I just don't understand...

Lately I have noticed the overwhelming majority of people who are in favor of things like gay marriage sling the word "hate" around. It is the answer to any opposition they get on their opinion. If another person is not in favor of legalizing gay marriage, or of homosexual acts in general, then they must be "hateful." It seems that it is easier to point fingers and cry, "HATE!" than it is to try to understand the other person's point of view.

There are other issues that are like this as well, in which the opposing viewpoint gets stonewalled with, "You're just hateful and intolerant." But it is the gay marriage issue that I have noticed it in the most strongly, especially in places like Facebook. Two or three times in recent weeks and months, I have encountered people calling Chick-fil-A a "hateful" organization because they have donated money to Christian organizations which do not favor the legalization of gay marriage. In their eyes, opposing this is akin to barring people of their civil rights, and therefore any association with such groups must mean that Chick-fil-A "hates gays." People even make ludicrous jumps such as, "Chick-fil-A gives 25% of their profits to groups who run seminars to turn gay people straight and to political candidates whose sole purpose is to keep gay marriage illegal." Totally fabricated. I am particularly noticing these CFA attacks because my husband works for their charitable organization. People boycotting CFA make it less likely that he will keep his job - but fortunately, these boycotts are not harming the restaurants at all, and they all continue to do a thriving business.

I think the reason I get so discouraged and am not able to understand is this: when I hear an opposing viewpoint, I don't just launch back with, "Haters!" I think about the words the other person has said, and I weigh them in my mind and based on my faith - a faith that is completely rooted in common sense and truth, not in feelings or fashions or societal whims. I also try to consider where the other person is coming from - why do they hold this viewpoint? Usually, it is not because they are some evil person who hates others, and usually it is not because they are completely unintelligent. These are typically smart, caring people.

A good example of this is the topic of abortion. Usually when I come across somebody who is in favor of abortion remaining legal - "pro-choice," they like to call it, which I don't because while there are many choices I am in favor of, this ain't one of them! - they are not some baby-hating pro-killing jerk! They really and truly believe that abortion must remain legal because, while not the choice they would make personally, they think it is compassionate to have this option for others. They basically see no other way, and they have convinced themselves that some babies are better off being aborted than being born into poverty or whatever other unfavorable conditions may exist. They think abortion being legal is a "necessary evil." These "pro-choice" advocates really, for the most part, think they are being compassionate. They do not "hate babies," at least I like to think that most of them do not. So, I can understand their position. I absolutely 100% disagree and believe they are misguided, but that doesn't make them mean, it doesn't make them stupid, and it doesn't make them hateful. Calling them that will never get them to listen to our reasoned pro-life arguments anyway! So I choose to say, "I understand where you are coming from, but I strongly and completely disagree," rather than, "You baby-killer! How hateful you are!"

As a side note, I see abortion as a much, much larger violation of human rights. It actually kills another human being, which is the worst thing to do. It isn't merely harming their bodily integrity (think genital mutilation here). It isn't merely denying their desire to have the law recognize their relationship. It is depriving them of their very life. If the law tomorrow suddenly stopped recognizing my marriage to my husband, then would it change things? Sure, some... but I would absolutely still consider myself to be married and behave as such, and the Church would still view our marriage as valid. Those are what are most important. But if the law suddenly stopped protecting me from being killed? That is an outright denying of my basic human rights, endowed to me by my Creator, as is said in the law of this land.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see an attempt to understand from the pro-gay marriage side. I have yet to see a conversation in which people attempt to explain why they think my side is wrong without playing the "hate" card. I understand their arguments and disagree. They don't understand my arguments and decide I must be "hateful." I am sure there are people out there who do hate gays in general regardless of their actions or positions on legal issues, and of course it is wrong to call people names or try to hurt them because you dislike them in general. But that is not the reason most people are opposed to gay marriage - at least not for other faithful Catholics - and I am sick and tired of the assumption that our reasons are rooted in hate and ignorance. Why is it that we must tolerate the gay marriage views while they refuse to tolerate the fact that some people disagree for real reasons and not just out of fear and hate?

