A sign Post-Moderns would need

Gay Brownshorts?

Mark Shea has taken to calling most gay rights advocates Brownshorts. It's an obvious play on the Brownshirts that were instrumental in establishing total power for Hitler and his Nazi gangsters. I have to admit, I thought it a bit over the top for a while. But when I see stories about Gay Rights Advocates reminding us that America is for those who celebrate homosexuality and conform to its dogmas, all others will be hunted down like the dogs they are, the name fits. After all, last I heard, a person or company could support who they want to support for office. Of course you can disagree. But to point a metaphorical gun to the head and demand equal time (does that mean all who support gay rights candidates should give equal support to those who oppose gay marriage?), it reminds me of how little patience the post-liberal left has for those antiquated notions of tolerance, diversity, and freedom.

In case we were worried there was nothing to fear...

now that H1N1 has been taken off the pandemic list, fear not my hearties! Scientists have discovered yet a new superbug that is destined to wipe out billions and lay waste to entire civilizations. Yes, there is always a threat, as various pandemics in history have shown. It is a serious thing. But come on. How many years has it been that we've been warned 'this is the big one Elizabeth!'? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me every year for a half-dozen years, shame on me. The biggest problem, as I said the other day, is that this continual crying of wolf is going to cause people to lose interest. Then, when there is a major pandemic on the scene, the necessary warnings will be ignored. And we'll have the priesthood of science, with the town crying media, to blame.

Global Warming is a threat!

Because this time a glacier that broke off from Greenland could sink a ship! Since that's never happened before, or well it has happened, but that just proves global warming, we need to panic. I don't mind the science behind climate change. I have no doubt that the technology and industry humanity immersed itself in over the last couple hundred years hasn't been good for the environment. That's, of course, why I tend to be hesitant about turning the keys over to science to solve all of our problems.

But the not-too-subtle subtext of this story, that this is yet another reason to fear MMGW, when the story has to stop to refer to that other famous example from almost a hundred years ago, is the problem that seems to permeate all modern discussion of the phenomenon. When I see more predictions come true, and hear some scientists admit there could be things that disprove MMGW but here's why they aren't happening - as opposed to saying whatever happens in the climate world proves MMGW - then I'll be more inclined to listen.

Also it wouldn't hurt if MMGW didn't sound the 'we're going to die' mantra that dominates modern science, mixed with the teaching that humanity, being nothing more than a festering malignant blight on mother earth, might need to be exterminated from existence for the greater good.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church continues to give Jesus a bloody nose

Perhaps not really. Perhaps. Though bet your bottom dollar that is how the MSM will cover it. Nonetheless, when two bishops, found to be part of the child abuse cover up in Ireland, have their resignations rejected by the Vatican, it doesn't look good.

At some point, Catholics must admit as an institution, the Catholic Church often leaves much to be desired. Traditional Catholics often bemoan the willingness of Catholics to ignore Church teaching, condemn those who follow other ideologies, nationalities, or philosophies rather than adhere to the Church first and foremost. They often weep for the endless streams of Catholics who leave the Faith. They rightly point to the anti-Catholicism of our age, in our media and popular cultures, in our education systems. They mock the ineffectiveness of Catholic educational institutions regarding fealty to Catholic doctrine.

And yet there comes a time when the finger needs to point to the Church itself. At some point, trying to put a protective barrier around The Church, trying to ward off criticism of its highest leaders, attempting to chicken-pick this bad leader while excusing that good leader, trying to distinguish between the Church and the leaders of the Church with magisterial authority, sounds like Muslims insisting Real Muslims (TM) don't commit terrorist acts or do bad things, therefore Islam is the real Religion of Peace.

There comes a time when, though a teacher can't be blamed for every failed student, a long line of failures must be questioned. There comes a time when those who want reform need to step up to the plate and say some things need a'changin. Because if they don't, those who want change for the wrong reasons will gain traction among those who, in all fairness and honesty, can see there are serious problems afoot. Remember, Luther wasn't the only Catholic wanting reform. But because he stepped forward and did something about it, even if ultimately it was the wrong thing, he's the one that set the course.

This is not to disregard the attempts by Pope Benedict or other leaders to make things right. Nor is it to say perfection is the only option and the frailty of human beings are no excuse. It is to say Catholics need to admit that if year after year, the classroom is filled with students who are failing, not caring, and dropping out, it may be time to hold some educators responsible and take a good long look at the entire school. It need not be about changing the lessons. It can simply be evaluating the school's effectiveness.

