Posted on 12/07/2009 8:54:14 AM PST by GonzoII
.- In an exclusive interview with Catholic News Agency, Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput has explained his reasons for signing the Manhattan Declaration. He said the Declaration should “galvanize” Christians and others in defense of pro-life issues, the nature of marriage and religious freedom.
“I was glad to be invited to sign the declaration, and glad to sign because I believe in its content,” Archbishop Chaput told CNA. He described it as a “straightforward” statement defending the sanctity of life, religious liberty and the definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.
“In a sensible world, none of these things would be in question. But we no longer live in a sensible world,” he commented.
The archbishop thought one of the goals of the declaration is to “galvanize good people,” beginning with Christians but including others, in order to organize to work to change the direction of the country and to “resist” when necessary.
Archbishop Chaput commented that the signatories of the Declaration did not create the political environment that “forced it to be written.”
“The signers didn’t create the declaration's urgency or its timing. Others did that for them,” he told CNA.
He said the effort was provoked by those who want to “force” religion out of the public square, to “redefine” marriage and human sexuality, or to “sacrifice” women and unborn children on the “altar of a fraudulent ‘right’” to abortion.
Asked about the claim that the Manhattan Declaration neglects social justice issues, Archbishop Chaput pointed to the “outstanding” track record of the Catholic Church and other religious communities in serving the poor, the immigrant, the homeless and the infirm.
In his view, the claim that the Declaration neglects such issues is “without merit” and “designed to distract.”
To the argument that the Declaration violates the separation of church and state because it features Christians telling the government what to do, the archbishop replied:
“In the United States, citizens ‘tell government what to do’ all the time. It’s called democracy.”
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution bars religious communities, religious leaders or individual believers from taking a “vigorous role” in public debate, he added.
“In fact, the American system depends on exactly the opposite: In order to survive, our democracy requires citizens to advance their beliefs energetically and without apologies in the public square.”
The archbishop explained that he was not involved in the development of the Manhattan Declaration, but said he knows and respects many of the other signatories. He reported that the main Catholic input for the Declaration was provided by Princeton University’s Professor Robert P. George.
The Declaration’s signers want people to realize “how difficult” the present moment in U.S. history is, he added.
“Our rights and liberties are never really guaranteed by words on a piece of paper. We guarantee them ourselves, under the sovereignty of God, by struggling for what we believe.”
Real hope has “a cost in sweat and hard work,” Archbishop Chaput said to CNA.
“Now and always, we need to trust in God; and then we also need to act. Right here, right now, in this country, the work of organizing and struggling in the public square for what we believe belongs to us. That means all of us, and each of us.”
As of Friday afternoon, the Manhattan Declaration’s website claimed over 252,000 signatories since its Nov. 20 release. Its website is at http://manhattandeclaration.org
Exactly.
Americans must understand that what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence applies no less today than it did in July of 1776. To paraphrase his eternal words: When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object — which today is complete control of the economy and our lives — evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is our right to throw off such government — or to vote its agents out of office, or to raise such a magnitude of protest that they dare not act lest they set in motion a similar train of events.
To further paraphrase Jefferson’s words: A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the president of a free people. Our princely president has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unfit for the office. And he is only the most recent in a long line of presidents who have demonstrated that unfitness.
There is another reason why the parallels divide between the original Tea Party and our own. The Founders did not pretend to have all the answers. They performed an astounding feat of political thought and action based on the received wisdom of the time. They left for future generations the task of correcting their admitted errors and doubts.
We, however, know what those errors and doubts were, and the solution to them. As every statist or totalitarian regime that ever existed was based on Plato’s view that men were just atoms in a collectivist state and who owed their existence to others, a fully consistent philosophy of reason exists that sanctions individual rights and man‘s existence for his own sake. That philosophy is Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. The Founders did not have the benefit of her advice. We have.
Let us not treat this day, or any future Tea Party or any other kind of protest, as just another tea party. Let us solemnly regard it as a chance and a first step to finish the American Revolution, to protest the omnivorous and indiscriminate appetite of federal power to consume everything in its path, to assert the right to our lives and property and futures, to work on a course of action that will ultimately correct the errors present in the Constitution and repeal its freedom-destroying amendments. Americans must think and act to finish the American Revolution — before Obama and Congress finish this country, as they are determined to do.
From - The Original Tea Party and Ours: Where the Parallels Stop
by Edward Cline http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5596
I have been telling my husband for a couple of years now, that WE are the rebels in society. We live our lives in a very old-fashioned way, and it works for us; but, today we are the counter-culture.
That's it.
Abp. Chuput is a hero and a saint. Now, will somebody who knows him, or knows the derivition of his name, please tell me the proper way to pronouce it?
Is it “sha-poo”? “sha-put”? “Cha-poot”? Any suggestions?
In Connecticut, citizen town committee caucuses are held the week of Jan 4th. About 5000 Republicans and 7000 Democrats will attend.
Pro-family voters will not be attending. The pro-family groups & conservative churches have zero interest in this event. Even if they were informed that these caucuses were occurring, they would have zero interest.
If these are rebels, they are pathetic rebels.
Almost, "exactly." Unfortunately, also by force of arms. It's happened many times in this country. The Revolutionary War, the War Between the States, the war of 1812, the first and second world wars are examples.
Methinks, it might happen again, but I could be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.
5.56mm
Shah-pew
Thank you, A.A., I’ve heard it several ways and never, it seems, the same way twice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.