About Me

Name:Paco Capella
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

EO/EEO and CR

EO, EEO and CR
Equal Opportunity, Equal Employment Opportunity, and Civil Rights.

What is that crap about "sexual orientation" and “gender identity”?  Probably what libs, secular progressives, the far-left, socialists, and dems meant to say is "sexual preference", or perhaps “sexual whatever”.

EO/EEO protects individuals from discrimination or abuses due to Age, Gender, Creed/Religion, Partisan Political Affiliation, National Origin, Race, Ethnicity, Marital Status, Handicap (Mental or Physical Disability), and Sexual Harassment.  These (except for sexual harassment) are immutable traits.

Some definitions about preferences.

·         Immutable means inability to be change without exception.
·         A heterosexual is one with a sexual preference for one's opposite sex.
·         A homosexual is one with a sexual preference for one's same sex.
·         A pedophiliac is one with an abnormal sexual preference for children.
·         A necrophiliac is one with [a weird] sexual preference for corpses.
·         A hemophiliac is one with abnormal bleeding control tendency or ability.  Oops ... not related with sex.

Some Suffixes.

·         -philiac – is a suffix meaning [wrong, bad, or negative] tendency or attraction toward something.
·         -phile – is a suffix meaning fondest, loving or attraction toward something.  Examples: Audiophile, Francophile.
·         -philic – is a suffix meaning sick or ill tendency or attraction toward something.

Now, let’s go back to the crap.  How in the world can you include a Civil Right for “gender identity” and/or “sexual preference, attraction, orientation or sexual tendency”?

What is a gender identity?  I thought genders where masculine and feminine in languages or male and female in natural sciences.  I know that a hermaphrodite is one having both male and female sexual organs; and I also know that an androgynous thing is a thing’s characteristic is neither male nor female.  For example there certain names that can be given to both a male or female person such as “Dana”.  In the Army, I knew a male sergeant that hated his first name it was Dana.  I used to have a female co-worker at a Navy Contractor named Dana.  Therefore, Dana is an androgynous name.

This begs the question, is there an androgynous gender identity?  Do we need to define one capriciously?

Equal Opportunity is a broader equality concept because it can be applied to any opportunity for advancement humans may compete in life.  That is probably why late President J.F. Kennedy signed the Affirmative Action executive order almost half a century ago.  In essence, all of the discrimination issues about sex are already included in Gender, Sexual Harassment and to some extent in Marital Status (i.e., single, married, divorced, widowed and separated).

Necessity and Immutability Questions.
Is there a need to define a gender “condition” as ambivalent, neuter, indeterminate, or unknown?  Is the condition physically, psychologically, mentally, genetically identifiable?  Is the prospective “gender identity” an immutable trait deserving to be included among the other immutable traits already in our laws?

English Liberalism.
Do we need to change the words definitions in the American English Language?  No wonder we have so many problems with English.  Other Languages such as Spanish have an academy of language doctors and scholars named Real Academia Española (Spanish Royal Academy) with representative members from all countries where Spanish is used including believe it or not the USA. L'Académie française is the equivalence to the Spanish Royal Academy in France.  In the US, for example, our higher education centers are the ones who capriciously decide what meanings to give to the American English Language words.  There is a huge difference in the dictionaries of 50 years ago, 25 years ago, and 5 years ago.  Do your own research and check how the definitions for sex, gender and marriage have changed in the last 50 years.  If we just had a Royal Academy of the English Language, then we wouldn’t have the present definitions chaos, but we don’t.  We are doomed in this respect.

The Bottom Line.
It will be a big mistake to change the US Code and/or our Constitution to include “gender identity”, sexual attractions, preferences, tendencies, or orientations.  Imagine including “sexual whatever” as a category you cannot discriminate against.  You will have to include not just the heterosexuals, but also the homosexuals, the pedophiliacs, necrophiliacs, and other deviant sexual preferences, tendencies, orientations and attractions.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Atheists Main Malfunction

It is with great reluctance that I write the following thoughts, because trying to reconcile the disputes between evolutionists, creationists, theists and atheists is an overwhelming task and indeed a wearying endeavor.

