Dan Savage hearts Christians

Or at least the type of Christians who conform to his indisputable, singular moral system.  Savage is, of course, a bit like Fred Phelps for the pro-gay left..  Like a caricature of the Left, he advocates sexual deviancy and debauchery in all its heathen orgy glory.  Like the emergent left, he advocates more hatred and vitriol against those who don't conform to a singular ethical stance than many fundamentalist tent revival preachers could ever imagine.

And he's not alone.  In my transition time between Protestant and Catholic, some of my more moderate colleagues offered me work in their denominations.  Welcoming and affirming they called themselves.  Though I learned quickly that they were neither welcoming nor affirming for those who didn't conform to their rather progressive world views.  On the contrary, the derision, contempt and outright loathing they sometimes cast at those who didn't hold to their ideals often surpassed the worst that I heard in my own rather conservative, Evangelical denomination.

Since our academic, media and cultural venues all sympathize with the Savage moral framework, however, there is no backlash. There is no shame.  There is no attempt to apologize for his over the top hatred aimed at non-progressive non-conformists (see the difference in how the media treats Limbaugh vs. how it treats Bill Maher for an example).  On the contrary, they seem rather taken by his various missions.  Including this one, in which he gathers Christians who are there to remind the post-Christian progressive world that not all Christians are the pits.  Some, like them, have seen the light and are prepared to embrace what is demanded by the emerging new world order.  Just as there always have been some willing to do the same.

Of course as is usual in our war torn, crumbling world, the only issue discussed is the issue of gayness.  It is the divide of the post-Christian left, the issue that progressive finally found to effectively separate the sheep fro the goats, and many young people, no matter where they stand on other issues, see this as defining the age of right and wrong.  To stand on the wrong side of the issue?  Why, that's to embrace Communism in the 1950s.  So you can bet your bottom that no matter where they come from, they'll be quick to fit the latest the world has to offer.

How do I resist the call to embrace the new order?  Easy. I remember that the same side pushing for gay this and gay that as the source and summit of all morality, is the same side strangely quiet, if not in outright denial, about the increasing number of things like this.  Offering me drugs and sex, in return for a rehash of early 20th century Darwinian inspired redefining of humanity in order to terminate the unwanted ones, is not a price I'm willing to pay.  And I can't convince myself that the allegiance, however unintentional, between these two emerging phenomena is not merely a coincidence.

Welcome back Great Eight

In a little blast of nostalgia, eager Cincinnati Reds fans got to see something they haven't seen in decades.  The Great Eight, the best starting lineup in baseball history, was finally reunited after a dazzling win tonight by those youngsters of 2013.  The glitch has been in getting Pete Rose back into the reunion.  Johnny Bench tried, but couldn't get around Rose's ban.  Rose, who foolishly bet on the game rather than rape, murder, sell drugs or take drugs, has been banished for decades from so much as using a bathroom near a little league baseball park.  But for Joe Morgan's weekend, they finally got the eight together.  When I was young, my Dad and a good friend of his went to see them several times during those two legendary seasons.  My Mom and Dad went once.  As a family we went once.  And I got to go with Dad, his friend, and his friend's son.  It was magic then.  And it brought a tear to the eye tonight.  Time is an odd thing. It makes you remember and yet reminds you that all times must pass.  Still, a nice chance to share with the family and tell our boys about all those years ago when we were their age.  My wife, who lived outside Cincinnati in those days, also went to see the Big Red Machine.  We've wondered if we were in the park together one of those nights.  I guess we'll never know.  Anyway, thanks for the memories boys, even if we were only children when you helped make them.

The Great Eight, the greatest starting lineup in baseball history, as we'll always remember them.
L-R Pete Rose, George Foster, Dave Concepcion, Johnny Bench, Cesar Geronimo, Joe Morgan, Ken Griffey, Tony Perez

Happier times

Despite it all, we try to have our good times.  The family food gathering for our illustrious honorable son number two got us together for a splurge and a chance to rest and enjoy.

True love

One of the greatest speeches in history

When thinking on a crumbling country, bad personal breaks, corporate greed out of control, decadence and godlessness run amok against the remnants of a Christian culture, it's easy to get down.  Last week our nation was all about Martin Luther King's famous speech, but whenever I get to feeling down, I think of one of the other greatest speeches ever recorded, and can't help but get inspired.  God bless Lou Gehrig.

Some thoughts for corporate interests on this Labor Day

We were watching a cooking show the other day.  Didn't watch much of it.  Those don't interest me.  I just stopped because he was making what looked like a scrumptious pizza old world style.  Turns out the show has to do with some expert taking a failed restaurant and turning it around.  He was telling the owner how to make this pizza.  And what did he tell him?  He told him how to do it so it looks like he's giving the customer more than the costumer is actually getting.  It would save him some money that way.  As my wife and I went shopping for our annual cook out, and noticed prices inching upward while quantity seemed to be dwindling, that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do. 

