New Prolife Catholics who hate homeschool

Homeschool is one of the great blasphemies against the ninety foot idol of the Leftist State.  Anything that leads to free thinking, dissent or failing to conform to leftwing non-conformity is anathema to the Left.  We won't even discuss things that point to God, Jesus Christ or holy living.  That's why I've seen dozens of news stories all in a panic over the number of moms who are still home with their kids since Covid instead of going back into their cubicles and office jobs while their kids get raised by our fine government regulated daycare centers.

Therefore it shouldn't be surprising that Catholics who have thrown their lots in with the Left would share the same loathing and contempt for those who wish to teach their own children against things like the sacred right to mass exterminate undesirables by the tens of millions in order to sustain a drugs and porn culture of endless sex and abstract gentiles during the AIDS pandemic:

Of course the good Dan Conway might be interested to know that nobody I've ever talked to uses that as their reason for homeschooling.  Reasons vary, though most are happy to point to the overwhelming statistical evidence that homeschooled children tend to outscore their public school counterparts in standardized testing and college admissions examinations.  But why quibble? 

Note, however, the standards they assume to be deal breakers: These homeschool kids aren't being taught to strive for success in the worldly sense, having neither the prestige of entering a high end ivy league university, nor climbing the upward ladder to economic success.  Because being venerated by the world and achieving high positions of wealth and prosperity are what being a Christian is all about - at least according to these two Catholics. 

For what it's worth, in our own home we've told our kids that going to a prestigious university or making tons of money aren't the most important things in life.  An honest living, even flipping burgers, is better than a dishonest one.  And wisdom, which is no longer imparted by most of our fine institutions of higher learning, is preferable to a degree based on values antithetical to the teachings of Christ.  After all, the few score years in which we travel this sod are, at the end of the day, a blip on the eternal radar. 

Of course this reminds me of all those liberal professors and students I knew in my college days in the 1980s.  How many of them decried the evils of Reaganomics, and the horrible decade of greed and avarice in which we found ourselves!  Yet I couldn't help but notice how many of them were fine with pining for the biggest homes, the finest cars, and the latest home entrainment centers and Jacuzzis (a big thing in the 80s).  

It also reminds me what I've been saying.  When the Left finally begins hunting down dissenters in full force, it will have plenty of card carrying Christians - including Catholics - joining the lynch mobs.  If they don't actually join the hunt, you can bet they'll be more than happy to support it, as Christians have often done over the years when Satan issues the latest clarion call to help go after those believers over there. 

At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to infants.  Matthew 11.25

Heh

Excerpts from a Dictionary of Leftwing Tolerance: 

Bigot

/ˈbiɡət/

Noun

A non-leftist

    “You are a bigot”

Homophobe

/ˈhōməˌfōb/

Noun

A non-leftist

    “You are a Homophobe”

Islamaphobe

/izˈläməˌfōb,iˈsläməˌfōb/

Noun

A non-leftist

    “You are an Islamaphobe”

Reactionary

rēˈakSHəˌnerē/

Noun

A non-leftist

    “You are a Reactionary”

 Racist

ˈrāsəst/

Noun

A non-leftist

    “You are a Racist”

 Sexist

/ˈseksist/

Noun

A non-leftist

    “You are a Sexist”

 Misogynist

/məˈsäjənəst/

Noun

A non-leftist

    “You are a Misogynist”

See also Sexist

 Nazi

/ˈnätsē/

HISTORICAL

A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Noun

A non-leftist

    “You are a Nazi”

 Fascist

/ˈfæʃɪzt/

Noun

A non-leftist

    “You are a Fascist”

 Idiot

/ˈidēət/

Noun

 INFORMAL

A stupid person.

 Formal

A non-leftist

    “You are an Idiot”

 Moron

/ˈmôrˌän/

Noun

A non-leftist

    “You are a Moron”

See also Idiot

Controversial

/ˌkäntrəˈvərSHəl,ˌkäntrəˈvərsēəl/

Adjective

An idea, statement or belief out of line with leftist ideologies and agendas

    “The national press will present any non-leftist idea as a controversial position”

 Similar: Bigoted, Racist, Sexist, Fascist

So there you go.  A little introductory list for understating the perspective of liberals and leftists when they wade into a discussion in the name of diversity and inclusion. 

Oh, and if you think this is unfair, prove me wrong. 

Will it be district attorneys and grand juries next?

Or just lawsuits the way grandma used to make. So I posted on this a week or so ago.  It was about the Southern Baptist minister Russ Moore leaving the Southern Baptist Convention for good.  The article that wrote of this, as well as Deacon Steven Greydanus, seemed to post a warning for those who refuse to follow the emerging New Left (still have yet to find a good label for this global revolution):

If the faithful continue to turn a blind eye while leaders continue to perpetuate the status quo, God will turn to district attorneys and grand juries - and the pews will grow more and more empty.

As if the modern Left isn't the status quo.  But it was the uncritical warning of the power of the State stepping in to punish those who dare question the narratives and premises of the modern Left, where gender, sexual assault, race relations and other topics are concerned, that struck me.  Basically, these are Catholics, and Christians in general, aligning with the new Caesar and warning all Christians who refuse to follow suit that it will be Caesar (apparently at the Almighty's behest) who will then punish them for their disobedience - and a good thing too. 

Not that those bucking the Left are always right.  But note the easy way in which warning dissenters with threats of the crushing power of the State becomes the next rhetorical step up the ladder of modern compromise. 

I thought of that when I saw this, and this.  Apparently Dawn Eden, Catholic convert and blogger who loomed large in my early days of Catholicism, has gone to court to silence Austin Ruse.  Who is Austin Ruse?  No clue.  I've heard his name.  Perhaps I've linked to him once or twice over the years.  He might be a jerk, or not.  I don't know.  But apparently he's going after Dr. Eden because of her growing ease with targeting various Catholics and Catholic outlets, like EWTN, who are  bucking the Leftwing tidal wave. 

The extent of my legal knowledge

Apparently she didn't like that, so she went to court to get a restraining order.  I have no clue the details, what anyone said, what the courts said, what the decisions were or why.  I'm not a lawyer so I don't get legal-stuff.  I don't know if there is a case there or not.  I just notice that she went to the courts to silence this critic of hers.  

