I just finished watching Bella, and I absolutely loved it. I’ll have more to say about this movie later, but for the time being I simply want to encourage y’all to go out and purchase or rent Bella ASAP (preferably the former).

Courtesy of Yuval Levin.

This recent speech by Senator John McCain is nothing less than outstanding. Here’s a taste (but please do read the entire speech):

There is a tendency in our age to accede to the spurious excuse of moral relativism and turn away from the harshest examples of man’s inhumanity to man; to ignore the darker side of human nature that encroaches upon our decency by subtle degree. There are many reasons for this. Blessed with opportunity, and intent on the challenges of work and family, our own lives often seem too full and hectic to take notice of offenses that seem distant from our own reality. There is also the threat in a society passionate about its liberty that we can become desensitized to the dehumanizing effect of the obscenity and hostility that pervades much of popular culture. It is in our nature as Americans to see the good in things; to face even serious adversity with hope and optimism. And yet, with so much good in the world, for all the progress of humanity, in which our nation has played such an admirable and important role, evil still exists in the world. It preys upon human dignity, assaults the innocence of children, debases our self-respect and the respect we are morally obliged to pay each other, and assails the great, animating truths we believe to be self-evident — that all people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — by subjecting countless human beings to abuse, persecution and even slavery.

Confronting evil has never been easy — in our age or any other. But the failure to do so affects even those who are complacent with our own blessings and secure in our human rights. Accepting the degradation of values we believe are universal is to relinquish some of our own humanity. America was founded on the belief in the inherent dignity of all human life and that this dignity can only be preserved through shared respect and shared responsibility. We can retain our own freedom when others are robbed of theirs, but not the sense of virtue that made our revolution a moral as well as political crusade, and which recognizes that personal happiness is so much more than pleasure, and requires us to serve causes greater than self-interest.

That is beautiful and powerful prose, my firends. I am very impressed with both Senator McCain and his speechwriters. Well done, gents. 

Because there are some things that are much more important than politics.

Please pray for the people of Burma.

I’ve had a few requests for the links to my appearance on Hardball that took place during my sabbatical from SA (May 30, 2007). There were two segments, and you can watch them here and here.

I cannot think of any actor that deserved to play the role of Jesus more than Jim Caviezel.

(LvC&EI!)

LifeNews has this report.

[Ed. This is a post from my "Alexham" archives over at RedState. I am reposting it here because I believe the overall message of the post needs to be restated before we gather together for the national convention in September.]

I can still remember the day after the 1994 midterm elections. It was an unusually sunny day in the Southland, and all seemed right with the world. After all of those years in the wilderness, the Republicans had finally taken control of the House, and soon thereafter, the Senate. We would do things differently, we promised. We were a different kind of political party. Unlike the Democrats, who only care for power for power’s sake, we sought power to make a profound difference in the lives of every-day Americans.

How different things look thirteen years later. Somewhere along the line, we lost our way. I think most Republicans instinctively know this, but have trouble articulating exactly when things began to unravel for our party. What we do know is that the Republican Party is at crossroads. We are a party in search of an identity, and the path we choose will have long-term ramifications not only for the GOP, but for these United States. (more…)

Many social conservatives (including yours truly) have, at times, questioned Senator McCain’s commitment to the pro-life cause. Well, last night I was watching Chris Matthews’s Hardball College Tour interview with the good senator, and I must to say that I was extremely impressed with his performance. His finest moment by far, in my humble opinion, was the strong stand he took for a Culture of Life in this country:

(start watching the video at about the 1:35 mark)

Well done, Senator McCain. I am proud to support you.

Speaking to an “enthralled” South Lawn audience at the White House, President Bush said the following to Pope Benedict XVI:

“We need your message to reject this dictatorship of relativism and embrace a culture of justice and truth. In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but in a spirit of mutual support.”

RIP, sweet soul.

(LvK-Lo)

O.k., this is awesome. Three hundred staffers at the World Bank and IMF sent this signed letter to Pope Benedict, which I am republishing here: (more…)

Courtesy of Joe Carter.

Hey sportsfans, I am still not blogging. But I did want to let those of you who stop by here every once in a while for old times’ sake know about my latest Internet-related project, “Catholics Against Rudy.” I could go into greater detail, but is there really any need to do so?

That is the new title of my forthcoming book that will be published in 2007 by Cambridge University Press. It just appeared on Amazon.com here. According to the Leiter Law Rankings, Cambridge is one of the six leading academic presses. It is ranked number one by political scientists and is considered one of the top two publishers in philosophy. Because this book overlaps the fields of law, political science, and philosophy, I am deeply gratified with the forthcoming publication of this book.

right?

(Thanks to SA reader Joe, who emailed me the link along with these remarks: “Cool Stuff.  NARAL just issued a statement saying that they were not real animals, just tissue”)

Congratulations, Congressman Marshall. Although I did not vote for you, I seriously considered doing so.  Your voting record on “Culture of Life” issues is superb, even though you are personally pro-choice to some degree and not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. If only there were more dems like you. You have also been a staunch supporter of our troops, and an effective congressman in many other respects. For all of these reasons, I was not at all disappointed to see you reelected, and wish you nothing but the best during your next term in office.