I thought about one of the pitfalls of capitalism.  That's the tendency, often echoed on venues like FOX News or talk radio, to believe that the solution to our problems is found in getting government out of the way and turning things over to people who want to make money more than anything in the world.  Literally.  Turn it over to people interested in making a profit and all will be well (see 1 Timothy 6:10 for possible rebuttal).  And in a culture where people are informed by other forces (like, say, Christian morality), that might be true.  But I'm one who believes that the person you are in the bedroom is the person you are in the board room.  If we as a society have said that in certain areas (the bedroom), there is no morality or values, it's all about what I want for me first of all, I'll  bet people will take that attitude to the board room when they're finished doing whatever it is they're doing in the bedroom.  

And it's not been for the best either.  Let's face it, 'good old American craftsmanship' is now used sarcastically, not to mean anything positive.  We won't even discuss stagnant wages against corporate earnings, dwindling quantities at higher prices, and outsourcing to third world countries while jacking up prices at home.  And while many blame government regulations for all woes, I can't help but think the result of government mischief doesn't have to be buying a bag of air with some free potato chips thrown in while the corporate CEO and stockholders increase their personal bottom lines.  Somehow, some way, the machine has broken down.  I'm not saying, "Quick, turn it over to the government!"  But I am saying those who don't want the government involved have to step in and admit there are problems beyond this or that regulation.  The problems may go deep to the heart of our society, a society capable of corrupting anything no matter how beneficial in theory. Just a thought.  Here are some of the Church's thoughts on the subject: 

IV. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
 2426 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God's plan for man.209
 2427 Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another.210 Hence work is a duty: "If any one will not work, let him not eat."211 Work honors the Creator's gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work212 in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish.213 Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.
 2428 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.214
 Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.
 2429 Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.215
 2430 Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise.216 Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that respects the rights and duties of each social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage- earners (for example, trade unions), and public authorities when appropriate.
 2431 The responsibility of the state. "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217
 2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.
 2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.219 For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.220
 2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.
 2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.
 2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.
 Unemployment almost always wounds its victim's dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life. Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family.223

I still think this is funny

This is not Scott Hahn's conversion story

No, it isn't.  And there might be reasons.  Scott Hahn is the Elvis of Protestant clergy converts to Catholicism.  At least in the modern era.  There are others, and clergy converting to Catholicism is not some new thing.  It's ebbed and flowed over the generations.  But for this particular generation, Scott Hahn reigns supreme as the example.  He is brilliant, he is passionate, he's an academic genius, he overcomes all the Protestant objections to Catholicism with biblical insight.  He has that touch of Protestant zeal for evangelism. And he lives in a mansion in Steubenville, OH, professor par excellent at the Franciscan University.  World wide lecturer, super star celebrity within the vocation.  He's everything you could hope to be if you were a Protestant minister staring into the hallowed halls of the Catholic faith.

Not a few Protestant converts followed in his footsteps.  Not all ended up in sprawling Tudors on the riverfront with the ears of bishops and cardinals within reach.  But they taught in Catholic schools and universities, they were hired by Catholic publishers and ministries, they were placed in positions of service and pastoral care within the diocesan or parish level, or they were able to start their own apostolates (that's ministry to our Protestant brethren).

And yet, today, that seems to be less and less the case.  I just was put in touch with a fellow who, like me, entered the Catholic church recently.  His plight?  Unemployment, financial ruin, struggling to get by.  He's the first convert I've met in some time who has come into the Church within the last decade.  I had worked with a Catholic apostolate that supposedly specialized in helping Protestant Clergy converts.  Even then, I could get a whiff of change in the air, and I noticed it seemed as though some 'fluffy math' was being employed to keep the image of a herd of converts assailing the doors of the Vatican fresh in everyone's mind.  Fact is, I noticed that the numbers weren't going up.  If anything, they appeared to be going down.  And that was before the economy tanked in 2008.

So what's happening?  Are fewer converts coming into the Church at this time?  I don't know.  I don't have the resources, money, or time to investigate.  I do know that it's harder finding cases and testimonies of those who have recently converted than, say, eight or nine years ago when I first came to the Internet to see about this Catholic stuff.  Oh I'm sure out of hundreds of millions, there are some who come in even now, somewhere in the country or the world.  And maybe it's because there are just more websites, blogs and resources out there that it's tough zeroing in on them.  But when I came through RCIA, without being part of any apostolate or ministry, I already met or knew or heard of several who had just come in or were, in fact, on the path toward converting.

Now, visiting blogs, having my own, knowing many Catholics who have their ears on, and this is the first fellow I've met in years who has recently converted?  And his life in in shambles.  So why the difference?  Here are a few ideas I've kicked about.

First, Scott Hahn and company converted in the 1980s and 1990s, when many converts I know who have ministry positions, academic positions, and national recognition came into the Church.  What was going on then?  Well first, Pope John Paul II, that's what.  The Billy Graham of the papacy.  Mr. Catholic Evangelist to the separated brethren.  The man who took the term 'the New Evangelization' and made it his.  Reaching out to all non-Catholics, former Catholics, and non-Catholic Christians was on top of his list, and hence it was on the mind of the Church universal.

