Fact Sheet: Obama vs. Gingrich on Healthcare (by ContraSuggest)

For years, Newt supported the individual mandate that would require, under penalty of a fine, all citizens to purchase some form of health care insurance.  It was a stupid thing to have advocated, but he has publically admitted that it was a mistake and has since changed his position.  Rick Santorum, who happens to be a very good conservative candidate, greatly exaggerates when he points out that Newt’s former stance on individual mandate would preclude him from effectively critiquing Obamacare.  Newt was one of the leaders in the fight to stop Obamacare’s predecessor: Hillarycare.  The health care proposals put forth by Gingrich in the past have been consistent, with the sole exception of individual mandate; the rest of the measures that he called for were designed to empower the free-market, not the federal government, which is the antithesis of Obamacare.  I have bulleted out the main points below so readers can decide for themselves.  Newt has never supported any of the other disastrous measures that make up Obamacare, such as:

• The creation of at least two-dozen new bureaucratic, taxing and regulating offices, councils, groups, and programs
• Gauging “comparative effectiveness,” which will bring about rationing, ill-health, and in some cases, death
• Trillions of dollars worth of tax increases on nearly every aspect of the health care industry; costs that will either be paid by or passed onto consumers
• A $500 billion cut in Medicare
• Total exclusion of medical malpractice reform
• A legislative pogrom against insurance companies
• Bribes, payoffs and threats to coerce legislators into voting for a bill that the public did not support; dirty machine politics on an order of magnitude that was shocking (even by sleazy Washington standards!)

Gingrich offers these solutions, absent the individual mandate:

• Elimination of waste and fraud that costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  Medicare fraud is largely enabled by the current paper-based system of billing and record keeping; implementation of electronic third-party liability verification and payment would save billions.  Similarly, as 90% of all medical claims are paid by printing paper checks that are delivered by mail, transitioning to electronic payment would save an estimated $11 billion a year       
• Reform the bureaucratic disaster that is the FDA by streamlining the process of approving new drugs and treatments by relying on true scientific applications rather than endless analysis via bureaucratic red tape
• Extending the same favorable tax treatment enjoyed by those covered under employer provided plans to individuals who purchase their own health insurance
• Encourage health plan portability and competition in the free-market by repealing the laws that prevent insurance companies from doing business across state lines
• Allow small businesses to band together and form associations, enabling them to purchase less expensive employee insurance plans
• Give taxpayers access to the healthcare data (not privileged patient information) that their money has allowed the government to compile, allowing them to be better-educated, healthier consumers
• Encourage preventative rather than acute care by reforming the Medicare doctor reimbursement equation.  Currently, doctors only get paid for office visits; not, for instance, counseling patients via phone or e-mail regarding healthy behavior, how to lower their drug costs, or how to comparison cost shop online
• Encourage a private-sector-led best-practice initiative that educates the health care industry regarding documented, evidence-based best practices that work and will promote massive cost savings
• Empower states to better manage their Medicaid programs, because they better understand the health care needs of their citizens than do Washington pols

Moderate Mittsy Wins Florida and Nevada; Gingrich Campaign Floundering (by ContraSuggest)

Newt’s debate performances have clearly had a bearing on his caucus and primary showings.  The cycle is now familiar: low poll numbers, followed by great debate performances are followed by better than expected primary showings.  The same linkage proved to hold in Florida; unfortunately for Gingrich, after winning upwards of ten Republican presidential debates in a row, he finally had two consecutive poor showings just prior to the Sunshine State tally.  Not to mention the fact that Newt was besieged by zillions of dollars worth of negative attack ads.  Moderate Mittsy took it to Gingrich hard during the CNN encounter on 1/26, scoring multiple debating points.  Gingrich seems to be in a weird place right now.  For some reason he thinks he can release media adds ripping Mittsy without having to defend the charges in detail during the course of the debates.  Newt seems to have lost his stomach for the hand-to-hand combat required to back up the anti-Mitt charges put forth in his ads.  He must understand that if he’s going to make scathing criticisms of an opponent, then he needs to get his facts straight and stick to his guns, if not, then keep his trap closed.  He looked exhausted, and lately, less capable of delivering the impassioned, eloquent and forceful anti-liberal-establishment flurries that have electrified debate audiences and gained him the respect and support of Republican primary voters.  My advice to Newt: after Florida and Nevada, take a few days off to recharge your batteries, watch a recording of the CNN debate, like a boxer watches a fight that he’s lost, pinpoint your weaknesses and come to the next debate loaded for bare.  Stop whining about Mttsy’s negative ads and start defending yourself against them.  If you can’t take this kind of pounding, what the hell will you do against Obama’s leftist mafia?  You’d better toughen-up and revert back to the winning strategy you employed in South Carolina before it’s too late!      

