Libertarian on Campus

A couple months ago I went to Washington, DC for the International Students for Liberty Conference (ISLFC), a libertarian student organization. At the conference I was able to attend a taping of FOX Business's ​Stossel.​ During the show, John Stossel and his guest, 2012 Libertarian presidential candidate, Gov. Gary Johnson, were discussing the attractiveness of being a libertarian.

Johnson said, "It's cool to be socially accepting and fiscally conservative." While I wouldn't say "cool", I would say that being a libertarian at a university like Loyola is interesting. There is room for disagreement on campus, but most importantly there is room for discussion. Not many students on campus are libertarians. However, whenever people find out I'm a libertarian, it is met with curiosity and openness. The more I talk with people around campus, the more I see people actually willing to accept these ideas. Liberty is a great ideology and what I've found at Loyola is that while it still isn't as cool as being a Democrat, libertarians are becoming more popular and more accepted on campus.

An Unbiased Media

I was sitting at the dinner table of family friends when I was asked, "What journalists do you want to be most like?" I listed the first couple names that came to my head: Woodward and Burnstein, Cronkite, and Cooper. Their response, "Yeah, the unbiased good ones" and then started a conversation among themselves over the need for unbiased journalists.

It was then that it hit me: Is that even possible?

I mean, all humans have a bias. It is in our nature. The question is do we let it out. As journalists, we are not supposed to reveal our biases but instead be objective. That is the goal. Is it reachable? I don't think so, or at least not completely.

Everyone has their own spin to things. Everyone spins certain information a certain way. It is in our nature. But do we see it as bias? No. For the person doing the spinning, it is the natural way of seeing things. It is how it is, the truth.

For example, as a libertarian, I believe that Austrian economics is true and Keynesianism is wrong. If I got on the air and stated using logic and reasoning to prove that Austrian economics was write and Keynesianism wrong, I would be mentioned in an angry column in the New York Times by Paul Krugman accusing me of spinning and bias.

However, I may not see that as spin or bias but me presenting the facts and drawing a conclusion (and Krugman would do the same in defense of Keynesianism).

It is difficult to catch spin for the person doing the spinning. So what is a viewer to do? Read and watch as much as possible. I'm a big supporter of exposure to media. Use all the sources available and see all the sides and come to your own conclusion.


As a side note, at a libertarian conference I went to in DC, one of the talks was about becoming your own media. A panelist was asked, "What do we do about being objective yet also advancing libertarianism?" Her response, "Libertarianism is true! So just report the truth (libertarianism)."
And that is what the communists are saying about themselves as well.

Loyola Student Comes Home to Catholicism

It’s Monday night in Cuneo Hall and a group of about five students from Loyola’s Catholic Student Organization (CSO) are here to partake in a Bible study led by someone who would not have thought about leading a Catholic Bible study a year ago.

The group’s leader, sophomore Caley Terry, says, “I’ve been Christian my whole life. I see it as one very long continuum.”

However, earlier this year, Terry, after being a Protestant most of her life, converted to Catholicism after she began attending Mass at Loyola’s Madonna Della Strada Chapel.

The Holy Mass- A Starting Point
Caley Terry had a difficult time finding a Protestant church in the Rogers Park area so she attended Catholic Mass at Loyola to have some form of worship.

According to Terry, the Mass “was definitely a very different tone and I didn’t understand why. In a Protestant service, it’s a worship and teaching lesson.”

To Catholics, the Mass is a sacrifice where the body of Jesus Christ becomes physically present in the Eucharist.

This distinct difference led her to become friends with students who also attended the same Masses as her so that she could ask them questions about the differences between the Catholic Mass and Protestant services.

Terry eventually became friends with seminarians and other Catholic students from Loyola who were passionate about their faith.

“I had lots of conversations with my Catholic friends, different people I was in CLC [Christian Life Community] with, different authorities or semi-authorities, like the seminarians or theology majors, Catholic studies minors, that kind of stuff.”

The Investigation
It got to a point where she decided that if she was serious about looking into Catholicism she would have to do more than just talk to her friends. So she enrolled in a Roman Catholicism course for the spring semester of her freshman year.