Interestingly, I never hear mention of the fact that there are some homosexual people who dislike their homosexual urges and do think that homosexual sex acts are disordered, and therefore they disagree with the legalization of gay marriage. In the logic of some of the pro-gay marriage side, do these people "hate" themselves? No, of course not - in fact, these people refuse to define themselves based solely on their sexual tendencies. And it must take great courage and strength for them to do this!

Another issue where this stonewalling happens is whenever anyone mentions the Church's teachings in relation to condoms and AIDS and Africa. Instead of trying to understand the very real reasons why the Catholic Church won't distribute condoms, even in Africa where AIDS is widespread, people just assume the Church is "mean" and "intolerant." The Church must "want people to die." They refuse to acknowledge that maybe the Church thinks there are better ways to handle this (and more moral ways to boot). Or if they do acknowledge that, they assume the Church is "stupid" and that of course they could never think of any good alternatives to deal with the AIDS crisis in Africa. The very real answer is that if you don't have sex with multiple people, you are far less likely to get AIDS. If you hand out condoms, you are sending the message to continue to engage in risky behavior - increase it, even, since you have "protection" now, protection which is not guaranteed. There is even evidence-based research showing that condom distribution is not the answer, but since it seems like a common sense approach, any other idea is automatically discounted or seen as "mean" and trying to hurt rather to help. Many people (ahem, mainstream media) paint the Church as being archaic and "out-of-touch," when the opposite is true. People just won't take the time to dig in and explore further and jump to conclusions and make assumptions.

Can we not all just have the best assumptions of each other unless proven otherwise? Can we just assume that people can be mistaken, misled, and/or misunderstood, and that underneath that we generally do have good intentions and wish the best for others, even if we have different ways of going about it? And this does not mean that we back down on our positions - not at all. We shouldn't waver and capitulate on issues as important as the ones our world is faced with today. We should absolutely hold fast to what we believe, especially if we believe we have Truth on our sides. Those with Truth can present their side without being ugly about it, without refusing to discuss the issue and calling out, "Hate!" instead. We can discuss things with reasoned patience rather than bewildered anger at "those hateful bigots." We live in a day and age where the terms "hate" and "bigot" can be thrown at somebody as an immediate way to shut down the conversation. That is what they want - to not have to discuss it because they have decided your arguments are merely hate-based, so why discuss them? Or perhaps they have an inkling that you may have something logical or reasoned to say and don't even want the conversation to get to that point... in other words, they won't tolerate your view, so they shut you down by calling you "intolerant" lest your words actually have some sense in them.

Don't be afraid to stand for the truth, and don't be afraid to do it in love, in patience, and in knowing that you can disagree with somebody out of Truth and not just because they are "hateful."

What's Wrong with the World

That's the title of G.K. Chersterton book, written decades ago, and making some eerily true observations which ring true today even more so than they did when the book was written. The title of it comes to mind lately as I see some videos online... videos of college-aged students who are holding peaceful demonstrations in legal locations, and are being called "intolerant" for doing so. But who is really being intolerant during these demonstrations? Apparently, some people believe that it is okay to be rude, insulting, and behave violently towards others as long as you think their position is "intolerant." In other words, it is okay to not tolerate those who fit your definition of "intolerance" and show them this in a hateful way. So I ask, what is wrong with the world???

The students who were demonstrating were doing so in support of "traditional" marriage, that is, marriage between one woman and one man. That is what their banner sign said that they held. Other ways in which they demonstrated were by handing out pamphlets to those who passed by and would take them, answering questions from passersby, reciting prayers such as the rosary, and chanting lines such as, "A moral wrong can never be a civil right." Chanting, meaning repeating it loudly and clearly, not yelling it in anger. Oh, and they were playing bagpipes and a drum. ;)

So, what would the appropriate, tolerant response be for those passersby who disagreed? Perhaps they could ignore the demonstrators. Perhaps they could engage them in calm debate. Perhaps they could just roll their eyes and go snicker about it to their friends. Perhaps they could start a counter-protest in which they peacefully held signs of their own and chanted their own sayings loudly yet calmly. Maybe they could have even started praying for the demonstrators if they truly believed that their words were at odds with God, with morals.

