I got this from a friend's email. But I have comments to this below.

---

Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. They believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Please read the "Black Value System" again -- only this time, substitute the word "White" for "Black."

If your church had such a "White Value System" Jesse and Al and the NAACP would have 10,000 demonstrators out front in a heartbeat.

---

So I read up to this point and started to agree when I realized that both perspectives were flawed in consideration of the problems we face.

Try substituting American instead of white or black ...we are all in this together and white versus black never solved anything then or now.

See it this way:

1. Commitment to God [ But our judicial system and legislative bodies have denigrated reference to God]

2. Commitment to the American Community [ So many immigrants now wish to be Mexicans or Latinos in America and not to be an American]
3. Commitment to the American Family [ How many "whole" families versus how many "single
parent/broken/dysfunctional" families?]
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education [ Americans in our institutions of learning
consistently score less than foreign students]
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence [ Made in USA no longer means good quality and hasn't for thirty years]
6. Adherence to the American Work Ethic [ We have three and four generation families who have all lived entirely based on welfare]
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect [ Too many athletes in sports prove this is not a goal they desire or their fans expect ]
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness" [ Whever this means, middleclass is a very
narrow target and getting slimmer daily]
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the American Community [ Only if the salary/price is right ]
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting American Institutions
[ We're still trying to support outselves while our government supports other nations that
despise us and panders to multinational corporations that bleed us of jobs, skills, and money]
11. Pledge allegiance to all American leadership who espouse and embrace the American Value System [ This is probably the hardest one. Too many of our "leaders" and political organizations
are in a foreign nation's pocket]
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the American Value System. [ Not if they can't shop at Wal-Mart ]

Commitment, dedication and allegiance used so often above, are sadly unused in real life today except towards the self.

Why people behaved the way they did

Well, I suppose that everyone cared what their neighbors thought of them and at least tried to be civil to those that didn't. While a rich kid with lots of toys was great to visit, we still preferred to go home. And if visiting us, that kid threatened to take his marbles and go home if we didn't let him win...he went home. Your value system wasn't about things...it was who was a good baseball player, ran the fastest, swam farthest and even that wasn't enough if you were a mean kid or had an attitude. You were what you could and did do, not what you had.
Kids that got into fights at school - were often taken to the corner of the field and forced to fight it out until what ever wrong was less than the beating you were getting...coaches just watched. Principals at school paddled kids for infractions that warranted it ... and if the kid's parent(s) complained they were told to make their kids behave or they would be banned from school for a few days - such kids misbehaved like that home enough, the parents did what they had to, so their kids could go back to school.

If you broke a window with a rock, ran across a neighbor's flower garden, mistreated an animal, left trash in the neighbor's yard...any adult would tell your parents. If the parents didn't fix that, their reputation suffered to be no better than their kids and were shunned.

AND TODAY?

I blame it on Mister Rogers...he liked them "just the way you are"...so the bad ones kept on...and the good ones didn't think they had to improve.

I blame it on a liberal society that made being liked and politically correct more important than being honorable and respected.

I blame it on adults who were more concerned about making their children happy than good, who felt they had to entertain bored children or they didn't love them as parents...to stop them from whining.

In a previous generation if you were whining it was usually for having to do some chore and it mattered not one whit...because you still had to do it and if you didn't stop there would be no allowance on Saturday...and you knew there wouldn't be. Teens were grounded for cursing. Younger ones got their mouths washed out with soap - it wasn't considered poisoning and it was a nasty taste in your mouth that was harder to get out than those words..

What does this all mean?
Successively worse from one generation to the next, parents parent less and children rule more. The older generation enjoyed prosperity and good times and therefore could afford to provide more for their children and did. Their children as parents thought it natural to give their children more than just the necessities...to be loved as they loved their parents and giving equated to love...but both parents had to work in order to afford that. The next generation felt entitled to more than the necessities and demanded them...from any adult, teacher, care giver (remember Mister Rogers said it) or it was permissible to disrespect, vandalize and steal. The Ten Commandments weren't taught, respected...or even understood except that it was what "the man" dictated to be ignored when it suited.