“All Truth is God’s Truth, so investigating any certain religion, you shouldn’t be afraid of it because it’s either false or you should believe it. So that’s what I did.”

Before taking the course, she participated in a silent retreat and spent her time reading and investigating the Eucharist, the Catholic teaching on the physical presence of Christ in communion, since it is central and unique to Catholicism.

Regarding her sources, she said, “Coming from a protestant background, Biblical evidence was very important to me so I read all the gospel stories on the Eucharist like the last supper. And then I read some of the Pauline letters that talked about how to celebrate communion and was convinced of the divinity of the Eucharist in that.”

Once she accepted the doctrine of the Eucharist, it became hard for her not to admit that she had to become a Catholic. It is a belief held only by Catholics and to hold such a strong belief in the physical presence of body of Christ in the Eucharist it became hard to ignore Catholicism.

By the time spring semester started, she used her Roman Catholicism class to learn as much as she could about the faith and to make sure she was not agreeing to anything terrible out of ignorance by joining the Catholic Church.
Stumbling Blocks
When people convert to Catholicism, or any faith, there are stumbling blocks—beliefs that are hard to accept. Terry was no exception. Although she readily accepted the Catholic teachings such as the Eucharist and Sacred Tradition, she found it hard to accept and deal with two Catholic beliefs.

Our Lady of Guadalupe is a popular title for devotion to the Virgin Mary

• Infant Baptism- “I’m still unsure of what physical baptism it’s necessity. Just coming from a protestant background I’ve seen and known people who’ve had very intimate and personal experiences with God that have not been baptized yet or waited until they were an adult. So infant baptism, I don’t see the necessity of it like Catholics do.”

• Virgin Mary- “I’m working on it. I’m talking to her, asking her to pray for me but there’s still some tension there. She was never really emphasized in my faith before, so I’m learning and trying to understand things that aren’t really talked about in the Bible, like perpetual virginity and that stuff is very difficult for me to accept.”

Although she may not fully understand these teachings, it is not something she will leave the faith over. She is praying and talking to her Catholic friends to get a better understanding of these doctrines.

Returning Home
While it was easy for her to embrace her new found Catholicism at Loyola, leaving Loyola and returning home is strange now for Terry.

She explains, “I went to a nondenominational but majority Baptist high school, most of my friends are of a Baptist tradition.”

While her friends may now be of a different faith tradition than her, they understand she is the same person and that her conversion was a necessary step for her relationship with God.

“It’s added a new dimension to our conversations and the way we relate to each other,” Terry says about her new relationships with old friends.

She still goes to her old Presbyterian church while on vacation because, while it feels like there is something missing, she has a connection to the people.

Ministry
As a Christian her entire life, she has had a passion for ministry. That has not changed now that she is a Catholic Christian.

“I can’t say that there’s necessarily a shift in how much I was involved but just where I’m involved.”

Terry was active in Protestant ministry on campus last year, so as she began her journey into Catholicism, she became active with Catholic organizations on campus.

She is now a CLC leader and a member of Loyola’s Catholic Student Organization. She explains, “If I hadn’t become Catholic I probably still would be a CLC leader, just a Protestant one instead of a Catholic one. I’m part of CSO. I led a retreat earlier this year. I lead Bible study for CSO.”

Terry is ambitious and plans on continuing in ministry no matter what faith tradition she belongs to.

Fruits of the Faith
How has her faith and relationship with God changed?

Terry has come to find consolation in the sacraments.

The sacraments are, as St. Augustine wrote, “A visible sing of an invisible grace.” They are physical signs of God’s presence on Earth.

Vatican Coat of Arms

She says that as a Protestant, “That was always a problem in my faith and something I struggled with: that God couldn’t hold my hand. He made me physical but he wouldn’t come to me that way other than Jesus.”

Now she finds comfort in the Sacrament of Confession when the priest holds her hands and says, “You are forgiven.” She finds comfort in Christ present in the Eucharist.

These sacraments give her a greater intimacy with God that she could not find elsewhere.