Second, it was still that moment when people like the aforementioned Pope John Paul II were trying to peddle back against some of the excesses of Vatican II, even though many of those ideals were still popular.  Changing the Church, embracing modernity, women priests and married priests were seen as almost foregone conclusions by not a few Catholics.  Even when I came into the Church in 2006, many I met immediately asked if I was going to be a priest.  After all, they've got married priests already, and it will be allowed soon.  Or so I was told.

Third, it was the 1980s and 1990s.  Yes the Christian roots of society had long been shed.  But Christianity was, even then, not as flagrantly maligned in the popular culture.  Being a priest or minister still had some notion of 'that must mean he's a good guy, or a least a righteous prude.'  Plus it was a period of abundance. The economy was booming.  Money was flowing.  Credit was flowing more.  Everyone seemed ready to purchase that McMansion they had wanted since the previous year when they graduated high school.

Fourth, EWTN.  That broadcasting network was in many ways the love child of Mother Angelica, a feisty nun who hosted her own show, embraced evangelism with a zeal that would shame a fundamentalist Baptist, and wasn't afraid to call a spade a spade when it came to discipleship.  EWTN soared, its ratings soared, and Mother Angelica loved this whole idea of Protestant clergy converting to Catholicism.

So what happened?  Well first, the Spirit of Vatican II began to be restructured.  Though many assumed married priests were a forgone conclusion, by the early 00s, it was clear that it wouldn't happen any time soon.  When Benedict became Pope, he made it clear early that there would be no women priests, and no married priests.  Though he reached out to the Anglican Communion, on the whole he seemed to have little to no real interest in reaching out to the 'Separated Brethren', at least as a top priority.  His interests were in other areas.  The idea that it was time to put the kibosh on married clergy sent a not-too-subtle  message across the Church.  Those seeing Protestant clergy as support for the married cause had to realize that their efforts would not be realized any time soon.

Plus, because Pope Benedict was less evangelistic, if not less charismatic, the outreach just wasn't there.  As goes the Pope, so goes the Church.  Like it or not, Popes make an impression on the Catholic mindset.  As evangelism became more of a parlor discussion than an urgent wave of immediate priorities, it turned to individual ministries and individuals to keep the flames burning.  And that has far less of an impact on the Catholic Church than the passion of a serving Pope.

Not to mention that, at that very same time, Mother Angelica began to fade.  Simply because of age, she was no longer the default leader of EWTN she had been, but became more or less the default leader emeritus.  It was her love of stories like Scot Hahn's or Marcus Grodi's that caused her to step in and do her own version of William Randolf Hearst's 'Puff Graham' to the clergy convert cause. If there was still residue of her zeal in the form of shows or stories when I came into the Church, it lacked her personal touch, a touch that made an impression on her millions of adoring followers back in the day.

Plus it was the 00s.  Two big things had happened culturally.  First, 9/11 had allowed radical and zealous atheists to emerge and drive anti-religious bigotry into the mainstream.  Within a few years, being too religious was seen as suspicious at best.  A person ready to leave it all for a religious cause may have been something in 1990, but by 2002 not a few folks had to raise a cautious eyebrow.  Not to mention that many young people, weaned in a society fomenting endless days of anti-religious doctrine, grew up at best with no religious knowledge, at worst having a built in suspicion of those religious types.  Try getting a job from a young HR rep who doesn't know what the term Congregation means when you're a former clergy.

Plus, the priest abuse scandal.  Not only did it encourage people to trounce the Church, but it appears to have caused a certain latching of the doors within the ordained ranks of clergy itself.  Really.  I was told by a priest not to go door to door.  I suggested if I went about and introduced myself it might open some opportunities.  Not now!, he said.  If you just show up or send letters, they'll think someone sent you.  Heaven forbid go to the bishop.  How many testimonies from converts of old told me that they were advised to speak to the bishop, or go to meet this or that priest.  I was told don't do it!  Times change.

And of course, our bishop and the diocese in general is not the diocese or bishop of the 1980s.  Neither seems to care much about the Protestant Clergy conversion phenomenon.  In fact - and I hesitate to say this because it was told me in meetings with priests, but since it impacts me, I'll say it - I was told by no less than three priest to more or less forget serving in a ministry or even diocesan capacity in our area. One even said that a blank resume with no writing on it would get me farther now than a resume with any experience at all that included the term 'former Protestant clergy.'  Clearly, for reasons more complex than new Popes and changing times, there is a different atmosphere.

In my time with the apostolate, I noticed that conversation was taking place more and more.  There were still dioceses that opened their arms to clergy converts, but I remember not a few conversations at lunch in which the president of the apostolate lamented yet one more bishop here or diocese there that seemed to be closing doors to any more clergy.  Ours, unfortunately, being one of them.  Again, as go the leaders, so goes the Church.