But what did many of them do instead? Well, there is a video of it all (my summary beneath, as it is a bit long):

In summary, one counter-protester ran up and jumped through the banner, tearing it down from one of its posts, while others applauded the destruction of others' property. Tolerant? Others shouted cuss words at the demonstrators (who, by the way, were using no vulgarity themselves). Tolerant? Still others gave the middle finger to the demonstrators and their video camera. Tolerant? Others screamed at them, rather than calmly debating them, using insults and attacks ("You're disgusting, just look at yourselves!!") rather than facts. Tolerant? Another actually spit in the face of one of the demonstrators, and pamphlets were torn up and spat upon as well. Tolerant? There are other videos in which similar behavior is displayed: people spitting on their van windows as they leave, vulgar speech directed at the demonstrators themselves, and other acts of outright hostility, including people screaming, "God is dead!!" over and over.

All these actions show little regard for other human beings and their dignity, and their rights to disagree. The people who committed these atrocities probably believe that they are justified in that they think it was an atrocious topic on which to come out and demonstrate. But they are so caught up in seeing the pro-marriage side as being "disgusting," or "intolerant," that they think it is justifiable to respond in violence, insults, and outright rage. Do they not see that this greatly hurts their own position? No matter how wrong you think somebody is, responding with hostility and outrage and hatred is no way to respond. These people need to examine their mantra of "tolerance" and try extending it to everyone, including those who they think are wrong.

Another thing I have noticed is that the pro-marriage side, and in abortion debates, the pro-life side, are the ones who typically remain cool and collected, non-violent, non-vulgar. Sure, there are the wackos who kill abortionists and such, but you don't see a crowd of pro-lifers standing by and laughing or applauding such horrific acts, because pro-lifers generally don't respond to killing with more killing. So why do many people respond to what they perceive as "intolerance" with intolerance? I have yet to hear of a pro-life or pro-marriage rally in which vulgarities are shouted through a microphone, yet that was done at a recent abortion-supporting rally in DC. Some people who want abortion to remain legal actually raided and destroyed a crisis pregnancy center in NYC recently... stole all their equipment such as ultrasound machines, even stole the supply of Pampers (one of the more expensive diaper brands) they had in a closet to give to new mothers in poverty who were choosing to keep their babies. They even tore out the floors, just to be hateful and deprive the pregnancy center of some of its money, I suppose. And why can't I find a link in the first two pages of results on Google that comes from a mainstream media source? This was obviously not reported much by them. But has the pro-choice side come out strongly condemning the vandals, the way that the pro-life side responds when somebody murders an abortionist? No, they have not. Silence can be misconstrued as approval, and I would hope nobody really approves of this kind of behavior... but is there really a "they deserve this" mentality among some pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage people? That people are deserving of acts of hostility because of what they believe?

A public library recently denied a group access to a meeting room which they had previously okayed, because they heard that the pro-abortion side was going to come out and protest if they didn't cancel this group. The group wanted to privately view a movie called Blood Money, which is about abortion and the profits made by it and such. The library backed down and told the group that no, they could not use the room to watch this movie even though they'd been given permission already. Were they also showing some intolerance, or were they truly afraid that where pro-abortion people are protesting, they often make a scene and are vulgar? The video above has been removed from Youtube with no explanation - again, are they intolerant of the demonstrators' message, or are they acting out of fear of making waves due to the anger shown by the opposite side?

Does it make my blood boil to see people supporting abortion with sayings like, "It's not a baby," or "Get your rosaries off my ovaries" (clearly a misunderstanding of basic biology, as it is the uterus which they should be referencing here!)? Sure. But I am absolutely not going to yell cuss words at them, make obscene hand gestures, and try to tear down their signs. And how about gay marriage supporters? It doesn't even get me riled up. I disagree, and we can leave it at that. I don't feel a desire to tear up their pamphlets or spit on them.

If anybody ever sees a pro-traditional marriage person yell obscenities and give the finger to a pro-gay marriage demonstrator in public, let me know. I don't think you're really going to see it. And I live in the South, people, where we have some really fearful people... I saw KKK members in full garb on the downtown street corners here only 12 years ago. The thing is, it is not about fearing other people's beliefs and then attacking them with insults. It is about explaining one's position thoughtfully and respectfully. I only hope that no matter what their beliefs, more people can express their disagreement by being kind about it, by assuming that the other people have good intentions and are real human beings deserving of their own dignity. If they are demonstrating peacefully and respectfully, then we need to respond peacefully and respectfully ourselves.