While becoming a Catholic was a big step for her faith journey, she does not see herself as any more or less Christian. She sees her conversion as a natural step along the way to God.

“It doesn’t feel like my spirituality has taken a U-turn or a huge sharp turn, it’s seems like this is the natural progression and path towards God is becoming Catholic. This is the next step…Looking back on it now it doesn’t seem like it could be any other way."




written by: Andrew Gonzalez
Photo of Caley on her Confirmation by: Dan Rogers
Photo of Our Lady of Guadalupe by: Simona Eulalia/Creative Commons
Photo of Vatican Coat of Arms by: NielsF/Creative Commons

Get over the Hangover

 (image from Washington Post)

The candidates aren't the problem.

OK, yes they were. Who seriously thought Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, or Michele Bachmann would be considered credible Presidential candidates? The truth of the matter is that yes, the candidates the GOP put up weren't the greatest. There were a couple good ones (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and Thad McCotter come to mind) but they mostly didn't do well in polls and had to drop out. For the most part, the debate stage didn't have that many great candidates.

There was no Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush. No great Republicans that embodied the changes made to the party since the last Presidential election. Instead we were left with a choice between Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. These weren't candidates that inspired the great changes made to the Republican Party since 2008.

After John McCain lost the 2008 elections to now President Obama, it looked like the Republican Party finally woke up and said, "No more liberal Republicans. We need someone who can make a strong case for a true conservative message." And with that came the fiscally conservative TEA Party. I won't get much into it, I've mentioned on a previous post how I support the original libertarian TEA Party (which I dub the "Ron Paul TEA Party") not the neo-con Rick Santorum TEA Party. After McCain's loss, there seemed to be a wake up call in the GOP that we needed true Barry Goldwater conservatives much like Senator Jim DeMint, Governor Mitch Daniels and Governor Mark Sanford. The party needed someone who can not only deliver an effective small government message, but also someone who could walk the walk.

Then came the start of the 2012 Presidential Primaries. People like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and El Rushbo (who I do listen to on some occasions) claimed that we will not go and pick a liberal moderate like John McCain. We will pick a True Conservative this time around. Then what happened? Mitt Romney got the nomination. The reason why I said that the candidates weren't the problem was because Mitt Romney didn't get the nomination on his own. Voters gave it to him. Voters who said "No more liberals" gave the Republican nomination to the liberal Republican governor of Massachusetts.

Why? Why did they elect him? First off, I would say, "Did you see the other candidates on the debate stage?" Like I said before, out of the candidates that were invited to all the debates, Ron Paul was probably the best one out there. Governor Gary Johnson and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter were good candidates but lack of media attention didn't get them anywhere. So seeing the lack of very good candidates, voters voted for Gov. Romney.

So OK, the candidates were the problem.

Now that I concede that, I want to talk about one of the reasons why Romney was elected: He was a safe candidate. He's an even tempered guy, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, and he isn't very polarizing. For the most part, he is the anti-Palin.

You see, the Republican Party is still getting over a hangover from the 2008 elections known as the Sarah Palin Hangover. McCain picked a running mate that was high risk, high reward. Unfortunately, it didn't play out the way they planned. So this time around, Republicans were still feeling the pain of the 2008 loss were hesitant to pick a candidate who would too risky. So Mitt Romney seemed like the perfect candidate.

Now as Mitt Romney chooses his running mate, the Sarah Palin Hangover is being talked about again. People like former Vice President Dick Cheney are talking about how Romney needs to pick a safe candidate, not a risky "Sarah-like" candidate. Because of this Hangover, the two likely names floating around are Ohio Senator Rob Portman and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Picking these two candidates could be the biggest mistake Romney could make.

Yes, Portman and T-Paw are safe candidates. But they are too safe. A Romney/Portman ticket or a Romney/Pawlenty  ticket would be one of the whitest, blandest, and worst tickets they could possible put up. Remember, our candidate is a middle aged, boring white guy. The opponent is a charismatic black man. We can't have another middle aged, boring white guy as the second half of the ticket.

