This blog is about to fill up with items about FICAC-endorsed candidates. But before that happens I want to mention a few recent items that do not touch directly on those races.

Mark Silk had an interesting op-ed in the Sunday Courant on faith and the Lieberman-Lamont race. He describes accurately the dilemma our movement faces in that race:

For his part, Lieberman can rely on a coalition of the most religious, centering on conservative Catholics of all political stripes. (White evangelicals, America’s “values voters” par excellence, are very thin on the ground in Connecticut.)
Yet Lieberman’s support for abortion rights, stem cell research and the state’s civil union law put him at significant odds with conservative Catholic norms. Compared with secularists supporting Lamont, Lieberman’s values voters may be distinctly lukewarm.

For 500 years Christians have debated whether divine revelation comes through Scripture alone or Scripture and Tradition. The Episcopal bishop of Connecticut thinks it comes through the state legislature:

Smith said he chose to [allow priests to bless same-sex unions in church ceremonies] because Connecticut now recognizes civil unions and because there had been no movement on the matter at the national level of the Episcopal Church… When civil unions became law in the state, “it further put the question of how we would respond as a church on the table,” Smith said…

Smith was called “a perpetrator of false teaching,” by the Rev. Christopher Leighton, rector of St. Paul’s Church in Darien. He said Smith’s decision was “defiant of Scripture and worldwide Christianity.” Leighton is one of the five priests who have been in a theological battle with Smith since his 2003 vote in support of the consecration the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire.
Leighton predicted that churches that disagree with Smith’s decision “will be intimidated into silence.”
“This is where he has been headed all along,” Leighton said. “Despite that the archbishop of Canterbury and worldwide Anglican [leaders] are asking for a halt to these acts, he continues to press on.”

Remember Courant business columnist Dan Haar’s column two years ago saying the 2004 election results—conservatives won nationally, liberals won locally—was good economic news for Connecticut because all the creative, well-educated liberals would pack up and move here? Brian rebutted Haar’s snobbery in his Nov. 15, 2004 blog and a year later on this blog (Oct. 20, 2005) I cited an economic study buttressing Brian’s rebuttal. It’s probably only a matter of time before Haar’s latest social-liberalism-is-good-for-business prediction is also debunked:

“We think this is going to be an economic driver for a small state with two big-time medical facilities,” said Dr. J. Robert Galvin, commissioner of the state Department of Public Health and chairman of the panel handing out the $100 million for [mostly embryonic] stem cell research, over 10 years…

Good for Connecticut, thinking far ahead… And so, in addition to fuel cells, Connecticut can add stem cells to the list of legitimate hopes.

Finally, the Republican-American has an important story today on the importance of breastfeeding:

Most mothers have heard by now, breast is best.

But now, Connecticut health officials are adding to that message: breast is best for longer.

While a majority of the state’s new mothers breastfeed newborns, only 40 percent are still doing so six months later. By then, even fewer — 15 percent — breastfeed exclusively. At one year, the numbers dwindle further.

On Thursday the Department of Public Health-supported Connecticut Breastfeeding Coalition will discuss ways to promote breastfeeding and enable women to nurse longer. The daylong conference will take place at St. Clements Castle in Portland.

Leave a Reply