What it means is that people expect to receive, not give, and they don't have to earn it ! Respect, money, friendship, love, property, food, medical care and you name it whether necessity or more...earning it is more difficult than demanding it, if that works. Many people living "off the system" actually believe that they have earned their public dole for having stood in line waiting for it.
Many people enjoy national security, but because they didn't earn it themselves, they think they are just entitled to it...or they can just pay mercenaries for it (professional soldiers in an all volunteer versus citizen Army, or pseudo-military organizations that hire out to protect in foreign lands)

When does that change?
When prosperity and luxury is replaced by impoverishment...and that day is rapidly approaching...and that applies to children, adults, towns, states and nations. Yet today we still are "politically correct" to encourage the taking of what we have by those unwilling to earn it.
Mother said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Amen!

When will it get better?
When we earn it!

A schism of Catholicism in the making...in America?

Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion.

His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec's support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

Kmiec was denied Communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, but it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year's presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny Communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?

A version of this argument roiled the 2004 campaign when some, though not most, Catholic bishops suggested that John Kerry and other pro-choice Catholic politicians should be denied Communion because of their views on abortion.

The Kmiec incident poses the question in an extreme form: He is not a public official but a voter expressing a preference. Moreover, Kmiec -- a law professor at Pepperdine University and once dean of Catholic University's law school -- is a long-standing critic of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Kmiec, who was head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the late 1980s, is supporting Obama despite the candidate's position on abortion, not because of it, partly in the hope that Obama's emphasis on personal responsibility in sexual matters might change the nature of the nation's argument on life issues.

Kmiec has drawn attention because he is one of the nation's leading "Obamacons," conservatives who find Obama's call for a new approach to politics appealing. Kmiec started life as a Democrat. His father was a soldier in the late Mayor Richard J. Daley's Chicago political machine, and Kmiec's earliest political energies were devoted to Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 campaign.

But like many Catholic Democrats, Kmiec was profoundly attracted to Ronald Reagan. For him, five words in Reagan's 1980 acceptance speech summarized the essence of a Catholic view of politics: "family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom."

In an interview over the weekend, Kmiec argued that 35 years after Roe, opponents of abortion need to contemplate whether "a legal prohibition" of abortion "is the only way to promote a culture of life."

"To think you have done a generous thing for your neighbor or that you have built up a culture of life just because you voted for a candidate who says in his brochure that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade is far too thin an understanding of the Catholic faith," he said. Kmiec, a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, added that Catholics should heed "the broad social teaching of the church," including its views on war.

Kmiec shared with me the name of the priest who denied him Communion and a letter of apology from the organizers of the event, but he requested that I not name the priest to protect the cleric from public attack.

The priest's actions are almost certainly out of line with the policy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In their statement"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," issued last November, the bishops said: "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position."

The "if" phrase in that carefully negotiated sentence suggests that Catholics can support pro-choice candidates, provided the purpose of their vote is not to promote abortion.

Already, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City has played an indirect role in the 2008 campaign by calling on Kathleen Sebelius, the popular Democratic governor of Kansas who has been mentioned as a possible Obama running mate, to stop taking Communion because of her "actions in support of legalized abortion."

But because Kmiec is a private citizen and has such a long history of embracing Catholic teaching on abortion, denying him Communion for political reasons may spark an even greater outcry inside the church.

Kmiec says he is grateful because the episode reminded him of the importance of the Eucharist in his spiritual life, and because he hopes it will alert others to the dangers of "using Communion as a weapon."

---

I suppose using Communion as a weapon by denying it is still better than being ex-communicated...or is it the same? This was a violation of Canon Law.

However, other meddlesome priests have been thwarted in past history with significant impact. The USCCB is not in control, nor (allegedly) is Cardinal Roger Michael Mahony Archbishop of Los Angeles? This is the Cardinal who advised his priests to ignore the immigration bill and accepted a settlement of $660 million to victims of clerical sexual abuse in that archdiocese (Boston was just a mere $157 million).

This begs the question, has Catholicism been denied to America by the very men who administer it? I do not ask for defense, denial or otherwise speak against/for Catholicism ... or errant priests. I also remember that in 2004, our local priest spoke from the altar that is was morally wrong for anyone to vote for a candidate who espoused/accepted legal abortion.

"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship A Call to Political Responsibility " (USCCB) is so obtuse as to confuse a high school graduate, and possibly even a legal scholar like Professor Douglas Kmiec former Dean and St. Thomas More Professor of the law school at The Catholic University of America. Somehow I doubt the priest who denied Communion to Kmiec nor my local parish priest acted against the direction of their bishop...of course the bishops can claim plausable deniability.

Is there another schism of Catholicism in the making in America?