Assorted Parenting Stuff

So, did anyone hear the story about the woman in Old Country Buffet restaurant in MN being asked to stop nursing her six month old baby there? Crazy that this is still happening. The state of MN even has a breastfeeding protection law, stating that mothers can nurse in both private and public places, and that it should never be considered "indecent exposure." Apparently the police don't know the laws in their own state, because they were called and agreed with the restaurant staff. They also claim that the baby's father become loud and aggressive or something... unclear whether or not that is true, but had the restaurant staff not been confrontational in threatening this family that they'd have to leave if they didn't stop nursing, then there would not have been an issue to begin with.

If other patrons are complaining about a mother breastfeeding at another table in the restaurant, then management needs to know how to deal with this. They need to offer to move the offended party to a different seat and say that the mother and baby are within their legal rights. Mentioning that it is a family-friendly restaurant and that babies are part of many families could be helpful, and that babies who aren't fed when hungry end up much more disruptive to the dining atmosphere!

I know why this keeps happening across the US: ignorance. people who have never breastfed, or at least not for long, just have no idea what it entails and how it works. Every time one of these situations is made public, there are ignorant comments such as, "She should stay home until the baby can eat solid foods," "She should just pump and bring a bottle," and, "Just because the baby has a right to eat doesn't mean it trumps my rights." People apparently think they have the right to not have to be around things they see as offensive. If that were the case, we'd be kicking people out of stores and restaurants left and right: "Excuse me, your tight-fitting clothes over your overweight body offend me, so please put on larger clothes that fit you or leave." "You talking on your cell phone while I eat is offensive, so please take it to your car or leave." "Your tube top and short shorts are offensive to my eyes, so leave." Ha.

Some people think that restaurants have the right to kick out anyone they want, regardless of the law, because they are a private company and have the right to refuse to serve people who might be offending others in the restaurant. So, to people who think that, I want to know: are you saying that if patrons find the eating habits to be disgusting if a physically handicapped person cannot put his food into his mouth and chew it neatly and with typical "good manners," then they should be able to kick him out? Or ask him to cover himself or go eat in the bathroom because other patrons don't like seeing food falling out of his mouth and him chewing with his mouth open? You say moms should bring a bottle for use in public, so would you say this man's family should give him a feeding tube when they go out with him in public? Or they should just stay home until he can eat "normally?"

The breastfeeding laws often say that a mother can nurse her baby wherever she and her baby have a right to be. Old Country Buffet allows babies in their restaurants, so they are allowing breastfeeding there as well. I'm sure there are high-price restaurants out there that don't allow any children - and so they don't have to allow breastfeeding there either. People can eat there if they don't want to be around babies who might do normal baby things!

Speaking of all this, did you know there is a movement of people out there who hate children so much that they choose to be "child free" and actually have websites encouraging this, calling themselves "brat free." Do these people not realize that they were children once, and that the only way to continue the human race is to have more children? It is almost laughable, except that it is just evidence of the Culture of Death.

The latest news regarding the Culture of Death is just sick... a couple wanted one of their twins aborted because he appeared to have Down Syndrome. The doctor killed the other twin mistakenly. Then the parents went back to him so he could kill the "correct" twin. And then they sued him, of course. Sick, sick, sick! This article on catholic.org does a good job of explaining why people feel like they have the right to do this... they think they can have complete control over reproduction.

And one last parenting topic I came across recently: Changing Minds about Infant Circumcision. It is a collection of comments from people about how they came to realize that it was wrong to choose to have their babies circumcised. Interesting range of comments, from nurses who had to assist in hospital circumcisions to parents who had their first son circumcised to people who didn't care one way or another until they watched a video of one being done...