I have no doubt his persistent attacks might be hurtful for her.  They might be bad in general.  Maybe Ruse has gone overboard. I've seen Catholics do that on the Internet.  And not just traditional or conservative ones.  In fact, Dr. Eden has become no stranger to blasting various Catholics, Catholic leaders and Catholic outlets for daring to challenge various leftwing narratives and agendas.  Such is the sad world of the modern Internet.

Nonetheless, I'm not aware of any of those outlets going to court to silence her.  I'm not aware of anyone who has been in her crosshairs turning to the power of the state to stop her criticisms and condemnations.  Granted, many of her swipes do pull the old trick of targeting organizations rather than individuals.  Though not always.  And she may not go after them as much as Ruse has gone after her.  And she might be right about some of her criticisms, just as Mr. Ruse might be right about some of his.   But again, I've seen Catholics on the internet make entire subject threads based on going after particular Catholics they disagree with, like Matt Walsh or Michael Voris, and not always in the most polite ro charitable manner.  It is what it is.

Maybe Voris, Walsh or others have gone to court to silence some of their more zealous critics.  I dunno. If so, shame on them.  But Dr. Eden appealing to Caesar to silence someone who, perhaps going overboard, is nonetheless calling her out while she feels free to call out others, is more than problematic.  Unless he has threatened her or in some way encouraged violence against her, I think this is something she should take on with him one on one, or maybe in a public format, since many of her digs, like his, have been done in public.

But again, that aside, it's the appeal to the State, especially in light of Deacon Greydanu's twitter copy of the article about Russ Moore, that jumped out at me. The threat that "God" will be using the State to come after dissenters, and then a week later we see an appeal to the same principle already in the works, to me is noteworthy.  Whether it will or won't be Moore, or Greydanus, or Eden, when the time comes, it will be someone in the Faith who will gladly stand next to the boxcars and the camp gates ready to herd all dissenters into the stockades.  Never forget that.  Our age is no different than other ages in that regard.   As the organization formerly known as Boy Scouts used to say, be prepared. 

A birthday celebration plus

On this first day of our half of the year, I pause to wish a very happy and blessed birthday to our third son, now 21 years old.  Diving deep into the gene pool, he managed to find a AAA personality, unwavering self-confidence, and a single-minded determination that embodies the old term ‘bulldog tenacity’, but always with a wink and a smile.  May he be blessed half as much in his life as he has blessed us.   

He was going to be a police officer, but two events changed that.  First, he was injured playing sports at a church picnic and was down for over four months.  It was during that time that anti-police rhetoric was at a low ebb, but still there.  That gave him time to think, and realize he was falling woefully behind the others around him who started training when he did. 

Second, he attended a preparatory week of pre-academy training shortly thereafter.  That was a special 'into-basic training' event for the candidates to prepare for applying to the academy once they hit twenty one.  While there, he was shown things in the real world of policing that shocked even his jaded generation perspectives. 

But what bothered him the most was that the instructors basically said there would be two types of training they would have too endure.  The first would be police training, what it takes to do the job, and what must be done to protect the population and keep themselves safe.  

The second would be the part they now must play before the ever present video cameras, whether beneficial for themselves or the public safety or not. They were told because of the post-Ferguson backlashes and the growing anti-police rhetoric being embraced by the media and politicians, that they were going to have to do things sometimes that simply weren't the best way to do them.  If they don't do things this new way, it might destroy their lives faster than a criminal's bullet.  So the trick would be how to train new recruits over the way things need to be, and how to train them to do these things in ways that aren't conducive to protection and survival, but must be done in case of cameras, politicians or journalists. 

That was enough for him.  When he chose not to serve in the military, he said he was prepared to die for his country, as bad as it's become.  He even understood that people die accidently in peacetime.  Those are the ways of life in a fallen world.  But he would not die because of a slipshod military that doesn't care about safety or preparation  for combat nearly as much as it cares about celebrating genitals and libidos.

He made the same call here.  Policing was tough.  He saw things in training that turned his stomach.  He could handle that.  But what he couldn't' handle was being told that they must put themselves in harm's way because that is of little interest to the legions of journalists and politicians who don't really care about them, and will gladly exploit them and set them into compromising positions just to score political points.  He understood that's what the media and politicians do.  He was shocked that the police were conceding the fact and already taking the first steps of compromise. 

So he turned to a new venture in life, and that's to be an entrepreneur who is his own boss.  He reasoned, however, that the best way to  be in business is to learn business.  And that could be done most efficiently by climbing the corporate ladder where he was at the time.  Instead of a part time job to get money for college, he would throw himself into it full time, get promotions, and go as far up the ladders as reasonable, while learning the ins and outs of the business world in the meantime. 

So he's already a manager, and has been for some time.  That's his own new car in the picture.  He's eyeing a senior management position that, if things work out, he might get within a year.  That would make his salary on par with his mom's.  He chafes at the thought of going to college.   He understands it might come to that, but he has no intention of going into debt slavery to get a degree from such places.  Instead he will accumulate money for that - and other things - while holding off for as long as possible. 

Since his interests actually lie in the tech world, his business ventures will likely go in that direction.  Though he also loves animals, so you never know.  His powerful personality and confidences makes him a gem when it comes to dealing with animals of all stripes.  Nonetheless, he still enjoys tech stuff, and more than likely will go that direction.  For now he's using his journey to gobble up everything he can learn about the business world, especially aspects that are outside of his area of expertise. 

He approaches his life like his beloved war games.  To him, you bathe in the rules, learn all there is, have things memorized so you can recall them in your sleep, work harder than everyone else, know more than everyone else, and plan for short term and long term at the same time.  It's got him pretty far before he even turned twenty one.  My guess is that, God willing, it will continue to serve him well. 

UPDATE:  So we have a tradition that the person with the birthday calls the shots.   No surprise parties, we let them plan their birthday.  For him, being in management, his schedule was pretty tight so he kept it a low key celebration.   One thing he did do was ask for a special meal.  Choosing the dinner is also something the birthday celebrants are allowed to do.  So he chose an African menu.  We had never, ever cooked such fare before.  But my oldest who had once hoped to become a gourmet chef rose to the occasion and put together an African meal - with help from his mom and me.  