If all that wasn't enough, and by golly it ought to be, we had the economy tank.  Many converts I met and talked to who came into the Church in the 80s or even 90s, spoke of getting positions in parishes or the local diocese, in this apostolate or that mission.  Why?  Well, they were easy to get.  The pay wasn't good (back then).  People didn't stay in those positions long.  There were usually plenty of job openings and turnaround a bishop could utilize for a convert looking for employment and a ministry.  Just like getting jobs in the secular world as a bi-vocational pastor was easier then, so it was easy to find jobs in church settings, since availability was not an issue.

Today, with unemployment at least 7.6% (some argue much higher), even a low paying job or position is worth its weight in gold.  Those jobs just aren't moving.  In our diocese, except for a few custodial or part time positions, there haven't been that many openings over years (and yes, I applied, see changing attitudes above).  People aren't leaving.  There just isn't the open door policy or availability there once was.

So what's all this about?  Well, nothing really.  Just when I was told about this fellow convert whose life is unraveling in a way similar to ours, it got me to thinking.  Truth be told, when I came into the Church, I discovered that the proverbial 'pastor loses everything to become Catholic' didn't happen all that often.  Most weren't pastors in the true sense of the word.  Most didn't get their income only from being in ministry.  Most didn't lose much outside of family troubles and personal losses of friends and colleagues.  Scott Hahn was an exception, not the rule.  Yet even then, most when they came in found a much more open, willing, and excited environment in which to settle and start life anew.

In fact, in the early years of my conversion, I only met one fellow whose life unraveled after becoming Catholic, and based on his story, it had more to do with problems in his family and a failed marriage than becoming Catholic.  I have a feeling his life was going to unravel either way.  Most converts from the early decades seemed to have discovered a quick path into the faith, and often found parishes or dioceses that took the initiative, stepped in and got them back on track.  Or many more simply weren't full time vocational ministers in the first place, and therefore didn't really need to change as much as make a few alterations.

So the full time vocational minister has been a rare thing.  Statistically, about fifteen years ago, more Evangelical ministers were entering the Orthodox traditions than Catholicism, at least proportionately.  The reasons should be obvious.  But even when they became Catholic, it appears times were different.  Now, changes have taken place.  Those changes I mention may or may not be local, or because of reasons I tossed out.  I might not be altogether right, but I don't think I'm entirely wrong.  In any event, whatever the reasons, things have changed.  Personally, because of that, I think there needs to be some front desk for Protestant clergy that will explain this and be honest.  Not to dissuade clergy converts, but to make them aware of what to expect.  After all, this is not Scott Hahn's conversion generation.

Happy belated Birthday Mister Fifteen

And a rather low key, yet enjoyable, birthday it was.  It was actually a celebration on his birthday, it's just the post that's late. Our now fifteen year old, understated at at times, wacky in the extreme at others, enigmatic and possessing a speed of light wit, wanted only presents that would equip him to work and learn computer video production.  Eh.  He seems into it.  He also wanted a game called Minecraft.  We acquiesced.  I've heard folks speak well of it, and I've heard folks warn of it.  But then that's how any new things are greeted.   Whether video games or Dungeons and Dragons or rock and roll or radios, you name it and anything new will have its detractors.  So we'll see.  As it is, he was more than thrilled with what he got.  He had a giant cookie since he's not a fan of cakes.  We took him out to eat at a place of his choice, and not being used to large meals, we all paid the price that night.  But it was a fine day, a pleasant, and a nice chance to see this interesting young man with a keen intellect and quick recall blossom into someone truly interesting.

I'm not sure, but I think he enjoyed the day

Yes, he gets that excited about a green polo shirt - the important part being green

He doesn't like cakes, so he got a massive cookie with nuts and chips (and a touch of bourbon for flavor - his request)

They say intellectually gifted kids can be emotionally high strung.  They're right.

Striking a typical pose

The obligatory cute guy pic, eagerly waiting some of that massive cookie

The other two brothers, meanwhile, step in to light the candles

And promptly need assistance.  For some reason, it was tougher than it looked.

Yes atheist polemics can be wrong

As in this.  This is from a graph that was posted and celebrated on the ironically titled Friendly Atheist blog some days ago.  The gist is that it's a graph showing the contradictions of the Bible.  When you look at the lines, it takes your breath away.  Wow!  There are that many contradictions!  It reminds me of Bart Erhman's breakout book Misquoting Jesus.  In that book, Ehrman turns biblical scholarship, if not all literary scholarship, on its head.

First, he suggests that it's absurd to think just because a source is closer to the time it describes that it's necessarily more accurate.  Which is odd, since skeptics often say the NT can't be trusted since the letters were written so long after the events.  Second, he loved to say that there were more mistakes than there were words in the entire NT!  That is true, if you take all the the hundreds or thousands of fragments, codices, parchments and combine them and add up all the mistakes.  But then, you'd have more than just the number of words in the NT.  You'd have all the words in all the combined manuscripts.  Which wouldn't make much of a case.