Now some advice for Governor Blake Carrington: get a life you big phony!  Were you kidding when you said that your investment in Freddie Mac is not hypocritical, after flaying Newt for accepting paychecks from them?  Oh wait; your zillions are invested in a blind trust, which, of course, makes it all better.  So let me get this straight Thurston, if it was discovered that you were invested in a Guatemalan teen-prostitution ring, you could escape criticism by simply saying your money was in a blind trust?  What a total crock!  If there are certain types of enterprises that a beneficiary does not want to be invested in due to ethical objections, then his money should not be in a truly blind trust.   The point here is that Mittsy’s ethical objections are ad-hoc; his outrage at Newt for earning money from Freddie Mac, manufactured.  By the way Mittsy, contrary to the tortured logic you plied at the CNN debate, holding securities issued by Freddie Mac, means that you’re profiting each time you collect a dividend; I guess you don’t consider it dirty money when it’s lining your golden pockets, you big fraud.  By the way, remember when you said that Teddy Kennedy’s use of blind financial trusts was nothing more than a “ruse.”  Your flip-flopping is absurd, and you are beyond pathetic.  Meanwhile, the executors of your “blind” trust are your buddies over at Bain Capital; I’m sure you have absolutely no idea where any of that money is invested.  Sure.     

Your anti-Newt campaign ads are so unprincipled that you have lured your opponent (to his own discredit) into the mud with you.  One of your ads has the unmitigated gall to call Newt’s emotional stability into question!  Why don’t you just accuse him of spending two days a week in a straight jacket at Belleview hopped-up on Thorazine?  You’re so clueless that when the subject of another depraved ad was brought up during the debate, you questioned whether or not it was one of yours, only to have moderator Wolf Blitzer later embarrass you by confirming that it was.  You are such a putz; if you win this nomination Obamao will destroy you.    

Although I agree with many commentators that the low blows being leveled by both Gingrich and Mittsy are not adding any substance to the dialog, I still assign most of the blame to Mittsy.  It was Newt that resolved himself to only attacking Obama in the early stages of the campaign, running a positive campaign, and even repeatedly praising his opponents.  When this positive strategy of presenting innovative ideas led to higher poll numbers, Mittens and his super PAC nuked Gingrich with millions in negative ads.  On the subject of real substance, Senator Santorum simply kicked Mittsy’s ass up and down the stage when he pointed out that the author of Romneycare could not possibly make an effective case against Obamacare.  There are far more substantive similarities to the two plans then there are differences.  In a general election, the voting public will not be able to make a clear enough distinction between the two, thus greatly strengthening Oblabla’s Achilles’ heel and nullifying any attacks on Mittsy’s part.  Primary voters really need to rethink their support of Moderate Mittens.