Lamb tagine, South African yellow rice, Egyptian vegetable mix, and  several Moroccan recipes - roasted veggies, couscous and legumes - all rounded out the meal, with the obligatory dates, figs, and similar trappings we borrowed liberally from a roughly Mediterranean feel.  I have to say, it was delicious.  I think we've added another cultural cuisine to our culinary library. 

The ghosts of Covid

By, of all things, CNN.  I read through this, chuckled, sighed and rolled my eyes.  It's a propaganda piece for Covid of course, telling about cases where those who died due to Covid have been reaching out from beyond the grave to their loved ones.  Not that I have a problem with the premise itself, but that it's soooooooo wrapped around Covid Press is the difficult part to stomach. 

Naturally CNN, being CNN, has to believe that unless a lab-coat-science-guy can label it, it's not credible. Sadly, that seems to be many church leaders', and church traditions', approach.  Assume more or less an atheistic model of the universe, primarily material, explainable by science and only science ,,, but if that doesn't work then spirit and miracles stuff is a nice fallback. 

With rising suicides, drug abuse, depression, diseases, cancer rates among younger and younger age groups, dementia and Alzheimer's being found among younger and younger age groups, food allergies skyrocketing, and a plethora of other ailments and syndromes being diagnosed, you'd think we'd question this dogged veneration of STEM and the latest Research (TM).  

More than that, as we look at the last half century of applying 'science and research' to all of our problems, and see rising rates in these and other problems - not to mention how often the latest 'revelation by the 'experts' turns out to be dismissed by generations of later experts - we might want to consider the possibility that STEM isn't the end all answer to everything.  

Maybe mental health is a lucrative industry, but a poor substitute for religious devotion and spiritual enlightenment.  And perhaps there are parts of Creation, both visible and invisible, beyond the reach of STEM, lab coats, modern scholarship and the "experts", opening up the door for religion to step in and reassert itself.  You'd think, wouldn't you. 

Heartless, cruel and calculating

Begging him not to demand Sweden

That's my youngest boy.  I posted here that the brothers, while the quarantines were going on and the boys were stuck at home doing college online with little else to do, decided to unpack the old Napoleonic war game against which all Napoleonic war games are measured.  Furthermore, they decided to let their youngest join in the game. He had wanted to for years, but it was obviously beyond him at such a young age. 

They spent several days explaining the basics to him, giving him a crash course on war games beyond RISK.  They also pledged to help him in the early rounds of the game.  They would try not to take advantage of him during diplomatic phases of the game.  During conflicts or battles, the brothers not involved would give him pointers and tactical advice as requested.

Well, no more.  After about 16 turns of play, meaning 16 months in the game's time, he has the entire game board upside down.  Initially he made alliances with everyone except my second oldest (Russia).  He then declared war on Russia, forcing everyone (but me) to join him or risk political damage by breaking the alliance.  This brought the three older brothers into a conflict they didn't want; one that depleted resources, troop levels and income. 

How does that part of Russia belong to him?

At the end of the first year, we had to compete to gain control of the countries that aren't being played by players, in our case Spain and Prussia.  My third son - and most competitive - had grabbed Spain at the beginning of the game.  Then, in a shocking turn, my youngest swiped it from him, after Russia was able to get France (my oldest) to sue for peace.  That left Austria swinging in the breeze against a very upset France, and forced him to surrender, much to his frustration. 

Then, and this is where it gets good, his brothers helped him form the Ottoman Empire, about the only thing that helps Turkey.  And help it did.  It boosts money and allows him to pour endless numbers of feudal troops onto the map.  While they are low quality and low morale, there are lots of them.  He continued on with his war against Russia, losing on almost every turn.  At one point, we beseeched his brother who was playing Russia to go easy on him.  Just a kid after all.

Before him we barely paid attention to our navies

Big mistake.  After getting frustrated that the youngest, helpless brother refused to give up, he sent his main force down and attacked his Turkish forces near Bucharest, just to finish things once and for all.  We have since called it the Disaster at Bucharest.  His Russian army suffered over 85% casualties, when he had already lost several forces chasing Turkey around, even if he had won most battles. In this case, however,  Turkey's secret weapon of overwhelming cavalry kicked into play.  Not only did Russia lose the battle, but the ensuing pursuit by Turkish cavalry led to a massacre of what remained.  Out of a force of six corps, only two mostly depleted corps remained. 

That forced my son playing Russia to surrender.  The funny thing?  Our youngest declared war on Russia in the first place just to seize Sweden from Russia's control.  We all explained to him that this was stupid.  Sweden is on the other side of the map, there is no way he can get Sweden, and he clearly doesn't understand the game yet.  After almost a half hour of my other two sons and me begging on our hands and knees, our youngest agreed not to take Sweden, but instead to seize Sicily and Podolia from Russian control.   If he had taken Sweden I do think my second oldest would have walked away for good. 

Our oldest's strategy is now Get Me Out!

Then in a surprise move, and against our advice, our youngest sent his Spanish fleet to cripple the French fleet while it was in Toulon harbor (Spain was still at war with France from its time under Austrian control).  Out of desperation, France moved against Spain.  He did this because he feared our youngest might just turn on him by land next.  Big mistake, and a case of not learning from history.  No sooner did he move into Spain, easily routing the miniscule Spanish forces that were sent to meet him, than our youngest sprung the Spanish guerillas behind his back.  Cutting off supply, and facing my British corps that have rushed in to help (I always enjoy emulating history in historical gaming, even if the year is off), he's now stuck not knowing what to do.  

'So 'No more help!', is the call from the three older brothers. He's on his own.  He can ask for rules clarifications, but having tricked one brother into a disastrous conflict with France, decimated Russia, and now having France on the ropes, they have told him they will give no more advice or opinions at all. You can't help be proud, even as you snicker a bit at what has happened.  Oh, and none of it has hurt me, which is the way it should be. 

I don't know Christopher Rufo

But his righteousness had darn well exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees.  Apparently he's stepped on a few progressive toes and has incurred the Left's typical Wrath of Tolerance.  Most recently, the Washington Post published a critical article about him, only to retract a few inconvenient abnormalities in the story.  

