Sarah Merkle's 15 (er) 3 minutes of fame

"Teen takes Maryland, and nation, by storm with pro-gun arguments" - that's the headline of an article by Cheryl K. Chumley appearing in The Washington Times on 4-5-13. Chumley's opening sentence: "[Sarah Merkle]...effectively argued for the Second Amendment and against gun control to state lawmakers in three succinct minutes..."

My objection? After an exhaustive search on the internet, I couldn't find a single source quoting the transcribed text of Merkle's speech. It was nowhere to be found, though there were ample postings of her YouTube video. I find it simply amazing that our print media couldn't manage to also post her actual comments in writing. If she truly took the nation by storm with her effective arguments in support of the 2nd amendment (packed into 3 succinct minutes), then it should have been considered a public service to render these comments in a typed format.

That's how I work - I take the written and analyze it word-by-word, line-by-line. Yes, I could have transcribed Merkle's words myself but I'm not going to. Since lamestream media saw fit to quote or paraphrase only certain parts (which I assume to be the most important parts) of Merkle's presentation, that's what I'll analyze today.

But I can't emphasize strongly enough how far in decline our media has gone that it couldn't post such an (obviously) important text, instead directing us to a YouTube video clip. Of course, the reason we're referred to that clip (and a huge reason for its 2.3 million hits) has far more to do with Merkle being a photogenic teenager than anything else.


The NRA weighs in

Compare these two quotes, especially my highlights within:


QUOTE:

Teen's Pro-gun Testimony Leaves Lawmakers Speechless

Sarah Merkle, an avid shooter and 15-year-old Maryland resident, testified before Maryland state lawmakers in defense of the Second Amendment. She said that her shooting abilities have made her eligible for various college scholarships, yet strict guns laws could destroy her chances of attending a reputable university.

:UNQUOTE: from the NRA website, which didn't quote Merkle's tex but only provided the YouTube clip.

"Achieving stricter gun control laws would obliterate any opportunity I could have had to attend a decent college on a shooting scholarship," [Merkel] says. [Footnote 1]

"Destroy?"/"obliterate?" - These are words that would far better describe someone shot in the head than the potential misfortunes of Little Miss Muffet. However, in a bit, I'll explain her comments and offer some solutions. But for now I'll note typical NRA deceitfulness: While Merkle merely claims she wouldn't be able to attend college "on a shooting scholarship," the NRA doesn't include that distinction at all. Furthermore, I have no idea why the NRA seems to be linking collegiate shooting programs with "reputable" universities.

A Tale of Two Articles

- Article 1 -

Here's the first of two articles (see Footnote 1) from which I'm going to select quotes, each followed by my comments.

QUOTE:

A teenage girl skyrocketed to the center of the gun control debate when a YouTube video of her three-minute pro-gun speech went viral, acquiring more than 2.3 million views.

My Comments:

What an age we live in when a sophomore in high school is idolized, yet her literal comments (in their written entirety) are nowhere to be seen. I suspect that many of those contributing to those 2.3 million views are NRA fans or the idle curious who have nothing better to do with their time.


QUOTE:

Sarah Merkle, 15 of Maryland, has been shooting guns for almost eight years and is a member of the Maryland Rifle Club and Maryland State Rifle Club. She says in the video that signing anti-gun legislation would not be doing away with gun violence but rather "liberating American citizens of our constitutional rights."

My Comments:

What kind of parents encourage their children to start firing weapons at the age of seven? Did they bother to encourage young Sarah to pursue any other hobbies?

If Sarah was so concerned about our constitutional rights, why didn't she also rant about the right to own machine guns and Rocket-Propelled Grenade launchers? Surely the 2nd Amendment's protection must extend to those; must extend to more than just the crude blunderbusses which were the only firearms in existence in the late 1700's. Besides, as those who are fond of saying (especially of the First Amendment's free speech rights) that no rights are absolute, surely the Second must be as subject to regulation and interpretation based on the public's right to a safe environment.


QUOTE:

Merkle, who says that her favorite rifle is a Bushmaster, makes a gripping plea to legislators who are considering passing legislation to enact stricter gun control laws.

In her testimony, Merkle tells that she has become eligible for various shooting scholarships at prestigious universities, and the laws proposed would interfere with her eligibility to join their shooting teams.

My Comments:

Am I reading this correctly? Merkle made a "gripping plea to legislators" so that she could more easily join a collegiate shooting team? Talk about the height of narcissism - that this young lady is making a personal appeal that benefits herself and the microscopic group of others who might also want to join such teams. I've heard of special interest appeals, but this one is truly special.