Most importantly, he also conveniently dodged the fact that the lion's share of "mistakes" are in fact slight and insignificant differences.  A variant geographical spelling, a shifting in position of a preposition, a change in someone's tittle (did John come baptizing, was John the one who was baptizing, did John the Baptist come to the Jordan?, etc.).  There are some significant differences in some of the account, but they are few and far between (and worthy of much scholarly debate).

Finally, he would always end by pointing out the fact that the story of the Woman caught in adultery was not in the original manuscripts!  Oh no!  It can't be!  Except every Bible on every bookshelf in every Christian store has that footnote next to the 8th Chapter of John: This story is not found in many of the earliest manuscripts.  It doesn't mean a thing.  And yet, Ehrman, who says it's his goal as a professor to get his students to question their faith, is more than happy to play fast and loose with the inconvenient facts he ignores in order to make points that really don't exist.

I like Dr. Ehrman, don't get me wrong.  He was a fundamentalist who got burned when he realized just how skewered scholarship has to be in order to accommodate a fundamentalist world view.  But as we see, that holds true for fundamentalism in anything: Catholicism, Liberalism, and yes, Atheism.

So we have the above mentioned graph, that was supposed to show 'the contradictions of the Bible!'  Except it doesn't.  Oh I'm sure there are a few.  We all know the Passion narratives aren't exactly the same word for word, or that there are two creation accounts. And yes, there are some differences in the manuscripts that have some weight to them.  But for how massive the Scriptural canon is, compared to other writings of the ancient  world, they're beyond solid and almost amazing in their inner consistency and accuracy.

So the ones pushing that graph have to rely on the most hilariously ignorant take on the Bible and what it says, suggesting strongly that they have never even read the biblical texts, if they believe what this graph says is contractions.  When Jesus says if you believe in Him you will never die, and the author of the letter of Hebrews says it is appointed that we all die, that is NOT a contraction.  But guess how it showed up on the graph.

It reminds me of a humorous anecdote we used to hear in my Protestant days.  It was used to illustrate a person who didn't understand the Bible, even if they believed in it.  He decides to just let the Spirit guide him through opening the Bible and pointing to two verses, and that's what the Spirit wants.  So he opens up and puts his finger on Matthew 27.5: Judas hanged himself.  He then flipped the page and put his finger down on Luke 10.37: Go and do likewise.  A point our good intellectually superior atheists appear to have missed.

Liberalism is hard to beat

Because if something is true today, it doesn't have to be true tomorrow.  Likewise, there is no problem with saying something is true only insofar as it helps me win an argument.  I learned this yesterday on my last day at Friendly Atheist, when atheists ran about insisting that atheists never say religious people are bad or do bad things as part of their arguments.  I mean, really?  That's like Limbaugh saying he's never criticized Obama.  Which he wouldn't say, but so often those on the Left would.  Prize for the best exposition of this phenomenon goes to Dennis Miller, who points out the obvious.  

My Blog Ban exception

After I mentioned yesterday that I am going to cease visiting blogs filled with hatred of my faith, hatred in general, hatred of America, or filled with self-righteous contempt for anyone who doesn't hold to the only True path, I should point out an exception.  I will still go to CAEI.  That's because that was the first blog I ever visited, the first blog I ever commented on, and part of the first website I ever went to in order to learn about how Catholicism works for a Catholic Convert.  So I owe Mark much.  Though his changes and alterations are almost nerve splitting and he holds views now such that, had I read him in this day and age, I may never have become Catholic in the first place.  At least because of anything he wrote.

Still, I owe him much.  Some years ago, when we were struggling, and learned we were going to have our fourth son thanks to following Catholic teaching, he blew  the flugelhorn and raised a considerable sum from his readers.  I know Mark has a great heart.  He was able to inject a wonderful emotional element into the sometimes dry and barren world of theological exposition.  I fear it's that same hard edged emotional element that is his downfall.  To be an apologist, like any minister of the Gospel, requires a keen mind and a balanced appraisal of things.  You can't become emotionally enslaved by events, or soon you get into trouble.  I'll leave it at that.  But it's worth noting since I will still link to stories there, and some might wonder why, given the type of blogs I said I would no longer visit.

Girls playing football

Here is an entirely subjective observation.  I just watched a propaganda piece on PBS about how foolish it is for boys to have an issue with girls playing football.  This follows several stories over the last year where girls have successfully fought to play on football teams, with varying levels of corresponding desire by boys to be on girl's volleyball teams.  This is one example.  In most cases, they are kickers - the most protected position on a team, and seldom brought into actual physical contact tackle-wise.

