Thursday, September 21, 2017

Global Warming and our Faith in Science

I agree with Jonah Goldberg.  I've never quite known what people mean when they speak of 'believing in science.'  And like Goldberg, I notice that many who question the dominant Global Warming narrative are hardly haters of science.  Some have likely forgotten more science than I'll ever know.

They just think that the dominant narrative isn't accurate.  To one degree or another.  Some believe most of it is wrong, others think that some of it is correct, but there's a ton of hot gas swirling around that core of truth.  Count me in that last group.  Though my own view is less to do with my grasp of science as it is just watching the behavior that swirls around the debate.

Nonetheless, the reactionaries are quick to regurgitate a rehearsed boilerplate, often trying to find some chink in a question, rather than answer it, and frequently employing such empty comebacks as 'you don't believe in science.'  Which is funny, given how often issues on the Left rely on looking away at what the science does and doesn't say.  Or, as often as not, picking the scientists or the research that says what they want to hear.  A common trend hardly confined to any group.

Anyway, Goldberg has fun with the latest example of being between a rock and a hard place when your goto retort is 'anyone who even thinks of questioning the 'science' must hate science. 

Remember when ignorance was not a virtue?

Our pop culture and Ministry of Truth have worked for decades to convince us that people who hold traditional values, classic morality and common sense are the morons.  People who see a piece of home decor and have a fit because it features cotton, on the other hand, are the true geniuses.

It's a mark of the power of propaganda that educated people would even think this, much less find support for their observation.  One of the problems with the whole 'coded language' or 'trigger words' concept is that they can be anything.  Big Brother never dreamed of a world where any word could suddenly and randomly be a secret code for unacceptable thinking.  Buy yourself a cotton shirt?  Why, tomorrow that could be code for the fact that you love Hitler!

That is the state of ignorance in America today.  And since it is exactly what the Left wants, it will not be how the Ministry of Truth covers the story.  If it covers it at all - which would not be the wise move - it will make sure it's given some credibility by deflecting the conversation to the history of racism, Jim Crow, slavery, the Confederacy, Nazis, or anything else that can prop up the idiocy with some manner of credibility.

Catholics cannot downplay the sex and drugs culture and be authentically pro-life

Nein!
They can't.  At the end of 2016, over 35 million souls have died of HIV.  Over twice that many have been infected.  In the United States, well over a half million have died of AIDS, with over 1,200,000 living with HIV in the US.  In 2012, almost 14,000 people died of HIV/AIDS.  That's as many as are murdered by guns in the US every year.  Compare the coverage and focus by our media and church leaders.

And that is just HIV/AIDS (which, it should be added, has been on the rise over the last decade here in the US).  This doesn't count the plethora of STDs, some of which can be serious and incurable.  STDs, it should be added, are also on the rise.

This doesn't get into the emotional and psychological impact of our sex culture, the impact on children that results from cohabitation and divorce, and the burden that is placed on society by broken families and single motherhood.  Sorry, but stats - which admittedly can be manipulated - are in universal agreement, even when it's clear they don't want to be.  Our divorce culture, which is necessary to sustain our sex culture, is a wrecking ball on society and individuals.  And it exists largely to accommodate a population weaned on the pleasures of sex and narcissism without accountability.

We haven't even gotten into the drugs part.  There is no way I've found to count the millions of lives that have been lost and ruined from illegal drug use.  And that's not counting today.  By all accounts, the drug pandemic that has exploded over the last several years is claiming more lives than guns, auto accidents, or Donald Trump.

It's that bad.  So even with a sympathetic, pro-drugs and sex culture spin, we can say that the 20th Century's emphasis on all things hedonism has claimed far more in America than all the wars ever fought in US history.  And that's just America.  Add to that the global body count and we're in the tens of millions.

This doesn't include abortion.  Despite the New Pro-Life Movement's insistence that abortion is largely the result of women given no choice but to abort babies because of male chauvinism and capitalism, there is reason to believe that legalized abortion is there largely as a giant safety net to sustain our obsession with libidos above all things,

In light of all this, we're told: mercy, which is then used to sweep the entire issue under the carpet by Church leadership.  I seldom hear this spoken of at all.  I can't remember the last time I heard a homily (that's sermon to you Evangelicals out there) mentioning it.  And across the once vaunted St. Blogs, most NPLM advocates spend nary a day once a year bemoaning it.  And that's when they're not blowing beer out their noses and celebrating the latest pop culture contribution to sustaining all things debauch.

Sorry.  To downplay, dismiss, or - worse - indulge in this culture of death, suffering, misery, oppression and slavery to our basest passions in order to excuse a noticeable swing to the Left cancels out all pro-life bona fides.  It's time for some repentance, and stepping away from those who have buried the tens of millions of carcasses sacrificed on our society's collective libidos.  Wanting to be accepted is just not enough reason to ally with such a human travesty that will no doubt be judged brutally in generations to come.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Another victory for liberty

In East Lansing, a family farm can once again come to the local farmer's market, despite the fact that it doesn't accept the modern opinions about human sexuality as advocated by the post-Christian Left.

As per usual, the Left swooped in and sought to punish the young family for wrong-think.  In its usual display of tolerance and diversity, it sought to deny their farm the right to come and sell its wares along with others from the region.

As a denizen of rural Ohio, I can tell you that Farmers Markets are not some quaint, humble little hobby.  For some it is.  For others it is their life.  And once again, in the name of diversity and tolerance, we have the Left coming in and using a blacklist mentality that would make the HUAC turn its head.  It almost shamelessly attempts to use threats of censorship and legal retribution against those who reject the beliefs and opinions and values it embraces.

Thankfully, the Alliance Defending Freedom stepped in and filled the void once occupied by the ACLU.  The result was a win for freedom, including those of the LGBT community.  Because if we insist that only people who think the way liberals demand they think can have rights, it takes no effort to imagine a time when suddenly being liberal just won't be enough to sustain those rights.

Bonus:  Most unintentionally ironic statement of the article:
“We’re just gathering to say there are a lot of LGBTQ people in the city,” Marlow said. “We should support each other and support businesses that are tolerant.”
Yes, because nothing says tolerant more than hoping the government will come in and banish someone who doesn't think the way I demand he thinks.  The toughest part of dealing with the modern Left is dealing with someone who actually believes they are being tolerant by demanding conformity to their opinions and values. 

Dave Armstrong and the Life Site issue

Dave Armstrong is an apologist I respect.  I don't always agree with him, but I respect his candor and charity.  Dave is fair and tries to be up front about issues, and is willing to listen.  Therefore, when Mr. Armstrong says Life Site news is a problematic site, it gives me reason to take a second look. 

He also takes on the current kerfuffle between Life Site and Rebecca Weiss.  Even though he obviously has a slant against Life Site, he looks at the details and is willing to see where each player is, where each could be right or wrong, and what each is actually saying.  I know.  A radical approach. 

Since Dave doesn't post things like this, I'm inclined to believe him when he concludes Life Site jumped the gun, acted uncharitably, and whatever legit points there might be, handled itself in an improper manner.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

What should Catholics believe about immigration?

