worry about them realizing that there is truth after all-by Nietzsche's own admission (Hush.... Hush...). It has to be true that there is no truth, after all. But if there isn't any truth, how can it be true that there is no truth?

The solution to this dilemma is that students aren't allowed to ask such questions, and teachers get fired for entertaining such questions and admitting that: There is truth, there is a religion that is most probably correct, there are scientific theories that should be rejected, accepted, and/or explored further by honest unprejudiced, tolerant, open minded inquiry, and that there are laws that need to be made and respected, like our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, for example.

I have been told that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are no longer taught in law school. Politicians, likewise, have only learned one thing about the Constitution: separation of powers.

Lawyers who are not taught about the constitution learn about court cases that build one upon another. Judges, when changing laws enacted by elected representatives, use domestic court cases and international precedent to decide if something is unconstitutional-Not the Constitution. Judges don't use the Constitution and thwart the democratic process. Our elected official's response to this abuse of power is: Separation of Powers!

Is there something wrong here? Everyone is doing what feels good to them because "there is no truth" but no one is doing what is right because "there is no truth". Who is to blame- Liberal teachers who teach our youth, not the truth, but what the teachers want them to believe: "there is no truth."

Who suffers? Everyone-because we are headed straight to wards Oligarchy and Totalitarianism, because when everyone becomes a self appointed authority on truth, only those with power and the ability to intimidate and indoctrinate others win the arguments-and they usually end up becoming military dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Castro, etc... We've stopped fearing the enemy because we are becoming the enemy.

Spinelessness, Freedom, and the Road to Oligarchy

Spinelessness is a condition whereby one does not do what they should do for fear of offending someone. Parents who are spineless and let their kids run wild usually wind up raising bratty selfish children who never outgrow the temper tantrums they liked throwing to get what they want. In a free society there is some confusion over the difference between freedom and license. A Brain Surgeon is free to perform surgery.

For a Lawyer to complain that his rights aren't respected because no one will let him do Brain surgery, would be ridiculous. Sure, he is free to "try" and perform brain surgery, but the patient will most likely come out a corpse if the Lawyer lacks the competence he needs to obtain through medical school. If someone wants to perform surgery and isn't competent it would be a negligence to allow him to do so. Is the Lawyer's freedom being obstructed? Not anymore than a person's freedom to get drunk is being obstructed by the policeman that arrests him for drunk driving. A Drunk should not be allowed to take an action that poses extreme danger to themselves and others.

A parent should make rules that their children should eat good food, and avoid hot stoves and freeways, and not talk to strangers or keep secrets from their parents because their children may live longer happier lives if they do.

The government should be like a good parent. The Executive branch has signed into law bills voted on by the Legislative branch to prevent us from exercising our freedoms in inappropriate ways that hurt other people, e.g. by driving drunk. Sometimes in the name of tolerance the Executive and Legislative branches abdicate their authority to the Judicial branch which is not supposed to make laws. The Judicial branch is supposed to make sure a law squares with the Constitution. By letting someone else do their job for them, elected officials can prevent the democratic process by placing Law-making in the hands of unelected officials. How lazy, how spineless, and convenient. By abdicating their legislative role in this way, they don't have to worry about the consequences to their political career by voting for something unpopular.

These spineless politicians quote separation of powers as well as the Constitution and meanwhile this country becomes an oligarchy because they've decided to give their power to unelected officials and deprive voters of their rights to vote on legislation. This is supposed to be government by the people for the people, but it is very quickly turning into a nation ruled by judges.

Voters are being deprived of their freedom to vote and govern themselves by spineless politicians that use separation of powers as a shield to protect them from doing the jobs they were elected to do.