That's not surprising.  As I said here. I have yet to see the press retract a story that would have made a prominent liberal or Democrat look bad otherwise.  The press, after all, increasingly doubles as the Left's secret police, dedicated to hunting down, digging up dirt, or in any way tripping up those in the way of the leftist juggernaut.  So if he has failed, sinned, or isn't worthy to be fourth member of the Holy Trinity, expect something about him to hit the airwaves, or at least Social Media, in the not too distant. Especially if he keeps being a figure of note in opposition to the race hate, tyranny, decadence and eugenics of the modern Left. 

I don't know what he's really like.  I don't know much about him.  Maybe he's a terrible person. The picture on his Twitter page with his wife and children could be interpreted as such - certainly in today's age:

But all I know is that for anyone to speak up against the Global Left (Gleft?  Nah, that doesn't work) as he has done, they had best have their affairs wired tight.  After all, not only does the modern Left espouse judgmentalism, intolerance, and the need to abandon quaint notions of mercy and forgiveness and reconciliation, but a growing number of Christian leaders eager to stay in the Left's good graces appear ot be following suit. So if he gets caught doing anything wrong by any standards, watch out.  He has been warned. 

That's one version of Catholicism

 One that is closer to my values as an agnostic than anything since I entered the Christian fold:

No other words required. Except that's not the Catholicism I lost almost everything to enter into communion with.  If it is what the Church says is the real Catholicism, then I will repent ever having put my family and children through the decade and more of hell it took to join something that ultimately offered nothing that remaining a secularist could have offered. 

Could John Stossel please stand over there?

Way, way, way, way over there?  I mean, over somewhere east of Madagascar.  Here's why.  Stossel shot to prominence in the 90s when he produced a news special that outraged feminists by insisting men and women are different. That was good.  News specials that point out common sense and reality in an age that values neither have their place and are good. 

Over the years he became a sort of libertarian spokesman, appearing on Fox News and espousing a libertarian spin on things, often to a fault.  Now if libertarianism is anything, it isn't easy to pin down.  I think if I asked twenty libertarians to define libertarianism, I would get nineteen definitions, since there's always that one person who will jump in with someone else. 

That has been used to devastating effect by those opposed to liberty libertarianism.  It's always easy to pick the worst apples to condemn a whole barrel.  That tactic is made easier, however, when each apple insists its way is the true way of the barrel.   So people against liberty libertarianism have often found the worst representatives of that particular way of thinking and made quite a lot of noise about that being what libertarianism is all about. 

Like anything, libertarianism has its bad actors, its radicals, extremists, and those you wish would never be within a hundred miles of anything you're advocating.  Stossel has emerged as one of those bad actors.  Embracing an almost caricature of what people criticize libertarianism for, he often spends his time smacking down any and all criticisms of anything done the way it's done because, well, liberty?  

Let people imagine that legalizing drugs may not help our drug problem, and it' just crazy old wives tales. Let people suggest that maybe STEM has had a few bumps in the road, and he preaches the sacred doctrine of progressive infallibility louder than a progressive.  Imagine someone thinking that maybe there should be some level of accountability for people to use guns beyond just the standard hunting/home defense instruments, and you'd think you just proclaimed worship of Big Brother.

Beyond that, he also embraces that Darwinian Capitalism idea of survival of the best.  This world is for the strong, the smart, the best.  Those who aren't up to that level of made-to-win, who aren't willing to invest themselves solely in the acquisition of things to the exclusion of any other priority?  Well suck on it buster brown.  

Some years ago, when I still had cable, I was sometimes guilty of channel surfing.  Always with the volume muted of course.  Contrary to some common accusations, I didn't watch much cable news, and that included Fox News.  One night I was clicking down the list and I passed Fox.  Stossel was interviewing someone, and the little ticker underneath said something to the effect of 'Teaching children that sharing is wrong.'  I thought 'Oh brother, one of those news segments that finds some crazy person out there and makes a national crisis out of it.  Some bonehead teacher said sharing is bad, and Fox is going to whip up the hysterics like the Daytime Talk Shows of old.'  

But no.  Just because of morbid curiosity, I unmuted the show and to my astonishment, they were saying no such thing.  The guest interviewed by Stossel was saying that isn't right to teach kids to share.  Screw sharing.  You teach those kids to extract that last drop of blood from anyone nearby. You have two chocolate bars and a friend asks to share?  Screw them.  You give it to them at top market value.  You have a couple toys and a buddy wants to share, you demand payback first.  Someone asks you for a cloak?  Why, you squeeze every penny out of them, that's what you do.  I couldn't tell from the part I watched if Stossel was in agreement, but if he was offended, he didn't make much noise about it with the part I watched. 

Which is why this piece, as troubling as it is, doesn't shock me.  Apparently Stosssel has joined the movement to use STEM the way nature intended, and that's to build the better baby.  That would be the 'aren't we entirely better than ever before' strain of his libertarianism coming out in him.  After all, we can do it and that means we should do it.  Yes kiddies, as this piece suggests, that could be categorized under eugenics without much difficulty.  And yet it is in no way inconsistent with the brand of libertarian thinking he, and others, espouse. 

Warning for libertarians and especially conservatives.  You can't stop everyone who may agree with you sometimes from embracing evil, but you can check who you associate with.  Many who aligned with, and even identified as, conservatives over the decades espoused things hell and gone from basic conservative decency and virtue, let along Christian morals.  Work is important.  Responsibility is important.  Earning your way and taking care of yourself and your loved ones are important.  

But saying the world belongs to the wealthy and strong and sorry about your luck if you/'re not one of them is closer to Mammon than the Messiah.  It's also a good way to turn off the masses, most of whom will not chair Microsoft, found Amazon.com, contemplate the Theory of Relativity, or form a world changing music group with four lads from Liverpool.  If you act as if the world belongs only to those who do such things, you're saying a microscopic sampling of humanity is ultimately in your corner.  Leaving the masses to look for someone who at least pretends to care about them. 

One thing that cost Hillary Clinton the election in 2016, beyond just running a embarrassingly bad and smug campaign, was her being linked to the Left's new 'the wrong industries will just have to suffer' ideals.  That led people in those industries, many who never voted Red in their lives, to support the man - Donald Trump - who at least said he cared.  Many accused Trump of lying and not caring.  Possibly.  But for many in those industries, they took their chances with a potential liar who may not care over someone telling the truth about how much they didn't care. 