I have my concerns.  First is the rather implicit understanding that the boys won't hit the girl the way they do the boys is there (and sometimes it's explicit).  Second, if they hit the girl and hurt the girl, woe be to the sport of football and the boys who did it (previous cases where the women/girls quit, charges were made that they were hit hard because they were girls by the sexist players).  Third, and here's my big observation, this probably won't change the idea that it's worse for boys to hit girls than for girls to hit boys even though it logically should.  Like so many things under feminism, it will be 'equality whenever convenient for women.'  Like so many things in our modern era, it has less to do with common sense and consistency, as it does whoever screams the loudest and is part of the right, hipster group, gets the lawyers and scientists to go along.  And with the usual jelly-spine of most American males, it wont' take much leverage to ignore my common sense questions.

A jump start on the festive season

This year's garden will not be good.  A host of issues beset us.  First, for some reason, our neighbors can grow corn by squirrels leave them alone.  Instead they assault our corn year after year.  No matter what we come up with, somehow the squirrels get through.  If it's not the squirrels, it's something else.  One year Japanese Beetles when we went away for a week.  One year someone in the neighborhood picked the ears. And one year I'll swear deer got into it.  Why us and not the neighbors, I'll never know.

But this year was bad, because we realized that the leaves we were using to mulch into the garden were, in fact, poisonous to the plants we were growing.  The suggestion was given to use the leaves, not knowing the consequences!  So on top of everything else!!  Oh well.  Live and learn.  If gardening does anything, it teaches you how helpless we really are in the face of nature, and why so few people that live among the growing things of the world and make their living from the seasons are hardcore materialists.

Still, harvests are what they are, and we've gotten some good things (big bean harvest), and Roma tomatoes are, for some reason, growing like gangbusters.  Some peppers, but not enough.  And not enough cucumbers to pickle this year.  Even our squash did badly.  Even our radishes!  It will be more miss than hit, alas.  There's always next year!  With our oldest son's decision to stay home for a year, his leaving school doesn't pack the same punch.  I told him he must leave someday, but a year to save up for school is not bad thinking in my opinion.  Not with college loans being the trap so many fail to account for nowadays.  So he'll be around to help then.

Reed as Bill Sykes, less hair and fangs

But with the garden struggling, and everything else, somehow we've begun to jump ahead on the upcoming festivities.  My thirteen year old hurt his ankle and is more or less out of football this year, missing all practices going into the season, and concluding that rest it and hold till next year.  Perhaps to compensate, we've turned to the DVD and suddenly found ourselves watching Hammer Films' Hound of the Baskervilles a couple weeks ago.   And last night, we caught the first few minutes of Hammer's The Curse of the Werewolf.  An different spin, dispensing with so much of the Hollywood yarns and getting back to old world European myths regarding those rascally shapeshifters.  Staring Oliver Reed, who my boys know for his impressive take as the heartless Bill Sykes in the musical Oliver!, it is an interesting production as only Hammer Films could muster.

And it's only August! What's wrong with us?  Oh well, don't begrudge it.  Nuns and werewolves, if that's what it takes to help my family find our way and get through the gauntlet, I'll take it.  Even if it's in the 80s in the dog days of August.

After visiting atheist blogs

It's nice to get back to basics.  After the Noon Mass today, a group seeking to become a religious order stopped by the parish.  There was good eating (almost up to Baptist potluck standards - and that's saying something), and a brief presentation.  Afterward, the sisters broke up and mingled with those who came by from our parish - not enough IMHO.  And a shame.  They were quite interesting.  Our 13 year old, Mr. Personality, monopolized one of our priests, our deacon, and one of the sisters.  Another sat by me and picked our testimonial, reminding me that our story is one that should be heard.  It's been a while since anyone really said much.  Most who know us have heard the story and know the story, but it's old news.  For divers and sundry reasons, I've not gotten out in recent years to tell it much.  

But interested they were.  So much so that we were offered many prayer cards, opportunities to speak to others, invitations to their retreat center, and a general open armed invitation to keep fighting the good fight.  This stands in such stark contrast to much of what life has been in recent years.  Our parish has had, well, some issues.  I won't even get into it.  Let's just say that five years ago, you better get to Mass early or your family is dispersed across the sanctuary.  Forget not getting there early for Holy Days.  Today?  You could play tennis in all but one Mass and not hit anyone.  Plenty of seating and parking!  So there hasn't been a whole lot of options, and given the craziness of our lives, I've not been available to do much.  Which is fine, since with a couple exceptions, we've not really been invited to do much save by a handful of parishioners who seem to remember our stories.

Remaining growth was confined to reading, following the always awesome Fr. Barron and some others, or - ahem - following various Catholic blogs, some of which have changed radically over the years.  Otherwise, going to other blogs have had their place, some Protestant blogs and other such blogs still reminding me that to be a good Catholic and good American does not have to be antithetical.  Going to atheists blogs, however, is an exercise in self abuse.  I'm sure there are some out there that are thoughtful, open, realistic about atheist thought with its strengths and weaknesses, and a nice visit.  I've been to some over the years.  

But most exemplify the worst of the emergence secular left.  A hodgepodge lazy ideology of debauchery, hatred, bigotry, ignorance, and a yearning for tyranny. Calls for Orwellian censorship, loathing of those who don't conform, and a growing impatience for the freedom to not be a post-religious leftest.  And the payoff?  A promise that religion is at best a bunch of made up fairy tales and legends, a worst a vile set of lies that are the cause of all human suffering that needs to be eradicated from humanity.  And once done, we can finally lower ourselves to the lowest animal denominator, a life of endless debauch, drugs, sex and the right to abort and euthanize the unwanted who stand in the way of our libidos.  

And naturally lying, disingenuous BS, outrage and name calling are how such things are defended.  So pointing out that Orthodox Church leaders trying to ban atheist parades, while wrong, is understandable given the brutal oppression of the Church under the explicitly atheist USSR.  And the result?  BS, lying, name calling, vulgarities, and copious levels of denial that it ever happened, or that atheists ever say religious people are bad (despite it being the purpose of the blog in question).  And you know what? Life is too short.  Would a Jew go to a Nazi site and argue?  Would a Black go to a KKK site and argue?   I don't think so.  Bigotry and hate have always been around, and now is no exception.  That it is encouraged and accepted by the rich and powerful of our society is no different than ever.  

That is not where one finds God.  On occasion, one must step up and fight the evil.  Or if modern trends are to be believed, one must succumb like a lamb to the evil.  But usually, it's in that still small voice of God that we find Him and His purpose.  Not in the battles, the arguments, the idiocy and bigotry that is now, always has been and always will be.  It's not in the earthquakes of the blogs or the firestorms of cable yell-fests.  It's in seeking God.  

And after meeting those sisters, seeing them give it all up in an age that wouldn't risk a wet hairdo for a cause other than getting high or laid or the latest iPad app, I have to say I was inspired to remember what brought me into the Church in the first place.  And that was finding the Truth.  Even if the Church itself will waver and fail, as it has in the past and no doubt will in the future, the Truth remains.  That's why I became Catholic.  That's why bank accounts and savings accounts that once existed are empty.  Why cars and vans are rickety and in poor shape. That's why college funds are depleted and a house stands dilapidated.  It's because when one finally finds that pearl of great value, one sells everything else to get that pearl.

And that's what we did.  It's not been easy.  And I've not always been pleased with God for the way things have gone.  I'm not saying it all should have happened in some fairy tale way.  I'm not saying there aren't reasons that things have happened that are aren't good or the way they should have been.  I'm not saying it's all everyone else's fault.  Though it could be a bit of God and chastisement as today's readings from the Letter to the Hebrews 12 reminds us.  

So as I rethink things and take an assessment of what has unfolded this day, the reception of our story and the willingness of a bunch of sisters to extend a gracious hand, when set in juxtaposition to the hatred and bigotry of some atheist blogs, and the self righteousness and fundamentalist zealotry of some Catholic blogs, I will take the former.  I'll think on that pilgrimage to St. Meinrad all those years ago that first got me thinking about Catholicism.  And from there, who knows where we'll go.  Probably to the retreat center we've been invited to, and from there, who knows?  So while I'll continue to comment on today's spiral into yet another historical pitfall, and notice the Church's hits and misses, I'll tend to lay off most blogs that don't inspire or encourage growth spiritually or intellectually.  Any blog that encourages me to call others Raca for not being good Catholics like me is definitely off the list.  And any blog that embraces the Father of Lies to convince me my only hope for peace in the future is to renounce the God of love in order to embrace the age of the valley of Hinnom is not even worth mentioning. Where this will lead, I don't know.  But once again, it's time to go exploring!

The theme song of modern atheism

Despite the deplorable track record of French anti-clericalism, Communist atheism, and secular philosophies and the crushing persecution of religion that occurred over the last 200 years*, despite atheists with a sympathetic ear in academia and the media effectively shrinking the domain for religious expression and practice until it's confined to the church and synagogue and mosque and temple, despite atheists increasing proud to spew hatred, blasphemy, and contempt on religious believers (as opposed to non-religious believers) with the full support of our sex saturated culture; to hear atheists talk, you'd think they were two steps away from death camps.  It's true, to hear many atheists, theirs is a plight of persecution, discrimination, bigotry and oppression that they brave every day to  bring the objective, neutral truth of their knowledge.  So on behalf of suffering and oppressed atheists everywhere in our colleges, media outlets, and pop culture venues, I offer this song of sympathy and understanding:



*Many atheists explain that when an atheist does something good, that proves how intellectually and morally superior atheism is; when an atheist does something bad, it's either because he/she treated atheism like a religion, or you simply can't blame atheism since atheism doesn't really exist.

Does the Russian Orthodox Church wants to ban atheist parades

Should the church call to ban such things in any land?  In today's liberal/secular sympathetic media environment, probably not.  Plus, if we value things like freedom of speech and freedom of religious belief (including the rather religious belief about there not being a God), it is also a bad idea.  And wrong.