Gingrich Wins South Carolina, Defeats the Romney Imperium! (by ContraSuggest)

Despite a massive, mostly dishonest onslaught from all sides, including an ex-wife, primary opponents, super PACs, hostile jabbering media morons, Democrats, and the tofu establishment-wing of the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich has won a decisive victory over moderate Mittsy Romney in the South Carolina Republican Primary.  It’s obvious that Mittsy’s plan to let his mendacious super PAC take Gingrich down, while he coasts to victory sporting a halo, hasn’t worked.  In fact, Newt’s super PAC has given Mittsy a taste of his own medicine.  Media reports say that Mittsy’s campaign has a backlog of dirt it hasn’t yet unleashed on Newt.  I say, bring it on!  Let’s see how tough you are in a bare-knuckle brawl, mano-a-mano with Newt.  Let’s see how your moderate record as Taxachusetts governor stands up to Newt’s conservative congressional record.  Let’s see how your consistency on core conservative issues stands up to Newt’s.  Let’s see how your meager knowledge of history and foreign policy stands up to Newt’s.  Who really has the most to lose in such an exchange?  You do Mittsy.  Let’s stop pussyfooting around and have it out already!  One thing’s for sure, after yesterday’s primary results, you’re not going to be able to marginalize Newt Gingrich. 

By persevering under a withering high-tech media blitz designed to disgrace him and destroy his candidacy, the former House Speaker has proven that he’s tough enough to withstand attacks from the Obama mafia.  C’mon Republicans, stop flirting with the Thurston Howell III-wing of the party and throw your support behind Newt.  An aristocratic, country club Republican will have trouble tacking Obamao to the wall; Newt will skewer him!              

In addition to putting forth innovative, viable solutions, detailed elsewhere in the pages of this blog, Gingrich has taken on the shibboleths of the left by going for the jugular, he has fearlessly and accurately pointed out the following:

• That the Palestinians are an “invented people”
• That no one in the media had the common sense to ask the OWS protestors how they could have a park to protest in if it wasn’t for corporations making profits
• That the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to limit the injunctive powers of the federal judiciary
• That treating captured enemy terrorist combatants like armed robbers is tantamount to surrender in the war against Islamic-fascism
• That Obama is the biggest food stamp president in history
• That despite the criticism of race-baiters, he’ll continue to fight to empower poor people to lift themselves from poverty

These are the words of a man who will use the bully pulpit of the presidency to articulate time-tested, traditional, conservative American values.  He’s also laid out a detailed legislative roadmap that will lessen federal intrusiveness on states, the private sector, and in the lives of individuals.  This is a man who will fight the leftist Matrix tooth and claw, and provide invaluable help to those of us who wish to restore the American Dream.  He has the legislative record of accomplishments; the leadership skills from his time as House Speaker, well-honed oratorical abilities, the value of many lessons learned the hard way from the blunders and mistakes of the past, and now, a stunning victory in South Carolina!  Go Newt!

Intelligentsia’s Mission: Stop The Newtonian Surge at all Costs! (by ContraSuggest)

In all my years of following the national political scene, I have never witnessed a more dishonest media-driven attempt to dismantle a presidential candidacy than the low-class smear job being done on Newt Gingrich.  Criticism of the former House Speaker is ubiquitous, coming from all points on the political spectrum, up and down the radio and TV dials, and in cyberspace.  I continue to be flabbergasted at the casual disregard for the facts, the distortion of Newt’s record, the exaggerations, the cherry picking of factoids, and the often outright lies that have characterized coverage of his campaign.  I find myself at odds with writers and commentators that I have respected for years who have now succumbed to the dreaded Newt-derangement contagion. 

The latest round of BS criticism sees Newt being savaged by so-called conservatives, in and out of the media, for going after moderate Mittsy Romney regarding his tenure at Bain Capital.  Wow, not only have the nattering nabobs of negativism in the media anointed moderate Mittsy as the Republican standard bearer; but now we’re told that criticizing him amounts to a criticism of capitalism itself!  This evokes images of Mittsy skipping along through a field of lilies, hand in hand with Adam Smith, as Journey’s big hit single Open Arms plays along in the background.