QUOTE:

A provision in the Maryland law makes it more difficult for residents to transport their firearms across the state border. In the case of Merkle, it is problematic because she would be unable to shoot at a range that is located over the border in nearby Delaware. Stricter gun laws would hinder her ability to practice.


My Comments:

"Makes it more difficult?" But not impossible, right? If this law makes it too difficult, Merkle would do better by lobbying for exemptions for folks like herself who are competitive marksmen.

Then there's this whole scholarship issue to address. If she wants to cross state lines to attend a university giving her a shooting scholarship, then why doesn't she buy the weapons she'll need in that state and keep them there, while also keeping her already-purchased weapons in her home state? Her favored Bushmaster costs under $2,000, which is nothing compared to the amount her scholarship would net her. A good investment, I'd say.

Besides, maybe - just maybe - she could study harder and get a scholarship based on academic merit. Or she could work or take out loans like millions of others do.


QUOTE:

In her plea in front of Maryland State Legislature in Anapolis, Merkle says that guns are not the problem, people are.

"Purging our society of violence and murder cannot be done by gun control legislation." She continues, saying that in passing legislation, "You are not eliminating guns from society but eliminating our ability to protect our lives, liberty and pursuits of happiness."

My Comments:

"People are?" - Maybe...but they become more problematic with a gun too easily obtained and readily at hand.

Society can't be entirely purged of violence, but gun control can make a dent.

No one's talking about "eliminating" anything, though insisting on reasonable controls should be entirely expected. With those controls, one can still "protect our lives, liberty and pursuits of happiness."


QUOTE:

Though her argument was effective and concise, that did not stop Maryland officials from approving a sweeping package of restrictions on firearms last week.

My Comments:

Then her argument wasn't that effective, was it? In fact, I haven't read anything to bolster any claim about how mindblowing her arguments were. None at all. Simply because they weren't.

I've read various reports of legislators hearing Sarah's speech being "stunned" into silence. However, that's merely assumption hard at work. In the place her comments were offered, I dare say the venue didn't allow for rebuttal nor was any expected.


QUOTE:

If signed into law by Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who will likely sign it, the legislation would require those hoping to purchase firearms to provide fingerprints and acquire a license before their purchase. The measure would also ban the sale [of] both high-capacity rifles and magazines with more than 10 rounds.

My Comments:

About that first sentence: These requirements are entirely reasonable. Even though the Second Amendment defines the keeping and bearing of arms as a "right," this is not a God-given right. It is a man-created "right" subject to man-created enforcement and refinement-of-definition. It is also a right in competition with other rights.

About that second sentence:  If Sarah Merkle were to voice objection to this, then why didn't she voice objection to the ban on private ownership of machine guns?


QUOTE:

Just last week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law one of the strongest and most comprehensive pieces of gun legislation in the country that deals with restrictions on weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines.

Malloy who promised to continue to fight for law changes that address gun violence, signed the legislation saying, "Today does not mark the end of our efforts."

My Comments:

"Today does not mark the end of our efforts." - I should hope not. Maybe those efforts could include addressing this nonsense, quoted from ATF Form 4473, aka Firearms Transaction Record:

"However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x)."

Translation? If you, from a gun shop, buy a weapon meant as a gift for someone else, you have to have "reasonable cause to believe" the recipient isn't "prohibited under 18 U.S.C..." from acquiring this weapon. Why should the purchaser be required to confirm that which a background check would reveal?

Sarah Merkle doesn't address this nor the fact that background checks aren't, in many states, required for purchases from private individuals or at gun shows. It appears Ms. Merkle should be most profoundly known for what she didn't address.

A Tale of Two Articles

- Article II -

Here's the second  of two articles (see Footnote 2) from which I'm going to select quotes, each followed by my comments.

QUOTE:

In her speech, Merkle cited an incident in China in which a man stabbed 23 children and an elderly woman on the same day as the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., as evidence that guns are not the problem in mass violence.

My Comment:

(sigh)...Guns are not the problem in mass violence but they are surely part of the problem. Besides, for most people, I dare say, it's a lot harder to stab than shoot a lot of people.



QUOTE:

[Sarah Merkle] cited statistics showing people are twice as likely to be killed in Chicago  [even though Chicago has some of the strictest anti-gun legislation in the country] as in the war in Afghanistan, and the majority of the shooting deaths in Chicago are from handguns, not high-capacity rifles.