Just an observation.

Houses not built by Maronda Homes tend to last

Archaeologists unearth foundation of house that makes Stonehenge look young. Always fun to see how much we still have to learn about our past.

Patricia Neal: Death of a pro-life Catholic

What was missing in many press releases about Oscar winning actress Patricia Neal, was her fervent pro-life advocacy. Creative Minority Report gives kudos to, of all places, the New York Times, for including this poignant passage about Neal's own regrets over the abortion of her baby:

"During her affair with Cooper, she became pregnant. She had an abortion and according to her 1988 autobiography, “As I Am,” (written with Richard DeNeut), she cried herself to sleep for 30 years afterward. “If I had only one thing to do over in my life,” she wrote, “I would have that baby.”"

As a pastor, abortion seemed the number one issue I counseled women in, particularly those who had abortions at one time or another in their past. They all said the same thing: each dinner, each holiday, each vacation had an empty chair that could never be filled again. Such regrets are never discussed in our modern culture, a culture that has based so much of its teachings on lies, half-truths, and deception. RIP Patricia Neal.

Speaking of Laughs

In this clip, a calm and steady voice atomizes Deepak Chopra and friends.

There really isn't much to add. Except that the stunned looks on the panel are priceless. And, of course, the fact that a simple smack down takes out something that an entire belief system is based upon. In the end, most of new age spirituality has all the depth of layer of Teflon, and is meant to give the modern narcissist all the self-affirming affirmations one needs to live a life centered on one's self.

Though I would add that Chopra's constant appearances on many MSM outlets says much about those outlets' notion of what real religion and spirituality entails.

High Priest of Secular Religion inadvertently makes us laugh

Stephen Hawking continues to help those of us trying to explain that knowledge of science does not equate to knowledge of anything but science. And a particular branch of science at that. Mark Shea, as usual, has his number:

"Forget that it would be easier to re-create New York City in Antarctica than it would be to create even a small workable village on Mars or the Moon. Forget that we are nowhere near light-speed travel and that even if we achieve it, the nearest star (which may not have any habitable planets) is 4 light years away (or 50,000 years at present speeds). We should all take Stephen Hawking seriously because he has a massive amount of knowledge about an incredibly narrow band of specialized technical knowledge."

It always helps to listen to the small voice yelling out to inform us the emperor has new clothes. Especially before we blindly follow the priesthood of scienceism into another life ending mistake of apocalyptic proportions (see picture of mushroom cloud below).

Note to Catholics:

Even being right can end up being wrong. I've been following Mark Shea's annual discussion of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the close of WWII. It's no secret, or shouldn't be, that the official stance of the Catholic Church is general condemnation of the bombings. In addition, unlike many others who merely focus on the A-bombs, the Church takes the extra step to remind people it isn't being fickle, but that the condemnations fit into a larger, comprehensive teaching that is boiled down to concern for the dignity of the human person made in God's image. Thus, not only are the A-bombs condemned, but the fire bombings, or any attacks that were aimed at civilian population centers. Even if there was another, justifiable reason behind them - like destroying a key military target, or the more general desire to end the war - it doesn't matter. Aiming at civilians and firing is wrong - always - no matter how just the reasons behind it may be. This is condemning an approach to morality that is known as consequentialism.

Consequentialism, in a nutshell, says that it is acceptable to do something horrible as long as its for the greater good. Such as dropping the atomic bombs on cities filled with thousands of elderly, women, children, and non-combatant men. The Church has made it clear that such is incompatible with Christian morality. To be Catholic, to base one's moral compass on the Church's guidance, is to concede that fact no matter how difficult.

In explaining this, however, the Catholic apologist must be careful. One of the pitfalls of apologetics, and why I generally hesitate to delve into that branch of Christian ministry, is its own version of consequentialist tactics for winning theological arguments. This can be seen by some who rightly argue for the clear teachings of the Catholic Church, while then turning around and doing so in ways incompatible with moral, honest, grace-filled instruction.

