Wednesday, January 27, 2010

There is no double standard

The Catholic Church is exercising a double standard by telling the people to choose the country's next leaders based on their conscience, but at the same time saying that they should not vote for those who support the reproductive health bill, according to Akbayan Representative Walden Bello.
This is somehow echoed by a Sunstar editorial:
Reacting to the call of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) for the faithful “not to be swayed by survey results and political advertisements” but to follow instead the dictates of their conscience after a prayerful and collective period of discernment,” some people accused the bishops of having a double standard of religious outlook.

While asking people to vote with their conscience, CBCP urges them not to vote for candidates supporting the RH bill.

There is no double standard. The Church has the obligation, as pastor, to guide the faithful away from evil, specifically in cases where there is intrinsic evil -- intrinsic evil is, sadly, not in the vocabulary of many.

To better understand why there is no double standard, I link you to the January 13th column of San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer entitled Archbishop’s Journal – Free Will, Conscience and Moral Choice: What Catholics believe which is a response to Rep. Nancy Pelosi's statement in a Newsweek interview in December:

I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions ...

While the statement of Rep. Pelosi was related to her support of abortion, her reasons for supporting what is contrary to Church teaching while at the same time maintaining her "membership" in the Church dwell on her mistaken notion of freedom and conscience, which is the argument, it seems, that those who talk of double standards also use.

I quote below the last paragraph, but it's best to read the whole text:

As participants in the life of the civil community, we Catholic citizens try to follow our consciences, guided, as described above, by reason and the grace of God. While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom. Because of these convictions we commit ourselves to a continuing witness to, and dialogue about, the Gospel values that underlie our understanding of freedom, conscience, and moral choice.

Monday, January 25, 2010

GW, my foot 2

In a PDI commentary, Loren writes:
Earthquakes don’t kill. Unsafe structures do. That’s one lesson Filipinos can draw from the recent magnitude-7 quake that devastated Haiti.
This is good to read from her. Even as it echoes what Phelim McAleer wrote, and to which I referred to in my previous post "GW, my foot".

I have to say, I was expecting to see the earthquake-global warming link somewhere in the commentary, but there was not any. Unlike so many in the "environmentalist" mold who have said that all these disasters are linked to global warming and climate change, or as nature's response to our non-response to the Kabuki theater that was Copengate or Dopenhagen.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Latex sententiae

An editorial piece suggested: Environmentalists seek to ban the commercial release of balloons as these latex and foil toys usually end up as sea debris. Marine animals mistake these as edible and eat the balloons, causing their illness or death.

But have we ever heard them advocate the ban of this latex? I have not, and I don't think they ever did or will.

The better to cut human population,

Then again, animals do not know any better.

Time release technology

Apple confirmed recently the release of its tablet and iPhone 4 by January 27. This is great news for Apple die-hards.

But not all is good news at Apple. Especially for some stockholders.

While Apple "boasts" that it is a green company, even putting the One (no, the other the One that goes by the name of Al), on its board, they are expected to refuse again the request of some stockholders to release its environmental sustainability report and the formation of a board-level committee to address sustainability issues.

It may count Nobel Prize-winning climate change campaigner Al Gore among its number, but that has not stopped the board of IT giant Apple from opposing two shareholder petitions calling on the company to introduce new environmental governance measures.

Environmental group As You Sow is to repeat its effort of last year and table a petition at the company's forthcoming annual stockholder meeting on behalf of a group of Apple shareholders, including the influential New York City Office of the Comptroller, calling on the company to prepare a sustainability report by July 2010.

It will be accompanied by a second petition calling on Apple to form a specific board-level committee to address sustainability issues.

As You Sow will argue that more than 2,700 firms now issue environmental reports, including competitors of Apple such as Dell, IBM and HP.
It is surprising that Apple could not comply as its competitors and a lot more companies have been able to do these.
... Apple "lags behind global industry peers on sustainability reporting" and will call on it to produce an annual report providing details on how the company will "reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address other environmental and social impacts such as toxics, recycling and employee and product safety".
Perhaps, Apple is afraid that its operations are not actually "green" and that they cannot in reality reduce their own emissions. Remember that most of Apple's manufacturing operations are overseas, in countries like ultra-emitting China.

Disclaimer: I "love" my Apple gadgets and will not part with them because I am not a GWA (read: hypocrite).

H/T: PlanetGore

Monday, January 18, 2010

One by one

The dire warnings of future catastrophic, even end of life, events due to global warming are now being slowly downgraded, because some of these have been based on speculation and computer models that "forecast" their own hypotheses.

Here's one:
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
With Michael "hockey stick" Mann under investigation, what and who is next?

Friday, January 15, 2010

PETA distraction

Love her or hate her, depending on which side of the forest you are in.

If u want to preach do it about something worthwhile don't waste my time trying to save the dang chipmunk.

Find a worthwhile cause like the women being maimed in these Middle Eastern countries. Or female circumcision. Or women's rights here in America, we still get paid less for doing the same jobs as men. Quite honestly if you hate the world so much go live in the forest where no one else has to hear you complain about the perfectly good food chain the good Lord created.

GW, my foot

As we continue to pray for Haiti and help in whatever way we can, here are some food for thought from Phelim: Earthquakes don't kill Haitians - Underdevelopment does

The reason so many people died in Haiti is because its people live in poorly built houses and have not benefited from development which brings with it cities and houses which can withstand earthquakes.

Take it any way you want it. But there is some truth to it. Although there could also be other contributing factors to the mess in Haiti.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Government must support the choice freely made by a couple

F Sionil Jose's column on looks into why Gibo may be the one. Excerpt below on his view on population management.

We will be hundred million people in less than five years and will have difficulty feeding this population. What are your ideas on population control?

Population management is essential, not merely because our resources are not limitless but also to reduce the risk of disaster. With the visible effects of climate change on our country, we have more vulnerable areas and fewer areas where people can stay. Population is a big issue. It is a problem that continues to fester while everyone gets lost in the acrimonious debate on which is the right institution to deal with it. So nothing gets done.

Granting that the cornerstone of population management is a moral choice freely and knowledgeable made by couples and that government should not make that moral choice, several things must follow because the debate must not stop there. We cannot pretend the problem does not exist. The following construct must logically follow: 1. There must be institutional responsibility and accountability. If government is not the proper agency to deal with the problem because it is a moral issue, then our moral guardians must take the responsibility and the consequent accountability for positive results, and not merely for information and education; 2. Government must support the choice freely made by a couple; 3. No to abortion.

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Carbon matters

Tom Nelson has a photo representation of the non-evidence that "carbon dioxide causes major warming".