Same with conservatives. Most probably don't want socialism, and wouldn't take it if they thought about it.  But if all they're told is they deserve what they get and deserve even less unless they can make it to the top of the hill, they'll at least try their hand with the socialists who insist they're there to help, no matter how false such a claim happens to be.   And if your solution is to use STEM to start building the better babies so everyone can be the next best and brightest, you're not learning a thing from history you insist is so important to study. 

Mothers have no special value where raising kids is concerned

 It must be true, it says so right here in the NYT:

Of course that's not what the NYT is trying to say.  That's just what is implied, as many things that promote leftwing agendas can send shivers down the spine when you consider the implication of what they're saying.  In this case, the NYT, like all leftwing propaganda organs, is about destroying the concept of anything true or real other than the dogmas of the Left.  Families? Whatever you want them to be.  Gender?  Whatever you want it to be.  Napoleon Bonaparte?  Whatever you want him to be.  

So the purpose of the piece is, no doubt, to insist it's the most normal thing in the world to define family, reality and whatever you want however you want.  Exactly what is true about the wellbeing of kids raised by same sex parents is tough to say.  I didn't find much info out there, at least info not reported by the propaganda ministry.  

Like the lack of hard evidence that looser gun laws leads to more gun violence, I'll bet that's because the stats don't benefit the agenda.  In fact, I've come to assume that if I don't hear something reported in our modern propaganda ministry, I'll assume it's because that something is true, and yet not helpful to the Left's agendas.  

I could be wrong of course.  I did find this study, which actually suggests it's not always a healthy thing for kids to be raised by same sex parents.  But that was one.  Others I found through Google were merely news posts praising the glories of same sex parenting, or a few obviously traditional, Christian sites insisting it's bad - both sides seeming to be rather biased in their approach to the subject.  This was the closest thing to a study by something not immediately connected to such agendas, and it doesn't read well for the LGBTQ parenting movement.  But it's only one study.

Nonetheless, I doubt we care.  Based on National Geographic interviewing experts from Harvard and Johns Hopkins a few years back, we're still trying to pinpoint why a disease spread overwhelming by sexual behavior and drug use like AIDS suddenly exploded in the world during the 1970s. Big mystery that.  An age willing to look away from a mounting pile of dead bodies numbering in the tens of millions rather than admit the obvious is not an age that is going to sweat studies that don't say what it wants to hear. 

Almost there!

 

As I've written before, we consider the first half of the year to be sort of jumping from oasis to another oasis amidst a desert of paganism, hedonism, lies, evil, stupidity and the general push to eradicate the Christian Western tradition and specifically the American experiment.  Almost anything once considered good is under fire, and a growing number of things post-war liberals declared to be evil are now considered quite acceptable - based on group identity labels of course. 

Sure, there are the oases: Easter, Lent, St. Patrick's Day, Presidents Day, Mother's and Father's Day, Memorial Day and a few others.  But on the whole, it's months of constant reminders of the evil of America, Europe, Caucasians, Men, Christianity, tradition values, Truth, values, morality, humility, equality, people who think sexuality and childbirth are related, freedom, forgiveness, and a host of other truths that are unacceptable to the Global Left.  During the first half of the year, we're strangers in a strange land. 

But come the end of June, the first corner is turned as our third son's birthday brings us back.  Soon it's the historic Independence Day and, despite attempts to the contrary, love of this particular country becomes vogue.  Then comes our youngest's birthday in July, on the anniversary of the first Moon landing, then our second oldest in August at the very end of summer.  Then comes September and after Labor Day, the kickoff for that Season of Seasons.  

In October I remember my Grandma, the only grandparent I actually knew well, and our oldest celebrates his birthday.  October is also Autumn on high octane in these parts, with plenty of harvest, football in high gear, tradition and spooky ghost stories from olden days, and God's fireworks display as seen in the brilliant fall foliage.  

November is Veteran's Day, and Martinmas for us Catholics.  Thanksgiving still makes too much money to be axed, and its focus on family (however defined) keeps it alive.  It also does for us what it has always done, and marked the kick-off of 'Christmastime'. 

In recent years, our godless nation has become so hostile and openly hateful toward the Gospel, that the innocent 'most wonderful time of the year' is tougher and tougher to square with historical Christian celebrations of the Nativity.  Increasingly we find ourselves downplaying old customs and more and more focusing on the preparatory season of Advent.  We still do some olden traditions when we can, though the numbers we can do have dropped as times change, things pass, and the boys grow older. 

Still, come Christmas we all rejoice and block the world's hate and its darkness out and bathe in the light of Christmas.  We do the full twelve days and even pause on New Years to celebrate American style.  We try to make as many days special during the Twelve Days of Christmas as we can, with feasting, presents given, times shared, movies watched, and just enjoying our company, since I can say we're blessed to have boys who put time aside for the family no matter what is happening in their lives.  Even when they are dating, they will tell the girls in question that two days at least for the family must be set aside each week: one for their youngest brother, one for the family as a whole.  That's not bad. 

So there it is.  We're getting close.  This year our third son turns twenty-one.  He's had an eventful couple years, but has come out of it as he typically does, ahead of the game.  He's a manager now, having gotten his own new car and already has planned his next step up the corporate ladder.  He knows someday he'll have to go to college, and that's something that he chafes at, seeing what his older brothers have had to listen to in their classes.  But he's stockpiling his funds and will only do that when needed, and in a way he won't have to borrow a cent for in order to do it.    

We understand that things are changing fast.  The Global Left used Donald Trump to leverage destruction of the West and speed up the West's demise by being open about the push to get this one evil civilization out of the way in order to make way for the rise of a Utopian world.  We get that this 'our half of year' will not last, and even now the different signposts - Christmas, Thanksgiving, Columbus Day, Independence Day, even Halloween - are in the Enemy's crosshairs.  We know it could be mere years before many of these things are eliminated.  Already I'm hearing calls to end July 4th and all that old racist symbolism in flags and slave Constitutions and replace it with Juneteenth as America's REAL Independence Day. Meanwhile, others are saying Juneteenth isn't enough, and until we define the whole of America as a racist state based on nothing but evil, we'll never be the true socialists we're called to be. 

Nonetheless, you get what you can when you can get it.  For now, that will suffice. 