This criticism of Newt is analogous to saying that questioning the suspect personal actions of my local parish priest is the same as questioning the institution of the priesthood, or the legitimacy of the Catholic Church itself.  Yet many media schmucks are suggesting that Newt is taking a page out of Obama’s playbook in suggesting that Mittsy’s decisions as the head of Bain should be made public and known to voters.  So I will make the same criticism of the media that they’re making of Newt.  No intellectually honest person in command of the facts would suggest that Newt is anti-capitalist.  To suggest that, reeks of a level of absurdity normally reserved for the likes of team Obama.  So who is really emulating the tactics of President Stupid; Newt or the media alligators who’re attacking him?  Look, every aspect of every presidential candidate’s record has been scrutinized and examined, down to the atomic level.  Every speech, action, quote, piece of legislation, utterance, dirty look, slice of footage and photograph of Newt has been dredged up by rival campaigns, the media, Democrats, and various campaign super PACs.  His record has been placed under an electron microscope, and continually, purposefully distorted.  One of the main bullets on Mittsy’s resume is his tenure at Bain, yet we’re not only told that we shouldn’t ask details about his actions and stated accomplishments there, but anyone who does so is labeled “anti-capitalist” and accused of being in bed with Oblabla.  And moderate Mittsy is the guy who gave the people of Massachusetts boilerplate socialized medicine.  Yeah, he’s a real free market champion.  Let’s face it people, the fix is in.  If the monolithic media establishment has its way, and it increasingly looks as if it will, Moderate Mittsy will be the 2012 Republican presidential candidate.

The Real Gingrich Record [part 2] (by ContraSuggest)

Who was responsible for the “Clinton Boom?”

The broad and fundamental tax and regulatory changes that were put in place by the Reagan Administration during the 1980s were responsible for a marathon economic boom which extended well into the 1990s.  Newt Gingrich, a young up-and-coming conservative congressman from Georgia, fought hard from the floor of the House to support the Reagan agenda. What proved insurmountable for Reagan and his supporters was reigning in congressional spending which created increased government deficits.  Not withstanding, the economic recovery and sustained growth that resulted from his policies were only briefly delayed in early 1990 by Federal Reserve interest rate increases, an oil price increase as the result of the first Gulf War, a credit crunch brought on by the S&L debacle, and the first President Bush breaking his “no new taxes” pledge.  In an effort to reduce the national deficit, Bush did a deal with congressional Democrats and agreed to a tax increase.  Congressman Newt Gingrich advised Bush not to break the pledge and instead fight the Democrats for more spending cuts.  Then-White House Chief of Staff John Sununu advised Bush to go ahead with the tax increase, which he did; several weeks ago Sununu announced his 2012 presidential endorsement of moderate Mittsy Romney over Newt Gingrich.  Some people never learn. 

President Bush paid for that blunder, as it proved to be one of the reasons why he was defeated in the 1992 presidential election by Bill Clinton.  On the campaign trail and during his first two years in office, Clinton’s economic policies were the antitheses of Reagan’s.  For example, although he increased taxes where Reagan had cut them, Clinton’s increases still left rates lower than they were before the Reagan cuts.  Any deficit reduction attributable to Clinton came in the form of ill-advised defense budget cuts.  Fortunately, his anti-growth economic policies weren’t enough to derail the economic juggernaut started in the 1980s, so the 90s continued to boom.         

After the Republican’s congressional takeover in 1994, Clinton abandoned the dead-end liberal policies he gleefully promoted during his first two years in office.  He signed seven out of ten of the Contract with America's core planks into law, including Welfare Reform, all of which were consistent with the principles of Ronald Reagan.  With the exception of his unflagging support for free trade in the form of championing NAFTA, and playing along with congressional Republicans, Clinton had no original policy initiatives that contributed to the economic growth of the 1990s.  The Contract with America was consistent with the transformative policies of low taxes and low regulations that Ronald Reagan instituted in the 1980s; Clinton’s own policies were the converse of both.  President Clinton suffered two major defeats during his two-term presidency, one of which was impeachment as the result of his tangled web of lies (including lying under oath in court) surrounding the Monika Lewinsky affair.  The other was the political defeat of losing the House of Representatives to Republicans in 1994, a takeover that would not have been conceived and executed without Newt Gingrich.