My Comments:

There are two very real wars being cited here - one in Chicago and one in Afghanistan. Merkle's comment could be read to mean, "Given the comparatively lower casualties in Afghanistan, perhaps that's evidence we're not conducting that war as aggressively as we could." The War in Chicago could be escalated by means of Mayor Rahm Emanuel asking for war zone sectors to be patrolled by the National Guard. But, no. Instead Rahm prefers to give advance warning to drug dealers that his cops are going to be setting up sting operations in their neighborhoods. Question: Why should they be warned in advance? Answer: This is Rahm's way of showing he can play nice with these people, though of course he'll want something in return: A decrease in the murder rate that he can crow about as he pursues his bid for the US presidency.

The vast majority of shooting deaths in Chicago are indeed by handguns, but that's simply because they're cheaper. This statistic, however, doesn't mean lawmakers don't have the right to reduce the death toll caused by high-capacity rifles (excuse me, I meant to say, "...caused by people who use high-capacity rifles").

The missing element is that we lack the martial law approach needed in certain of Chicago's neighorhoods. There is indeed a war going on, so I don't think the public at large would object to police subjecting groups of youths (or even single, randomly chosen individuals on the street) to a stop-and-frisk policy. Anyone caught with an illegal gun should be jailed for 20 years; that should be a sufficient deterrent. As I said, a state of war exists in certain Chicago neighborhoods, so we should respond accordingly. However, part of a just response would be to increase economic opportunities for gang members so they can break the cycle of poverty in this, the most segregated city in the nation.


QUOTE:

Merkle also argued that the majority of shootings occur in low-income areas and that by raising the cost of gun ownership with higher licensing and registration fees, it would deny lower-income individuals the opportunity to defend themselves by owning a gun.

My Comments:

If cost is a factor, then why doesn't Merkle argue in favor of providing every citizen with a government-subsided gun? If we really have the right to keep and bear arms, then the poor should be enabled to protect themselves, yes? And yet, Merkle says nothing about this.


QUOTE:

“The entire foundation of the United States was formed on the principle that the government, our government, is a government of the people, for the people, by the people, and taking away the people’s right to bear arms is taking away the people’s power in the government,’’ she said.

My Comments:

This government is comprised of duly-elected lawmakers who represent the people's wish for a greater degree of public safety. Nobody is "taking away the people's right to bear arms." And, to put a finer point on the matter, the Second Amendment wasn't intended to give people "power in the government." It was intended as a check on the possibility that that government might seek to oppress its own citizens.

A lot of NRA types point to how the Nazis used gun-control legislation in order to seize privately owned weapons. The problem wasn't the legislation itself but was We-the-People voting totalitarians into power in the first place. Someone once said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." I would change that to, "Eternal vigilance by more than just a small dedicated group is the price of liberty." However, therein lies the rub. Not enough people are sufficiently civic-minded to pay this price. Apparently, the NRA knows this, which is why they overly-obsess on gun control issues, while overlooking the vigilance needed to protect the rest of our liberties.

There's more to liberty than just the right to own a gun.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"Unless we become better people, we can't expect better government."


Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Footnote 1: "Teen Girl's Pro-Gun Video Gets 2.3 Million Hits," by Jilian Fama, ABC OTUS News (4/8/13)

Footnote 2:  http://www.today.com.... recent article by Scott Strump:(selected quotes):

Pope Francis: The People’s Pope v. the Jesuit Pope

INTRODUCTION

So now we have a new Pope. It didn’t take long for adoring spinmeisters to dub him “the People’s Pope.” Nor did it take long for detractors to remind us of the Church’s (and his) role in support of the junta during Argentina’s Dirty War. I suppose this old truism will assert itself: “The truth lies somewhere in between [these] extremes.”

And where do I stand as I write this piece? I am a Buddhist who is a member of a sect without leaders, a sect consisting of only one member - me. My interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings - admittedly only my own opinion - is given elsewhere on this blog, so I won’t summarize them here. My motivation in writing this article is to, hopefully, drive a couple of more nails into the coffin containing the barely living body of Catholicism, though I hold the other Abrahamic Faiths to be equally deserving of such treatment.

As is my usual custom, I will hold up to the light of public scrutiny the very words used by (and/or lived by) the subject himself - in this case, Pope Francis.

Follow the money

QUOTE:

[Pope Francis] had also thought of …how [St. Francis of Assisi] was a "poor man, a simple man, as we would like a poor church, for the poor."

St. Francis of Assisi, who gave up his own wealth and prestige, is revered among Catholics for his work with the poor.