A Happy Father's Day to my dad

This was him in his younger days, long before I came around.   He worked on the railroad, but as soon as steam engines were replaced by diesel, he ditched the old 'engineer's outfit' and replaced it with polo shirts, jeans and his omnipresent sunglasses.  The only thing he kept were the hard work boots, since railroad yards can be a pretty dangerous place for soft shoes.   In hindsight, knowing my own sensitivity toward bright lights, I wonder if he had the same and that's why you hardly ever see him without sunglasses.   You never know.

He was a good dad, though not perfect.  Same with my mom.  Same with me.  Perfection is a standard I hold few people to, reserving it only for modern leftists who seem to use that particular standard as the one they measure anyone in history against except themselves.  

Nonetheless, he was a great dad, in that he did what he did for us and for our sakes, in order to make for us a life he never had.  In some ways, I think that was the big mistake of that generation, the thought that the world's problems would be fixed by giving their kids everything they wanted.  Mom and Dad, however, never went that far.  Perhaps they had many of their generation's example to learn from, since my sister and I were born years and years after most of our cousins and their peers.  

Because of that, I was raised with a dose of the old WWII generation pre-boomer standards and expectations, while also being indulged a bit, especially around Christmas.  But it was done, again, by Dad so that we could have what he never had, and that was a close family with the basics taken care of.  

So here's to him. He taught me many great things, and was a great provider, father and dad.  I'll always be thankful and humbled by his example.  He is missed.  

UPDATE: For my part, my sons who never cease to make me proud, have provided an appropriately sumptuous feast that, even now, they are in the midst of preparing for their old man:

Yum.  If it tastes half as good as it looks and smells, I think my day will be set.  They're all four here with the the day off, so we will indulge in some olden days games and movies and family time and fun.  We may even catch a few lightning bugs, just for old time's sake. 

The two Americas of Juneteenth in one image

One tweet praising the day as but one step toward realizing the highest hopes of the American experiment.  The responses, on the other hand, showing what happens when you try to use Juneteenth to rally Americans around our nation instead of dividing.  There were more, similar, responses, I just couldn't fit them all in the page.  If nothing else demonstrated the two worlds in which moderns live, this would suffice. 

UPDATE:  Meanwhile I'm seeing this reported more and more, that Independence Day celebrations are being nixed due to Covid, while Pride and Juneteenth celebrations, parades, parties and other gatherings are not only allowed, but promoted by the same places that are keeping July 4th Celebrations banned.  In our neck of the woods, Columbus banned both Red, White and Boom, but also the Pride Parade.  It has allowed Pride and Juneteenth gatherings and celebrations however.  Our town is still going on with July 4th, but today had extensive celebrations and gatherings for Juneteenth in conjunction with Pride events, such as family friendly Drag shows at a local park.  Again, Juneteenth has bupkis to do with unity or America, and everything to do with divisions to bring America down.  Those advocating for it are either the ones wishing for America to burn, or are useful fools.  

What more does she want?

 So I saw this, appropriate for our first Independence Day Juneteenth national celebration:

This reminds me of an old colleague in my ministry days.  I was vp of an ecumenical association here in our state.  He was an Episcopal priest of a very liberal bent.  It was during the months after the 9/11 attacks.  We had several impromptu meetings, meeting with state officials, medical experts, first responders and the like.  On this particular day, the priest in question gave a talk to the assembly. During it, he made a claim that, even in those days, seemed to me to be shocking.  He said the problem was that Americans needed to admit to the sins of our country's past.  Until we were honest about our history, expect this sort of thing to happen more. 

Exactly why that would be, I wasn't sure.  But I was taken by the idea that Americans didn't admit to anything bad about their history.  All my life I had heard about slavery, racism, segregation, our treatment of American Indians, and the fact that women couldn't vote when the country began.  From my earliest memories in school, those and others were pointed out time and again. 

Likewise, our popular culture, movies, television, textbooks, and even music increasingly emphasized the negative of America, its past and its institutions.  A great deal of general flippancy if not outright disrespect for, and condemnation of, America's heritage was already on the move.  On the other hand, when I was in first grade, I was introduced to the hero Christopher Columbus, and learned about the courage of the pilgrims, and was taught about our awesome Founding Fathers, the heroes of the Civil War, our greatest American presidents, and the heroism of America as it fought around the world to free people from tyranny and dictatorships.  

So it was a mix of both good and bad, and we learned, just like admitting your parents aren't perfect, or your spouse has faults the way you do, it doesn't mean you can't see the greatness in it just as you see what's great in those you love who are nevertheless flawed.  Perhaps it shouldn't be 'my mother drunk or sober.'  But it doesn't have to be 'my mother, drunken bitch, let her die' either.  

By the time I was in college and seminary, however, the growing criticism and condemnation of America was emerging as the only acceptable narrative.  Increasingly any mention of America's past glory or accomplishments was met with 'Yes, but have you considered its myriad sins, its racism, bigotry, genocide, slavery, persecution, imperialism, and on and on?'  

In the 1990s, our first 'family vacation' was taking our oldest - then a toddler - to Colonial Williamsburg.  It was wonderful.  One of the best vacations I've ever had.  Yes, they pointed out the bad.  But it was mixed with heavy doses of the good, and the neutral.  The historical actors stayed in their parts, acting the roles out, even when we asked for directions to the bathroom.  The tours were always in full costume and everything kept to 'the period' (though sometimes, if we pressed for details about their careers or schooling, they would break after a time).  All in all, it made you proud of America. 

Fifteen years later, we went back. This time we had all four boys.  We had gone back a second time, but that was shortly after 9/11 and things were a bit crazy.  We planned on trying to relive the olden days with all four boys.  What we encountered, however, shocked us.  First, about half of the actors seemed like they just didn't care.  The younger ones kept whatever earrings and body piecing they had front and center whether appropriate for the time or not.  Many stood around on their smart pones when nothing was going on, discussing the game or this or that latest concert.  We went on tours, and while some were still fine, others?  One of the tours, originally a lantern-light tour by a colonial lass, was this time given with a flashlight by someone in jeans and a jacket.

And the content of the tours of buildings?  My second oldest quipped after one of the houses we toured that he just didn't know how they had time to fight a revolution, what we abusing women, killing Indians and beating  their slaves all the time.  That was almost all anything was about.  Diversity was all the rage, so whether or not a particular historical figure would have been white or black, or even a man, didn't matter.  They let anyone be whatever.  I wouldn't have been shocked to find the governor  of Virginia come out as a black woman.  No care for accuracy, no particular investment in the details.  