The Real Gingrich Record (by ContraSuggest):

By the early 1990s the Democratic Party had controlled the House of Representatives for over 40 years.  Upon entering Congress in the late 1970s, Gingrich consistently maintained that the Democrats’ hold on the House could and would be broken.  Many of his GOP colleagues scoffed at this prospect, but Newt had a multi-pronged strategy for victory, the oratorical and intellectual gravitas to back it up, and the political balls to ardently pursue it.  It was Gingrich who first leveled the ethics charges that eventually ended the Speakership of Jim Wright (D-TX) in June of 1989.  The charges against Wright were so solid that, after review, the Ethics Committee chairman Julian Dixon, a stalwart California Democrat, had no choice but to agree that Wright should resign.  Wright’s forced exit was followed soon after by the resignation of Tony Coelho, who was desperate to avoid a congressional investigation into his spider web-laden closet of skeletons.  Coelho was the Democrats’ craftiest political strategist, whose joint efforts with former Speaker Tip O’Neil allowed the Democrats to hold on to their House majority throughout the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.  How quickly the fickle media morons at National Review and Fox News have forgotten that it was Newt who exorcised the left-wing demons that possessed Congress for almost five decades.  The ‘94 Republican takeover would have been much less likely if Newt hadn’t succeeded in knee-capping the brain trust that was keeping the Democrats in power.                

By the early 90s, the House Democrats were withering under the assault, conceived and spearheaded by Newt; that had rightly characterized them as advocates for higher taxes and spending, unlimited government, more regulation and bureaucracy.  Despite his personal popularity, President Clinton clearly added to this public perception.  In order to focus and unify Republican congressional candidates with clear, succinctly stated policy positions, Gingrich, Dick Armey and their fellow conservatives conceived the Contract with America in 1994.  The contract consisted of ten legislative planks that signatories pledged to debate, send through committee, and bring to the floor for a general vote, within the first 100 days of a Republican controlled House.  Although a detailed version of the Contract was written and made available for those who cared to delve deeper, the version of the Contract printed in TV Guide magazine was devoid of the political double-talk and technical gobbledygook that tends to turn off the average voter.

As Election Day approached it was clear that the voting public had had enough; when the dust settled the Democrats lost a staggering 8 Senate and 52 House seats.  The electoral revolution that Gingrich and his colleagues were planning for 15 years had been brought about, delivering the biggest midterm electoral trouncing to an opposing party since 1930.  Even if many Americans weren’t familiar with it by name, Gingrich’s issuing of the Contract with America, which successfully nationalized the congressional elections, was essential to the victory and its scope.

Merry Christmas and a Defense of the Catholic Faith (by ContraSuggest)

Merry Christmas to all. 

Writing a blog on socio-political issues (or any other subject for that matter) is tough, especially when you’ve never had any training as a writer.  As anyone who follows this blog will attest, the actual writing is somewhat tenuous from a grammatical standpoint, but despite my limitations, I always manage to get my point across.  Never being completely satisfied with my own writing, every now and then I churn out something of which I’m particularly proud.  Posted here is one such piece.  What started out as a letter expressing my concerns about a homily (sermon) delivered at church (at Mass; I am a practicing Catholic), in the end became a somewhat eloquent defense of Christian religion generally, and the Catholic faith specifically.  In the spirit of Christmas, I thought I would share my unedited letter below (with the sole exception that the name and location of my church have been taken out). 

An Open Letter to Deacon Norm Carroll

On March 14, 2010 at the **** AM Mass at ****** ****** Church in **** *********, NY, the homily was delivered by a gentleman who was introduced as Deacon Norm Carroll.  Mr. Carroll, a visiting Deacon, whom I had not heard of before that morning, used this opportunity to promote a presentation that he would be delivering at the parish center over the course of four consecutive evenings the following week.  In previewing his subject matter, he said some things that seemed suspect coming from a Catholic Deacon.  Although curious to learn more about him, I knew that my schedule would not permit me to attend any of his presentations.  When Mass was over, I discovered that a book authored by Deacon Carroll was being offered for sale in the church vestibule.  I purchased a copy of Miracles, Messages and Metaphors- Unlocking the Wisdom of the Bible, and read it through.  The “wisdom” therein moved me to write the following letter.

Deacon Carroll,

I have just finished reading your book, Miracles, Messages and Metaphors- Unlocking the Wisdom of the Bible, and am stunned and disappointed at some of the statements therein, that run counter to our Catholic faith as I have come to understand it.  For the sake of brevity, I will call attention to only a few of the most notable points. 

In the space of a 3-4 page introduction, you several times refer to our savior Jesus Christ, as a biblical “character.”  What a curious choice of words.  Is the Bible now to be considered a mere novel and our Lord a mere character in that narrative?  One may refer to Christ in many ways, perhaps as a biblical “figure;” but for a Catholic Deacon to refer to Him as a mere “character” (however important a character) is disrespectful, and is, at least, an expression of doubt as to both the provable historical existence of Jesus Christ (a fact), and the belief in the reality of the miracles that are attributed to Him (which lies at the root of our faith as Catholics).

I was taken aback when you cited the musician Elton John, as a critic of “organized religion.”  People like Elton John cite many hackneyed reasons why they do not care for so-called organized religion.  Despite those stated reasons, the true reason should be clear.  Organized religion, particularly in the Catholic framework, calls upon the faithful to exercise discipline in their lives.  When sinners love their sins more than they love and appreciate God, they reach a point where they reject God in order to justify, and continue partaking in sin.  The “hateful” teachings that Elton speaks of are not so at all; they are the legacy of Christ carried through the last 2,000 years by His Church.  I am a sinner as surely as Elton John, but I can understand why a drug-addled homosexual would have issues with the Church that holds all sinners to a higher standard than our permissive, destructive secular culture.  Christ’s message is a dual one- it at once expects much from us in resisting sin as we cope with temptation and the other vicissitudes of life (the part that Elton doesn’t like); yet if we commit sin and are truly contrite for having done so, we may be forgiven through the sacrament of confession.  This is loving and life-supporting, not hateful.   

You also point out that many people who consider themselves to be “spiritual” have also rejected organized religion.  The term spirituality, as used in modern, common parlance, is a fuzzy, indescript, New Age concept; since it really means nothing, claims to possess it are largely meaningless.  I can make claims to being spiritual all day long; yet, if I’m being unfaithful to my wife, stealing from my employer, not attending Mass on Sundays, and taking advice provided to me by psychic mediums in living my life, I am following an objectively destructive path.  It is organized religion, specifically the one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, which provides the structural template that all God’s children require in order to live fulfilling lives and to have the best chance of everlasting life in heaven.  People need and require structure in their spiritual lives; without this structure that the Church faithfully provides, man’s moral straying would take an irrevocable turn for the worse.                  

In your book you pay much lip service to the importance of interpretation of scripture that is consistent with Catholic tradition, but continually praise non-Catholic beliefs that are at odds with both scripture and Catholic tradition (the two being inseparable).  You claim that un-Catholic modes of interpreting scripture, such as “feminist criticism,” and “liberation theology” “have value,” although you don’t state what that value is.

For instance, you extol the virtues of early catholic priests being able to marry, and imply that the Church should allow it once again.  It’s unclear why you believe this to be a boon.  A priest cannot be married to the Church and responsible for his flock, while at the same time being married to a woman and responsible for his biological children.  The conflict is clear to all except the minions of permissive, religious pluralism.  The prospect of the Church allowing priests to marry is fraught with disastrous unintended consequences.  The Church cares for its priests by providing them with housing and living expenses; if priests were to marry, would the Church then be responsible for housing and living expenses of their wives and children?  In the event of divorce, will the Church pay alimony and child-support?  This notion that priests should be able to marry is absurd on multiple levels.