See the Reuters story here. I have not read the decision, but I suppose it could be defended on originalist grounds as a matter of constitutional law, depending on the circumstances.  I just do not like the result from a moral perspective.

Now, here’s a protestant movement (with a distinctly Catholic flavor) that I can get behind.

(LvMS)

Professor Richard Stith of MOJ on the misguided mindset of those who favor embryo destruction:

I conclude that pro-choice folks think pro-life claims re embryos to be not only wrong but absurd whenever (even unconsciously, in the back of their minds) they think that embryos are under construction in the womb. And pro-life folks find pro-choice denials of prized human dignity in embryos to be equally absurd whenever they think that the unborn child develops (indeed, develops itself, unlike the Polaroid photo) from the moment of fertilization.

The two sides are not quite parallel in this, however: Human beings do develop. To think they are constructed is flat error. This error remains intuitively plausible and has a decent cultural pedigree, so those who make it should not be dismissed as utterly irrational or evil, even though they may seem so from the viewpoint of one who bears in mind the facts of human development. But they are absolutely wrong. We know with certainty that quickening is an illusion, that the child is developing from the beginning, not being made from the outside, for its form lies within it, in its active potency, in its activated DNA. From the point of view of natural science (and natural theology) delayed ensoulment has lost its reason for being and Occam’s razor should cut it out of our debates.

God Bless you.

I have really enjoyed reading Donald Miller, who is sort of a stream-of-consciousness prose writer massively beloved by 20-something Christians.  (I’m in my thirties, but came to the faith late, so I still get to read him.)

One thing that has typically bothered me about Miller’s work is that he takes gratuitious shots at the religious right political types.  When orthodox Christians harp too hard on the Republican Christian crowd, I tend to suspect they are just working hard to make themselves respectable to the left.  Despite that minor complaint, I have really liked reading Miller’s work.  Blue Like Jazz was one of the better works of self-revelation I’ve seen in the Christian book world.  Miller just has a great “writing voice.”
Anyway, I got my latest issue of Touchstone and discovered that Miller defends his membership in the Democratic party.  Whoa.  Full stop.  I can understand when my grandparents stick with the Democrats on the basis that FDR seemed like God’s vice-regent in saving America from the depression.  It is a bit harder to accept that a young Christian, observing the fact that Democratic presidential candidates must pledge an oath of undying fealty to Planned Parenthood, could ever be a member of the abortion/euthanasia/secularist party.

Now, before commenters go crazy talking about how bad the GOP is, which is what Miller apparently does to defend himself, I just want to point out that’s not really a defense.  It’s like saying, I’m a member of the KKK, but the ACLU is just so terrible I don’t have any choice!

Besides, I can fully understand a Christian refusing to vote, refusing to support the GOP, staying out of politics, working to support a more ethically pure third party, etc.  But I just can’t see becoming a Democrat.  To me, under the current circumstances, it’s out of the question.

I’d love to hear from commenters who may have thought about this, too, and may have a different take.  I’d love to hear from everybody.  I think this is an eminently discussable topic.

Kudos to the Governor:

“We cannot watch from the sidelines and be content to mourn this atrocity as it passes into history. We must act and that is exactly why we will divest from the Sudan. Divesting will show our defiance against the murderers and their inhumanity.”

For this noble effort. It’s certainly far less than I would like to see, but it’s not bad for a dem effort.

Joseph Knippenberg offers his thoughts on the Davis bill here.

A few posts back, I took abortion apologist Eduardo Peñalver to task for his most recent piece in Commonweal (a CINO publication).

Well, Professor Rick Garnett–one of Mr. Peñalver’s co-bloggers at Mirror of Justice–has taken the liberty of dismantling that piece in fine fashion. It’s a gentle, but effective, fisking; and I think many of SA’s readers will enjoy reading it.

But remains morally problematic.

Bishop Doran’s latest column is nothing short of superb. Here’s a taste:

The seven “sacraments” of their secular culture are abortion, buggery, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, feminism of the radical type, and genetic experimentation and mutilation. These things they unabashedly espouse, profess and promote. Their continuance in public office is a clear and present danger to our survival as a nation.

. . .

These unholy sacraments of our secular culture are the seeds of the destruction of our nation.Think for yourself: what nation that kills its young, perverts marriage, prevents new life, and destroys the family, kills those deemed useless, makes the war of the sexes into a real war, and manipulates the genetic basis of human nature, can long endure?

Now that is what I call giving the bayonet to the dictatorship of relativism, folks. 

Well said, Bishop Doran.

(LvCJ)

Today’s must read. Here’s a taste:

Rather than debate what it is we’re killing, we should consider what we may be saving–for our sakes as much as for “its” own. When you choose to abort, you alter the course of history. While the child up for abortion may or may not be the next Einstein, saving his life could one day save yours.

. . .