Republicans need to go big or go home this time around. Get over the hangover and pick someone who is young, charismatic, and can make the conservative argument. This election is between Mr. Salt Lake City and Mr. Chicago. Mitt Romney is going up against the toughest political machine in modern Presidential politics. Hell, they're not afraid to call him a tax evading murderer. He isn't going to win by being Mr. Nice Guy. They need a Vice Presidential candidate who is tough and hold no punches. They need someone with a vision and who can stir some enthusiasm for Romney. Portman and T-Paw won't do that for him.

It seems like Romney needs to go and pick a running mate who is the future of the party. And it seems like the future of the party is best held by four men: Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie. These men are the future of the Republican Party and can make the case for true conservatism. Yes, they are risky, but it will show that Romney can make bold decisions and not just play it safe.

It's time to hand the baton over to the next generation of conservatives. Get over the hangover and choose the right man for the job.







SIDE NOTE: Given the image above, my personal favorite (besides a Paul) would be Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan is one of the country's top Republicans and will most likely be a party leader in years to come. He is also very articulate and intelligent. When it comes to the budget and government spending, he knows the budget better than anyone else in the country. Sure, his embrace of the third rail of American politics (Medicare and Social Security reform) may be his downfall with Dems, but the Obama campaign is going to make Mitt talk about those issues anyway, he might as well have the one guy who knows what he's talking about defend it. Paul Ryan really is one of the best we have to defend True Conservatism. Romney says he wants a running mate with vision. Out of all the names floating around, Paul Ryan is the only one with vision.

Observing Shabbat

Last week I attended Jewish Orthodox and Conservative Sabbath (Shabbat) services for my Intro to Judaism class. It was interesting to see. Different is the word. As a Catholic, it really wasn't something I'm used to. Going in there I expected some prayers in Hebrew and a sermon. That isn't what I got. What I got was Hebrew prayers and songs. The entire service was a half hour, maybe 45 minutes, of Hebrew songs and prayers.

Even though I didn't understand what they were saying, I rushed through the English translation to keep up with the Hebrew. Just hearing the Hebrew itself was beautiful, but knowing the history of these prayers, the Psalms, and the history of the Jewish people made it much more beautiful. Here are a people who have been persecuted and exiled for over three thousand years and here they are gathered to pray and give thanks to their God.

After each service we talked to the rabbi or a member of the congregation. Something struck me when I heard them: How seriously they take the Sabbath and the command to keep the Lord's Day. To a Catholic, observing the Sabbath means to go to Mass for an hour. The rest of the day is like any other. However, to Jews their entire day is for the Lord. They just don't go to synagogue for an hour then get into their cars and go out to dinner at a nice restaurant or to the mall. They walk home after synagogue because you can't drive. Their day is a day spent with family and in prayer to God and remembering and honoring Him.

That is something I have been thinking about ever since. We Catholics seem to no longer do this. We no longer remember that the Lord's Day is not the Lord's Hour, but the whole day. We have let our culture and society dictate our lives. What's wrong with having one day where you do nothing but spend time with the people you love and care about while remembering and thanking God for all He has given you?

Don't just go to church, observe Shabbat!

Prayers for a Ruthless Dictator

"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles"

~Proverbs 24:17

I first found out that Muammar Gaddafi was killed where most people get their news, Facebook. I couldn't believe it. It took a while to get Saddam, and even longer to get Bin Laden. I'm not used to going in there and getting the guy done in a few months. Though I should say that from day was I was against the Libyan War, and to this day I am still against our presence in Libya. You won't see me flip-flop on the issue like so many Republicans have now that Gaddafi is dead.

At first I was surprised that we got him. Then I was a bit happy. A ruthless dictator- some would say terrorist- is dead. But then I thought, "No, wait. Didn't Gaddafi deserve his day in court like Saddam?" A NATO drone hit where Gaddafi was which caused him to hide in a hole. Libyans found him, grabbed him, dragged him through the streets while beating him. Mind you, he was still alive. He was then shot in the head by a Libyan. 