This is the main malfunction of those who call themselves Atheists:  Theists’ God existence reasons are insufficient.  Atheists have used inductive, deductive, subjective and empirical arguments against God’s existence proofs. As a person of faith and science by education and experience, I am convinced of the truth of St. Thomas Aquinas’ God existence proof, because of its simplicity.

Look at how transcendental God’s existence is that God becomes a necessity.  Atheists’ experiences and actions to include the act of not believing in God’s existence, is a simplistic proof of God’s existence because God’s existence is a necessary condition for atheists’ intelligibility.

The “first cause” argument does not necessarily imply a supernatural being that put things into movement, the so-called Prime Mover; motion is a notion that is a function of another notion, which is time.  Thermodynamics and Quantum Physics tend to weaken the first cause argument due to probabilities versus causes.  My argumentation about these theories is that they are the best we have epistemologically speaking for their success in explaining most of our discoveries through mathematical models of the perceived reality.  However, they are no absolute, they do not apply everywhere from the sub-atomic phenomena to the super-cosmos as is for example the evident effect of Gravity, nor they are complete and consistent as to effectively use them as counterarguments to the set of qualities and properties of God ontologically speaking.  This is a scientifically recognized duality.  Just by a simple change, manipulation or interpretation of a critical axiom in God’s existence proof can be easily used to disproof God’s existence.  How an intelligent interpretation is made in the first place?  Who is right?

I continue to sustain that our knowledge is limited, is not complete by any stretch of our finite imagination.  "Me believe" that for our knowledge to be complete and consistent means to be God.  Since I only believe in one God, not everybody and the mother that believes to have the entire necessary knowledge to disproof God’s proofs, can be God.  Therefore, the proof of God existence, such as Saint Thomas of Aquinas from the cosmological point of view or such as Descartes, Leibniz, and Gödel from the ontological point of view must be something simple and trivial and they really are.  No wonder unconsciously atheists at a moment of overwhelming crisis fill in the gap with God.  How arrogant … how hypocrite … they can be with THEMSELVES in denying God existence.  No wonder there are some atheists support groups to help them to avoid unconsciously filling the gap with God existence.  Atheists have the audacity to then argue that theists are going around in circles, it is not so, actually theists from all points of views (e.g., theological, ontological, cosmological, you name it: fill the gap with God) have always a very simple approach to God’s existence proof: God exists, an always-true statement.  There is no need to go around in circles.

There is no incentive in solving the existence of everything by being atheist.  Thanks God they are a miniscule minority.  As we find ways to unify all theories into one that is complete and consistent, as close we will get to understand God.  This is an unconscious long-term goal of humankind.  The conscious short-term goal is be to become a virtuous of the Theological Virtues, which is an impossibility for atheists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why do students need to learn Spanish?

This is my answer to Josue from Annandale, VA on his article: “Why do students need to learn Spanish?

Why Frenchmen learn Spanish, German and English?  Why Europeans are fluent in more than two languages?

Why are we treated so rude when we go to other countries and do not even try to learn a few words of the host country spoken language?

Why that incident occurred in that Parochial Catholic Church School?

The most logical answer is to become better communicators that would definitively lead us to get in closer contact with people we often fear or prejudge.

A long time ago, Father Tadeusz Mich, PhD in Anthropology,  a Polish from Poland, a Diocesan Catholic Priest of the Diocese of Arlington, VA and a professor of Anthropology at the Catholic University in Washington, DC told us a couple of jokes.  Here is one of his célèbre jokes.  He started asking us, how would you call a person that knows two languages?  One answered, a “double language speaker”.  Father Tadeusz told him, no my dear son, it is something simpler than that.  Another said I know Father is called a bilingual.  Exactly! Said Father Tadeusz.  Then asked us another question, how would you call a person that knows three languages?  I know, Father! The same one answered correctly.  It is called a Trilingual. Very good! Said Father Tadeusz and how would you call a person that knows four languages? Another one present guessing the answer prompted to say, Father is called a quarter-lingual.  OK! said Father Tadeusz, then how would you call a person that knows five languages?  Another one that got the idea said, Father, is a penta-lingual.  Father Tadeusz said that’s fine, it is etymologically correct, but there is a better word, can anyone guess?  Everybody remained silent.  After a few seconds, Father Tadeusz said, a person that knows five or more languages is a poly-phasia-tic (Políglota, in Spanish) or a multi-lingual (polyglot).  Those were though questions, said Father Tadeusz; smiling he continue saying, how you would call a person that only knows one language.  I know Father! (Was the same one that got it wrong the first time).  It is called a uni-lingual. Father said, nope! A one-lingual, Father?  (Same one continued guessing) Father said, nope! A single-lingual, Father?  Father said, maybe, but it sounds weird.  Well Father, how is it called?  For the astonishment of everybody present, Father Tadeusz said, a person that knows only one language is called an American.