For instance, the facts. Being right about morals doesn't give the right to twist facts, inflate events, ignore inconvenient arguments, or worse, bear false witness or falsely accuse. It should not involved sweeping condemnation or impugning the morals of those with whom we disagree. It should not be buying into silly theories or conspiracy nonsense without damn good evidence to back it up. Thus, it's OK to say Truman (and also Roosevelt, don't forget) was wrong to OK the bombings. But we need not add to it every wild, harebrained theory that Truman was really part of some vast, anti-Catholic conspiracy to murder Catholics in Nagasaki, that he knew Japan only wanted peace, love and John Lennon songs but just wanted to slaughter babies, that Truman molested teddy bears, or anything else. It's enough to stay with the facts as known.

It also does well to avoid polemical history to justify the stance. Not only does it run into the danger of suggesting, however subtly, that if there really was a utilitarian reason for the bombings then it would be OK, but it can be wrong. The idea that every thinking person knew the bombings were wrong since Japan merely wanted peace and all the signs were disregarded is a very, very biased interpretation of the events. It fails to take into account the lack of contemporary (c. August 1, 1945) documentation that suggests peace was right around the corner, fails to take into account any potential biases on the part of those who later condemned the bombings (while, of course, emphasizing the bias of those who support them), and generally ignores the growing evidence that Japan was anything but ready to capitulate on the eve of the attacks (this last brought out by the increased pressure on Japan in recent years to fess up to its own atrocities in the war).

In short, it's enough to point to the teaching of the Church on the subject. It's enough to say that there could have been an alternative. A real, positive alternative. Not one that could be as morally suspect as dropping the bombs. It also avoids the idea that the justification for the teachings rests on highly partistan reading of the historical data. And it certainly avoids the potential pitfall of the 'sword of the Lord' approach to apologetics: that I am so the mouthpiece of the living God, that his commandments (like call no one fool, don't bear false witness, judge not, and others) no longer apply to me. Once those begin to crop up, ironically, the teaching being advanced becomes swept up in the maelstrom of charge and counter charge, and fair minded people seeking the Truth are confronted with two arguments, both of which appear to be flawed.

American male adheres to modern standards

And the media that has promoted these standards looks on indignantly:

In the end, after decades of feminists giving the big middle finger to traditional notions of male chivalry as an archaic leftover from patriarchal chauvinistic sexism, and after generations of self-focus being made the highest aspiration for which we can strive, I'm always shocked at how we seem gobsmacked when someone actually lives out these values. Do we not know what they look like in real practice? Or is it that we never believed these lofty principles, but rather use them as smokescreens for other, hidden agendas? Every time our progressive, liberal, post-feminist society acts miffed at men for not treating women selflessly in old world fashion, I can't help but wonder at the level of hypocrisy behind it all.

Van Halen to remind fans of how old we're getting

Yes, I admit, they were among my favorite bands in high school and college. I don't mind plopping 1984 or Van Halen in the old CD today. And admit it, they were pretty darn talented. But when I remember this:

And then see this:

I think of this: And remember this:

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things." 1 Corinthians 13:11.

Thank you Paul, for reminding Americans what we need to do for our own children: stop acting like them.

Till tomorrow, TTFN.

Where is that in the Bible?

A handy little book for folks kicking at the historic faith of Catholicism is Patrick Madrid's book of the same name. It does a pretty good job of helping those who have spent their lives hearing that Catholicism is based on many things, but not the Bible.

For me, it was the title that caught my attention. For that is the question I, like so many Protestant clergy converts, asked about that most precious of all Protestant dogmas: Sola Scripture. That's the Protestant teaching that the Bible Alone (that's the Sola Scriptura) is the source and authority for faith. While there can be outside traditions, outside interpretative tools, they all spring from the pages of Holy Scripture. Nothing can originate outside of Scripture. It has to have as its source the pages of the inspirited texts; anything originating outside those pages is to be rejected.

Problem. The Bible itself never says that the Bible itself is the sole and only source and authority for the faith. Oh sure, there is plenty Word of God this, and the Word of God that. There are passages that speak of the importance of Scripture, its role in the life of the believer, its importance for instructing, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It was profitable, a lamp unto feet, and quoted by Jesus Himself. But that slam dunk verse, that 'Yea, did the Lord say 'thus shall it be that the written Word of the Lord shall alone be the source of doctrine, teaching, and authority for the faithful' just wasn't there. To get there, I had to have someone tell me it was. Tell me that Revelation 22 was about the entire Canon of Scripture, not just about the Revelation of John. Tell me that profitable, as in 2 Timothy 3:16, meant complete and entirely sufficient and the source of all revealed authority, not merely profitable.

In short, it was a contradiction. Evangelicals and others with a brain can usually have great sport at things like 'there are no absolute truths.' The obvious problem is good for a laugh and a jest. But the problem for me was the same for the Bible. The Bible MUST say somewhere in its pages, clearly and without the need or demand for outside interpreters, that it and it alone is the only source of authority for the faithful. If not, the illogical loop of logical contradictions kicked in.

I discovered through Patrick Madrid's book just how many Catholic doctrines have their roots in Scripture. But more troubling for me, c. 1999, was realizing that there was at least one crucial doctrine upon which all Protestantism had been established, that did not have its roots in a clear teaching of Scripture at all.

When is discrimination a beautiful thing?

Why, when it's aimed at the Catholic Church, of course. Even as a Protestant minister, I used to joke that I thanked God daily for the Catholic Church. After all, who else was it so acceptable to hate in today's society? The last acceptable prejudiced: Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular.

Dr. Paul Kengor, over at Catholic Exchange, demonstrates more of the 'intolerance is a beautiful thing' meme beginning to sweep our country. This time, as is so often the case, it's a brand spanking new Supreme Court Justice. Again, I know there are those who are bigots, who want to discriminate, marginalize people, and punish non-conformists in every group. But those who appear to have the Catholic Church in the cross-hairs are not so much living in the caves of Afghanistan as they are teaching at Harvard, or now, sitting on the Supreme Court.

How should the Catholic Church respond to judge's trumping of Prop 8?

Tim Drake, at National Catholic Register, asks those in the know. It is increasingly apparent, in America like Europe and our northern neighbors in Canada, that homosexuality is the wedge issue of the age. Abortion, despite media attempts to portray it as religious vs. intelligence, is not merely a faith issue. I know plenty of progressive Christians all giddy about abortion rights, and not a few non-religious types (even feminists or otherwise liberal) who have a certain 'ick' feeling about abortion and what it entails. So in the end, abortion just won't do as that grand slam issue that helps push Christian morals out of our society for good.

Enter homosexuality, a complex issue made more complex because its adherents are typically adults who can talk and speak for their own cause. Add a society based on the growing idea that Christian morality is the one unacceptable morality in our world, and the gauntlet is near to be thrown down. Even now, homosexual advocates are becoming bolder about the notion that rights and freedoms are for those who accept and celebrate homosexuality as almost some gnostic perfection of human being. As a sad round of debate I had with a Huffpost pundit demonstrated some months ago. I merely suggested it was wrong for a Christian street preacher to be charged for pointing out Bible verses that speak against homosexuality. Our intrepid representative of the gay rights movement was quick to correct me, pointing out that intollerance can be good, religion is a lie, and hate should be outlawed - and since hate is best defined as failing to conform to and celebrate homosexuality in all its forms, it was time for me to connect the dots. My favorite quote:

"It's not intimidation. One side is right. One side is wrong. You are on the wrong side. Again, it's as simple as that. We gay people are often accused of being intolerant of a differing opinion. Not so. However, we ARE intolerant of ignorance demanding respect."

Look for more in the future, as the move to eradicate wrong religion intensifies, and we hear more about what tolerance really is, and when intolerance is always right.

Elvis shakes his hips and the world yawns

In yet another sad attempt to stir up controversy by conforming to the modern status quo of post-liberal hedonism, CBS has boldly gone where everyone has gone before to prove we still live in the 1950s, and that people will be shocked by such a title. Sure, there are protests from the good meaning, yet misguided folks who actually worry about our children. But knowing such priorities are a thing of the past in our enlightened culture, their opinions are increasingly irrelevant. The advent of mass media has, almost from the beginning, survived on shock value. Problem is, there is so little left that can shock. Even the story itself points out that decreasing amounts of parents actually care about language on TV today. It's just not a big thing. To truly shock, to stand against the status-quo, to speak truth to power, or challenge authority, try having a show based on, say, pro-life standards. Maybe traditional Christian morality. Or, dare we suggest, mature adults acting like mature adults and treating one another with respect and dignity. Now that would shock. It would also bring down the condemnation of our enlightened and tolerant post-liberal society. Just ask Tim Tebow about what it really takes to be controversial in today's culture.