A fair question posed by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry over at America The Jesuit Review.

It boils down to how supporters of Open Borders can square with the Church's historic teachings about the rights of a sovereign nation.  On the other hand, how can opponents of Open Borders say their desire to restrict immigration is Christian?

I would say that problem is the premise.  First, nobody says they are advocating for Open Borders.  Technically, as Deacon Steven Greydanus insisted, the Church supports a nation's rights to protect its citizens, up to and including regulating its border.

That's technically.  That's on some dusty old Canon law book in the third section of the Vatican library basement.  And that's the problem.  Each time someone advocates restricting immigration, or somehow dealing with those here illegally, even without deporting them, but not wanting them to get off the hook, they are met with charges of being unChristian, uncharitable, even racist.  Mr. Greydanus certainly implied, however subtly, the same about me.

Of course in the same breath, we'll be schooled on the fact that the Church in no way denies a nation's right to enforce its borders.  Advocates of not-open-open-borders will insist they simply want the system reformed, and all the innocent children protected.  And yet, anything that doesn't end up more or less saying 'Open Borders and Amnesty for all immediately' is met with the above reactions.

It reminds me of a Calvinist who once explained how God can ordain damnation and yet be off the hook in terms of forcing someone to reject Christ.  You see, God doesn't make them reject Christ.  God simply removes every other conceivable option.  The person is denied any choices to the Gospel but rejecting it.  So the person still deserves the blame, since technically he is still rejecting it.  So you see, God is in control of everything, but we still deserve blame because we chose the one choice God allowed us to make.

Sound crazy?  Well, that's sort of what happens in the actual 'doing of the issue' rather than just the words spoken about the topic.  Technically, the Church, its leaders, immigration advocates who are Catholic, all insist they're not advocating open borders.  Real, fair, and comprehensive immigration reform that doesn't hurt innocent people is all that is demanded.  And yet, once the conversations are finished, it's clear that the only options that fit within these demands are options that look to all the world like Open Borders and unqualified amnesty.  They simply reject any alternative that doesn't end up looking that way.

I'd say that's the biggest problem.  Those questions in the piece are fair.  My answer would be that the Church must come to the table and say how it will not condone the sin of lying and deception, will make sure citizens aren't hurt, and will actually support specific restrictions on immigration.  And it must do so in a way to make sure it cares every bit as much for the struggling citizen as the struggling immigrant.

As for the idea that limiting immigration is not Christian?  Hardly.  It's a ploy of the modern world that to be Christian is to have no limitations.  Christianity is all about limitations.  About choices.  About choosing life, not death.  About being responsible.  We welcome all who come to us when fleeing persecution or trials.  But we expect them to begin their journey by obeying the law and being honest.  And we expect the system to make sure that as people come to the US, it is not to the detriment of those already here.  Limits are fine, and hardly unchristian.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Happy Constitution Day!

A Gathering of Racists: A Modern interpretation
A day late.  It was yesterday, in case you missed it.  And I'd wager many did.  Odd that we don't have fireworks and cookouts and fairs and family gatherings for Constitution Day, don't you think?  I wonder why that is. 

We're told it's all the Constitution.  When we talk of rights or privileges (or restrictions thereof), it's always the Constitution.  And yet, no celebrations there.  What do we celebrate?  The Declaration of Independence.  Why the difference?

I imagine it's hard to say, but I'll have a go.  I think it's because the Declaration marked a shift - a seismic shift to use the phrase - in human history.  For the first time, humans were going to start a nation from scratch dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, and that government exists to protect that truth. 

Take a survey of the world in 1776, and you can see how revolutionary that was.  Unfortunately, the same thinking that has led to our modern Iconoclasm against all things Confederate has also diluted the impact of the Declaration.  Judging the Founding Fathers based on the latest developments in our present day thinking, it's not hard to find them wanting. And from that, we can logically undervalue their contributions.  Which is likely the goal of the Left, which encourages a dismal assessment of our heritage.

Nonetheless, if a person bothers to think about it, the Declaration was bold, it was stunning, it was something so unique in history that the world has never been the same.  That's why the celebration.

But the Constitution is what guarantees these rights, some will argue.  And don't say our lack of parties yesterday is because some on the Left want to rewrite the Constitution.  We've not been having pot luck dinners for Constitution Day for generations.

Why?  Because, at the end of the day, the Declaration represents our heart and soul as a nation.  It's 'Why we're here.'  It's the thing that is our statement of Faith.  The Constitution is merely the instruction manual for seeing it through.

For instance, Secularists and SCOTUS justices seem to lean on the fact that the Constitution doesn't mention God by name.  True.  But you know what?  I was a pastor for many years.  I served in a variety of churches.  Each church had a church constitution.  Guess what.

Each constitution had two parts.  A statement of Faith, and the actual constitution.  The statement of Faith was repeating the faith doctrines that the congregation upheld.  It was basically a brief summary of the denomination's doctrinal distinctives. 

The rest of the constitution?  That was just business: Who pays what bills, who gets to teach Sunday School, who is in what committee and which committee does what.  In fact, God was seldom if ever mentioned in that part of the constitution. 

And that's sort of our country, if you think about it.  God isn't in the US Constitution because of the same reason that most church constitutions I saw weren't overly religious.  In the end, they're the instruction manual, and that's it.  The point of celebration, of faith, of worship and praise, is in that statement of faith.

And in the United States, the statement of faith is not the Constitution.  It is the Declaration of Independence. And no matter how much the Left wants to rewrite and Stalanize the document to fit its own dogmas, most Americans know the Declaration is the canvas upon which a proper understand oft he Constitution is painted.  Which is why, as important as the Constitution is - and I'm not trying to diminish its unique contribution to our  nation - it will always play second fiddle to the Declaration of Independence.  At least IMHO.

Nothing makes me doubt Global Warming more than Bill Nye embracing it

Bill Nye, who has become the Jerry Falwell of the STEM generation, is a walking meme for people who don't think being smart is confined to the ability to scream "Science!!" at the top of their lungs.

His crowning achievement was his oft shared tirade against the usefulness of philosophy.  Which, to anyone with more than two brain cells and a high school diploma, should have been recognized as a philosophical argument.

Now, in reality, I don't fully deny Climate Change.  And I'm not stupid enough to doubt something just because someone with a track record of sounding stupid for the sake of conformity accepts it.

But that someone like Nye, who is celebrated by the media as a genius, and who appears so intolerant of anything but one conclusion about a subject, endorses the notion is enough to give me pause.  It also makes me laugh at the media for lifting someone like Nye up on a pedestal.  But that's for another post.

This might come as a shock

But the Emmy awards were used as a platform to advance Leftist political views.  Hollywood has become Ground Zero for leftist group think.  It actually believes that handing awards to shows that advocate radical feminism, LGBT rights or abortion rights is a bold stroke of courage.  That's like thinking you're brave for standing up at a Nuremberg rally and saying you have a problem with Jewish people.

Hollywood was, along with certain strains of American intelligentsia, a primary source for the Communist sympathies of America's Left in the 20th Century.  Many of those Blacklisted celebrities were, in the end, Communists.  By the 70s, it wasn't hard to tell that many in the Entertainment industry had hated America, but loved Communism.  Or at least they were far more sympathetic towards Communism.  One need only watch any random episode of the TV series MASH to see that at play.

Of course the awards are as predictable as the awards show content. Calculating the correct proportion of designated demographics or surviving which shows advocate a Leftist dogma is the best way to predict the winners.  In a way that would make Ozzie and Harriet wonder, most shows today are thinly veiled propaganda vignettes.  From shows like Glee to Modern Family to the laughably misplaced, anti-Christian The Handmaid's Tale, most productions make Pravda seem diverse by comparison.   Their job is not to enlighten.  It is not to entertain.  It is not to provoke thought.  It is to indoctrinate, plain and simple.


Life Site versus Rebecca Bratten Weiss

I don't know much about Life Site News.  I've heard it slammed by Catholics who have banned me, slandered me, falsely accused me, and insulted me.  So that alone makes me give it a few benefits of a couple doubts.

Nonetheless, if Hitler said Stalin was a bad guy, I won't say Stalin was a good guy just because.  Life Site might peddle in fake news (why be left out?), slander, false accusation and the lot.  I don't know.  I just know I've seen much across Catholic sites taking sides in a brouhaha that arose between Life Site and a Catholic blogger named Rebecca Bratten Weiss, and most of it has been against Life Site.

Ms. Weiss is in that part of the Church that more or less accepts the lion's share of post modern, liberal developments in thinking and values.  She appears pro-life, including abortion.  I believe I commented on her post once, or at least interacted with her at Patheos.  She seemed pleasant and charitable enough.

That's all I know.  The complaint appears to be from Life Site saying Ms. Weiss is, well, what Ms. Weiss appears to be, and proud of it.   Life Site, which appears to be far more traditional, would logically take issue with that fact.

Here is the Life Site piece in questionHere is a link to Ms. Weiss's blog.  I'll let you decide.  Unlike Mark Shea, the captain of the Calumny for Christ brigade, I won't condemn either one.  My guess is, it's a clash of outlets that represent radically different ways of understanding how the Church should deal with the world today.  A clash far too prevalent in the modern Church.

I would add, BTW, that the larger LS piece, taking issue with the much referenced Seamless Garment, is on track.  The idea of a Seamless Garment, in terms of all Catholic teaching, is fine.  There's nothing wrong with saying we should follow all of the Church's teachings about more than just abortion.  Unfortunately, just like the loaded term 'Social Justice', it's frequently used as a way of attacking anyone who doesn't vote liberal Democrat.  Let's be honest.  That's as often as not what it's used for.  Reject the Democrats' position on something, and you're opposing 'The Seamless Garment.'  So at least in terms of how it's applied in real discourse, Life Site has a point.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

If there was no other reason to be an Ohio State football fan

This would be enough:


It's not just the Script Ohio.  Oh no.  It's the Incomparable Script Ohio.  Complete with "I" dotting sousaphone.  NASA isn't as precise as each and every little detail of this legendary performance.   One of the most famous traditions in college football, it's not just a staple of college sports, but of the sports world in general.

People who scoff at ceremony and tradition in religion have never been to an Ohio State football game.

Ironically the first marching band to make 'Ohio' in script was Michigan in 1932.  BTW, the song that is played during the formation of the script is Le Règiment de Sambre et Meusem, a 19th century French military march.  Just in case you're wondering.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Frank Fitts and the Catholic Left

I must admit, one reason I left Patheos was so that I could keep better track of Mark Shea.  When I came on board Patheos, our editor asked me to leave Mark alone and cease and desist arguments with him.  I more or less behaved myself, usually confining any references to Mark to the praise and 'well done' category.

That didn't stop Mark, however, from visiting my blog a few times and throwing out his usual preemptive accusations, and then leaving.  Since Mark banned me from his own sites, I couldn't respond, and he never returned to dialogue with me.

That became frustrating to be sure.  I tried to behave on my part, and yet felt I was coming out on the short end.  Therefore one of many reasons to leave Patheos was so I could speak more openly about Mark's descent into the deepest levels of the modern Left.

This post is a grand example.  First of all, there is nothing wrong with the substance of what Mark says about Church teaching.  The Church condemns racism.  If you only oppose immigration because you are a racist, then that is bad.  Likewise, our salvation does not rest in blood or soil or nation.  The Church is not America, nor is it Western Civilization.

But that's not the problem. First, Mark used a rather poor example to illustrate the opposing side of the debate.  Assuming this all came to Mark as he indicates - and knowing how Mark falsely accused me of saying things about him, I must wonder - it is obviously a poorly written, poorly thought out piece.  There are other, better pieces explaining the problems with open borders and post-national Christianity.  The biggest problem is that whatever negative results occur, it won't be us who pay the price.  It will be future generations.  A sort of martyrdom by proxy: By the degree to which future generations pay for our opinions have we declared our righteousness.

Mark doesn't address those.  He takes something written by what could pass as a high school Facebook rant.  And he uses it to subtly suggest this is par for the course for those who don't agree with the Church's current approach to the subject.

He then does the really, super duper bad thing.  He ascribes only the most vile and evil motives to those who oppose open border immigration.  And then, to add salt to the wound, he takes it to the next level:

"…is (like all these Alt Right guys) obsessed with his sperm.  That’s why he bizarrely speaks of “cuckolds” as he insults celibate “Catholic leaders”.  It’s all about the weird fear these guys have that darkskins will inseminate “their” white women.  The sexual insecurity of these wretched bully boys just leaps off the page every time they write."
It's a classic tactic of fanatical devotion to a cause.  You are either 100% for us, or you are more than 100% wicked and evil in ways you probably can't guess.  This is the type of stuff that peps the rally and can actually silence opposition.  After all, if it becomes commonly understood that anyone who opposes our open borders positions on immigration is just obsessed with darkies putting their sperm into our women, how gross and creepy is that?  Who wants to be associated with that type of thinking?  That's like pedophilia meets racism.

It reminds me of the 80s, when that effective weapon was used against opponents of homosexual normality.  Member that?  What did they say?  They said if a guy had issues with homosexuality, it's likely because he was really a closet homosexual.  Secretly he sexually fantasized about having hot, steamy, sweating sex with this buff neighbor next door.  He was really Frank Fitts, the Left's mental picture of everyone who has blasphemed the true, saving gospel of liberalism. Complete with Nazi memorabilia and gun obsessions.

That's what Mark has done.  He has turned any and all opposition to the Church's thinly veiled support for open borders into Frank Fitts.  It is a devastatingly effective ploy.  It takes it to the deepest levels of shutting down debate because, if you resist, you're a Nazi.  And not just Nazi, but a creepy, sperm obsessed sex type Nazi whose mind is ever in the dirtiest levels of social thinking when it's not being racist.   Using that tactic is the last stage of conformity to the Left, where debate is over, and failure to conform brands you guilty of all sins, since you have dared to question even one part of the progressive platform.

Friday, September 15, 2017

RIP Harry Dean Stanton

Roger Ebert is supposed to have said that any movie with Mr. Stanton is a good movie.  He was right.  One of the most reliable character actors of the last 60 years has died.   Kelly's Heroes, Cool Hand Luke, Red Dawn, Pretty In Pink, Alien (in a very memorable role), why the list goes on and on.

Stanton was one of those character actors who the camera loved, directors loved, and super stars feared.  When he was on the screen, your eyes couldn't help but go to him.

I grew up watching him in movies, seeing him as that 'next door neighbor working in the garage' guy who was always in situations that didn't seem to line up.  Whether working in a chain gang, service in war (which he did in real life), or being a space trucker going up against alien life forms, he always seemed out of place.  And yet in place at the same time.

He'll be missed.  That solid, always can count on character actor seems to be going the way of other conventions in modern movies.  We'll see.  Hopefully he will realize he was something after all, and find peace and light in the hands of a loving God.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let the perpetual light shine upon him.


Remember the Alt Left hates America

So following the Iconoclastic revolution, where destroying any and all statues that people who matter are offended by is the hip thing to do, we find out that Francis Scott Key - racist extraordinaire - has been vandalized.  Or at least his statue.

Was he a racist extraordinaire?  Of course.  By our standards, anyone with white skin who isn't a modern liberal, today, this instant, is a racist.  Was a racist. And can't be redeemed from their racism.  That's simple enough.  Of course hipster Catholics approve this message.

Remember, the desire is to destroy the United States and rebuild it in the image of a Bolshevik inspired, radical secular, Leftist totalitarian state.  With sex and drugs of course.  For now at least.

And yes, this is largely only that radical, alt-left branch of the Left.  Because the left never calls out its own extremes, however, count on the radical Left now to become the standard mainstream Left in a generation.

The problem with Antifa for the Left

Is that it exists.  It's a group of radicals doing things that are only supposed to happen on the right.  At least some of its members happily subscribe to violence and destruction.  Many cheer for anarchy.  Not a few throw their hats in the ring of radical left wing and Communist sympathies.  And in addition to hating fascism (assuming, for a minute, they're not actually a branch themselves), some have made it clear they hate other things as well, like America, Christianity, religion, you name it. 

In other words, they're a pain in the Left's butt.  And they're a problem for the press.  Just as the press tends to avoid talking about the bitter suffering and human misery brought about by decades of the sex and drugs culture which is so crucial to helping modern liberalism appeal to youngsters at an early age, so focusing on something like Antifa is also a problem.

If Antifa were all things, but flipped over, and opposing ideals near and dear to the Left while advocating radially right wing viewpoints, betcha the Left would have round the clock coverage - and condemnation - of the group?  Oh yeah.

As it is, the press is forced to cover it, thanks to Trump's doubling down and refusing to play the game.  It does so as it always does when forced to cover something that could make the Left look bad.  It appeals to the tactic of endless confusion: What is Antifa?  Can we know what Antifa is?  Is there really such a thing as Antifa?  Isn't it too complex to define?  Can we ever really be sure of anything?  Couldn't C-A-T really spell dog?  And on and on.

ABC does a nice job demonstrating the approach.  Part of the result of this is leaving the reader with the notion that Antifa is something or other, hard to define, if anything bad happens it's just a few malcontents who don't speak for the vaguely defined group, Racism!(TM), and so on. 

It's somewhat funny to watch. It's also frighting.  Because we now know that the press is no longer about informing us, it's about indoctrinating us.  It has become the Ministry of Truth.  And Antifa has jumped the gun, forcing the Left to double down when forced to (perhaps violence and hate are acceptable for the right reasons), or trust in the 'here today, gone later today' attention span of the post modern who really only cares about the latest Smartphone release.

A far cry, BTW, from the days of my youth, when Gandhi and Atticus Finch were the god-heroes of liberalism, showing that violence and hate are always wrong, and promising a world of endless diversity, tolerance, love, and non-violence.  Trust not the movement that promises a land where all animals are equal, but then begins to backtrack by insisting it really means some animals are more equal than others.

The saddest part, of course, isn't the Left's desire to turn America into a Bolshevik styled Orwellian dreamscape.  It's how many Christians, including Catholics, have taken to ignoring such a hate group at best, and even excusing it at worst.

Feinstein and Bannon are not the same

Just saying.  I said I don't care for Catholics who openly slam the Church in public the way Bannon did.  Even if reactions from Catholics are beginning to convince me he might have a point, I still don't think doing that is a good idea.  I didn't like it when it was par for the course with liberal Catholics either.

But that is not anti-Catholic bigotry.  He's just doing what I've listened to Catholics (usually progressive/liberal Catholics) do my entire life.  Saying he thinks the Church and/or its leaders are wrong.

What Feinstein did is anti-Catholic bias.  She joined a growing movement among the Left that is coming out of the closet and proclaiming 'we have met the enemy, and it is the historic Christian Faith.  And fools who cling to that instead of the true saving gospel of liberalism had best learn the Bill of Rights no longer applies to them.' 

Sanders said it, CAIR cheered Sanders for saying it, now Feinstein has said it in no uncertain terms.  Just the relative silence across the MSM suggests where most media outlets are on the topic.  So yes, telling Catholics who follow Church teaching that the same rights of others will be denied them is very anti-Catholic. 

Saying that the Church leadership is messed up in how it is doing things is hardly anti-Catholic. If that was true, then admit it, we have the most anti-Catholic pope in the modern era.

Is it better to suffer or to sin?

I'm confused.  I'm reminded of this post, which echoed the general attitude during the great Lying debates across the Catholic blogosphere.

Ah, I remember them well.  Catholics were divided.  Certainly there can be cases, perhaps under extreme duress, where lying is at least understandable?  Not so!, said the Catholihedrin of the blogosphere.  Better that a thousand children die than to tell a single lie and jeopardize your soul!  Same went for lying to save Jews from Nazis or stop abortion.  You just never, ever lie.  And if you or other innocents must die as a result, you have the promise of eternity to keep you warm.

Except illegal immigrants.  Apparently they can lie and that's OK.  Am I wrong?  The Church has said nothing - not a thing - about any of what they've done to get and stay here.  Steve Greydanus, before he banned me, said since our immigration laws are unjust, they may be broken.

OK, so we can break unjust laws.   But can we then sin, continue to sin, sin and sin again?  Or is lying not a sin?  If so, are there times it is OK to lie?  Because I'd think in order to stay in our country illegally and live and work and go to school and get admitted to Harvard and land high end jobs in the tech industry, you're going to have to lie to someone.  Somewhere, somehow, you will at least have to lie once or twice. 

So, is that OK?  I mean, my thinking is that abortion is unjust, and Nazis were bad, and yet I was told unequivocally that it didn't matter.  You cannot sin, nor pardon or excuse the sin of those who do!  Or I burn in hell or some such. 