Father Tadeusz gave Mass in Fort Belvoir, VA and in Fort Mead, MD is Spanish, in Silver Spring, MD gave two masses one in Russian and one in Polish.  He taught Anthropology undergraduate courses in English at the Cath. Univ. of Wash. DC.  He learned over eight different Amazons Indigenous languages while doing his Master Degree research.  He spent eight years between the countries of Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Brazil.  He travelled throughout the piranha infected Amazon tributaries.  Many times had no other recourse but to accept riding in a boat with narco-Traficants or guerillas just to be able to move from one place to another in his missionary peregrination spreading the Gospel while at the same time doing Anthropological Research. They would never hurt Padre Tadeo, everybody knew about him, it was an honor and a blessing to give a ride to El Padre.  Some of those Indigenous tribes lived two or three days walking distance apart and there were absolutely no similitude between the languages and the knowledge of other tribes were either vague or not existent, meaning those tribes did not know each other nor had minimum contact. Father Tadeusz was a student of Pope John Paul II while he was getting prepared to become a priest, an Apostle of Jesus Christ.  Father Tadeusz is a multi-lingual, wise and certainly a holy person; he is a human being that knows how to reach other’s hearts because he knows how to communicate in many languages specially the language of Love he irradiates without speaking because it is Divinely Inspired.

Josue, since you live relatively close to Father Tadeusz Mich, please send him my kindly regards and a copy of this article.  I’ve been looking recently in the Internet for him and found the following:

Tadeusz Mich

tmich@worldvision.org

2020 I St. Suite 270

Washington DC 20002

Tadeusz Mich

Church Relations Director, World Vision

 

World Vision Washington D.C.

International Programs Partnership Office

International Recruiting & Media Relations

300 "I" Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

Tel.: (202)572-6300

 

 
In any event, I hope I answered your question.


Sincerely,
Paco Capella

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

To Gabby

I went back and re-read all posts.  For what is worth, I believe you are a good Christian and I do believe in the candor of your words.  I never accused you or addressed you of hating other religions or whatever.  Without regards to what other sects or Churches believe in, we have to respect others beliefs.  We have to be careful what and how we say things.  Normally when a topic fascinates me and I feel comfortable debating it, I tend to do so by recurring or using to basic principles, concepts and truths.  Since I am convinced (for example) that there is no need to give a different definition to marriage other than the one you could find in any dictionary that is why you perceive me as authoritarian.  When I categorically testify that “whatever” is not an element of the set of traditional views and values, is because that’s a fact you can verify by yourself.  By definition, a Conservative is one that holds and resists changes to traditional views and values.  Therefore, if I say hate is not an element of Conservatism, what are you going to do about this?  You can refute it, or like most people do and say (with due reason) that I am pedant and arrogant.  Even though, I have absolutely no problem in admitting to my pedantry and arrogance, the fact remains that those who accused me of being so, always fail to disproof me.  Their only way to feel wining something in favor of their argumentation is by recurring to ad hominem.  That is counter-productive and always backfires at them.  The ways to deal with crazy people like me is by doing an honest and objective evaluation of the argument and ask if there is any truth or validity in the argument.  Check if argument was made with malice aforethought.   If the truth of the argument is evident and there is no malice, then there is no need for ad hominem.

On the other hand, when I err, I am quick to admit.  Because the quicker you fix an error, the better your life will be.

The Bottom Line is let you and I give each other a fresh start and forgive each other trespasses if there are any. 
Que la Paz de Dios Padre esté con nosotros por la Gracia del Espíritu Santo y esto te lo pedimos por Cristo Nuestro Señor, Amén.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »