Where Peter Is reminds me of The Friendly Atheist

The Friendly Atheist is a blog that, as the name suggests, purports to be a happy place where nice atheists are all warm and fuzzy and friendly. Utilizing a good cop/bad cop tactic, however, the FA was typically radical leftwing atheism that spent most of its time attacking anything remotely center-right, and all things religious, especially Christianity. While most of the main contributors did so on the slick, in the comments sections atheists were given carte blanche to spew any hate and even violent wishes on religious freaks and conservatives who they clearly hated. 

Where Peter Is reminds me of that.  It suggests a site dedicated to the importance of the pope in Catholicism.  But it doesn't take long to see the ideological leanings of its contributors.  Most posts follow a decidedly leftwing template where political liberalism's stereotypes of conservatives can be assumed, but to the left is nothing but beautiful people usually being correct about everything. 

It also demonstrates a trend among the 'former Christian conservative' movement we've seen over the last decade.  Some contributors claim to be 'former right wing Christens'.  Nonetheless, it isn't difficult to see that they have simply taken the problems with fusing the Faith and Right Wing Politics and now apply the same to Left Wing Politics.  They're still the same politically partisan Christians, but with an ass on their hats rather than an elephant. 

To me that is a big problem with those who tack Left.  Conservatives, if they have nothing else going for them, typically admit - even celebrate - their identity as conservatives.  Liberalism has forever shrank away from such self-identification.  Those on the Left prefer simply being correct about everything and without guile; advocates of truth and fact and nothing else.  Therefore the injection of politics into the Faith must always be the fault of those other types who aren't them.  

That forthrightness among conservatives, BTW, is why I tend to identify more with conservative Christians, even if I don't always agree.  There's something about honesty over duplicity that gets me every time. 

The problem with hate crimes and the lies they breed

John C Wright did the homework and came up with a list of now fewer than over 200 reported cases of false accusations and lies about supposed hate crimes in America.  Whew.  Think on that.  As National Review points out, the idea that America is Nazi Hitler, and minorities are spending every day being attacked and murdered by the billions by white skin Jesus freaks with MAGA hats and pants that say 'Grab Me', is about as accurate as the old narrative that Germany's problems were all due to a vast conspiracy by Democrats, Communists and Jews.

Of course us old timers can remember when the very idea of 'Hate Crimes' was highly controversial, and more than just hard line right wingers saw problems with the concept.  One, all crimes could (should?) be seen as the result of hate, so it could be argued to be redundant.  Two, it's awfully difficult to prove, and doubly easy to fake (see above).  Three, you can't help but notice the rather subjective, and often inconsistent, manner in which 'hate crimes' terms are applied.  And finally, it could lead to the idea that some people are just more important than others, more likely victims, more likely the bad guys, or variations on 'they do or they don't have stars on their bellies.'

Given the hot mess we've seen, given that we've watched people insist that wrongly accused people with the bad skin color deserve what they get; given that we've seen people insist that the right, victimized skin color can be forgiven for killing the bad skin color; given that we've seen people insist that this gender can always be counted on to rightly accuse that bad gender; given that we've watched a growing sentiment that our very laws should only apply given a certain ethnicity, national origins, religions or nationalities; I'd suggest it's safe to say the old concerns about where hate crime mentality could lead were justified.  After all, how many things did liberalism of the 20th century promise would never happen that have happened beyond what the most paranoid detractors of old were worried about?  This would hardly be a first in fulfilling the 'worst case scenario' predictions of liberal ideals.

There comes a time when you do have to ask just how many more times we'll be fooled and yet continue to do nothing, before we have to say we deserve what we get.  Actually, we deserve what our posterity will get.  But that's another rant.

Fair enough

An article of repentance for the Trump phenomenon.  I won't say that Conservatives, Republicans, and Christians don't share responsibility for the specter of Trump in the White House.  Democrats and liberals and the media and Obama and Clinton and on and on do as well.  Trump, as my boys rightly say, belongs to the 21st Century American Facebook generation.