:UNQUOTE: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/16/world/europe/vatican-new-pope/index.html

So there we have it. Or do we? In the spirit of St. Francis having given up his own wealth, are we to understand that Pope Francis will attempt to give up the wealth of the Catholic Church in order to help the poor? If Pope Francis wants to do this, can he? I have to honestly admit that I don’t know if papal infallibility extends to uncontested control over the Church’s bank accounts. This is an issue which deserves greater public awareness.

I don’t really know if Pope Francis can have, or was intended by the conclave to have, much of a long-lasting impact on the Church. He is, after all 76 years old, which is about the same age Cardinal Ratzinger was when he became Pope Benedict XVI. And his reign lasted slightly less than 8 years. I hope this tendency to elevate the extreme elderly (men, of course) for short terms of office doesn’t continue. For people who point out that the age of the Cardinals eligible to vote for Pope lies heavily in the 70’s range, I point out that Cardinals are not obligated to vote for one of their own.

The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola

As a Jesuit, Pope Francis had to embrace the precepts contained in the Spiritual Exercises. Since a man can become known by means of his own writings as well as the writings he embraces, I thought it wise to look into at least some of these Spiritual Exercises.

I will quote three rules in particular that came to my attention, each rule followed by my own comments in brackets:

QUOTE:

Thirteenth Rule: To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed.

[My comments on the 13^th: The first five words in this rule need to be challenged immediately, for how can one be “right in everything” if one reduces oneself to being a mere mindless conformist in the worst Orwellian tradition? If the exercise of our God-given free will is to mean anything, then we must be allowed a conviction that what we see with our own eyes is to be a worthy basis for actions taken by means of the exercise of that free will.

I’m also troubled by this part: “if the Hierarchical church so decides it.” Perhaps this would be an improvement: “if the Hierarchical church so sees it.” The point being, why would the Church decide something in opposition to what it itself (secretly, no doubt) really sees? [And I thought the Prince of Lies was a title reserved for Satan.]

As far as “Christ [as Bridegroom]…and the Church [as Bride]…[having] the same Spirit,” it would be well to remember that mortal men (even if they be Cardinals or Popes) can stray or be in error whereas Christ cannot.

As for “our holy Mother the Church,” there have been too many sins committed by that Church to consider it holy - at least “holy” in the sense meant in the title “the Holy Mother of God,” which is used in reference to Mary, mother of Jesus Christ.

As for “the salvation of our souls,” that seems to be a province in which the Church has no say, as indicated in its own doctrine of predestination, which I’ll address in the section below entitled “GRACE AND PREDESTINATION.”

Fourteenth Rule: Although there is much truth in the assertion that no one can save himself without being predestined and without having faith and grace; we must be very cautious in the manner of speaking and communicating with others about all these things.

[My comments on the 14^th:  As in the 13^th rule, the first five words of the 14^th rule need to be challenged immediately. If there is indeed “much truth” in the assertion about to be stated, I am forced to ask: “And what part(s) of the assertion are false or (more charitably) uncertain?”

As for “we must be very cautious in the manner of speaking,” one would expect of a theologian that similar caution should be exercised when expounding upon any religious topic.

Fifteenth Rule: We ought not, by way of custom, to speak much of predestination; but if in some way and at some times one speaks, let him so speak that the common people may not come into any error, as sometimes happens, saying: Whether I have to be saved or condemned is already determined, and no other thing can now be, through my doing well or ill; and with this, growing lazy, they become negligent in the works which lead to the salvation and the spiritual profit of their souls.

[My comments on the 15^th:  And why shouldn’t “we…speak much of predestination?” Since this seems to be a doctrine of extreme importance, much should be spoken in order to assure that a proper understanding is conveyed. Unless, of course, the Jesuits consider their flock to be mostly a bunch of dumb asses who just can’t get it.

The 24 words immediately following the colon add force to my contention that predestination should be spoken of much, often, and thoroughly lest such misunderstandings arise. Assuming of course that these 24 words comprise a misunderstanding in the first place.

And lastly, I’ll emphasize the words “growing lazy.” It seems there are a lot of theological intellectuals and, in particular, austere monastics who consider the common man as lazy. Even though untold millions of common men and women are extremely industrious, they are not so much in the ways considered important by (among others) Pope Francis, the People’s Pope. This attitude stands in stark contrast to the Buddhist teaching contained in the Lotus Sutra that it is improper to look down on the efforts of others. Some might call that “judging that ye not be judged.”