No matter what the man did, he was still a human being. Just because he didn't value human life it doesn't mean that we can treat the man like this. It's inhumane. I still haven't seen the video. I can't believe CNN showed it. The description alone is graphic. I don't want to see someone go through this whether he was evil or not.

A couple weeks ago I was at Sunday Mass and during the Prayer of the Faithful the lector read, "For those who have passed away." Usually, I like to think of a person who has died and pray for them. And when I was thinking of who had died I remembered Gaddafi. So I prayed for him. You may say, "How could you pray for such an evil man? What about those that he's harmed?" I pray for them too. From birth to his death Gaddafi remained a creature created by God with dignity even though he didn't acknowledge that same dignity in others. It doesn't mean he forfeited it.

When Saddam was captured I remember watching the news with my grandfather and I said something to the effect of, "I hope they kill him and he burns in hell." His response was, "No, I hope he repents and goes to heaven." We talked a bit about it, but I was young so I don't remember the entire conversation. We then turned to Fidel Castro. My grandfather, a Cuban exile, left Cuba at the age of 16 without his mother or father and placed with a family in Washington state. He barely knew English. If there was anyone my grandfather would be "justified" in wishing eternal damnation and worse on, it would be Fidel Castro. His response, "No, I hope that he repents before God and is allowed into heaven."

That day I learned something. No matter who you are, how bad you've been, no one deserves hell. I mean, hell wasn't made for humans, it was made for the devil and his followers. Our Christian faith tells us that we are to love our enemies and pray for the conversion of sinners. A prayer St. Maximilian Kolbe would pray was, "O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee, and for those who have not recourse to thee..." We are to love our enemies and pray for them. We are to acknowledge that they have dignity no matter what and don't deserve to be dragged and beaten through the streets. We are called to pray for others, no matter how bad they are. Remember, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

I found this video by Pastor Francis Chan (author of Crazy Love) on the death of Bin Laden, and I think this equally applies to Guddafi and any evil person.

Debate Yelling and Claiming Pro-Life

picture taken from NY Daily News

Two things prompted me to write this post. Both revolve around Republican Presidential debates. First off, for full disclosure, I am a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian-Republican. Secondly, while I like the TEA Party message of lower taxes and less government intrusion, I find some of them (which I call the Sarah Palin TEA Party) hypocritical because they want less government intervention, but with some exceptions. Though I do like the TEA Party message.

The main news coming out of the last three Republican debates haven't been what the candidates have said, but rather, what the audience did. The last three debates have been criticized not for the policy issues of Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, but for what the audience yelled.

At the CNN/TEA Party Debate Ron Paul was asked by Wolfe Blitzer about a hypothetical man who didn't have health insurance but fell into a coma. Under President Paul, Blitzer asked, will the man be left to die? Right before Dr. Paul said, "No." A couple of people in the audience yelled, "Yes!" Mind you, Dr. Paul yelled out "NO!" after this, but the media reports the next day read "Ron Paul Would Let Man Die." I almost expected them to call him "Dr. Death."But Paul said no. To be fair, a few articles I read did defend Paul. Other articles decided to take the one man (or two) who yelled, "Yeah!" and said, "The TEA Party audience would let a man die." No one questioned it. After all, it fits into their Tea Party-profile: heartless racists who would let a man die. But we have to remember, it was only about one or two people. When I heard it, I thought they were joking so I laughed. I still do think they were joking. And just because of one person, an entire movement is demonized.

Then there's the latest controversy revolving around the debate audience. At last week's Orlando Fox News/Google Debate a gay soldier asked the candidates about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The question was given to Rick Santorum. When the soldier finished he was booed by a few members of the audience. Again, it was painted by the media as "Republicans Boo Gay Soldier" and claimed that the Republican Party is despicable because they booed a gay soldier because he is gay. Actually, it was only a few people who, according to witnesses, were told to be quiet by those around them. Also, the boo came after he asked the question. So it wasn't booing the fact that he was gay, it was booing the loaded question he asked. Look, I'm all for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but I have to admit, it was a loaded question. Again, a handful of people are painted as representative of a whole group.