You lump three very different things together when criticizing some Christians’ support of war, capital punishment, and greed, insisting that Jesus stands against these things.  Let’s briefly consider each of them.  In the case of war, there are times when unprovoked international aggression on the part of belligerent nations may not always be ameliorated with even the finest diplomatic entreaties.  The military defeat of mass-murdering totalitarian despots may save the lives of more of God’s children in the long-run than leaving said aggressors to their ruthless pogroms.  This is the essence of the Church’s “just war” doctrine (see the Catholic Catechism- section 2309).  As for the death penalty- Catholic doctrine says that capital punishment is a legitimate means of the state to protect itself, to protect its citizens, against the cold-blooded murderers of innocents.  It’s true, for instance that Pope John Paul II didn't feel that the death penalty was necessary any longer because we, in the modern world, have the ability to incarcerate people for life.  But don’t mistake the pontiff’s view for doctrine; that was merely his theological opinion, not to be confused with a dogmatic/doctrinal change in Church law.  You claim that greed is defended by some Christians to justify capitalism.  First off, no good Catholic would ever embrace the evils of greed (one of the ancient, seven deadly sins).  If you truly believe that the basic tenets of capitalism are rooted in greed, you are mistaken.  Capitalism and the free market are governed by what Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations, called enlightened self-interest.  This concept held that the larger social good is best served by individuals pursuing private interests.  There is no other country in the world where this principle has been allowed to thrive to a greater extent than in the United States; and, as a result, no other country which is wealthy enough to so compassionately care for it’s poor and downtrodden.     

 

No good Catholic would dispute that many biblical stories have several strata of meaning.  But our very faith is based upon the literalness of certain biblical events, including the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension.  However, I was hard-pressed to find a single passage in your book where you acknowledge the literal meaning of just one Old or New Testament biblical account.  According to you, every single word of scripture is symbolic of something else, never to be taken at face value.           

You continually mention the “real” messages of the Bible, implying that the orthodox explanation of scripture offered to Catholics has been wrong all along, and that your non-literal interpretation of scripture will show us the true meaning.  You repeatedly refer to biblical “myth.”  It’s quite clear which stories in the Bible you consider to be myths, but unclear as to which ones you consider to be literal.  Suffice to say, that each Biblical story that you choose to mention, is treated as non-literal myth.  Almost as if to fend off criticism of these odd notions, you cite the existence of various bogeymen, such as fundamentalists and fundamentalism.  Most Catholics already understand that Catholic interpretation of scripture is antithetical to fundamentalist interpretation; I get the impression that you feel that you’ll gain followers by attacking these straw men; after all, they are easy targets, and, let’s face it, red herrings.  In chapter four of your book, you basically define a fundamentalist as one who believes that Bible stories are word-for-word true.  Aside from the mandates of our Catholic faith, which calls us to literal belief in many of these events; science, reason and scholarship are often not at odds with that faith.  You don’t even mention the sometimes overwhelming evidence, based upon science and reason, which point to the strong possibility that at least some of these tales are literal.

Let’s take the story of the flood in the book of Genesis as an example of something that may very well be a historical mention, as opposed to a strictly mythological lesson.  The finding by archeologists of a snake fossil with legs in a limestone quarry in Israel; oil drillers on the bottom of the Black Sea discovering plant life that normally only grows in freshwater, along with the remains of a village, are powerful evidence that point to the literal reality of a great flood.  The mention of a great flood in the stories of other cultures around that time period, including the ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, looks as if they were more historical mentions rather than mythological ones.  The world experienced the end of the last ice age about 12,000 years ago, close to the circa in which these stories were written.  Any scriptural calculus that leaves out these considerations is necessarily flawed.  Rather than acknowledge this, you instead dismiss those who believe it by calling them fundamentalists.  Is this the kind of counter-intuitive reasoning that Catholics should be applying to scripture?

Much closer to the hearts of Catholics is the literalness of key events chronicled in the New Testament Gospels.  You cleverly cast doubt in the minds of unsuspecting readers regarding the veracity of the narratives by reminding us that the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contradict one another.  You conveniently ignore the other side of the argument.  Perhaps the most important event in the New Testament is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for if Jesus did not rise (literally) the whole of our faith is built on nothing more than a big lie.  The story of the resurrection cannot be dismissed as fictional or mythological, based on the application of the historical method, and when looking at the root independent sources of that portion of the gospel narrative.  As biblical scholar Dr. William Lane Craig has pointed out, when you have a very early source, one that comes from records that are almost as old as the event/events they chronicle, agreeing with a later independent source (one that does not draw from the early source); then the biblical event is more likely to be historical.  In the case of the story of the resurrection we have multiple, independent attestations to the same events from Paul and the Acts of the Apostles.