Maybe we went in an off year.  I'd like to think so.  I fear not however.  I fear it's what happens when people work at a place that remembers a vile nation of evil and racism and nothing more.   Which is why it's enough to say that this constant drumbeat of 'America isn't honest about its racist past' is like hearing people say McCarthy didn't spend enough time focused on communism. 

Does that mean we know every case of racial sin in the 200 plus year life of this third most populated nation in history?  No.  Likewise, I'm sure I don't know all the good America has done over the years either.  I'm fine with imagining there were cases of great bravery, love, courage and sacrifice by my fellow countrymen that I will never know.  Likewise, I'm sure there will be case of its sins just the same. 

I remember when the movie Hidden Figures came out.  Our local news station had a story about that film.  After the story, the two anchors said they had never heard about the black women who worked in our space program.  They added that was likely because - you guessed it - our country's racist past.  Well, no.  I never heard of them either.  I had never heard of anyone by name at NASA, except the guys in the spacecraft since if something went wrong, they were the ones who died.  It had nothing to do with race.  But if you are convinced America is and always was nothing but racist, you'll begin seeing racism in anything and everything, whether it's there or not.  The same with any nation, nationality or ethnic group. 

For instance, I'm reminded of  Michael Jackson's death and how the press made him the first black artist to break MTV's racist barriers.  MTV objective and said the low number of black artists had nothing to do with racism.  The network was only a year old when Billy Jean was released, and anyone was free to offer their videos to MTV for airtime.  If they didn't, it wasn't MTV's fault.  Again, a problem with only looking for the bad is that if all you want is the bad, then all you'll find is the bad. 

In my whole life, nobody ever said we should only look at America's triumphs and ignore the bad.  Nobody.  Ever. My parents, when driving out west on a vacation in the late 70s, drove by some settlements inhabited by Native Americans.  I remember my Dad - part Native American himself - looking at the poverty and squalor and saying it's a crime what 'we' (that is the US) did to them.  And yet, nobody loved America - it's history, heritage, values and foundations - more than him.  Just like I can see the flaws in my Dad and love him just the same. 

Nonetheless, I'm seeing plenty of people act as if they want nothing but to focus on the sins of America, and condemnation of its history, heritage, values and foundations. When we see the Stars and Stripes, we ought to envision a watermarked Swastika on the flag, and seek out only the worst examples of our sinful past to defend the vision.  To do anything else is increasingly seen as racist denial of America's true nature.  

If people want that, I can't help but think they want that for reasons other than just wanting truth and honesty.  After all, who spends all their time doing nothing but digging up the negative past about someone or something?  People who do that with other people usually have reasons other than those people's redemption in mind.  If we don't have ulterior motives, then there is no reason why we would do it with other human beings.  Likewise, we shouldn't do it with nations filled with human beings either. 

The Righteous Caucasians of Juneteenth

The Righteous Gentiles of the Holocaust.  That phrase loomed large in the narrative of my younger days.  Despite the thrashing Christians got for their complicity in the Holocaust, there was always an attempt to single out those non-Jews - Christian or not - who risked, and even lost, their lives to help save Jews from Nazi clutches.  

In Jewish circles, a place of honor was held for those RGs, and in more than one place you can find a memorial honoring their courage and love and sacrifice.  I might say that in Jewish circles they were given more praise and thanksgiving than in society at large.  

I say that because it was mentioned recently that you don't see that today among BLM and other modern Black activists.  In fact, if you mention the role White Americans played in helping Blacks, you can get smacked down.  Either you're accused of somehow trying to deny racism or downplay Jim Crow or your belittling lynchings, or you're reminded that even if Whites did do something for Blacks, they were still racists who probably didn't really care about the Blacks in question. 

In our neck of the woods, our city council just passed a resolution recognizing Juneteenth.  I listened on FB to the reading of the resolution.  Apparently it's about slaves getting their freedom.  Nothing else. No thanks to the Union Army, the Government, or anyone in particular.  Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation were mentioned, but only to point out that they failed to end slavery, the practice ending on Juneteenth when the last slaves in America acquired their freedom. 

I noticed the verbiage used - when slaves acquired their freedom.  As if they got it, you know. somehow reached out and did it, obtained it, grabbed it, Black power and all.  No, it was given them. By an all white government that sent the Union Army led by a white general down to free the slaves in Texas.  

Now slavery in general, and the African Slave trade in particular, would continue on for many generations in other parts of the world (there actually were a couple technical holdouts here).  It wouldn't be until 1980, the year John Lennon was assassinated, Ronald Reagan elected president, and Disco died, that the last country trafficking in African slaves finally outlawed the practice.  On the whole, America was part of that radical movement saying all slavery was bad and had to go, joining a growing number of European nations - Western, Christian, Enlightenment based - who were abolishing the practice altogether. 

But again, that's not how I'm hearing this presented.  I hear little among modern Civil Rights, BLM or other Black activists giving much of a shout-out to those righteous Caucasians.  I wonder why that is.  Why is it if you bring up the sacrifice White Americans made in ending slavery and helping Civil Rights, at best you're corrected, at worst you're accused of racism?  Those who did the fighting and dying are said to have still been racists, or not concerned with Black rights, or somehow deficiently antiracist, or holding racist views.  

I don't know.  It's been years since I paid attention to things like Holocaust remembrance and Righteous Gentiles. After all, most Millennials can barely describe the events meant to be remembered.  Perhaps Jews no longer make a big deal about the RGs.   But if they do, I wonder why the same attention is not given  among BLM, Civil Rights, and other Black activists and their supporters today.  In fact, why is it when you try to point out the contributions of Caucasian Americans in ending slavery, Jim Crow and passing Civil Rights, you can be met with almost hostile rebuttals.  Or am I just missing something. 

The problem with Tom Hanks

Is that he plays white Americans.  Exactly what othr options he has, given our sensitivity toward white people playing non-white roles, I'm not sure.   But Black NPR contributor Eric Deggans makes it clear that Hanks has sinned greatly by playing white American heroes, or movies that celebrate our racist nation's past without focusing on our nation's racist past.   And then - horrors - Hanks went on to say we should do more to emphasize the Tulsa Race Massacre (because we don't spent enough time focusing on America's sins).  Apparently that was too much for Black NPR contributor Eric Deggans to handle. He appreciated the gesture of filling those few extra hours in a day that don't focus on America's sins with more about America's sins.  But he felt Hanks needed to be brought down for falling to realize his words are hollow as long as he seeks to find anything but bad in our nation's heritage. 