:UNQUOTE: http://www.jesuit.org/ignatian-spirituality/spiritual-exercises

GRACE AND PREDESTINATION

The following quote is from a section entitled “Grace and Predestination.” I will add my bracketed comments within this quote.

QUOTE:

The Church following Holy Scripture teaches that there is Election by God of the chosen to be saved as a free will grace on His part Who has the initiative in salvation and so is the First Cause of their salvation; the Church also teaches that man has free will to accept this grace or not. It is traditionally summarized in four statements:

[As for “man has free will to accept this grace or not,” what about murdered infants? They certainly aren’t able to use their free will to “accept this grace or not.” If, however, murdered infants get a free pass into heaven, maybe by a macabre application of logic, parents would be doing their newborns a huge favor (at the peril of their own souls of course) by killing them.]

God wills all men to be saved and so gives sufficient grace to all to be saved;

[If “God wills all men to be saved,” then all men must be saved or else God must be considered less than omnipotent.]

But not all men are saved; those who are not saved are damned by their own free will (cf. Council of Orange);

[This is sloppily stated: “those who are not saved are damned by their own free will.” Better would have been: “those…are damned by bad choices made by an improper application of their own free will.” I’ve always had the uneasy feeling that free will is something the Church has always been uncomfortable with, in that people might (rightly, I believe) use that free will to interpret scripture and theologies in ways not to the liking of the Church hierarchy.

Perhaps not all men are saved because some of them have never even heard of Jesus Christ or the People’s Pope.]

Those whom He chooses to be saved will infallibly be saved in a way that respects their freedom, and this is called Predestination;

[How does Predestination “respect their freedom” (that is, their free will)? God is giving an ultimatum: “It’s My way or the highway (or, if you prefer, the low way straight to hell). If you don’t use your free will to My liking, I’ll arrange eternal torment for you.” That doesn’t sound very respectful to me. However, there can only be genuine respect between equals, which is obviously not the case in God v. Man.]

Those who are not saved are not chosen by God in view of their foreseen free will rejection of grace which will be given and without which no one can be saved.

[This says that God already knows in advance whether His grace will be accepted or not and, therefore, already knows who will be saved and who will be damned. He already knows in advance how each of us will exercise our free will. All that being said, how can the Church - admittedly a creation of very human men - lead anyone to salvation, since salvation has already been predetermined? Or will it be claimed that God knows in advance how the Church will, in each individual case, work its magic upon the free will of its congregants thereby allowing them to be saved?

If God knows all this stuff about me in advance, why indeed should I bother with worrying about salvation? Instead, I choose not to worry about God at all (though I do Buddhistically pray for His elevation to Buddhahood) and do good works instead. If that’s not good enough for God, tough.]

Anyone who denies the four propositions is a heretic. How to understand the four propositions is where different theologies come in. Anyone who denies that God knows our future free actions denies God's infallible choice of the Elect and God's infallible knowledge of the Damned and so is a heretic.

[“…God knows our future free actions...” The hell you say? Then what am I, what was I created to be (that is, assuming God created me, which I don’t assume at all) - a mere marionette?]

:UNQUOTE:  http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a83.htm

Alternatives to Eternal Damnation

I can think of two alternatives to the Eternal Damnation v. Everlasting Life in Heaven scenarios.

ONE:  Dis-creation 

Dis-creation is a word of my own coinage, which represents my idea that would spare the Almighty from the charge of being eternity’s most profound Terrorist. For if the only two options are Heaven and Hell, then God would be acting as Supreme Terrorist/Torturer by arranging for sinners to suffer the flames of Hell for Eternity. My suggestion: If God hates sin and won’t allow the unrepentant to enter Heaven, why not - instead of torturing them forever - simply dis-create them? We all came from nothing (or unconscious dust, if you prefer), so why not simply reverse the process (as it were) and render those denied heavenly entrance back to the form of the unconscious dust from which we all arose?

TWO:  Create a Third Realm

In addition to Heaven and Hell, surely God could arrange (even at this late date!) to create an additional afterlife location(s) - a place devoid of God but also devoid of the Devil. As for places devoid of God, the more honest among us have to admit the vast majority of us, living on this planet at this time, are devoid of connection with God. He does not talk to us, He does not give us signs, He does not show Himself. Some are satisfied to be filled with the spirit of God, but that’s not the same relationship Adam had when he walked with and conversed with God. I’m forced to ask, “For those who anticipate going to Heaven, do you think you’ll walk and talk with God then as Adam had done so long ago? Or will you be satisfied to never see Him but instead be filled with His spirit and maybe see an angel once in a while?”