So, what about this?  Perhaps it's possible to be completely honest and upfront as an undocumented immigrant your entire life and not have anything happen.  Maybe there is a lot of looking the other direction on the part of authorities.  But some of the stories that have come out about people being deported gives me the idea that at least some level of duplicity was involved in staying here without doing so legally.  So at least for those immigrants who have lied, assuming there are those that never have done so, is that wrong?  Does the Church say 'bad boy'?  In the case of coming from some countries, is it just better to sin than suffer?  Just curious.


Thursday, September 14, 2017

Research on demand!

Just in time for a rather heated Australian kerfuffle over gay marriage, the Center for Global Research at RMIT University in Australia has - wait for it - just released a study proving that celibacy and homophobia led to the priest abuse scandal!

Of course that doesn't explain the pandemic of sexual abuse anywhere and everywhere else in the world.  And it's bunk, junk, and pointless as such research usually is.  Perhaps all those teachers and other professionals involved in sex abuse are closet homophobic celibates.  If you accept modern progressive values, you'll probably accept anything.

It reminds me of that famous breaking news story on the eve of when Bill Clinton was supposed to do away with the military's ban on homosexuals.  Remember that?  Right in the nick of time, the science proved we now had the gene that causes people to be gay!

Of course we don't have such evidence. And we didn't. And when Clinton backtracked, the story was shown to be bunk and we all moved on. Just like this.  If you think this is a legit study with a legit conclusion, then I have 192,212 Brooklyn Bridges to sell you.  Like most things nowadays, it counts on the usual bigotry and ignorance that so much of the modern Left needs to in order to advance.

And as if on cue, the always ironically title Friendly Atheist grabs the ball and runs with it.

Meanwhile in the wacky world of the Orwellian Left

Parents in England pull their six year old from school after he faced disciplinary measures for calling a social experiment classmate a boy.  Yeah.  Really.  I didn't mistype that.  He called a boy a boy.

Meanwhile, in other news, a young boy who suggested that freedom might not be slavery, and that ignorance is not necessarily strength, was immediately sent to the principal's office for reeducation.

At what point will people who don't want to be pulled down with this pseudo-Bolshevik, anti-Christian movement of narcissism, hedonism, genocide, bigotry, hate, tyranny and blasphemy say 'enough!'?

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Will Pope Francis endorse population control?

So the Pope Francis fanbase is blowing beer out of its collective nose over Pope Francis calling MMGW (that's Man Made Global Warming) skeptics 'stupid.'  Pope Francis, in one of his legendary on-flight interviews, lays the groundwork for science's superior position in defining our moral trajectory. 

Now, it's no surprise to us stupid people that a growing number of scientific think tanks are suggesting that while curbing various forms of human activity is essential for controlling the earth's climate, no less important is the need to restrict the number of people on the planet.

So, given that science may well be on the track to concluding that the world needs fewer people, will Pope Francis go along with the flow?  Will he say this isn't airy-fairy talk, they are most clear?  Will he call people who question the connection between overpopulation and climate stupid? 

I'm curious.  Much of the progressive juggernaut rests on the ability of the Left to say 'except for all those other times, trust us, we'll never take a mile if you give us an inch.'  Already the talk of overpopulation and climate is easy to find.  If they say they will never take the next step and demand smaller families and limits to population, just wait.  Meanwhile, Pope Francis, and by extension the Church, has made it clear: Science or shut up.

But what happens when science runs afoul of the Church's teachings?  Will it still be 'Science, Ho!', it's time to reexamine Church teaching?  Or will they appeal to another common trend in modern discourse: Of course it's stupid when you do something (reject science), but obviously it's good when I do the same thing (reject science) because I'm awesome and so I'm obviously right!

What passes for wit on the Left

Here:

I'll leave you to ponder this comparison between apples and coffee makers. 

Banned again by the Catholic Circle

So Deacon Steven Greydanus has banned me from his Facebook page.


We've had some good discussions he and I.  We haven't always agreed, but generally we've debated well, and I've certainly learned some things.

But this time the topic of immigration came up.  He posted an editorial about immigration (this was posted on Mark Shea's webpage, since I can't access Deacon's FB page at this point), what it is, America's rights and immigrants and all.  We've heard it a thousand, million times. 

I responded by something that's been buzzing around my head for a couple days.  When Trump said he would do away with DACA, you had the obvious outcry: But the babies!   While this was being done, the MSM ran out and found case after case of people who would be hurt by this.

While doing this, some news outlets also went a different direction.  I believe they were trying to say 'Look how unfair this is!  People who have lived their lives, and are now firmly set in a path toward contributing to society, will be uprooted and thrown out!'  To that end, they interviewed various business leaders, tech giants and even Ivy League universities about all those undocumented individuals who will be hurt by this.  Undocumented workers who have good jobs, are attending college, going to Harvard, and on and on.

And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do.  Isn't it possible that sympathy for people who have spent their lives breaking the law, who are now attending Harvard, might go down hard for Americans who are struggling to pay bills, can barely feed their own families, and have no hope for their own children affording college?  I mean, I'm not hearing much from the Church about that.  Oh, the Church talks its usual concern for the poor and injustice at home.  But how does it square supporting people who have broken the law, spent their lives breaking the law, and our now reaping great rewards while their surrounding citizens are watching their fortunes diminish?

Isn't it possible that sympathy for that Harvard grad who never became a citizen might not be easy to extract from that struggling American family who can barely afford cloths and a decent car for their family?

That's what I asked.  Deacon Greydanus's responses were not what I would call charitable.  From the beginning, there was snark, which was unusual.  As I said, even when we disagreed, I always found him charitable and an enjoyable debate.  But not this time.  As we went, he even dropped that 'but *white* Americans' phrasing in his posts.  You know, that subtle inference that my problem is with darkies and swarthy types since I'm just your typical white American (Read: Racist).

I just kept going back to my point. What about these stories?  I know this wasn't the question I was supposed to have when I saw these stories.  I was supposed to be outraged that these people who are living the American dream will be uprooted and thrown back into countries they have no connection to.  And I'm not saying I approve of that.  I explained I'm not saying I want people deported or thrown out.  I"m just asking what about these people who have, for want of a better phrase, lived a lie?  Remember when lying was the Great Sin of the Ages?  When it didn't matter if we were fighting to defend the unborn, the focus must be on the purity of Truth at all costs?

And nothing.  He simply repeated the Church's basic boilerplate.  I explained that doesn't do.  There is what the Church says, but the Church's 'media face' is solely and only concerned about immigrants.  There is scant rushing to the microphone to lament the plight of Americans who might be put at disadvantage to better off immigrants, or even question the lives of immigrants except in some vague, abstract way.

So after several rounds of asking for a response to my point, he banned me.  He said I could contact him via email, and I did.  After a few emails, however, in which I said I just wanted a response to my observation, about how the "Children" might not be quite fair to focus on since some of those kiddos are adults doing better than their surrounding citizens, he cut off the discussion.  He said I had no desire to address the topic at hand.  Which is all I wanted to do.  Address the topic from an angle I hadn't thought of, but the MSM stories got me to thinking about.  But that was it.  He said it was over, and goodbye.

That was quite a shock.  We've had some good debate, and at no point did I become snarky except once, when Mr. Steven said I was just indulging in Orwellian double speak.  That's when I suggested he sounds as if he isn't caring about the children here at home after all.  But the conversation went on for some time after that, and when he objected to my observation, I merely explained that if he avoids insults, it will keep things at a better level.  Other than that, it was just a discussion.

But this time, there was nothing to it.  He would hear nothing of what I was saying, refused at any point to explain how this angle should be addressed, and finally banned me.  Nothing in my world says someone is on shaky grounds more than their banning someone for wanting to discuss something that the person obviously doesn't want to discuss.  If nothing else, he could just say 'not discussing it, done with this conversation.' Or something.  But banned. 

There's something there that he didn't like.  And I wonder what it was. Oh well.  I notice a circle of Catholics on the Net who insist there is one set of acceptable viewpoints, or else be banned.  I just didn't imagine he would be one of them.

WSJ on Feinstein's call to ban traditional Christians from holding office

Ms. Feinstein simply stands in an emerging torrent of opinions held across the spectrum: That Christianity is the enemy and those who hold its doctrines must go. This country will no longer tolerate such as them.  If you think that's an extreme interpretation, then imagine Ms. Feinstein saying that to any other people group based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.

Of course not long ago, Bernie Sanders stated the same thing, much to the delight of CAIR, the largest and most vocal Islamic relations organization in America.  Clearly, a nation where Christians who hold traditional values are marginalized is a good nation.

Christian moderates, liberals and leftists imagine that this merely means 'those Christians over there.'  One of the driving forces of this brand of Christian fundamentalism (and fundamentalism it is), is the belief that Jesus was wrong.  The world wouldn't hate us because it hated Jesus first.  It would hate Jesus because those Christians over there aren't as awesome as I am.  A common lament across the moderate Christian landscape.

And so as this happens, those who have walked with the emergent Left scratch their heads.  They imagine it's no big deal.  Or it's just a couple loose cannons.  Or it's probably the fault of 'those Christians over there' for making good hearted people suggest such things.

The best thing to do here is go back and imagine that Jesus was right about more than just 'love each other and think fuzzy thoughts.'  He likely meant it when he said that the world would hate us because of Him.  And this is simply the latest example.  If we continue to stand idly by while it picks up steam, it won't be us, but our posterity who pay the price of our folly.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Destroying statues and the Fascists who support it

Yes, those mobs who destroy and seek to remove statues of confederates, no matter who they are, because they touched the South and are therefore doomed to eternal judgement, have more in common with the fascists they decry than any movement for liberty or equality.

Mike Flynn unpacks the reality.  For Christians, it is doubly difficult, since it rests not on forgiveness and mercy and reconciliation, but bitterness, judgement, and hatred of people based on sins real and imagined.  Yet so many Christians today have made their decisions. 

Monday, September 11, 2017

Heart wrenching

Donald McClarey posted a video collection of those poor souls who fell from the Towers on that terrible day.  It's a tough watch, and almost beyond my own constitution.

It's worth noting that we dealt with 9/11 largely by not dealing with it.  Within months, we stopped wanting to see the attacks.  Talk was over where or not to say it was terrorism.  Images that were considered too shocking were held back and not shown.

That's part of our modern 'death is such a drag for the cocktail hour' mentality that plagues our thinking.  Partly because anti-Americans didn't want us to remember, partly because we've been trained to deal with problems through the cupcake mentality, our slogan was not Remember 9/11!  It became 'Never Forget!'

Forget what?  Oh, you mean the terrorist attacks on 9/11?  The Islamic terrorist attacks on 9/11?  No, just never forget that thing we increasingly avoid showing you.

In typical form, Donald goes out of his way to fight the tidal wave of ignorance that the modern era so relies upon with several posts here, here, here and here.

We need not only forget, but we should always remember what happened to us courtesy of Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001.


What my youngest boy will never see

Apart from pictures:


He will also never see a country come together to care about its loss.  Oh, for a few weeks it did.  But the partisanship would not stand even such an egregious assault on our nation.  By then, the rot had already set in.  The left, with vested interest in not letting the country come together, was sowing divisions even on the day of the attacks.  The late Peter Jennings lashed out at President Bush.  Al Sharpton said it was racism to suggest the terrorists were Muslim, even as the evidence rolled in.  And that was September 11, 2001. 

It went  down from there.  After a few obligatory concerts and a sing-song by politicians at the US Capital, it was business as usual.  By late October, Limbaugh was firing back at those going after the president.  It's been one, long slide down the chutes since then.

And in it all, I think we forget.  Today let us remember.  Who knows?  It might not be too late.

A thousand times yes



You'd think this was some faux speech from an Orwellian novel.  But it isn't.  It's someone speaking to the very real designs of the emergent Left in our country today. 

The Left has let its disguises fall.  It is Marxist inspired, Communist yearning, pining for a totalitarian state that dangles sex and drugs in front of the population while eroding every other liberty or freedom while at the same time eradicating the last vestiges of Christianity from society. Get them obsessed with sex and drugs, and freedom is an easy thing to steal.

That the Left, with Hollywood and the media, joined by academia, has been able to convince an entire generation of youngsters that freedom must go - as long as they get what they want - shows the power of propaganda.   Obviously part of the power rests in the fact that those same institutions - media, art, education - once standing against such tyranny and threats to liberty are now happily on the side of oppression.

There is still plenty of time to stop the regress.  But as many, including Christians, feel that joining with the Left is the more prudent course of action, it makes me wonder how much longer we have until we pass that point of no return.

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Oklahoma did not surprise us

Let me put it this way.  The score was a bit surprising. Other than that, an Ohio State loss was hardly unexpected.

First, for reasons I can't fathom, we've never beaten a top five, non-conference team in the Horseshoe.  Ever.  That's ever.  Not that this means anything, but it's worth pointing out. 

Second, it's Ohio State.  The same Ohio State that was demolished last year against Clemson.  Remember that?  We were skunked on the national stage.  We scored nothing.  And that after a dismal season where we barely squeaked by teams we should have beaten handily. 

Which was a replay of the previous season, and the famous 'two quarterbacks equals nothing' bumbling that knocked a National Championship level team off of the top tiers.  A team that had wowed the world a season earlier that looked second rate at best a year later. 

That Ohio State.  A team that, just last week, trailed Indiana for the first half of the game.  There was nothing about this, except the degree of the loss, that was surprising. 

Urban Meyer is quickly losing his luster, and many are beginning to wonder if he is a one-hit wonder.  It's worth noting that the same was said of his time in Florida.  Sure, he made impressive gains and posted excellent records.  But much of his heyday came during the Tim Tebow years when, armed with a crack offensive coordinator and one of the best athletes ever to play college football (no hyperbole there, that's a fact), he couldn't do much less.

Once Tebow left and his staff was shaken up, Meyer began the descent.  Eventually he retired, citing health issues.  Those issues went away when the chance to coach Ohio State emerged.  And for the first couple years, it was magic.  We went undefeated (albeit, with a weak schedule), though were denied the chance for a national championship due to tattoo-gate. 