Remember, you're either 100% obedient to the Left's latest dogmas, or you're 100% irredeemable deplorable, especially if you have the wrong gender, skin color, or other group identifier.  Such is America, 2021.  We've never been as close to the totalitarianism we saw  in the last century as we are today.  In addition, bigotry, prejudice and discrimination have suddenly become all the rage with a zeal that would shame hooded horsemen in the Jim Crow South. 

Unlike the ills of the past, however, those institutions that once pushed to overcome such sins - journalism, education, arts and culture - are now firmly behind these developments.  Joined with corporate interests and religious leaders who can always be counted on to invest in the latest golden calf, it turns out that saying racism is bad or we need to come together for equality are now subversive and racist ideas. 

Russell Moore and the new American Church

Russell Moore joins Beth Moore in abandoning the Southern Baptist Convention. From those I know who are still in the SBC, the general response will not be weeping and gnashing of teeth among those he leaves behind. 

You see, contrary to the observation of Deacon Greydanus, who has showered Dr. Moore with great praise, as well as others who have lifted him up to his opulent office in Manhattan, most I know in the SBC who follow the news have no beef with Moore per se.  If he chooses to oppose Trump, so be it.  If he wants to hang at gay wedding receptions, that's on him, though many think that's a step away from compromise and sin.  The problems the convention is facing, they say, are problems that need addressed - together. 

They wouldn't care so much if Moore didn't come off as, well, a snob.  A man who consistently says, "Hey World, look at those loser racist misogynist Baptist deplorables over there, let's get'em.'  If he didn't constantly talk of those who disagree with him as if they are a bunch of stupid, bigoted reprobates who simply don't see his obviously superior position and infallible standards that should be the measure for all others to follow.  That is what set most of them off. 

I knew Russ in seminary.  Not personally in a close friendship way, but enough to notice some things.  He was part of the Mohler revolution.  If he really loved Catholics as he has said, or despised the fundamentalism that accompanied that bold change in Seminary life, including the belief that women do belong in the home, he kept such thinking to himself.  He was never one who suffered from a disproportionate level of humility, so those who criticize his high and mighty contempt for Baptists who disagree with Russ are easy to sympathize with. 

Like Beth Moore before him, who chalked up all criticisms of her ministry as being the result of misogynist men who displayed their woman hate by pointing out she was easy on the eyes, Russ has bolted from the Convention that made him one of those lucky few who live in wealth and luxury for the Prince of Peace.  With his departure, he bemoans the hatred and attacks on his family by all those white supremacists who seemed to have eluded me in my Baptist ministry days.

Oh, I saw racism of course. Really.  Real, honest racism.  I once was asked to fill in at a church one Sunday.  I delivered a message that included  a story, courtesy of Tony Campolo, about a young man coming to realize the humanity of a single mother in the inner city; a mother who happened to be African American.  After the service, a family invited me to dine with them at their Sunday dinner in the best manner of Baptist eating.  During the meal, I was gently informed that if I come back, I might not want to use Black people as the center of an illustration.

So I'd be stupid and a liar to say there was no racism.  Sure there was.  Good old white racism against non-whites, but back before racism became the all defining, unforgivable monolithic sin that a growing number of religious leaders now admit it is.  Of course, when working among the inner city missions, I encountered anti-white racism among some black pastors I met.  Among some women I knew there was prejudice as well, including anti-male bigotry.  There was bigotry and sin across the board, from people I knew overseas to those at home - all of those people being human, sin happens.  

But Russ has bought the Leftist bug that there are only certain all defining and all encompassing sins based on skin color and political party as defined by the modern Left.  His contempt for those targeted by the modern Left, while accepting of others who toe the leftwing line, is what made so many in the convention upset.  I don't think there will be many tears shed at his leaving. 

And if Moore, or the author of the piece, or the good Deacon Greydanus, yearn for a time when God seizes the crushing power of Rome and Caesar to finally stamp out those who stand in the way of the New Left and its new American church, then we'll just have to see. Given what the new Left stands for, I don't think I'll sweat it.  If the courts and the State come after us, as some apparently are hoping for, it likely won't be at the behest of the Almighty, unless the first 2000 years of Christianity were as disastrously wrong about almost everything as some would have us think. 

Why this does not work

My general dislike of Internet memes is well documented.  Yes, sometimes they hit home and make more sense than what is taught in our universities or reported in our news media nowadays.  On the whole, however, at best they're a poor man's editorial cartoon, but without the wit. At worst they're used to attack, lie or otherwise misrepresent issues and people.  

So I saw this pass by at Facebook:

Yeah, I get it.  But here's the point.  First, I know it's a joke.  I get jokes. I have a sense of humor.  But that's falling into the pit of sin that somehow we'll fight the Left by adopting its elevation of pride as virtue and biblical ethics as dependent upon one's group identity.  That's one problem.

The other problem?  Pride in being straight?  That's like saying pride in gravity.  To imagine there is some alternative to being straight that being straight has to vie with is already conceding the position to the opposition.  It's playing their game, as if Straight is the option I'm proud of, as opposed to that other legitimate option they're proud of.

I know.  I'm being a poo-poo.  But you get my point.  I've said one way in which Christians, as well as the broader world of conservatism in general, have lost has been repeatedly conceding the high ground with a host of issues by accepting the rules, the premises, even the broader narratives of the Left.  

That would be like playing a game of Monopoly with someone who insists on writing their own rules.   So they demand the game begins with them having all the money, all the properties, railroads and unities, and hotels on every monopoly - and you say, OK, that's fair, let's play.  I'll bet you lose. And so those who would resist the Left by conceding the Left so much ground have lost, and lost, and lost again. 

That's why I'd wager LGTBQ activists are more than happy with something like this.  Not only can they shoot it down, as many FB commenters did, insisting with science and laboratories we have all we need to get gay people pregnant today. But in their guts, they know somehow we're handing them a tremendous amount of high ground in the process by accepting their basic premises.