So an afterlife location without God would be very much like what we’ve already got right now. Maybe in His infinite mercy, He could construct several such afterlife destinations, each one reserved for those whose sins were roughly equal. I mean, why put murderers in the same place as jaywalkers? In a manner of speaking, that’s pretty much how Buddhists envision the Afterlife (or I should say, the Next Lives). Only it isn’t God Who dictates where we’re to go, it’s the sum of our actions in this life (and earlier lives) that so determine. Only we don’t go to permanent Heavens or Hells of various intensity and gradation. We get reborn in places and circumstances fitting to our past actions, with yet another chance to work our way up.

Up to and including this day, I’ve never understood why the Abrahamists think we’ve only got one life to get it right. Given the brief time we’re here, the enormity of the challenges facing us, and our limitations, how could anyone (or Anyone) expect us to make any spiritual progress if one life is all we have to work with?

Pope Francis’s Priorities

It must really bother the new Pope that Argentina and Spain had, years ago, legalized same-sex marriages. Both are traditionally very Catholic countries. Or maybe all they ever were were lip-service Catholic countries. So what’s a Pope to do, especially one from such a strong prayer and meditation oriented background as himself? Will he see it as his primary mission to make serious Catholics of these lip-servicers? Will he frown upon those churches which serve only as social gathering places for the “faithful?” Or will he stumble along the way on trivial pursuits, for instance by trying to convince the British to relinquish control of the Falkland Islands to his native Argentina?

My personal prediction is, after all the hoopla dies down, Pope Francis will come to be seen as a nice guy (well-intended and all that) who managed to create an era of good feeling (especially among his fellow Latinos) but not much else. I’m hopeful that not only he but also top-down Catholicism will end up in the dustbin of history.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (2008 and 2012)

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“Had I been elected US President, I wouldn’t have even sent a congratulatory telegram to Pope Francis.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Time for a Black Pope?

•           I predict that Peter Turkson will not be elected Pope;

•           How Muslim Africans will figure into Turkson’s future;

•           How about a Latino Pope?

There’s a lot of buzz encouraging the College of Cardinals to elect Peter Turkson of Ghana as the next Pope.  However, there is one very good reason why the College should hesitate.  If Turkson is elected, he will serve as a lightning rod to encourage the growth of radical Islamic opposition in Africa.  And the reason is quite simple:  Christianity, especially Catholicism, is closely identified with the European powers which, having ignored all claims concerning the love of Jesus Christ for all humanity, saw fit to colonize that continent and treat the majority of its inhabitants like animals.

Yes, Africans - especially Black ones - have not quite forgotten their bitter colonial past.  And many Africans are painfully aware of their position of increasingly exploitable weakness today - an awareness which embraces the rise of neo-colonialism.

Here are some numbers worthy of note:

QUOTE:

According to Britannica Online, the Muslim population of Africa in 2010, was…(40.84%), while Christians were 488,880,000 (47.32%), African traditional religions (ethnoreligionists) were…(10.6%), and all other remaining beliefs were…(1.22%)...[2]

:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Africa 

QUOTE:

In 2009, when Pope Benedict XVI visited Africa, [the number of Catholics in Africa] was estimated at 158 million.[1]

:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Africa

Even though these quotes cite two different years, it’s safe to assume that the ratio of non-Catholic Christians to Catholics is roughly 3 to 1. So that translates to a ratio of 2.7 Muslims per Catholic. I believe that elevating a Black African to Pope will galvanize the more radical among those Muslims against their Catholic neighbors. And Muslims not already radicalized will become so after such an elevation.

Of course, it would remain to be seen how Protestant Africans would react to any campaign against native Catholics.  If the campaign were to be strictly against Catholics and were conducted under a battle cry against that most exploitative and most European of churches, African Protestants might opt to stay out of this struggle.

I am especially intrigued by the fact, as cited above, that “…African traditional religions (ethnoreligionists) were…(10.6%), and all other remaining beliefs were…(1.22%)…”  Somehow, these (especially the ethnoreligionists) were able to maintain their scriptureless beliefs in spite of the onslaught of agents of the Abrahamic faiths. For that reason alone, I dub them true Africans. While these 11.82% might not dislike Catholic influence in Africa enough to take up arms in opposition, they might find grim satisfaction in seeing someone finally take long overdue action against those who had so profoundly disrespected and persecuted their native beliefs.