When experts cry wolf

For those who thought we were supposed to be terrified of something, but couldn't quite put a finger on what, the WHO has reminded us that there is a H1N1 pandemic by essentially canceling it. Not to make light of those who died from the virus, as any such death is a tragedy. But when placed against annual deaths to the tune of half a million due to normal flu, the great pandemic of the ages simply didn't match the havoc and chaos caused by the hype of yet another global catastrophe. Some day there actually will be a pandemic or emergency, and people will have become immune to the warnings because of annual 'we're all going to die!' drills. Anyone ever hear of the story of the boy who cried wolf?

Sustaining Racism in America, Part II

Meanwhile, Morgan Freeman vainly tries to explain that moving beyond racism means not focusing on skin color. But he seems to spit into the whirlwind, since we are a nation whose obsession (and let's be frank, agendas) almost demand racism remain a potent force in America for years to come.

Racism is alive and well and living in America

It should be well known that a man who murdered eight people at a distribution plant blamed his victims for being racist. Naturally the MSM is having fits wondering where to go with it. Should we focus on the victims like we usually do? Or should we run with the narrative of our times?

His motives are irrelevant really. The subtle suggestion, spoken in hushed tones on some news channels, that this may have been a 'reason' shows how alive and vibrant racism is. Was there racism? Were all the victims racist? Does it really matter? The idea that this was even anything worth talking about, on the very day when eight families horrifically lost their loved ones, shows why racism isn't going away any time soon.

When Matthew Shepherd died, we were informed that it may have been - at least partially - the blame of religious groups and preachers who opposed homosexuality for creating an environment hostile toward homosexuals. If that's true, then can we expect the same media darlings and celebrities to emerge, telling us that the constant drumbeat of 'white racists, White Racists, WHITE RACISTS' that permeates everything and sees all people according to the color of their skin, may also be behind this rampage? Maybe it's not the victims, but the increasingly uneasy feeling one gets that racism is not just alive, but is kept alive for expediency's sake; a convenient way to advance agendas, silence debate, and even push through political ideologies. For as long as racism remains convenient, racism will remain.

Update:

Meanwhile, the shooter's family, continuing to get Carte Blanche treatment by the media, and understandably grief stricken, attempts to use the Super Narrative of inherent racism to not-too-subtly paint Thornton as the real victim. Let me know when we start saying it's OK to kill racists, or just people who might be racist because of the color of their skin (which is the latest acceptable racism: that you can always tell a racist by the color of his skin).

The emerging darkness of post-liberalism

Huffpost commenters continue to demonstrate the monstrous aberration that is the post-modern secular Left. Not to be confused with classic liberalism, a movement that could boast at least some aspects of Christian justice and social teaching, with a concern for humility of the intellect and love of one's neighbor. This thing bursts from the corpse of classical liberalism like the alien bursting from John Hurt's chest; a movement increasingly evil, filled with hate, loathing, contempt, self-righteous arrogance, and an emerging lust for power, censorship, and - when all else fails - extermination of those deemed unworthy (typically those who fail to conform to the dogmas of the post-liberal left). It is a parasite, devouring the last vestiges of dignity of that once noble experiment known as liberalism. And liberalism's greatest sin will no doubt be its refusal to see the evil in Kane's child.

Check out the comments on the story of Christian doctors murdered in Afghanistan. The easiest comments to read are those exploiting this for a chance score points against America's policies in the Middle East. The worst ones gladly put the blame on the victims for peddling their "fairy tales" (apparently Christians deserve what they get because they are Christians). Given that the Huffpost ostensibly deletes posts that cross the line, and seeing the nature of those posted, it makes one's blood run cold to imagine what the deleted posts said.

I'm aware, of course, that such hatred, arrogance, and willingness to scoff at the suffering of those without stars on their bellies is not limited to the 'post-liberal Left.' But unlike most Western movements of hatred, it is not confined to isolated radicals holed up in log cabins at the foothills of the Rockies. Rather, it is boasted of and increasingly endorsed by (if not promoted by) leaders, scholars, celebrities, and others who have the eyes and ears of society at their beck and call:

"[T]he very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss." - Sam Harris, best selling author, doctoral student at Harvard, beloved of the modern atheism movement, who has yearned for a day when we can end tolerance of religions he hates.