Now here's my favorite. Mainly because there is no explaining this. There is no brushing off the audience response in this case. It was the MSNBC/Politico Debate at the Reagan Library. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was just a couple weeks in the race and this was his first debate. In it he was asked about his support of the death penalty. His response to the question was an affirmation in the belief in capital punishment and that it works. This time, the ENTIRE audience gave Gov. Perry a big round of applause. Not just one or two people. The entire audience.

Why is this my favorite? It's because Perry describes himself as the pro-life candidate. In fact, in the last debate in Orlando, Perry actually said, "I will always err on the side of life." Really?? You're pro-life and will always stand for life? How about the 234 lives that were executed in Texas under your administration? Yes, I know that there's a difference between an innocent fetus in the womb and a convicted murderer. But it is still a life. God did not say, "Do not kill unless he is a murderer." According to Christian theology, we are all guilty of sin and ALL deserve death. Some denominations make no difference between mortal and venial sins and say they're all the same. To God, and hopefully to the Christian, all life is sacred. No matter what. Just because a person didn't respect others' right to life, doesn't mean that that person's right to life is forfeited.

Another issue I have with Perry's stance is that the governor has expressed his belief that he is skeptical of government. He doesn't trust government on many issues, but somehow he does think that you can trust the government on who can and can't be executed. To me, this is the ultimate trust of government: deciding life. If we pro-lifers are to believe that only God, the author of life, can take life, then why do we think that it's O.K. for the government to do it? God's law is greater than man's law, you say. This includes, "Thou shall not kill." The same government who is having trouble delivering mail!

But this doesn't change anything. Gov. Rick Perry is still the "most pro-life candidate" in the race.

I ended up seeing the Fox News/Google Debate with the College Republicans. I saw the MSNBC/Politico debate with the Campus Libertarians and that was a fun experience since I typically agree with them more than not. However, watching the debate with the Campus Republicans made me feel like a Democrat. And trust me, I'm the furthers thing from a Dem. One thing that struck me was that I had to defend Dr. Ron Paul as a pro-life. Yes, that Dr. Ron Paul. The Christian Republican OBGYN who delivered more than 4000 babies. I had to defend him because to some there, he wasn't pro-life. Never mind the fact that Dr. Paul continues to introduce legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade, which he says Congress has the Constitutional authority to do so. He is still pro-choice. (Here's a link to the We the People Act, which Dr. Paul wrote and introduced.)

Now, Dr. Paul's philosophy is pretty straight forward. If it isn't in the Constitution, the federal government shouldn't be doing it. He appeals to the Tenth Amendemnt: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Pretty much, "If it's not here, let the states decide it." And this is his stance on issues like gay marriage, drugs, and even abortion.

Most pro-lifers believe that we need a federal amendment to the constitution because anything less would be pro-choice and supporting abortion. However, following that logic, if we don't have a federal amendment or federal ban on all murder, you are pro-murder. Did you know that? There are no federal laws against the typical murder. It's up to each state to make those laws themselves. We already trust the state with outlawing murder, can't we give them abortion too?

Then there's also the fact that it could be easier for pro-life groups to concentrate on local laws. It's always easier for activists to work locally than to go change things in Washington. If we were to give it back to the states, activists in Florida can lobby Gov. Rick Scott and the Republican legislature and probably outlaw it. More conservative states would already outlaw it leaving activists to work on the more liberal states. Within 20 years, at most, abortion would be outlawed or almost.

Personally, I think there's a reason why many politicians are against this: They depend on abortion to get elected. Republican politicians know that once abortion is no longer an issue, they will lose a large voting bloc. So they claim that they'll do something, but never do. They don't want to let go of the one-issue voters. It's tragic because they are playing politics with the lives of millions of innocent children.

The Republican Party has to make a couple decisions: will it be pro-life in every sense of the word, or will it continue to be pro-some-life? Will they continue to cheer for executions while calling an obstetrician pro-choice? Will they decide, it's time to listen to the Constitution and save the lives of these innocent people, or will they continue to play politics as usual?

One thing is for sure,  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."