A Latino Pope is far more likely

Given the very long tradition of Catholicism among the Iberian-descendants in Central and South America, if there is to be a non-European Pope, he will most probably come from that area of the world. That kind of recognition, especially should the new Pope turn out to be charismatic, would go a long way toward countering the influence of leftists which has become bothersome to the modern Church of St. Peter.  The poor and downtrodden might be more willing to accept their political lot as long as they could have the consolation of being able to connect spiritually (or at least ethnically) to one of their own. I can only hope that this new Pope won’t turn an entirely blind eye to the needs of his most destitute and abused congregants.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“In my view, it doesn’t matter who the new Pope will be, since he will be burdened with an impossible task: Making this archaic and corrupt Church relevant to the modern world.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Two infallible popes at once?

News Flash: “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI scheduled to hold press conference to denounce current Pope’s most recent encyclical, saying, ‘I heard the voice of God tell me, in no uncertain terms, that I must voice my opposition.’”

Wow! Suppose Benedict was to do such a thing, while claiming he was acting upon the very spoken command of the Lord. How would the sitting Pope take that? Would he say, “Oh, yeah? Well, the Lord in His own voice told me otherwise.” More importantly, how would the world’s Catholics respond? That future response should wait until a response is forthcoming to this from the present:

QUOTE:

In an emotional goodbye to 100,000 supporters, the Pope revealed that he is stepping aside because God told him to.

… Benedict XVI [said] that he was resigning because God had called on him to devote himself to prayer. He said God had told him 'to climb the mountain'.

:UNQUOTE: Source: see NOTE 1.

The Voice vs. the Lord’s Will

The response I’m looking for is in the form of answers to some questions: “Pray tell, Benedict, what was the voice of the Lord like? Was it high or low? Tenor or baritone? Male, female, androgynous?" I’ve heard stories of people claiming to have heard the voice of the Lord, but I’ve never heard anyone actually describe it.

I suspect this Pope Emeritus did not hear the actual voice of the Lord or he would have described this voice. Or even if we should grant that he felt disinclined to describe, much can be made of the media not even bothering to ask this question: “What did this voice sound like?”

What most likely happened is that Benedict prayed, or perhaps more accurately “meditated,” on whether or not to resign. The resulting sense of what he should do ended up simply being referred to as “God had called on him to devote himself to prayer.” Apparently, God can “call” without using His actual voice - the idea being, the man doing the praying simply interprets his own personal sense of the Lord’s will as being the Lord’s will.

Benedict’s infallibility: Current status

The following quote, especially the part I highlight in yellow, makes clear that Benedict is no longer infallible:

QUOTE:

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church".[2]

:UNQUOTE: Source: Wikipedia article, “Papal infallibility.”

This quote should put the matter to rest. However, there are complications, the first of which takes this form: Can a currently reigning Pope when, in the exercise of his office “[define] a doctrine concerning faith or morals” which is in opposition to a doctrine offered by another Pope, (say) centuries earlier (also when, in the exercise of his office)? Can both Popes, even though at variance with each other, be said to be infallible?

“Unconditional reverence and obedience”

Another complication: Even when a Pope resigns, could an influential number of lay (and clerical) Catholics come to feel that he still has authority, especially were he to claim he’d heard the voice of God telling him to rise in opposition to the current Pope? Keep that question in mind while you ponder this:

QUOTE:

[On 2/28/13, Benedict XVI said] "Among you there is the future pope, to whom I today declare my unconditional reverence and obedience."

:UNQUOTE: source: see NOTE 2.

More amazing than Benedict saying such a thing is why he would say such a thing. The Pope Emeritus shouldn’t have had to find it necessary to so “declare” - his silence on the matter being more sensible. I mean, how can anyone declare “unconditional reverence and obedience” to a man not-yet-elected? Is Benedict saying that he could accept anyone elected by the College of Cardinals, a body which (by the way) is not infallible? Even though Benedict’s words seem to trap him into supporting the new Pope, he could simply reverse himself later by declaring that God told him to. And that possibility should be of grave concern to the College.

What Benedict seems to be saying - a message I’m sure is not lost upon the College - is, “Yes, you’d better believe it makes a difference that I would make such a declaration at all.” It seems that the man known as “God’s Rottweiler” - the author of 66 books, a former university theologian, and former head of the Inquisition (yes, I’ll use the old term for that office) - is serving notice that the College can’t elect any but a staunch conservative as the next Pope.

In spite of his words to the contrary, Benedict XVI has no intention of simply fading away to live a life steeped in prayer while removed from worldly concerns. He will wear the white dress of the Popes, not the black of an ordinary clergyman. He will be called His Holiness and Pope Emeritus, and not something more humble. Of course, the new Pope will not be entirely without resources should Benedict show any signs of opposition. I’ll come right out and say it: The new Pope could see to it that Benedict dies an untimely death.