The next season - the first under the new championship format - was the stuff of legend.  Plagued with the loss of two consecutive starting quarterbacks, we nonetheless went all the way.  We obliterated Wisconsin (leading to that coach's subsequent exist), we stunned Alabama, and we wrapped up Oregon for the first ever National Title under the new rules. 

The following season, we returned with almost all of the talent from the previous season - except Tom Herman, who proved to be more crucial to the previous year than we imagined.  Meyer never knew what to do with the quarterbacks.  Nor did he seem interested in winning with the new superstar running back, Ezekiel Elliot.  Oh, he used Elliot in a pinch.  But it was clear he wanted to win with one of the two quarterbacks, neither of whom ended up reaching the heights of the previous season.

What happened?  My son has a theory.  He believes Meyer wants to relive the glory years of 'Meyer and Tebow: A love story.'  He wants another dominating quarterback dynasty, where his name and his quarterback's name are spoken of in the same breath.  When he came on board, he declared his eternal devotion to then starting quarterback Braxton Miller.  As a quarterback, Miller made a great running back.  But Meyer swore he would stand with Miller through thick and thick.  Until, of course, Miller was injured.

That put J.T. Barrett in the spotlight.  At first, Barret posted record breaking stats, becoming the best quarterback by the numbers in Ohio State history.  But numbers, like all stats, can be deceiving.  This was accomplished because Meyer, in answer to their stunning loss to Virginia Tech, let slip the dogs of war.  It didn't matter if they were playing Uncle Bob's college football team, they played like it was a national championship.  And they didn't pull punches.  They played to the last like they needed every point, even when they were five touchdowns ahead.  Some suggested that was sour grapes.  Some argued it was bad sportsmanship.  But it made Barrett a star. 

But he was a star who began to struggle later in the season against more refined teams.  In fact, some argue that his injury against Michigan did more to push Ohio State to the National title than anything.  He was clearly beginning to decline even then, but injury took him out, and lit a fire under the rest of the team.  Bosa's mauling of Michigan's quarterback in the next drive symbolized Ohio State's resolve not to let its second quarterback injury derail its hopes.

But the following season, it began to be clear: Barrott is an accomplished quarterback, even a good one.  And at times, a very good one. Especially against lesser teams.  But he's not great enough to offset his inconsistency or the other flaws of the offensive.  Either as a passer, or, as last night showed, as a runner who clearly would prefer to avoid running at this point.

So why does Meyer continue to lead with him?  Why, like last night, does he forgo using two crack running backs, including young Dobbins, who runs like some of the greatest running backs in the history of our program? 

See my son's theory.  He could be wrong.  But it would make sense.  Meyer has said that Ohio State - never known for its quarterback star power - must post 250/250.  That's 250 yards in both rushing and passing.  Whether or not we have the talent on both passing and rushing, that appears to be Meyer's goal. 

Could it be he simply goes back to what worked all those years ago with Tebow?  Does he want that relationship, that love story, and will strive for it against all evidence to the contrary that it's not there?  Hard to say.  Sports, especially tactical and strategic heavy football, always lead to armchair quarterbacking.  Fans trying to make sense of what appears senseless; trying to figure out why coaches aren't doing what appears obvious to stop a bleeding wound in the program.

There could be other reasons.  Reasons we don't know.  But from the surface, Meyer definitely has entered into that phase of 'I'd rather lose my way than win another' appearances.  And last night, we saw once again that same tendency as Ohio State almost purposefully avoided doing what worked, in order to lean on what was failing. 

I realize that for a program to go with one or two losses and a guaranteed bowl game is hardly a losing proposition in most places.  But at Ohio State, that won't get you far.   Especially if the losses are in key games at crucial moments.  That's when it might be time for the coach in question to begin examining his luggage. 

Saturday, September 9, 2017

If there are problems with comments

Please let me know.  Trying to get back into the blog, and want to make sure nothing happens like auto delete or some setting I missed. 

Just keep commenting, and I'll look to see if there are any problems.  Thanks!


Weekend Fun

This post shows a lot

First, it shows that there is still some awareness on the Left that maybe, just maybe, Hillary and the Left deserve at least some blame for their loss in November.

It also suggests that standing firm on Church teaching against Brit anchors who seem to think that anyone not liberal should be banned from public office is a good thing.

And yet, hie to the comboxes, and you see the obvious:  Those to the Right are irredeemable deplorables.  It's all part of a vast, Right Wing gerrymandering Conspiracy (buttressed, of course, by those stalwarts of American traditional and conservative values, John Kasich and Arnold Schwarzenegger).  And while Hillary herself might have been flawed, the pure evil and hellish blame must always be on the Right. 

Mark tried to school Linda, but failed.  Linda echoes the same heresy that many on the Left are embracing: that salvation comes from the political Left.  Jesus might have His good points, but failure to identify with the Left warrants the same condemnation that even a British comedian's warnings can't stop. Condemnation that is deserved, whatever your particular relationship with Jesus might be.

I encourage continued checking on that post.  It will show more about the modern Left than many on the Left likely want shown. 

Did I mention the Left hates America?

Yes, Virginia, the cat is out of the bag.  It has been for some time.  Most Americans, Christians, and people of sound mind could tell that the radical revolutionaries emerging in the 20th century, and especially the later half of the 20th century, loved Bolshevism, but hated America.

They denied it of course.  In fact, for the longest time, the only real evil was to suggest that those who seemed to hate America in fact hated America.

But those days are gone.  It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that the Left, or most who so identity, think of America with all the affection that Nazis reckoned Jews, or the KKK feels about Blacks.  They hate it.  Some, like Antifa, wear the proclamation as a badge of honor.

To them, from the moment that great villain Columbus came to slaughter and enslave, through the next several centuries, this fledgling civilization all but redefined evil and terror in the world.  Name a sin, and nowhere was it worse than America.  Other countries had their problems, of course.  If they couldn't be linked to America (or, in deference to the yet to be discovered New World, the Christian West), then it was downplayed, dismissed, or even excused on 'cultural' grounds.

But once the first Europeans begin settling east of the Mississippi, true darkness covered the lands, and continued to until the mid-20th century.

So we have this story, told purely from that angle.  It is not a story of a man whose family fled his own country in order to achieve success here, who had to overcome prejudices while becoming one of the most beloved artists of the 20th century that nobody ever heard of (note: most don't know Disney artists by name other than Uncle Walt).

No, read the tag:
The late Tyrus Wong, whose paintings formed the basis of Disney’s iconic film, is finally receiving the recognition he deserves. Seventy-five years after “Bambi,” Wong is the subject of an “American Masters” film on PBS, a documentary portrait that reveals how he overcame a harrowing immigration process and years of racism in the United States to become one of the most prolific artists in recent memory.
I've read stories about Jews fleeing the Nazis that sounded less harrowing.  Nothing positive except his own praiseworthy accomplishments.  It's as if he did this all despite the unparalleled evils of America, rather than because he came to America.

This is important.  First, to define the entire history of the US as one of history's great evils, it justifies throwing down everything that was identified with the historic US.  That includes, but is not limited to, a Christian moral framework, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or any artifact from that era of perpetual midnight.