Nonetheless, there are good point to be made in the article.  The best is calling out that strange tendency Conservatives have had of doggedly defending the Free Market and Capitalism to such an extent that they end up defending those who abuse it, use it, and exploit it to advance all of the things Conservatives - especially Christians - find most abhorrent.

Despite the fair points and my agreement that Conservatives deserve some of the blame for Trump, that does not mean I therefore conclude that we must embrace Liberalism and Secular Progressive ideals in all their glories except for a couple unfortunate sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance with which we can lovingly and politely disagree.  We do not have to say that Liberalism and the Gospel are one and the same, nor that only by accepting Socialist ideals and the principals of dying, Secular Europe can we be saved.

Nope.  Clean house, admit where we failed or were wrong or blind, and change.  Take what liberalism has to say that is correct and find ways to incorporate it into the principles that have always made leaning on the roots of our beliefs better than chasing the latest fad.

Well done Knights of Columbus

It looks like there is growing pressure on, among other places, our State Department to recognize the deliberate slaughter of Christians as a genocide.  The Knights of Columbus is behind the push to get us to admit Genocide is not purely a European and American phenomenon.  It's about freaking time.

Should Obama go to Scalia's funeral

Of course he should.  He doesn't have to.  It's not written in stone, or in the Constitution.  Bush did, and Eisenhower did once but skipped another.  Who knows what other presidents did in the past?  The point isn't should he because everyone else did or didn't do it.  The point is, should he?  Based on everything I'm hearing, he's not meeting with Putin tomorrow, or signing major legislation.  He's not flying to India.  He seems like he has a day to durp about. 

So he should.  He isn't going to, from what I've heard.  I'm sure he won't.  He knows that by not doing it, Conservatives will complain.  He knows that the media will rush in to remind us that Eisenhower did go to one funeral, but skipped another, so it's no big deal.  Liberal pundits will then charge Conservatives with being petty, partisan, or not knowing their history.  Obama also will have made a powerful point to his base.  They secretly know, of course, that he isn't going to make a point.  And they are glad for it.  But they needn't be honest about it.  They won't be.  Neither will the press. And Obama knows it.

Of course he should go.  If he wanted to end partisanship, heal divisions, reach out a kind and welcoming hand, that's exactly what he should do.  Even if no president ever did it in the past, Obama could set a precedent.  Or at least just do a good thing.  Something that would no doubt receive mixed blessings.  His own base would be upset.  And I'm sure there are some hard right Conservatives who would find something to complain about.  But by doing it, he at least would be taking a step toward healing divisions by building bridges.  And we all know how important it is to build bridges.  Last I heard, your salvation could depend on it.

But he isn't.  He has shown no desire to bring harmony and unity to Washington.  On the contrary, I've not seen a president in my lifetime who deliberately does everything possible to drive wedges between people and create as many divisions as he has done.  And he knows the press won't call him out on it, just like the press will have his back tomorrow at Scalia's funeral.  When it comes to seizing control of a society, you can do worse than having the press at your back. 

If it was not for all the good America does

Our country might be as wicked and evil as everyone wants us to believe. I posted on this very study here.  I fondly remember a Nigerian minister who once puzzled over why Americans are so brutal to our own nation: "It's as if you want America to be worse than it was."  I've never forgotten that observation.  That matches a talk I had with a priest from Nigeria a couple years ago, as he explained just how rough and brutal much of the world is compared to America and the West.  I know, we love to hash and trash the US.  Liberalism is built upon it.  But every now and then, you hear a story or read a study that suggests all those evils we focus on exclusively might just be the exception, rather than the rule. 

Admit that Conservatives are the sane ones in the Religious Freedom debate

As the Left scrambles over itself to shred the First Amendment and take a giant leap away from freedom, Conservatives and non-Liberals are emerging as the sane and rational adults in this.  While the hallowed halls of late night comedy and other respectable venues like rock music seem to join the sporting world in its contempt for liberty over sex, articles like this and this make clear the obvious BS and lies and foolishness and stupidity that are behind any opposition to freedom of conscience over celebration of sexual lifestyles.