However, I do sympathize.  After all, the  admittedly atheistic Soviet State brutally oppressed and crushed the Orthodox Church during its roughly 70 year run.  A former Soviet I knew in graduate school likened being a Christian in the USSR to being a Black in the American South in the 1930s.  And those were the relatively lenient Gorbachev days of the USSR's twilight years.  Imagine in the heyday of Soviet mass-slaughter under Stalin.

So while I think the Church is wrong, I think the proper approach would be for atheists to use this as a learning tool (atheism doesn't always turn out right, sometimes atheists have done bad things, etc.), rather than attacking the Church as if they can't fathom the reason it would be bothered by atheist rallies - which must prove just how mean and hateful those religious types are.   On the always ironically titled Friendly Atheist, I'll leave you to guess which approach is preferred.

Time to do away with the First Amendment

In many ways, the all important First Amendment was seriously compromised when the SCOTUS decided that in order to maintain the integrity of the establishment clause regarding religion, sometimes the free exercise clause would necessarily need to be compromised.  But beyond legal mumbo jumbo, there is a growing intolerance for not only dissenting religious beliefs, but also offensive speech in general.

I don't twitter.  I see it as a technological rape of the written word.  I'm no talented writer, but I appreciate beautiful writing and enjoy an eloquent prose.  Twitter is the antithesis of that.  But when I see this link, about people calling into question whether Twitter should allow a rascally pro-life tweet, it shows how far we've come.

Growing up, even when the KKK or neo-Nazis gathered, people begrudgingly admitted that it was their right.  The media, never sympathetic to their causes, would often end a story about such groups with 'well, it's their right.' But today, we see a growing disgust with the idea that people who think differently than I do should have the same rights as me.  Conservatives have always been there to a point, believing that a nation had a right to mandate a particular moral code, and that culturally a country might just prefer some things over others.  Liberalism was supposed to end all that and make America a completely free and open country for all.

But now, those on the Left, with growing support in the media, academia, and in some cases it appears the courts, are growing impatient with those who have not converted to the liberal gospel.  And so you have stories like this.  This also points to that new trend of uber-powerful rich guys controlling venues for modern communications.  People like Steve Jobs, or Steve Zucherberg, or Larry Page who control a tremendous amount of communication potential and have been more than willing to make calls on just what they will allow and what they will not allow.

Should we make it official and rewrite or do away with the First Amendment?  I hope not.  But to see a growing segment of Americans, many of whom identify with the formerly tolerant and diversity loving Left, you'd think it's a foregone conclusion.

Did the Beatles cause cancer?

Case in point:

Four of the most influential human beings to an entire generation

Of course it wasn't just the Fab Four.  Smoking and Rock and Roll went together like Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll.  We now know that all we need to do is throw condoms at the sex generation and all will be well.  Took about 30 million AIDS victims and endless tens of millions of other shattered lives to come to that conclusion (and in reality, the test results are still out on that one).  But at least we've figured that one out.

Drugs?  Well, we're pushing to legalize them.  We've been fighting that fight for some time. If only we could legalize drugs, all would be well.  Of course we don't even know how many millions have died from drug overdoses, and the crime that is drug related (no doubt because they're not legal).

And last but not least, we have smoking.  Smoking was quite the thing.  By the 60s, everyone knew smoking wasn't good for you, if we didn't know why.  Some of those wacky religious types were against smoking, but then they were just wacky religious puritan types.  Real cool people who mattered knew that smoking was the absolute coolest thing you could do (what did those button down conformist scientist types know when it came to things other than 'animals have sex, so it must be natural'?).  So smoke away kids!  You'll be cool just like your heroes:

Given the unimaginable tens upon tens of millions of lives lost, shattered, and ruined by following deliberately concocted propaganda and enticements aimed at the youth of four generations, it's just amazing how little we hold them accountable.  Why, they're off the hook.  We don't blame them for a single thing.  Now those stupid anti-smoking religious freaks...

Yes atheists can be smart

Of course they can.  They can be good, smart, and caring just like religious believers can be rascals.  The opposite is true.  The difference isn't that atheists are idiots.  Or that their arguments alone are absurd.  Or that religious apologists are always shaming Einstein whenever they speak.   As I've said before, right and left, religious and secular all have their bad apples. But the difference is, those on the right/religious/traditional who are bad apples are skinned by the media, and usually confined to living in the back hills of Montana surrounded by barbed wire and animal skins.  Occasionally they're trotted out by journalists as a sort of 'see, look at the loony hatemongers that are typical religious types.'  Those who say the equivalent hateful, bigoted idiocy on the secular Left?  Well, media darlings, entertainment stars, esteemed academics in prestigious institutions of higher learning, and, well, you get the point.

Here, Mark Shea shows that sometimes the idiocy gets so bad even other atheists have to step out and correct it.  The shame of it is, this idiocy is an accepted Super-Narrative of our age, even though there is overwhelming evidence to refute it.