As a bonus, it also makes the modern Leftist revolutionaries seem all the more brave and righteous.  The worse the US is, the greater the victory in overthrowing it.  Plus, if - as is likely - their great revolution becomes yet one more sad example of Orwellian promises soon broken, they can always insist that no matter how bad their regime, it was always worse under that Great Satan of a nation, the USA.

This is the force that a growing number of Americans, including Catholics and Christians in general, feel is the safer bet to side with.  Of course America was a land of bigotry.  Bigotry is the lifeblood of any civilization.  Every civilization populated by fallen human beings has to have a 'them' to point to.  In our case, it was lag-over from Europe's own bigotry (and Islam's, too) that was used to justify its enslavement and colonization of most of the known world.

It still exists today.  Both left and right, American and non.  But as is usual, when something like Confession is ripped from its Christian moorings and used as a weapon rather than a grace, it becomes a tool for evils.  A weapon to replace old bigotries with even better ones.  For the Left has shown its willingness to be as racist, sexist and antisemitic as anyone.  Add to that new bigotries as well, and you'll have a nation that our children will inherit that will be many things, but free will not be one.

By the way, I get that the whole purpose of the article is to link it to the horrible notion that people should come to America legally.  It laments the plight of illegal immigrants who work the fields, the tech companies and the halls of Ivy League universities while Euro-Americans watch their own futures dwindle.  Which is good of course.  Remember, all civilizations thrive on bigotry, and we know which race, ethnicity, religion and national origin deserves what it gets.  Five gets you ten how many will miss just what group is now in the cross hairs.  They'll assume it must be about those types over there.

Friday, September 8, 2017

Another reason it's good to be back from Patheos


He approves of leaving Patheos and returning to the old blog
Because I can post pics of my fam!  In this case, my youngest at the neighborhood playpark ready for serious fun.  He's got his jacket on against our fall like weather. I suppose it's our version of the effects of Global Warming - another year of mild and chilly weather where once days in the 90s were common.

Given my love of autumn, I'll take it.  If we have Indian Summer in a few, it's a small price to pay for low clouds, chill breezes, and a day of outdoor enjoyment with pumpkin pie and apple cider waiting at home.


I love stories like this

Harvey and Irma: A love Story.   The press drops its agendas for a moment and presents a genuinely interesting, and nice, story.  God bless them and the lives they've had.  And if nothing else could come of these natural disasters, it would be the good chance to  learn about two amazing individuals.

Good for them

The five former presidents join to do what Americans should be doing as a matter of course: Come together for our fellow Americans:


This attitude should be everywhere, during National Anthems and in the face of external threats to our fellow citizens at home and abroad.  Then it becomes easier to bring everyone together for yet another common cause. 

As it is, at least this is a first step.  Now if they could join with the current president to bring us all together now. 

Mark Shea swings and misses

He gets that both Feinstein's and Bannon's outbursts represent a path no Catholic should take.  I don't care for Catholics airing their grievances with Church leadership on such a public platform.  Didn't like it under the previous popes, don't like it now. But Mark glosses over the manifold sins of the Left to turn all attention on sins, imagined and real, on the Right.

The fact is, Feinstein represents a growing, and popular, viewpoint.  This is just what Sanders said.  This is what CAIR endorsed. This is what the media mentioned, shuffled its feet with, then brushed aside.  This was the demand that Robert Bentley publicly apologize for his beliefs about the Gospel.  This is the old battles fought when The Passion of the Christ was released. This is the view of the Left, and those groups outside of the Christian Faith who find common cause with the Left.  America has a new gospel - non-Christian liberalism - and all will convert or face the consequences.

Bannon, on the other hand, merely echoed a view that was held for years, and by people across the board.  When the Church began floating its latest recent crusade for open border immigration - which is what it is, any attempts to do anything restricting or regulating immigration is smacked down - many critics, including on the Left, accused it of using immigration to deflect from the abuse scandal and boost its numbers.  I remember that well, since I was just coming into the Church at that time.

He also questions the apparent disregard for national security and concern for those living in the United States. As a non-liberal, he wonders about the Church's growing lack of concern for American citizens who aren't working the fields, the tech firms, and going to Harvard while so many illegally here are doing just that.  But even then, his view is hardly a universal view among conservative Christians, many of whom openly reject Bannon as a viable voice.

Feinstein, however, echoes the view of millions.  Not just Catholic, but of Americans in general.  Millions who join with Bernie Sanders, CAIR, and others who say it's time for traditional Christians to stop thinking they deserve the same rights in this country as those who follow the true gospel of the non-Christian Left.  Many who cheer the HHS mandate.  Many who heartily believe that all who enter the public forum should be compelled to accept liberal morality or else.

Feinstein is hardly a freakish fluke. Hers is one voice in a growing chorus on the Left.  Bannon is not loved on the Right, and merely asks questions that Catholics in good faith are asking, albeit in a forum I feel was inappropriate.  Feinstein represents a threat to religious liberty, and so freedom in general.  Bannon questions the disdain for American welfare and security behind the modern immigration conversation.  You choose.  Mark has.  But is it the wise choice?

Prayers for everyone impacted

By the hurricanes, the earthquake, and all natural disasters. 

I don't pretend to know what is causing it.  It is.  We pray, and seek ways to help.  Contrary to the skeptics, who seem to believe people of Faith are torn between to opposing options - to help or pray - we can do both. 

So prayers, and also open to the best ways to help those who will be impacted by this, and future calamities. 

Rethinking LGB in light of the T

Here.  It is a puzzler.  Why is it we say my sexual attraction is a matter of physical programming and there is nothing we can do to change it?  And yet, on the other hand, my actual physical gender has nothing to do with the gender I want, and we should pull out all the stops in order to change it if that's what I want?

I know that propaganda demands a certain 'Emperor's new clothes' mentality.  And it is here in spades with the Transgender issue.  But for some, the speed and ferocity with which this 'squares are round' approach to the Transgender phenomenon was pushed through has caused them to rethink the issue altogether.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Back from Patheos

I'm back!

So, if you want to get back to my blog at Patheos, you can go here.  The posts from that period should be archived.  Perhaps indefinitely. Eternally maybe?

The rest should be here. Those that were before I went to Patheos.  And any from now on.  Pics and posts and strange musings and, sometimes, my appraisal of what's going on in the world today.

There will be more to come.  Right now, getting settled.  One reason I left Patheos is because I won't have the time to keep up with things.  And sometimes, as I'm busy, I just want to post nonsense or things that interest me.  Thinking on religion here,  my pilgrimage there, my family, games, forests in autumn, snowy evenings, Christmas, memories, and whatnot.

So here I am, and here I'll stay.  If that link doesn't work to get back to Patheos, just let me know.  And as I'm getting back up and running, don't hesitate to say if something isn't working here.

Test Post

This is a test post.  From what I understand, it should show up under my old blog address.  If it comes up under Patheos, then something is amiss.  If anyone sees this under Patheos, and knows what to do, I'd appreciate the pointers.