Abortion: A Lie to Women

I have noticed something when frequenting other blogs and discussion forums that are of a attachment-parenting nature. It seems that there are some mothers out there who are very strongly in favor of gentle child-rearing approaches... no spanking, no circumcising, gentle births, no scheduling feedings in little babies. I particularly have noticed something in comments sections on some of the recent posts and articles that I have read regarding routine infant circumcision. I would truly hope that these few comments do not speak for the majority of people, but I am seeing also that very little people are speaking back against it... and this is the idea that while it is not morally/ethically acceptable to cut a baby's genitals, it *is* okay to have an abortion, because that is a woman's "choice."

How seriously misled must one be to hold this viewpoint? What kind of lies and catch-phrases and modern-day feminist rhetoric must've been fed to these women throughout their lives? Isn't the right to bodily integrity just that - the right of each person to maintain his or her whole, healthy body? Is abortion not also an elective surgery that is typically done for non-therapeutic reasons? How can people believe that while it is wrong to intentionally cut off a healthy body part on a tiny newborn, it is okay - and should be legally protected as a basic "right" - to intentionally kill that same baby a few months earlier? Aren't these *both* ethical issues? And while surely it is unethical to amputate parts of babies for non-medical purposes, at least those babies usually get to remain alive!

I appreciate the speaking out that others do about treating babies as feeling, individual human beings who should have the right to bodily integrity and to being cared for gently - I do it myself, obviously - I think abortion is the gravest issue of all in how we think of babies in our culture. If we want people to change their views of babies as inconvenient problems that are exhausting and draining and need to be "put in their place" and trained into not being "manipulative," then we need to start at the root... babies in the womb are a precious gift, a gift that extends into their babyhood after birth and beyond into childhood. Children are not just inconveniences - and until we stop seeing them as disposable before they are born, then how can we expect them to be treated respectfully as born babies? Babies in the womb need to be treated gently and with respect, too. Perhaps abortion does get more attention than genital integrity of baby boys... so yes, I can understand if a person chooses to raise awareness about that issue while not mentioning abortion. But because I see abortion as the worst treatment possible for a baby, I will write about it.

Abortion is also just about the most unnatural thing one can do to her baby or herself. In attachment parenting circles, there is much emphasis on natural living. Making a choice to kill an unborn baby - to disrupt the natural process - is going to have a negative impact on the body! It is not natural in the least, which is why I cannot figure out why people who focus on natural living many times support abortion as a "right" of women.

I think there are so many myths and lies that are fed to women under the guise of "choice" and "women's rights" and such. Most women who are rabidly protective of a woman's "right" to choose have never had an abortion themselves, nor will they ever have one. They want to protect this ideal that they have been fed. They think that if abortion is not legally protected, then women are somehow inferior to men, that we are oppressed. But God gave us this gift of being able to carry new life! This is a precious gift that sets us apart as women - it does not make us inferior, just different biologically. And we need to protect and cherish that special gift from God! What a privilege it is, what an honor!

What women are NOT told about abortion before they get one:

That most women regret it after having it done.

That their risk for breast cancer increases after an abortion, particularly if it was their first pregnancy. (click for source)

That the woman in the major supreme court case which legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade, is now adamantly opposed to abortion. (here's just one source)

Many women suffer from depression, anxiety, and even suicidal tendencies post-abortion.

Babies in-utero can feel pain. They often have a heartbeat and are able to move and are developing most of their body parts at the time they are aborted.

Abortion has medical risks to the mother as well. As "safe" as it can be made in a clinic, it is never completely safe - just like any surgical procedure. And it sure as heck isn't safe for the baby!

Sometimes abortions fail. The baby is born alive instead, at which point the doctors suddenly have to change from trying to kill the baby to trying to save its life, simply because of its change in location. How does that make any logical sense at all????? (Gianna Jesson is an example)

It can never, ever be morally permissible to trample upon the right to life of another. No right less than the right to life itself gets precedence over another's rights to convenience... or any other "rights" they have. When it crosses the line to killing another innocent person, then it is murder, plain and simple - not a "right."

There is much more I could write on this... perhaps I will begin another series of posts. ;)

For the "regulars"

In case any of my family and friends are wondering where all these random people are coming from who are commenting on my empty envelope from the White House... both Thomas at American Papist and Fr. Z at What Does the Prayer Really Say? have posted the story on their blogs.