It might be better for the new Pope not to wait until Benedict shows any such signs. Even though Benedict might not be of a mind to oppose the new Pope now, it’s not certain how he’ll come to feel in the future. For it is written, “Sometimes people get strange in their old age.” Too much is at stake to allow for the existence of a potential loose cannon, which is a doctrine I’m sure even Benedict would appreciate.

The Holy Father

QUOTE:

In February 2013, the Vatican announced that Pope Benedict XVI will retain the style "His Holiness" after resigning and becoming Pope Emeritus.

[and]

The Pope may be alternatively called The Holy Father.

:UNQUOTE: source: Wikipedia article entitled “His Holiness.”

I have a problem when men try to make humans into gods - even in the case of Jesus Christ Himself. How do we tolerate calling mere men by such titles as “Reverend,” “His Holiness,” and (worst of all) “the Holy Father?” To my way of thinking (even though I’m a Buddhist, not a Catholic), there should be only one Holy Father as far as Catholics are concerned - the Lord God sitting in heaven above.

Unfortunately, we humans seem possessed of a need to think someone should be in charge. In the workplace, this is considered ideal; but even in the realm of the spirit, many think likewise. However, I draw great comfort from an odd source, the Gohonzon of the Nichiren sects. I say “odd” simply because, though once a member of such a sect, I can appreciate many of the lessons I’d learned under their influence.

When I chanted Nam-myoho-renge-kyo as a member of the Soka Gakkai International, I would stare at a scroll of paper upon which were printed Chinese characters. That scroll, called a Gohonzon, was supposed to be my Object of Worship or, perhaps more palatably, my Object of Devotion. Or, as some would offer: "It's simply something to look at while I chant." The most important characters were prominently displayed vertically down the center of this scroll:  “Nam-myoho-renge-kyo” under which appeared the name “Nichiren.” This was supposed to indicate the “oneness of the Person and the Law.”

At first I thought that was rather strange that the Person wasn’t even a Buddha - for it is well known that Nichiren, never once in his life, declared himself to be a Buddha - while the characters representing the buddhas Shakyamuni  and Many Treasures appear in smaller size “outside the Law (of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo),” as it were, appearing near the top of the Gohonzon to the left and right, respectively, of N-M-R-K.

This link shows the relationship clearly in the form of a diagram:

http://www.sgi-usa.org/memberresources/resources/gohonzon/diagramofgohonzon.php

However, it helps to remember that Nichiren, the son of a fisherman, lived in 13^th century Japan as a monk who founded a sect that had relatively little influence in the halls of power or among the general population. In short, Nichiren was a nobody. But with a distinction: he (and, later, his followers) were the only people at the time who taught the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra. This Sutra taught that all people have the capacity to become fully-enlightened buddhas.

I think Nichiren was trying to say, by means of listing himself as the Person referred to in the concept of “oneness of the Person and the Law,” that the task of propagating the Law is up to the common man (in other words, nobodies like Nichiren) since there are no longer any Buddhas in the world - at least, there aren’t any who have stepped forward.

The importance of nobodies can be appreciated in this quote from Burton Watson’s English-language translation of the Lotus Sutra, declared by the Buddha as his highest teaching:

QUOTE:

Medicine King, if there should be an evil person who, his mind destitute of goodness, should for the space of a kalpa [a period of billions of years] appear in the presence of the Buddha and constantly curse and revile the Buddha, that person's offense would still be rather light. But if there were a person who spoke only one evil word to curse or defame the lay persons or monks or nuns who read and recite the Lotus Sutra, then his offense would be very grave.

:UNQUOTE.

It’s refreshing to see a Buddha pay such homage to “lay persons” and to see Nichiren, the leader of a religious movement, use himself as an example of a relative nobody with whom laymen could easily identify.

Nichiren never had a temple to call his own and was, for most of his life, a homeless monk living (barely) off the donations of others. For my money, though, Nichiren stands far superior to Pope Emeritus Benedict who is so worldly-attached to the honors and trappings of his (former?) office.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NOTES

NOTE 1:  Article by Hannah Roberts & Sam Webb published on 2/24/13 in the UK’s Daily Mail.

NOTE 2: “Pope Benedict quits Vatican with promise to obey successor,” an article by Phillip Pullella (Reuters, 2/28/13).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (2008 and 2012)

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“As for who should be in charge, look no further than the reflection offered by your bathroom mirror.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com