We don’t have a crystal ball, but there’s someone who does, and there is a reason for every stork He sends along. I am religiously illiterate, but I have come to understand on the most visceral level why pregnancies are called “blessings”–even if, as often as not, the blessing comes in disguise.

For all the reluctant mothers-to-be out there, you should know that when you’re having even a momentary second thought, someone you can’t see is whispering in your ear . . . .

(Thanks to SA reader RTP for the heads up)

Indeed she does.

(LvAmy)

” . . . and I’ll show you who you are,” goes the old maxim. While SA (according to its search engine) hasn’t thus far covered the race here in Connecticut between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont for the Democrat nomination to the U.S. Senate, I think its time to start paying attention. And to start supporting Joe Lieberman.

Last week Ned Lamont, who hails from my hometown of Greenwich, accepted the endorsement of and appeared alongside Michael Schiavo. Yeah, that Schiavo.

According to this Associated Press story, the Lamont campaign embraced Schiavo because, “‘he represents the feelings of a lot of people that feel the federal government is getting too intrusive,” said Liz Dupont-Diehl, Lamont’s campaign spokeswoman. ‘This is a way to point out a very real difference between Ned and Senator Lieberman.’ Lamont has criticized Lieberman for supporting a bill that allowed a federal court to consider reinserting a feeding tube used by Terri Schiavo, a 39-year-old Florida woman who had been in a vegetative state since 1990.”

Lieberman, on the other hand, according to a 2003 interview, supported the Florida legislature’s attempt to give Gov. Jeb Bush the authority to order Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted, saying “I believe that certainly in cases where there is not a living will … I feel very strongly that we ought to honor life and we ought not to create a system where people are being deprived of nutrition or hydration in a way that ends their lives.”

As if that’s not bad enough, today’s local newspaper, the Greenwich Time, leads with the headline, “Jackson, Sharpton to back Lamont“. Which raises the question of whether Ned Lamont is an anti-Semite. Consider the following:

- According to the linked Greenwich Time article, Lamont was a member of the uber-exclusive Round Hill [Country] Club for 16 years, and only resigned earlier this year in order to pursue Lieberman’s Senate seat. Lamont himself cited Round Hill’s “lack of diversity” as his reason for leaving. “Lack of diversity”, of course, is code for “no blacks or Jews”, a situation which Lamont apparently enjoyed and supported for the entirety of his membership. Has Lamont pledged not to rejoin the Round Hill Club should his campaign not be successful, or, if he loses, will he return to its lily-white environs?

- Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two of the most vicious anti-Semites on the American political scene. For the young (or those with short memories), here is the Washington Post’s pithy re-cap of the Jesse Jackson “Hymietown” incident:

Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as “Hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown” in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman. Jackson had assumed the references would not be printed because of his racial bond with Coleman, but several weeks later Coleman permitted the slurs to be included far down in an article by another Post reporter on Jackson’s rocky relations with American Jews.

A storm of protest erupted, and Jackson at first denied the remarks, then accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. The Nation of Islam’s radical leader Louis Farrakhan, an aggressive anti-Semite and old Jackson ally, made a difficult situation worse by threatening Coleman in a radio broadcast and issuing a public warning to Jews, made in Jackson’s presence: “If you harm this brother [Jackson], it will be the last one you harm.”

Finally, Jackson doused the fires in late February with an emotional speech admitting guilt and seeking atonement before national Jewish leaders in a Manchester, New Hampshire synagogue. Yet Jackson refused to denounce Farrakhan, and lingering, deeply rooted suspicions have led to an enduring split between Jackson and many Jews. The frenzy also heightened tensions between Jackson and the mostly white establishment press.

Al Sharpton’s Jew-hating credentials derive from his long career as a New York City race hustler. This article from the Jewish Post details Sharpton’s involvement with the 1995 arson and murders at Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned clothing store in Harlem which had been targeted by Sharpton’s affiliates for harassment and, ultimately, destruction. Eight people died in a blaze set by a man inspired by Sharpton’s rhetoric. “We will not stand by,” Sharpton was quoted as saying, “and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” (emphasis added) More on the Freddy’s Fashion Mart incident here, here and here. Four years before Freddy’s, Sharpton had helped incite another murder. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby tells the story:

1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin’s funeral he rails against the “diamond merchants” — code for Jews — with “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and stabbed to death.

Oh, by the way; Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew.

- The timing. The Greenwich Time article says, “Lamont and Lieberman have focused their recent efforts on turning out the urban vote, with both candidates visiting Bridgeport last weekend. Lieberman was accompanied by Sen. Ken Salazar, a Mexican-American senator from Colorado, in the Park City, while Lamont campaigned with black California Congresswoman Maxine Waters.” (emphasis added) Given Mel Gibson’s weekend escapades in Malibu (not to mention Israel’s ongoing war against HezbAllah), anti-Semitism has “top of mind” awareness among the general populace. I question whether Lamont, in choosing this week to bring Sharpton and Jackson to the centers of Connecticut’s black population, is not trying to send the message that a vote for him is a vote against Lieberman the Jew.

It would be interesting if a major Connecticut media outlet asked Lamont about these issues. But I won’t hold my breath.