Another example of this is the story of Jesus’ entombment by Joseph of Arimathea.  This is affirmed in the very old information handed on by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians and has been dated to within five years of the actual event.  The burial story in the Book of Mark (the oldest of the gospels) is even closer to the events of Jesus’ life than the source material used by Paul.  But make no mistake; these are two independent sources that bear witness to the same thing.  Mark’s account is absent of the hallmarks of legendary embellishment, it is written in a simple, straight forward style; unlike the forged, apocryphal gospels of the 2^nd century and after, which feature accounts that are colored by apologetical and theological motifs that are completely absent from the account in Mark.      

   

Finally, another historical criterion to be applied has to do with identifying elements in the gospel narrative that were embarrassing to the early church or contrary to the antediluvian cultural sensibilities of the writers.  For instance, the testimony of women was considered to be worthless in early 1^st century Palestine; women were considered unreliable and poor sources of useful information.  If the resurrection narrative is a myth, or worse, a contrivance, then why would the writers have women discovering Jesus’ empty tomb?  It simply violates logical, rational applications to say that these writers would have cited the testimony of women to strengthen their case.  Rational thinkers ought not to dismiss orthodox Christian interpretation by abandoning their own reason and criteria for establishing historical validity. 

   

I naively believed that the bane of Gnosticism was something relegated to the distant past, or to the pernicious anti-Catholic drivel peddled by novelist Dan Brown, or believed by modern pagans in order to shore up the glittering generalities that they call spirituality.  Historian Paul Johnson defines Gnosticism as, “…the lore of secret knowledge-systems” and “…an extremely insidious parasitic growth, which attaches itself like poisonous ivy to the trunk of a major religion.  In Christianity, the early church fathers had to fight desperately to prevent it from smothering the faith.”  Gnostic thinking is the sort of trash that corrupted the otherwise brilliant Carl Jung (who is quoted several times in your book) and leads at least, to the destructive belief in religious pluralism.  I do not accuse you of being a Gnostic; nor do I necessarily accuse you of harboring overt Gnostic beliefs.  Yet there is an unsettling pseudo-Gnostic tinge in much of what you write in your book. 

I alluded above to religious pluralism, a concept that you mentioned favorably in both your homily and in your book.  Although there are elements of truth in all religions, we as Catholics believe that the truth is fully and decisively revealed in Jesus.  This is what He claimed; and you can’t, for instance, hold that Buddha’s and Jesus’ teachings are both true, because they are radically different, and even contradictory to one another.  Religious pluralism has a nice, inclusive, politically correct ring to it, Deacon, but it’s logically impossible; all religions cannot be true, because they’re mutually contradictory.  The Buddhist concept of God is radically different from the Islamic concept of God, which is radically different from the Judaic concept of God.  The religious pluralist truly does a disservice to the world’s religions, because he holds that they all really believe the same thing, and so, denies their distinctiveness.  The religions of the world reject religious pluralism because it deals in cloudy generalities, and holds a myopic view of their clear and irreconcilable differences, in order to draw dubious and ultimately irrelevant similarities.

We Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the entire human race, not just our coreligionists.  Should Catholics continue to pray for people of other faiths?  Of course we should.  Should people of different faiths reach out to one another in an effort towards good will in a civil society?  They certainly should.  Should we, as Catholics, water-down our deeply held beliefs in order to draw non-existent parallels with other faiths?  Absolutely not!

  

In closing, I think it’s safe to say that I disagree with almost everything you wrote in your book and spoke about in your address to us at Mass.  Personally, I resent being held hostage during the sacred Mass and being made to listen to a presentation that was so clearly at odds with traditional, orthodox Catholic teaching. Many of my fellow parishioners, friends and family feel the same way.

While I wish you well, I sincerely hope that you avail yourself of the teachings of the Magisterium, that they may guide you when you speak to parishioners in the future.