The amount of dissenters who have come to my blog via AmP or Fr. Z was a bit startling at first... I thought, "Why are so many people who think it's silly to protest abortion (in a non-violent way such as a letter campaign) reading AmP or Fr. Z in the first place???" Surely these people do not agree with the content on those two very pro-life blogs.

But I am thinking this is a good thing. If there are pro-abortion people out there who are actively reading AmP and Fr. Z, then they must care about the issue at some level. They must care what their opposition thinks. And, as Father Lopez once said, he's much more worried about those who are totally indifferent than those who have enough passion to care one way or the other. That is, it is easier to change somebody's mind who cares passionately about something than it is to get somebody who is indifferent to care enough to stand up for their beliefs (because they have no beliefs, or very weak or flip-floppy beliefs).

I'm fortunate that there are people out there who take the time to spread the pro-life word and to fight against the ever-present culture of death that has so subtley snuck into so many people's lives. Many young people today are searching for Truth, and they can find a lot of truth over at AmP and Fr. Z's blog. Perhaps the dissenters who read these blogs will have their hearts softened over time through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Not sure what to think...

Today I received mail from Washington... from the White House, in fact! At least, it said so in the upper lefthand corner of the envelope. I figured it was probably some sort of form letter response to my letter to the President regarding my opposition to the "Freedom of Choice Act."

Hand-addressed to me, too - wow! I wouldn't think that there was a person sitting in the White House hand-addressing and applying stamps to envelopes... they don't have some sort of bulk mail rate at the White House? Hmm, more wasted tax dollars, I guess!

So, here's the thing: the envelope was empty. There was nothing in it at all. Nothing. I even checked for white powder, and nope - empty. Where is my letter? Or is this some sort of prank? My husband says that the envelope looks exactly like the one he received (some font, I guess) as the one he received from President Clinton back when he was in high school, congratulating him on his Boy Scout Eagle Award.

Then I remembered... what a coincidence - I had sent an empty envelope to the White House myself a few months ago! An empty, red envelope. I had the courtesy to explain on the back of my envelope what its purpose was... there was nothing written on the back of the envelope I received today.

So, is this just some kind of mistake? Was there supposed to be a letter responding to my concerns about FOCA or my concerns about the genocide called abortion that remains legal in this country (and could become even more protected under the law as our current President seems to want it to be)? Or should I feel... mocked, perhaps? After all, I did send them an empty envelope myself, representing one life lost to abortion, one life that was unable to have its voice heard by our elected officials in Washington. Getting an empty envelope in response... is that their way of saying, "No response - we don't care. That life is still gone, and we remain silent on the matter."

So now I am really curious... did anyone else who participated in the Red Envelope Campaign receive a response? Or an empty envelope? Did anyone who mailed a letter directly to the President recieve anything in response via mail? What was supposed to be in my envelope??? Or was it intended as is??

See? It's really empty!

Be Heard

Be Heard Project - A Special Message from Future Nurses of America from beheard on Vimeo.

The "Conscence Rule"

Well, I didn't put that FOCA image in my sidebar for nothing... we have work to do!

About a month ago, I sent letters to my representatives in DC as well as to our president outlining my concerns about FOCA. I received responses from my reps assuring me that they did not support FOCA (which I already had figured, especially given that one of them is a pro-life former OB/GYN).

The "conscience rule" goes hand in hand with FOCA - it protects the rights of doctors to practice health care according to their own morals... that is, they do not have to offer abortion as one of their "services." Not surprisingly, our president would like to change this.

You can go here to voice your opposition to the president: http://capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=12821731&type=PR

Here's my letter, which summarizes the main problems with this issue:

It is morally wrong for the federal government to force a doctor, nurse or other health care professional to participate in abortion – which stops a heartbeat and kills an innocent human life. Putting health care providers in the position of having to compromise their morals will cause many to quit, thus lowering the standard of health care in our country and creating a health care shortage. Personally, I would not go to a doctor who participates in abortions, and many Americans feel the same way. We deserve a choice in the doctors we use for our own health care. I urge you not to rescind the “conscience rule.”